User talk:Carolina2k22

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

3 Sided Cube Article Review

[edit]

Hi there Carlonina2k22, hope youre having a nice day. You declined my article review for 3 sided cube (a software agency). Could you help me out with specific feedback of how to make this better? Is it the neutral tone, the sources or the peacock terms?

Would be really appreciated, thanks. Harry3sidedcube (talk) 09:07, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I hope you're having a good day as well, thank you. There are links on the reason, click on each and have a look through, as it will both help you improve your article's current issues as well as prevent you from then introducing other issues when you do improve it. Primary concerns are mainly just lack of citations. I didn't add the tag, but also unsure if notability requirements are met, consider also having a look at WP:CORP alongside the ones in the decline reason for the draft. Carolina2k22 • (talk) 13:05, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Response on my rejected AfC

[edit]

Hey @Carolina2k22! Upon the rejection of my draft, I sent you a message on my talk page. I realise you never got notified of this message. Could you please respond to it? Rockfighterz M (talk) 21:17, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh thank you, I'll have a look at that now. Carolina2k22 • (talk) 23:32, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AfC follow-up: Draft:Vivid Money

[edit]

Hi Carolina2k22 — thanks for your AfC review of Draft:Vivid Money. I’ve posted a brief clarification question here: Draft talk:Vivid Money#c-ThisUserIsVivid-20251104145100-Follow-up after AfC decline. If you have a moment, I’d appreciate any guidance on which sources you consider routine/insufficient so I can address them directly. Thanks! ThisUserIsVivid (talk) 14:53, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See my reply over there, copying what I posted there to here as well;
"Hi! I think that on further review (both via Google and in the article), it is a bit ehh on meeting notability wrt the article entity itself having more than just the odd article on itself alongside routine announcement articles, it just seems like passing mentions rather than having consistently significant coverage.
But, I can appreciate that I might not be getting a full picture because I don't live in Europe, and I cannot read German so I have been relying upon my browser's translation tool. If you think that's probably the case, just feel free to resubmit and I will leave it up for another reviewer." Carolina2k22 • (talk) 05:19, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:National Bird Initiative rejection

[edit]

Hello, Carolina. First, thank you taking the time to review this draft, I know there's a long backlog, so I was happy to see that it got reviewed. That said, I am genuinely confused and frustrated. Despite my making significant changes per the previous rejection, you voiced the same issues. To that end I'd like to respectfully provide some context regarding the issues:

Notability: The National Bird Initiative had significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources, including *The Washington Post*, *Associated Press*, *MPR News*, *Audubon Magazine*, and *Axios*. I believe these are all considered high-quality secondary sources under Wikipedia guidelines.

Reliable sources: I've only cited primary or organizational websites for non-controversial, factual details (e.g., collection title, affiliations). All claims of significance (collection size, legislation, cultural impact) are supported by independent news sources.

Neutrality: I've worked hard to avoid any promotional tone or resume-like details. I've followed standard biographical structure and avoided subjective description in favor of attributable significance. Speaking of . . .

Subject’s significance: The National Bird Initiative fixed a 250 yr, old oversight or misunderstanding in our country. It's documented as resulting in bipartisan U.S. federal legislation signed into law in December 2024, and extensively reported on internationally as well as nationally, which further supports notability.

I did notice three instances where copy was highlighted in red. If those are your marks can you please elaborate? Thank you for your time and consideration. Tmcfarlandpr (talk) 16:40, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tmcfarlandpr Hi! I've done another look through. If you can go through the sources, and fix up the links (most of them are broken currently), as well as add an inline citation to back up the statements where I have put in the [citation needed] template, I will do another look through and consider accepting it. On the face of it, provided those fixes are made, it is likely it would meet the necessary criteria to be an article.
"I did notice three instances where copy was highlighted in red. If those are your marks can you please elaborate?" I'm not quite sure about what's happened there, the only information I've provided was the refusal reason in the box at the top of the page. Carolina2k22 • (talk) 05:31, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Carolina: Thank you so, so, so much for your comments and encouragement. It's been a long road for me. I will make the fixes you've pointed out and resubmit. Also, I appreciate that you will be giving the next revision a look-through. Tmcfarlandpr (talk) 15:50, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Carolina: One other thing. I did go back and click on the links and yes, most are broken - lots of 404 and "page not found" notes. As an FYI, these were all live when I first included them many months ago. Clearly they've since been archived. Given the time-lag between submissions I should have double-checked them before re-submitting. My bad. Tmcfarlandpr (talk) 16:03, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No I absolutely figured that’d be the case, I was just surprised since usually articles like that stay up. Hopefully you can fix them by checking if they’re still up on different links (?) or if they’re archived on archive.org. Carolina2k22 • (talk) 02:26, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message

[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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.

If you wish to participate in the 2025 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:48, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]