Thanks for uploading File:Nike Grind Logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Thank you for your feedback on my article. you mentioned that its about myself, well yes I did some notable achievement which were covered and i am a verified public figure in my country,across all social media and other media as well. So i believe that doesn't make it a normal article.
Let me know if that is OK or not ? Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Javed khan39 (talk • contribs) 19:53, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Submission are reviewed in time by various editors. Patience is important when submitting a draft. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:23, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
why did you reject the Dgraph piece?
You rejected https:/wiki/Draft:Dgraph
It is functionally identical to
It is significant technology with a significant pedigree, funding, clients, news coverage, how-to articles on hackernoon and medium.
I spoke with Blablubbs11 on IRC to find out more and he said it looked fine and I should submit it for approval.
I ran across this whole problem while researching graph databases for a project at work and for some reason Dgraph wasn't there, despite being a pure golang implementation and a native graphql language, which was also notable. This decision to not allow an entry is just bizarre. Please reconsider. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smga3000 (talk • contribs) 01:31, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Being "functionally identical" isn't a Wikipedia guideline. See WP:OSE. The decline was for the reason stated on the draft. If you can fix those issues I would be happy to review it again but as it stands cannot approve it. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:46, 19 October 2020 (UTC)--CNMall41 (talk) 01:46, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
In fact, I just checked and see that NOTHING has been to the draft to address the concerns of both reviewers who declined it. I would suggest correcting those issues prior to asking for a review. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:47, 19 October 2020 (UTC)--CNMall41 (talk) 01:47, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Envato draft rejection
Hi there, thanks for taking the time to review the Envato page I had submitted. Can I clarify: my understanding after reviewing the original deleted post (from last year was it?) is that there wasn't enough independent sources and the like; too many links back to the Envato website, blog etc. So I tried really hard to find the independent sources such pages need from across mainstream media and tech etc, and I thought it was substantially improved, especially the body text given the last version was, well, very marketing-speak? With "published, reliable secondary sources," can you clarify which of the links I had used as sources don't meet this threshold? I tried to compare the page to other competitors like Canva, Shutterstock, Creative Market and it seems like they have similar source bases. Definitely, it has better sourcing on page than that of the company it apparently bought (Twenty20). I'd love to resubmit it at some point but I know I need to get this bit right! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daveoftheinternet (talk • contribs) 05:39, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Based on your questions, I am not sure you read through the link I provided at WP:ORGCRIT. If you can review that and tell me which links in the draft meet that threshold I will gladly take another look. Thanks. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:36, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi again, I'm sorry it's taken so long to be back in touch, IRL stuff got in the way etc etc. So I've done what you suggested and better familiarised myself with the ORGCRIT attributes and I better understand things now, thank you. I've reviewed the links I included in the article and by my assessment, nearly all of them meet the secondary requirement, most of them are independent and reliable and approximately half meet the significant threshold. I'd highlight in particular the links from publications such as the Australian Financial Review, TechCrunch, Sydney Morning Herald, Yahoo Finance and SmartCompany. Again, comparing to Envato's key competitors, it looks like this is better than the link split on Creative Market. My links also have less press release and 'owned' content (ie not independent) than what I could see on Shutterstock. In short - it looks comparable for this industry. Is this enough to have another look?
Thanks for your input, much appreciated. I've done my best to pare it down to just descriptive NPOV and added additional reliable sources referencing this admittedly commercial product. From what I can tell, this should be not be seen as an advert, certainly when comparing with similar products within the ethical hacking community Nessus (software). Please confirm this is inline with WP guidance. Mvb71 (talk) 02:25, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
There were two issues. The other was referencing which still doesnt look like it was addressed. As far as NPOV, it has nothing to do with being neutral but more with the way the draft reads like an instruction manual or brochure instead of an encyclopedia article. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:51, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Ray William Johnson Talk Page
Please check my discussion on the YouTube infobox of Ray William Johnson Nintendoswitchfan (talk) 09:05, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Hello. I ask for your help in correcting the advertising style of the article. I don't understand English very well and it's very difficult for me to understand what exactly needs to be corrected to get rid of this problem. I ask for your help as an experienced editor. Thank you very much! 2A00:1FA1:137:7985:F18B:4A4F:48B8:B821 (talk) 08:10, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
I didn't actually review this draft so I don't know the specific areas of advertising. However, I also see you reached out to several others and hopefully they have been able to opine. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:12, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
I'm very much counting on your help. I am not a native English speaker and it is very difficult for me to determine the style of the article and understand what needs to be corrected. Please look at the article with your professional eyes and help us make adjustments. I will be very grateful to you! 2A00:1FA1:4239:CCBA:1838:581A:FF27:5C8C (talk) 16:59, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Who is "us?" Are you from a company or assisting Dmitry with the article?--CNMall41 (talk) 18:31, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Hello. Can you help? I repeat that I am asking you for help because I am not an English speaker and it is difficult for me to understand the presentation style of the article. I sincerely ask you for help and it will be very easy for you to do this, but impossible for me. Many thanks. 2A00:1FA1:41C0:915:A4F0:785B:8C99:9B0E (talk) 11:07, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
I looked at the draft and it appears you have a better grasp for English than you present in your messages above. That is, unless someone else wrote the draft on your behalf. It is not a topic I am familiar with so I will allow you to work on it or hopefully some of the other editors you have reached out to will assist as well. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:26, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for reviewing the EuroGeoSurveys page I submitted some months ago. Since July, the submission of the EuroGeoSurveys page on Wikipedia has been an ongoing effort which has not unfortunately payed back yet. Following the last message you submitted when declining the draft, may I please ask you to let me know in which way the sources I submitted are not reliable or not possible to verify?
Since I would like to speed up the process, I would like to to arrange a meeting with you outside the Wikipedia platform, in case this is not against your policy. In case feasible, I will privately share the details of the EuroGeoSurveys Secretary General in order to facilitate a communication exchange or a call.
I don't meet with anyone outside of the Wikipedia platform and I highly doubt anyone would. As far as the draft, I never said the sources are not reliable. I left a note that says there are NO references for one of the paragraphs (and still no references when I just checked). --CNMall41 (talk) 16:52, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Draft Rejection - Glam Graham
Hello CNMall41. I appreciate your feedback and I think I fixed the issues you referred to in the article. I even deleted a lot of texts to make sure the article was strictly factual and non-biased. I also resized the pictures smaller and repositioned them. Please let me know what else needs to be done if anything so I can get this article approved. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glam Graham (talk • contribs) 16:15, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
You can resubmit and have it reviewed again. Although I will say that I don't think the draft stands a chance of approval at the moment as there are still issues. Once a volunteer editor decides to take up the topic and write about it she is likely to have a Wikipedia page written properly to meet guidelines (assuming she is notable). --CNMall41 (talk) 16:54, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
appropriate to remove template now?
I have added citations and sources to an article for Philip Lance. Do my edits suffice to remove the template? Thank you. Raulsantosgarcia (talk) 18:22, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
That isn't up to me as anyone can contest a tag. However, it still doesn't address what has been stated multiple times in that there is at least one paragraph that is not supported by citations. Please see WP:INCITE. Also, what is your relationship with the subject of the article? --CNMall41 (talk) 18:23, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
My relation to the subject of the article is that I am a family member. This question prompted me to research the policy for family members and I discovered the COI policy. I will stop making any edits to the page. I will research whether I should disclose my COI concerning past edits that I have made. Meanwhile, I will suggest on talk pages that another independent editor look for source verification of the original claim that was made about this subject.Raulsantosgarcia (talk) 17:58, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the disclosure and adhering to the COI guidelines. Since you have been forthcoming, I would be more than happy to assist you with the article if you like. You can use the talk page to make the suggestions and I will review and implement accordingly. Thanks again and happy editing. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:49, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.