User talk:LaMona

User_talk:Lamona
This page is a soft redirect.

• 203.106.156.98 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Ma Su Chen 1972 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I ask you to explain, instead you go to the mentioned sites to remove the added information and references. Then posting a idiotic template that is a consequence of you removing the references. Incompetent scumbag! You are only worth fucking yourself and eat your own shit! Damn you all, especially you and the first reviewer! This proves my point of what I said below.

The wikipedia reviewer(s)who posted the "templates" for "Furious Slaughter', Fist of Fury', Intimate Confessions of a Chinese Courtesan, and 'Insomnia Lover) is/are incompetent prejudicial idiots! Rejecting article submissions for movies base on individual whims and fancies. Why? The "template" was not posted for these articles until being informed about the inconsistencies in accepting or declining a submission. These are only on the surface. There more of these type of articles. Idiot! One of the "template" posted is the consequence of the idiot reviewer removing two or three of the citation sources.

• 1.9.100.170 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Ma Su Chen 1972 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Check out these movie articles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movie..._In_Your_Face , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chow_Ken . The way these articles are presented and you all still accept them??!! What happen to notable and verifiable? This is plain double standards

• 1.9.100.170 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Ma Su Chen 1972 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Check out these movie articles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movie..._In_Your_Face , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chow_Ken . The way these articles are presented and you all still accept them??!! What happen to notable and verifiable? This is plain double standards.

• 86.132.14.205 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Graeme Kirkpatrick (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is not a request for a re-review just a clarification, take on board the points re guidance and reviews and considering redrafting,but would the convention for Wiki be to include references to reviews of his books etc within the article?

• Tukombo (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Malawi24 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Yes, the BBC link is still working. Thanks for the heads up and suggestions. So much appreciated.

• Librarian1849 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Victoria Carter (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi LaMona, thanks for your comments. I have made the changes you requested. I think that Victoria is notable, founding Cityhop, and contributing significantly to the Auckland Kindergarten Association and the Auckland Arts Festival, outside her former Councillor role. Other articles on Auckland Councillors (see Category:Auckland Councillors at the bottom of the page) are shorter/arguably less notable yet they have been published. Would appreciate it if you could review the article again. Thank you.

This is the text that you are going to verify with a reference.^[1]

• Jobmuel (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Maria (Masha) Gordon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello there! I have amended the language, as suggested, to make it more formal. Apologies, it is my first one. Thank you!

Hi,

I tried to create a page for morale patches and it was declined. But if you search wiki for morale patches or google scholar for morale patches, there are hundreds of inclusions of the term. I believe it deserves, and needs a wiki page. Please tell me how I can clean up this page and make it pass https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Morale_Patch Wikipage2016 (talk) 07:16, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipage2016, the problem with the page you created is not the topic, but the fact that much of the article is unreferenced. Here's what I told you there: "The article must be built from information found in third-party sources (newspapers, magazines) that are independent of the subject of the article. Those sources must be referenced in-line with the text they support. No un-referenced material is allowed." You must create the article from sources that you reference - all information must be verifiable in those sources. LaMona (talk) 14:47, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Anthony Charles Robinson, which I have just published from draft; appointment as an Officer of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire irrefutably confers notability. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:33, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a cite for that? I recall that there are hundreds per year (although I may be thinking of a related honor). Also, notability isn't the only thing I look for in a draft - large amounts of unreferenced material or bad refs (as in this case) are a good reason to keep them back, IMO, keeping the editor working on it until a higher quality is reached. But we each have our own take on AfC. LaMona (talk) 18:22, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. the section is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents #Damage done by declining AFC --RexxS (talk) 14:43, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Nathitchcock (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Micko Westmoreland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am not presently requesting a re-review at this time

Dear LaMona,

Thank you for taking the time to review my wikipedia submission. I have checked the guide lines for musicians notability and feel my article cites that the artist has produced 2 or more albums released by a major record company & has had independent articles printed by publications such as New Musical Express, Melody Maker, Uncut, The Guardian & The Independent broadsheet newspapers plus many others. I see that the sources of discogs and IMDB are unsuitable & will be removed. I am looking for some more assistance if possible as I have spent a long time on this submission. Any further advice you feel you are able to give as to how to improve the chances of this article being approved would be gratefully received.

Many thanks

Natalie Hitchcock

Nathitchcock, first, here on talk pages you need to sign your messages with four tildes, like ~~~~. One thing that you can do is to give full information for the albums, including the label. That could help support notability. Simple lists of titles aren't very informative. Also, link to any professional reviews of the albums or cuts that show that the work got the attention of music reviewers. (Fan and amateur reviews should not be used.) It is better to reduce the article to what you can source rather than use poor sources, as those somewhat tarnish the notability. You don't need to have every work that the person recorded, just some that gained the person notability. Wikipedia is not a CV or a personal web page, so including only highlights is not only fine, it is preferable. LaMona (talk) 17:19, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Wiki.isimm2 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:International Society for the Interaction of Mechanics and Mathematics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dear editor/reviwer,

I appreciate your (and the previous reviewer) care about the initial version of the page for ISIMM (International Society for Interaction between Mathematics and Mechanics), but I indeed do not understand what we should make more to put it into life. Yours comments that "References must be 1) about the organization 2) independent of the organization 3) linked inline to the text they support. No unreferenced material is allowed." does not give me any hint what I should improve at this moment. Reflecting the previous comments, I included many links to other wikipedia pages and some other serious web pages, and thus reduced unreferenced material as much as I could, expecting that some other distinquished individuals around this distinguished organization with several decades tradition can later continue completing it. It is now much richer than many of existing wiki-pages. I start feeling it as a certain discrimination of ISIMM in contrast to some other similar organizations as Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Amer. Math. Society, ASME, etc, etc. which have their wiki-pages. I would really ask you for being more specific why you do not approve the (initial iteration) of the ISIMM page.

Hoping that I will evnetually start this page lining, at this occassion, I would like to ask you for a hint how the language mutation of this page can be created. I did not find any hint for it. (It would be relativel easy for us to translate this page into Italien, German, Polish, Czech and some other languages as this organization is truly international.)

Many thanks in advance for you help and your toleranace.

prof. Ing. Tomas Roubicek, DrSc.

Wiki.isimm2 (talk) 17:54, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki.isimm2, you have a list of "references" at the end of the article, but they are not linked to the inline text they support. Think about an academic article with numbered footnotes throughout the text - that's the form that Wikipedia uses. The instructions on how to do that are at referencing for beginners. If that does not suffice, you can ask for help at the TeaHouse. That's the first comment I have. The next is that you should read about notability, which says: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." That means that you need sources that are about the organization itself. What matters on Wikipedia for notability is what reliable sources have said about a topic. Also look at Verifiability, which is that all facts on Wikipedia, much like in academic writing, must be verifiable. That is what the references in academic sources provide. Last, there is no automatic process that produces articles in the Wikipedias of other languages. You can of course create articles in those languages for those Wikipedias, but I should caution you that each Wikipedia has its own set of standards and culture, so it is not a given that what is appropriate for one will be welcomed in others. It is a good idea to visit those Wikipedia's and see what the help pages say about accepted topics. LaMona (talk) 22:03, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

---

At Roma, Sept. 10, 2016 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki.isimm2 (talk • contribs) 20:22, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear LaMona,

thanks very much for the instructions you provided me on 10 August 2016. We understood that essentially only the references should have been made differently (numbered and cited in the text itself). So I restructuralized the draft, and added some more links (as the references) together with some text more, and included also a picture (the logo of ISIMM), and made some other polishments and updates. So altogether I am now very satisfied and I hope you will find it good to be released, too. Again thanks for your help.

With warm regards,

prof.Ing. Tomas Roubicek, DrSc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki.isimm2 (talk • contribs) 20:21, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• 74.62.240.37 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Kash Hovey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

74.62.240.37 (talk) 23:31, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's no message here - if you have a question, please ask. LaMona (talk) 01:43, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Bandspace (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Music Rehearsal Space (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Thank you for making contact. I have recently edited my declined submission following reviewers' reasons for not accepting it. I am new to wikipedia so hope I have done the right thing. I was wondering if reviewers could simply remove passages they felt did not meet the criteria.

Bandspace (talk) 16:56, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bandspace, sometimes it is possible to just remove some extraneous paragraphs and "fix" an article, but often it would require a whole re-write. Given that there are often around 600-800 articles waiting to be reviewed, we wouldn't get far if we spent hours on each article. So the work reverts to the creator -- it's discouraging, but we hope it also is a good learning experience. LaMona (talk) 17:58, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very sorry to hear that you are leaving Wikipedia. I just wanted to say that you've done a very solid job in reviewing AFC drafts, and your work will be missed. Also, you've consistently beaten me to reviewing

No matter what transpires online, I wish you the best of luck. Regards,

GAB^gab 17:20, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Bfait (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Johann König (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello. First of all, thank you for your comments. I have added more sources to underline the importance of Johann König as an art dealer. It is true that fame cannot or should not be inherited, but I think the many sources show that it is König himself who indeed meanwhile is an important art dealer. At least he appeared in two articles in New York Times. As now added, in 2011 he won the Prix Lafayette due to "the best exhibition project presented by an emerging gallery". I also added that König is partially blind since a childhood accident what makes him exceptional as an art dealer. I removed the reference to MoMA and Centre Pompidou — you're quite right in assuming that this information is hardly available (except from König's own site, but I do not want to take this as a reference). Just one last thing: There is already an article "Johann König". I thought that originally I labelled the draft "Johann König (art dealer)", but I just didn't figure out how I can change that — can you help we with that? Besides that, I just hope that the article now suffices. If not, please let me know what I can do. Anyway, thanks a lot!Bfait (talk) 21:21, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bfait, unfortunately the editor you are trying to get in contact with has decided to leave the community, by her own admission. There are a variety of reasons this, but, unless the editor comments to you on them I will not be the one explaining it (also for a variety of reasons). I recommend you take your draft to any other draft reviewer, or, perhaps a talkpage stalker might come across this and help you out. Side note; to the owner of the talk page, my apologies for commenting here, this is not some victory lap, I am only commenting here to help another editor out and on the presupposition that you will not be able to help on account of your leaving. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:50, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mr rnddude , Because I care, I will continue to respond to those new editors with whom I have established a relationship. (You might have inquired, and if no reply was forthcoming, then take action. Advice for the future.) I find your reference to a "victory lap", even though you deny it, is inappropriate since the ANI was closed with no decision and therefore no victory. I would hate to think that the victory refers to driving another editor off of Wikipedia. I ask you to not post on my talk page in the future. LaMona (talk) 20:08, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Best of luck in whatever you choose to do in the future- your contributions will be sorely missed at AfC. jcc (tea and biscuits) 09:57, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Nghungdo (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Axon Active Vietnam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi Mona, I would like to ask if I have source on these websites:

http://e.vnexpress.net/ http://english.vietnamnet.vn/ http://vietnamnews.vn/ http://english.thesaigontimes.vn/ http://www.thanhniennews.com/ http://tuoitrenews.vn/

Are they enough to be reliable sources? Thanks you very much.

Yes, if they are regular newspapers they are good sources. LaMona (talk) 06:11, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello LaMona. Just wanted to let you know that I have found and removed some copyright violations from the above article, which you created back on June 24. I see that you have left the project, but decided to post this reminder anyway, in case you decide to return, that all content you add to this wiki needs to be written in your own words. Also, since this is the second time I have found you violating our copyright policy, I need to remind you that repeat violators are blocked from editing. — Diannaa (talk) 17:22, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Diannaa - you must believe me that I thought I did all I could to reword the obits that I was working from, and believed that I had done so sufficiently. Obviously, when one only has an obit, a lot of the data is going to be the same, a lot of the statements will have the same words (places, job titles, etc.). It's clear that although I think I'm doing a sufficient job, it's not satisfying the algorithm. Knowing more about that would help me, but I cannot learn because I don't get feedback that would show me what parts of the article are considered violations. I'd be happy to satisfy the algorithm if I knew what it wanted, and where it saw problems. I can learn, but I'm not being given anything to learn from. However, too late now. I'm tired of the overly toxic atmosphere, the threats ("blocked from editing"), etc., and the totally unhelpful dings. LaMona (talk) 23:55, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see the point of waiting to do the revision deletion, since you seem firm in your resolve to quit the site. Not sure what you mean by "dings", but if you mean you are receiving unwanted email each time your talk page is edited, you can go to Preferences→Email options and change the setting to "do not send me email notifications". — Diannaa (talk) 23:58, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, what I mean is being threatened with "blocked from editing" when I'm not being helped to learn what it is that you are looking for. I know about algorithms; they aren't the same as people. My judgment as a person may be just fine, and still not have the same result as that of the algorithm. However, if I knew what the algorithm was looking for, I could adjust for that. People adjust to machines better than machines adjust to people. As I said, I very consciously did what I thought weas appropriate rewording. How can I do any better in the future if I get no information? Are you aware that I'm not doing a copy and paste, but trying to synthesize information from a very limited set of documents (2 obits)? That I know about copyvio? Yet you prefer to threaten me with "blocked from editing" rather than offering any help. This is what I mean. In my world, we help people. That doesn't seem to be the world here, which is a good reason for leaving. LaMona (talk) 02:03, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We have a bot that is searching for all additions over a certain size and checking them against material already online. The results are posted at https://tools.wmflabs.org/copypatrol. This is where I found both recent examples from your editing. The previous article where I spotted copyvio was Donald Jelinek on July 14. I undid the revision deletion so that you could check my work and perform additional amendments if you wished to do so. You did that, and I re-did the revision deletion shortly afterwards. In the case of Patti Grace Smith, I went ahead and paraphrased the material from the NY Times obit and and removed one segment that was less pertinent, stuff you might find on a resumé, and is almost identical to the source webpage. I have undone the revision-deletion so that you can have a look. Here is the diff of the amendments that I performed. Unfortunately Earwig's copyvio detection tool, which I showed you back in July, does not work on the NY Times because the material is in "frames" but I assessed it using the iThenicate report and visual inspection.

You could check your edits with Earwig's copy vio detector tool but you will not be able to do so until it's already live and on-wiki. You could certainly check your work with it after it's live, and do modifications as required. There's also the Duplication Detector, which can access some types of web pages that Earwig's tool is unable to see (it's down right now, so I have contacted the volunteer who maintains that tool; hopefully it will be working again shortly). If you find you've messed up and want me to revision-delete any material just let me know on my talk page or by email.

One thing I find that works for me is to read over the source material and then pretend I am verbally describing the topic to a friend in my own words. It's been suggested that not so much as three words should be together in the same order as the source. Stuff should also be presented in a different order where possible. Summarize rather than paraphrase. This usually means that your version is quite a bit shorter than the source document. There's some reading material on this topic at Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing and/or have a look at the material at Purdue. Please feel free to ask me via email if you are stuck and are not sure how to effectively re-word a passage. — Diannaa (talk) 19:32, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you User:Dianna - how I wish this had been the first response, and not the last. But I will tuck it away for future reference, if there is a future in which I need it. LaMona (talk) 20:02, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear LaMona,

I was sorry to read about your negative experience editing here. I read up the original thread, and while we may disagree on the substance of the original issue that was raised on WP:ANI, the thread quickly devolved into unacceptable levels of name-calling. Unfortunately, that particular discussion page on Wikipedia tends to centralize and amplify drama in ways that are often unhelpful and can make users feel crowded out by an onslaught of comments in rapid-fire succession.

There may be ways to improve on that (if the thread had been closed more quickly and moved to a more appropriate place, the escalation could perhaps have been avoided). Regardless, I hope you'll consider resuming your good work here, perhaps after a well-deserved wiki-break. :) --Eloquence* 01:27, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I want to agree with Eloquence on this matter. My purpose here is neither to accuse you nor defend what you said recently. I come here instead to point out to to you, and to say openly, that you have been a productive and useful editor. I hope that your retirement is short, but if you choose not to return, I wish you only the best, and I thank you for the work you have done here. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:06, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I also feel that AfC is a very harmful process, one that puts users in unnatural positions for a wiki. Maybe they're like licenses to marry or have kids: no way to make them fair, they'll always generate oppression. Nemo 14:30, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LaMona, I don't think we ever really interacted directly, but I'll never forget the time a user spite-AfDed an article you'd written (Robin Coste Lewis) and Kikichugirl and I pitched in to add some more references so as to guarantee its survival. I know it's just a small thing, a little stub on an author most people won't ever know about, but I like to think that we all made Wikipedia (and maybe the world) a little better by working on it.

One "interesting" (for very expansive definitions of "interesting") thing about AfC is that reviewers often field endless complaints and questions but are all too rarely recognized for their efforts. I've reviewed more than a few AfC drafts in my time on Wikipedia and so I mean it when I say this: thank you for your hard work and dedication. After that recent AN/I thread, I can certainly understand why you might not want to come back to Wikipedia. I do hope you stay and, to quote the immortal Jay-Z, "go and brush your shoulders off". But either way, I do think you should know that your work has been appreciated in small but important ways. /wiae /tlk 04:51, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• 158.169.40.6 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:International Arthur Grumiaux Competition (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi LaMona,

After your comment : "Comment: The sources that you have in further reading are exactly what you need to use as references in order to show notability. You should incorporate them into the article, especially in the place of non-independent sources (e.g. from the grumiaux web site) LaMona (talk) 14:40, 21 July 2016 (UTC)"

As you suggested, I started to add text into the article to reference the content. But could you please help me on rewriting correct sentence (EN is not my native language ...)? Thank you !

Sam

• Tukombo (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Malawi24 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi,

I have tweaked a few things on the malawi24 entry.

I contest the "speedy deletion nomination" for this page, and object (which I'm sure you understand)to the reason given: "fabricated event lacking credible sources" which is patently false. Please advise, thank you--Richard Hawkins (talk) 22:32, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• TheMagnusOpus (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Al Stohlman Award for Achievement in Leathercraft (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I'm very surprised you found this good enough to send on to mainspace: it almost qualifies for speedy deletion as pure advertising. Please compare with Draft:Leahcim Semaj. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 17:56, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Clr06160 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Colorado Care (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Clr06160 (talk) 06:00, 17 October 2016 (UTC) hello there[reply]

Hi LaMona,

As an AfC reviewer you're probably aware that a new user right has been created for patrolling new pages (you might even have been granted the right already, and admins have it automatically).

Since July there has been a very serious backlog at Special:NewPagesFeed of over 14,000 pages, by far the worst since 2011, and we need an all out drive to get this back down to just a few hundred that can be easily maintained in the future. Unlike AfC, these pages are already in mainspace, and the thought of what might be there is quite scary. There are also many good faith article creators who need a simple, gentle push to the Tea House or their pages converted to Draft rather than being deleted.

Although New Page Reviewing can occasionally be somewhat more challenging than AfC, the criteria for obtaining the right are roughly the same. The Page Curation tool is even easier to use than the Helper Script, so it's likely that most AfC reviewers already have more than enough knowledge for the task of New Page Review.

It is hoped that AfC reviewers will apply for this right at WP:PERM and lend a hand. You'll need to have read the page at WP:NPR and the new tutorial.

(Sent to all active AfC reviewers) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AfC Reviewers are asked to be especially on the look out 08:00-20:00 UTC (that's local London time - check your USA and AUS times) on Thursday 8 December for new pages. The BBC together with Wikimedia UK is holding a large 12-hour editathon. Many new articles and drafts are expected. See BBC 100 Women 2016: How to join our edit-a-thon. Follow also on #100womenwiki, and please, don't bite the newbies :) (user:Kudpung for NPR. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:02, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, my understanding is that you deleted an article of mine, about Harold Burnell Carter, as I did not provide sufficient evidence that copyright permission had been granted. I would like to ask that you re-establish the artice so I can resubmit a new photo with the correct permission. Thanks--Benito Cartero (talk) 17:28, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Benito Cartero (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Harold Burnell Carter (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi there, can you please re-establish the page I was working on so I can re-submit with the improvements I have been asked to make?

• Believeingood (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:R.B. Walsh (Risteárd Breathnach) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The page I was working on has been deleted as I left it too long before re-submitting. You were the last reviewer, about 7 months ago. Can you tell me how to have the page restored, or is there a specific email address to send this request to? Thanks(Believeingood (talk) 19:37, 25 February 2017 (UTC))[reply]

• Believeingood, La Mona has retired. To have the page restored you'll have to visit WP:REFUND and request an undeletion from administrator's there. Hope that helps. The draft however has not been deleted from what I can see. Mr rnddude (talk) 20:27, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you "Believeingood (talk) 06:48, 26 February 2017 (UTC)"[reply]

• Thebyzantinists (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Leslie Brubaker (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I was dismayed by your rejection of this: Leslie's highest citation is at 103, the second highest at 90 (https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&q=leslie+brubaker&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp=), she holds the chair of Professor of Byzantine Art at the University of Birmingham, and her page is better footnoted than most of the historian pages I have seen on this website (in my mind at least). Would you mind going over this again? I have honestly never been at more of a loss when constructing a Wiki entry...

Dear LaMona, I wrote an article about a subject Miss saHHara. But recently, someone had the article's title and the subject name changed by moving the article to a new link. I corrected the name changes and supplied references from the subject. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Miss_Sahhara&oldid=808434493 The person changed the title text from 'Miss saHHara' to 'Miss Sahhara'. Unfortunately, that is not how her public name is spelt. Can you undo the changes this person made please. Below is her website where she stated how her name is spelt and BBC did referenced it too. She uses her stage name 'Miss saHHara' only because of the death threats she gets from Nigerians. It is stated and referenced why she keeps her legal names private in the article. I couldnt undo the edit since I am not yet an 'Autoconfirmed User'.

I hope you can help. Thank you in advance. Regards.

http://www.misssahhara.com/disclaimer/ http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-africa-36168661/trans-woman-i-left-nigeria-to-save-my-life

(Phoenixqueen (talk) 12:39, 3 November 2017 (UTC))[reply]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Phoenixqueen (talk • contribs) 12:35, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply] 

Hello, LaMona. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Zulekha Daud".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! JMHamo (talk) 16:56, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bubble tea is a tea or juice beverage containing small chewy balls made of tapioca starch or jelly. First invented in Taiwan, it is now popular in many areas of the world. Daysant1144 (talk) 17:10, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping Wikipedia. It would not be the same without you. Florence Hansen (talk) 16:39, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't nominate it, but you were instrumental in making it happen. Cheers. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:01, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

	The Half Barnstar
	Thank you for starting the article Bonnie MacLean. I hope it now fulfills your expectations. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:03, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

HI... There is no reliable source for "Uma Dogra was awarded an Honorary Doctorate of Arts by ITM University, Raipur on 12 December 2016. She received the Doctorate from Dr. P.V. Ramana, the Founder & Chairman of ITM Group and Chancellor of ITM University." I suggest to provide a reliable source or to delete this information. LTbharat (talk) 15:16, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• 197.231.239.211 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Merdacotta (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

197.231.239.211 (talk) 04:56, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]