User talk:MaxnaCarta/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Draft:Eagle Filters Group -> Rejected as not belonging to Wikipedia, no justification.

Please feel my deep disappointment and frustration with the rejection of my article, which I had submitted for review. Despite dedicating over 30 hours to meticulously translating it from the Finnish Wikipedia, as well as sourcing and evaluating the information, I was disheartened to receive a rejection without any explanation or justification. This has left me feeling upset and angry about the outcome.

It is important to note that the article in question currently stands as the sole reliable source of up-to-date information regarding the Nasdaq Helsinki listed company. Founded in 1995, the company underwent a significant transition two years ago when its parent company made the strategic decision to shift from being an ESG investment company to an industrial company with a specific focus on manufacturing energy-saving filters. While there are only a few articles available on this topic at present, I have taken personal responsibility to ensure the accuracy and correctness of even these limited sources.

The rejection of my article, summarized in a single sentence, has left me bewildered and demoralized. I strongly believe that the extensive effort and attention I invested in crafting the article warranted a more thorough and substantiated assessment. Therefore, I kindly request a detailed explanation outlining the specific concerns or reasons that led to its rejection. This feedback would be invaluable in helping me address any issues and improve the article accordingly.

The work I put into this article was driven by a genuine desire to provide a comprehensive and reliable source of information for interested individuals seeking knowledge about the aforementioned company. Consequently, the rejection without adequate justification has greatly undermined the purpose and significance of this endeavor.

I sincerely hope that we can engage in a constructive dialogue to rectify this situation. Your guidance and feedback would not only assist me in enhancing the article but also ensure that the substantial effort I invested is rightfully recognized. I am eager to understand the reasoning behind the rejection and discuss any necessary revisions to achieve a mutually beneficial outcome.

Please also read this:discussion Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk#18:16, 15 May 2023 review of submission by Senjasenkaappi

Senjasenkaappi (talk) 21:07, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, but seven other editors also declined. Please let it go. Thanks. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:47, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Why are there articles about competitors (excluding one, I can write about it), but not about this particular company? Moreover, This company is listed on Nasdaq Helsinki! It is imperative to have articles about listed companies, as they serve as crucial source material for journalists, students and others. Articles about companies typically exhibit higher quality compared to the information available on other listed companies. I won't even delve into the extensive list of subpar articles that the administrators have allowed into the encyclopedia, as there are tens of thousands of such articles. Furthermore, this article is a translation from Finnish Wikipedia, and I demand a valid justification for its rejection. The encyclopedia should not tolerate a group of inexperienced administrators who lack comprehension and hinder the inclusion of valuable content. Senjasenkaappi (talk) 07:34, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Please answer my question: on what basis is a company listed on Nasdaq First North not relevant? Is it because you have not heard of it before? --Senjasenkaappi (talk) 19:26, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

DYK for R v ACR Roofing Pty Ltd

On 28 June 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article R v ACR Roofing Pty Ltd, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in R v ACR Roofing Pty Ltd the Victorian Court of Appeal held that workers do not need to be employed by a company to hold it liable for safety violations? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/R v ACR Roofing Pty Ltd. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, R v ACR Roofing Pty Ltd), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Aoidh (talk) 00:02, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

New pages patrol needs your help!

New pages awaiting review as of June 30th, 2023.

Hello MaxnaCarta,

The New Page Patrol team is sending you this impromptu message to inform you of a steeply rising backlog of articles needing review. If you have any extra time to spare, please consider reviewing one or two articles each day to help lower the backlog. You can start reviewing by visiting Special:NewPagesFeed. Thank you very much for your help.

Reminders:

• There is live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord.
• Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
• To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Sent by Zippybonzo using MediaWiki message delivery at 06:59, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Autopatrolled granted

Hi MaxnaCarta, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the autopatrolled user right to your account. This means that pages you create will automatically be marked as 'reviewed', and no longer appear in the new pages feed. Autopatrolled is assigned to prolific creators of articles, where those articles do not require further review, and may have been requested on your behalf by someone else. It doesn't affect how you edit; it is used only to manage the workload of new page patrollers.

Since the articles you create will no longer be systematically reviewed by other editors, it is important that you maintain the high standard you have achieved so far in all your future creations. Please also try to remember to add relevant WikiProject templates, stub tags, categories, and incoming links to them, if you aren't already in the habit; user scripts such as Rater and StubSorter can help with this. As you have already shown that you have a strong grasp of Wikipedia's core content policies, you might also consider volunteering to become a new page patroller yourself, helping to uphold the project's standards and encourage other good faith article writers.

Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! – Joe (talk) 10:30, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Merrick Hanna

Hello, MaxnaCarta. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Merrick Hanna, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 03:02, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Sure, here's the short request written in a format suitable for a Wikipedia talk page:

python

Review Request: MetaTrader 5 Page Edits

Hello MaxnaCarta,

Could you kindly review my recent edits on the Draft:MetaTrader 5 page? It has been resubmitted 13:39, 15 March 2023‎. Your insightful feedback helped shape them, and I'm eager to ensure they meet Wikipedia's standards. Your guidance for any necessary corrections would be greatly appreciated.

Best regards, Kirilinm (talk) 15:32, 7 July 2023 (GMT+3)

Standard of proof in Australia in Burden of proof article

Hi MaxnaCarta, a new section Standard of proof in Australia created by Jack4576 has been inserted into the Burden of proof (law) article. I would appreciate it if you could please review it. Regards, Melbguy05 (talk) 05:53, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

@Melbguy05 I did respond, please check the talk page. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:20, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of BP Refinery v Tracey

The article BP Refinery v Tracey you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:BP Refinery v Tracey for comments about the article, and Talk:BP Refinery v Tracey/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Sammielh -- Sammielh (talk) 14:01, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the review @Sammielh. I appreciate how fast you provided feedback and how promptly you responded once I addressed comments. An absolute pleasure working with you and please ping me for a QPQ GA nom of your own at some stage. MaxnaCarta (talk) 22:06, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

August 2023 Good Article Nominations backlog drive

Good article nominations | August 2023 Backlog Drive
August 2023 Backlog Drive: On 1 August, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year. (t · c) buidhe 05:15, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the review!

Hi MaxnaCarta, thanks for the review of the s. 54 article. Appreciate the time you took and the thoughtful comments. No worries about the pauses; I know that practising lawyers do not control their own time! Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 14:29, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

@Mr Serjeant Buzfuz thank you! I actually have been inundated with work. Appreciate your efforts on the article! — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:24, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, MaxnaCarta. Thank you for your work on Emily Dorothea Pavy. User:VickKiang, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, I had the following comments:

Thanks for the interesting subject matter. A tiny nitpick that this ref somehow opens as a 404 error for me (though it may just be because of my browser). Thanks.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|VickKiang}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

VickKiang (talk) 09:08, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

@VickKiang hardly a nitpick, rather a welcome find. Stellar review work as usual my friend. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:32, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Clean (2022 film)

The article Clean (2022 film) you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Clean (2022 film) for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Premeditated Chaos -- Premeditated Chaos (talk) 22:41, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

@Premeditated Chaos thanks for the feedback. This is my first nomination for a film so I appreciate the helping hand on how to get it over the line. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:22, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

I was sorry to have to fail the article. I recommend looking at other documentary films that are GAs and modelling your article on them as best you can, based on the sources you have. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:46, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

@Premeditated Chaos no need to be sorry at all. I’ve only done law GAs so far and they are a different style to film. I’ll spend some time actioning the feedback and try again. Cheers — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:12, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Emily Dorothea Pavy

On 4 August 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Emily Dorothea Pavy, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in 1912, Emily Dorothea Pavy became the first recipient of the Catherine Helen Spence Scholarship? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Emily Dorothea Pavy. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Emily Dorothea Pavy), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

RoySmith (talk) 00:02, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Murder of Vivianne Ruiz (Jane Doe)

The article Murder of Vivianne Ruiz (Jane Doe) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Murder of Vivianne Ruiz (Jane Doe) and Talk:Murder of Vivianne Ruiz (Jane Doe)/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Caeciliusinhorto -- Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 22:00, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Murder of Vivianne Ruiz (Jane Doe)

The article Murder of Vivianne Ruiz (Jane Doe) you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Murder of Vivianne Ruiz (Jane Doe) for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Caeciliusinhorto -- Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 12:41, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

@Caeciliusinhorto ahhh. Just got an email about this notification. I’ve had a very busy period at work and did not get around to addressing your points. It doesn’t seem like you’ve closed off the review so not sure if this is an error. But if you have failed, I’ll fix the issues and see if you’re willing to accept a new nomination. Thanks heaps. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:31, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

@MaxnaCarta: no, I didn't fail the nomination – I guess the bot automatically sends this notice after the hold period expires? Happy to keep it open if you are still working on it! Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 09:20, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Regarding your edit here

Regarding this, I think it's a very safe assumption that it's a paid edit based on this. I was sent this posting a few months back and archived it to come back to. 116.50.189.164 (talk) 00:26, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Mondelez v AMWU

Hello, MaxnaCarta. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Mondelez v AMWU, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 05:02, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of CFMMEU v Personnel Contracting

The article CFMMEU v Personnel Contracting you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:CFMMEU v Personnel Contracting and Talk:CFMMEU v Personnel Contracting/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Tamzin -- Tamzin (talk) 22:41, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of CFMMEU v Personnel Contracting

The article CFMMEU v Personnel Contracting you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:CFMMEU v Personnel Contracting for comments about the article, and Talk:CFMMEU v Personnel Contracting/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Tamzin -- Tamzin (talk) 21:42, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

An absolute pleasure working with you @Tamzin. I’m happy to review with you any day. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:03, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Lilydale railway line

Thank you for taking the time to review the Lilydale railway line article for GA status- much appreciated! I look forward to acting upon your recommendations for the Belgrave article. Best wishes for your future wikipedia edits! HoHo3143 (talk) 03:25, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

@HoHo3143 no worries, will be done by tomorrow. As usual I take a few tasks because I have what I think is free time, then get swamped with workload in RL. Appreciate the patience and well done on the article. We are lucky to have you — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 07:33, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Tim Watson-Munro

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Tim Watson-Munro you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 (talk) 14:40, 12 August 2023 (UTC)