Any help or queries ask me here. Use tildes (~~~~); software automatically converts it to your username and the date.
Wikipedia is a whole of knowledge in it , We hope for your faithful contributions.You can contact me for any help on here.
Before adding a category to an article, as you did to Walia, please make sure that the subject of the article really belongs in the category that you specified according to Wikipedia's categorization guidelines. The category being added must already exist, and must be supported by the article's verifiable content. Categories may be removed if they are deemed incorrect for the subject matter. Please don't overcategorize pagesSMasonGarrison13:18, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I have checked the categories again and three of them are actually meeting the subject. Category:Ahluwalia and Surnames of South Asian origin too and Toponymic surnames including some others. HilssaMansen19 (talk) 13:26, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is not even a constructive reply. Anyway, you are pushing your pov by removing a category that is clearly meant for the articles you removed it from. You removed Punjabi surnames category from all the Punjabi surname pages. This reply "Great" and an advice followed by it is like attacking pages created to push your opinion. Very much against the community guidelines. If you cared to check enough rather than doing such attacks, there are tens of articles in the same category with more than 6 categories each. HilssaMansen19 (talk) 13:37, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me? Please assume good faith. My reply was intended to encourage you to keep working in the area. Calling me encouragement non-constructive and then jumping to the conclusion that my attempts are reducing your overcategorization as an attack is just baffling. SMasonGarrison13:42, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, I assumed good faith as you are a senior editor here and my previous reply was meant for an advice on the topic not bypassing it. I read the guidelines and there is no limit on categories as long as we don't repeat similar ones right?
That's why I replied -
Hi, I have checked the categories again and three of them are actually meeting the subject. Category:Ahluwalia and Surnames of South Asian origin too and Toponymic surnames including some others. meant to seek your advice here on "those" categories but you wrote,
"Great!" (I was asking about your edits and did not write anything for great as a reply with exclamation mark) followed by, "Please keep categorization guidelines in mind when you add categories to pages", tell me which part is encouraging. There is nothing to baffle about here, simply you were proving your point per WP:POINTY. HilssaMansen19 (talk) 13:50, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Great!" is supposed to be encouraging. The 2nd sentence is pointing out that you were applying the policy correctly. Your insults in response to my diffusing overcategorization is baffling. You were overcatergozitiong by adding pages to redudant categories. I was fixing it.SMasonGarrison2600:1700:944:9810:CD21:7539:4636:E0FE (talk) 14:06, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That seems to be simply not what it seemed to be considering your edits. On the other hand, using insults over replying on your edits is totally blowing it out of proportion and is baffling as there is no insults here. I did assume good faith and sought your advice as your a senior editor with clearly more experience. I wish to not engage in this conversation with repetitive out of context replies any further. It might be better than causing further misunderstandings. Thanks! HilssaMansen19 (talk) 14:11, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I strongly encourage you to reflect on your interpretation here. If you want people to assume that you are assuming good faith, don't start by "That is not even a constructive reply." and then immediably follow by "are pushing your pov by removing a category that is clearly meant for the articles you removed it from". Like, if your intent was good faith, I encourage you to rethink your approach. Please just review how categorization works and how diffusion works. It's a really simple ask. SMasonGarrison00:06, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.
Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.
I saw you're editing the 2025 india-pak airstrikes page. I was earlier posting through my IP address without loging in and didn't know it was public.I am concerned about my safety. Can it be hidden please. Iamgood22 (talk) 18:56, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
Do not panic and continue using your account from now on. Do not show your relation or affiliation with that IP on Wikipedia or anywhere else.
I found this WP:OSFAQ. As per the WP:OSFAQ, enable email in your account and email to
oversight-en-wp@wikipedia.org.
According to this, the Q. added below seems to apply in your case and mention it in your discussion with the team at mail. It is totally up to you.
Q: I don't have a Wikipedia account. My IP address was published on Wikipedia when I edited. Can you remove it? A: If you wish to conceal your IP, you should create an account. In some cases, suppression may still be considered, for example, if you are a new editor and did not realize your IP address would be publicly published. HilssaMansen19 (talk) 19:08, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are being mentioned in a discussion regarding your disruptive, poorly sourced and biased edits to the 2025 India–Pakistan conflict article. Please feel free to participate in the discussion.
At first, I was writing full names but to avoid irrelevant discussion, I shortened them. I had no idea about Bulgaria to be BG (it should have been BU). I will replace that asap. HilssaMansen19 (talk) 17:48, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, understood — thank you for the clarification. I’ll move the discussion to the article’s talk page so others can contribute as well. Appreciate your guidance! Ck17840 (talk) 20:49, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PAF Base Shahbaz Airbase is still not included in the third-party list. Please refer to the below The Washington Post thoroughly.
I noticed that The Washington Post recent article on Pakistan Airbase Damage also mentions PAF Base Shahbaz Airbase. Please go through the below article thoroughly.
During the conflict, a video showing a jet being targeted was shared by the official X handle of the Pakistani government and praised by Information Minister Attaullah Tarar. Fact-checks by Deutsche Welle later identified it as footage from the video game Arma 3. [ UK Defence Journal, Washington Examiner, DW ]
A video showing a jet being targeted went viral on social media during the conflict. According to the UK Defence Journal and the Washington Examiner, the footage was shared by the official X (Twitter) handle of the Government of Pakistan, with Information Minister Attaullah Tarar praising the military’s “timely and nerve-wracking response.” However, Deutsche Welle identified the video as gameplay from the video game Arma 3.
WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive in June!
The goal of this drive is to reduce the backlog of unreviewed drafts to less than 1 month of outstanding reviews from the current 3+ months. Bonus points will be given for reviewing drafts that have been waiting more than 30 days. The drive is running from 1 June 2025 through 30 June 2025.
Hi @HilssaMansen19: Why did you close this as Speedy Keep when it wasn't. The nomination was clearly withdrawn as a keep. It was miles from a Speedy Keep. It was opened for a full week. How can it be speedy. Can you change it, "Nomination withdrawn - Keep"? scope_creepTalk18:50, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was checking all the discussions and closed it per withdrawal with unanimous voting. I might have missed the hour based difference, that counts, yes. I will change it, apologies for any inconvenience. HilssaMansen19 (talk) 19:25, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed it as your mention was for it to be kept if it meets time based significance. It was covered by voters. The standard discussion timing was completed by a few hours. Thanks for notifying me. HilssaMansen19 (talk) 19:48, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Chandhar airfiled: Happened to pass by this article. Relies on a single source and barely has any sources on the web as far as i have looked up. It also lacks the WP:N in my view. Kindly look into this. Thanks Banshee 007 (talk) 05:28, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, I have added a relevant tag for now. Per WP:NAIRPORTS, WP:BASIC is required. I checked it and some basic information is available. Thus, AfD might not be the right choice, you can help by expanding the sources. Notably, it was also attacked in retaliation by Indian armed forces in the war of 1971. HilssaMansen19 (talk) 05:44, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am confused by this close. You have closed the AfD over a day early. It was re-opened for a relist and got only a new redirect !vote. You say There were doubts about notability of quotes from interviews, WP:IV, covers that. But the point is that IV says very clearly that those quotes are primary and cannot be used for notability. And that makes me wonder if you also missed my delete !vote in the discussion. Could you re-open urgently to allow the relist to run for a week? Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:34, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
I did check your vote which was delete and considered snowball clause here. It is being stretched for over 3 weeks now with no major argument which is agreed upon by others. Apart from votes, arguments including quotes the one you pointed at also mentions where and how it can be relevant.
If it is being argued upon, it depends upon the general consensus and perspective.
Any of the content merely quoting the interviewee should be treated as primary. But if the material the interviewer brought to the table is secondary and independent, it contributes to the claim that the subject has met the requirements laid out in the general notability guideline with also focusing on reliability of the publisher. This was not even mentioned there. Whereas, arguments about sources being reliable have been added in the discussion.
This was a backlog and previous relisting comment by @Star Mississippi discussed closing this as a keep. They kept it open per a request made to them and wrote that they will check it after being active again. Still, if you believe it requires more time, @Sirfurboy based upon your request I will request a second opinion and open it.
For a second opinion, @Star Mississippi, can you weigh in on the observation that there have been no notable argument which are unopposed or supported in consensus and if you still suggest to open it again, I will do so. HilssaMansen19 (talk) 07:00, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Asking just in case, @Sirfurboy Do you have any detailed further point which will focus on it being deleted? Can you share it here? If it is the same as ones in discussion, we can avoid reopening it again. Whereas, if the requested users agree to it here, I will do so.
Greetings, you were a part of previous discussion which was also a request to reopen, can you spare a moment and check it again? I have added my notes above and did not find any strong argument or analysis which provides a requirement for it to be deleted or otherwise. Other than that, old newspaper findings which are passing for NGs were added in the last comment before the close. HilssaMansen19 (talk) 07:23, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, it is very very definitely not a snowball close. My concern here is that there are very clear policy reasons raised by a number of editors as to why this does not pass GNG. It is those policy objections that are unrefuted, from where I'm seeing this. We have a source review in which I found nothing that clearly meets GNG, and where coverage is localised. We have people agreeing with that source review and people disagreeing with it. Had this been closed as no consensus, I would have shrugged and walked away. I think it is a very clear case of failing notability, but some editors will have different views. So be it. But to call this a keep is to take a view that the strong policy based objections and the careful reading of sources and their discussion are all in error. It is to say I am wasting my time arguing on policy, and this is just a vote (but not even that, because the voting is a tie). Source reviews take hours - longer than the article creation. Am I wasting my time with them? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:47, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, every edit towards improvement on Wikipedia is significant. Don't you agree that, in this case, no consensus should have been if basic consensus of keep votes failed to present any argument or sources? About sources, we can't label them as unreliable on our own. That is not a discussion under AfD. Tie? I think we should follow votes with perspective.
About sources reviewing, you do have a point, it takes time.
I will open it again after 8 hours - only if no opinion is added by @Star Mississippi and @Rlendog in the meantime as they might be inactive for now considering time zones. After that, I will leave it for @Star Mississippi to consider.
Keep votes did fail to provide any unrefuted new sources. That's the point. There was no consensus to keep. Again, the only new !vote after the relist was not to keep. Also waiting 8 hours to re-open consumes most of the remaining window on this one. I would appreciate if you just re-open this and let it run to its deadline, rather than ignoring the additional response and early closing it. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:36, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You have not answered about arguments. Since, you seem sure about it with additional response (considering in same opinion per persist), I am opening it. Do remember that votes are not the only highlight for consensus but the participation including sources and discussion is. Just adding this, if it comes to evaluating sources, any one can do that but not denying reliability based on observations/assumptions without relevant discussion. A newspaper old or new is notable. I will check the discussion. HilssaMansen19 (talk) 08:46, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have much to say beyond what is already in the AfD, but I did provide new source since @Sirfurboy🏄 raised his objections from the Las Vegas Sun and someone else provided a source from the Calgary Herald. But that doesn't even matter. Sirfurboy's refutations to the sources that were already provided were from essays, not guidelines or policies. It is fine for him to interpret the guidelines using those essays but it is not mandatory for everyone to agree with those interpretations, and such "refutations" are hardly "strong policy based objections". That is why we have these discussions in the first place. And even Sirfurboy's refutations were refuted, for example by discussion of how much of one of the newspaper articles' was quotes from the subject versus material that was not quotes from the subject. Again, Sirfurboy is welcome to disagree with those assessments but is not free to proclaim that those who disagree are inherently wrong. Again, that is why we have these discussions. And sometimes there are valid arguments on both sides but that doesn't mean there can't be a consensus. Rlendog (talk) 20:01, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Rlendong as we should look at both perspectives and keep track of previous arguments to understand the latest ones. Anyway, you can discuss this further as you suggested in the re-opened discussion itself.
while I don't consider myself Involved per the wiki definition of it, I won't be the one to re-close this as I don't feel it would be appropriate to any who have been a part of the discussion. Just my opinion @HilssaMansen19, but I don't think this is one for you to re close either. By @Rlendog and @Sirfurboy raising their concerns here and at my Talk, it's a contentious decision and best closed by someone with a little more time at AfD. Not policy, and you are welcome to do otherwise StarMississippi01:24, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, understood. Btw, I am also active in the discussion itself by one comment as I am checking how it is going. Happy editing and enjoy to all! HilssaMansen19 (talk) 05:44, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the delay, both in responding and since my relist @HilssaMansen19 @Sirfurboy. I have been mostly offline and have not had time to delve into this in the depth I hoped. I think your relist was the right call here @HilssaMansen19 and @Sirfurboy's requests to you (and me last week) have solid merit to let this discussion find resolution, whatever that might be. It's a better use of community time than a DRV and a potential new discussion. StarMississippi11:55, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No need for apologies my friend, you have been doing great work here to be considered an inspiration for other/new/inexperienced users like me. Being an inspiration for others is not easy either. Don't mind my flattery and this is what I do when I meet an experienced one in the field, teenage stuff.
As for the discussion, yes, you are right. Even I felt that we should give it a day or more for a more proper consensus rather than DRV and having "mixed" discussions there. I am in favour of keep as well per various sources but if there might be a new noteworthy argument, it is worth re-opening.
I will leave the closing this time to you if it is fine?, as I am thinking of adding a comment there. If you might be busy, just ping me, I will not comment and wait to do the closure again. HilssaMansen19 (talk) 12:11, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Moriwen, I am apparently more confused as this happened alongside others while closing Fusion Engine. I just cross checked it and the timings. Could there have been some sort of closing error by XFDCloser? HilssaMansen19 (talk) 19:29, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[1] This was also redirected. @Moriwen, I took a screenshot of XFDcloser as there were 3 talk pages shown and it was apparently slow. Can you guide me on further steps as the pages were deleted? Shall I req an admin or raise s technical req. HilssaMansen19 (talk) 19:34, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have to work on an assignment and this happens. I am feeling like sending the following to the XFDcloser, only if it was a user (crying virtually)...
Hello HilssaMansen19, has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Hello, HilssaMansen19, how are you? Thank you for your generous feedback on the Draft: Dinho Ouro Preto. Regarding your comment, “It reads like a textbook essay/promotion about a person,” do you have any suggestions for improvement?
The article has diverse sources and broad coverage in academic works, print and online newspapers, television networks, and magazines, ensuring extensive verifiability and media coverage of the artist in the main Brazilian press outlets, thus meeting the criteria for notoriety.
Could you help me with some advice on the page, please? Mtvdanilo (talk) 13:06, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for reviewing Draft: Yehuda Duenyas. After further review, I did remove some unnecessary prose and opinion. I have resubmitted the article if you care to take another look at it. BTW: this is a PAID article, my disclosure is on the talk pages.
I checked it and there is no paid disclosure at the draft? You should add it as a comment at the draft. Apart from that, Career is still not relevant. There are no notable works added there but it reads like WP:SYNTH. Details about separate subjects including a person's work which are not having enough notability on their own are not usually meant for WP:BLP. Shorten the Career section and if possible, add Awards and nominations in a table indicating winnings/nominations. Emmy is a notable award and it may contribute to the notability. HilssaMansen19Irien1291S• spreading wiki love ~ Message here; no calls20:55, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you HilssaMansen19, the paid declaration is at Draft_talk:Yehuda_Duenyas and on my profile page as required by my most recent reading of WP:PAID policy. My reading of WP:BIO and WP:N is that the subject of the article must be notable, claims need only be verifiable from neutral reliable second party sources. I don't know where people get the idea that simple factual claims need to pass WP:N. I do like your suggestion to put the awards in a table tho. Thanks Again! Apriltools (talk) 21:20, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for reviewing this draft. He meets criteria 1 of WP:NPROF. His work has been cited 7000 times according to Scopus. I have now added this information along with the Scopus link to the draft. I have also removed all the primary sources for the research section and added secondary sources. I have now resubmitted the draft for review.HRShami (talk) 08:53, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you wish to continue reviewing the draft but need more time before the bot returns it to the review queue, you can place {{bots|deny=TenshiBot}} on the draft so you can continue your review. Also, if you do not want to receive these notifications, you can place the same template on your talk page. TenshiBot (talk) 09:39, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I noticed the concerns you raised regarding SheriffIsInTown's edits at Talk:2025_India–Pakistan_conflict#False_flag. I'd recommend that if you have concerns along these lines, please open a case at either WP:AE or WP:ANI (my recommendation: with a bit more evidence in hand first). Beyond the standard mantra of "focus on content, not conduct" on article talk pages, the context of the complaints being in a section that is primarily about a dispute regarding a different claim means that it is highly unlikely that they will be taken up as-is, and there's a good chance that they'll accidentally derail the content discussion. If your intent was to simply bring this to SheriffIsInTown's attention rather than escalating directly to a report for admin review, I would recommend using user talk pages for such purposes. signed, Rosguilltalk15:04, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
After checking their continuous puff non-npov edits, I simply raised it to understand their pov. Rather than replying, they, SheriffIsInTown went on to edit/shift my comment without any discussion. Can you take a look at this -
[2] This edit is alone enough to raise an ANI right? This is basic Wiki definition of COI-non-NPOV-SYNTH.
I'm not seeing an issue with those edits in isolation--looking primarily at the first one that you identified as being particularly problematic, it looks like the claims are backed up by the cited sources. It may nevertheless be undue, or otherwise part of a broader pattern of editing that is problematic, but that diff by itself doesn't immediately demonstrate such issues. Generally speaking, to demonstrate problematic behavior meriting sanctions, you would need to demonstrate that there was a prior talk page discussion that these edits clearly contravene, or else that they're totally beyond the pale (e.g. clear fabrications, using obviously terrible sources that anyone should recognize are inadmissible on Wikipedia regardless of personal POV, etc.). Having a POV isn't sanctionable; ignoring consensus and/or best editing practices in favor of a POV is what is sanctionable. signed, Rosguilltalk16:44, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Thanks for participating in the Articles for Creation June Backlog Drive! We've done amazing work so far, dropping the backlog by more than 2000 drafts already. We have around 2900 drafts outstanding, and we need your help to get that down to zero in 5 days. We can do this, but we need all hands on deck to make this happen. A list of the pending drafts can be found at WP:AFCSORT, where you can select submissions in your area of interest. Thank you so much for your work so far, and happy reviewing! – DreamRimmer■01:32, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We have completed a full rewrite of the "Finestre sull'Arte" draft, carefully addressing the concerns raised during the review process.
In particular:
- All promotional or non-encyclopedic language (including peacock terms and mission-style statements) has been removed.
- Each statement has been revised for neutrality and is now supported by reliable, independent sources (per WP:RS).
- The structure has been adjusted to match the standard encyclopedic format used for organizations.
We would also like to mention that equivalent versions of this article (translated into Italian, Spanish, German, and French) have been accepted on their respective Wikipedias without similar issues being raised.
We are available for any further adjustments if needed.
Thank you for your time and for your work as a volunteer reviewer. BobNemo24 (talk) 12:22, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your contributions to Bimbat (subcaste). Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability.
I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.
This is awarded to HilssaMansen19 for accumulating more than 200 points during the June 2025 AfC backlog drive. Your dedication and sustained efforts in reducing the backlog and contributions to Wikipedia's content review process are sincerely appreciated. Thank you for your participation! ~/Bunnypranav:<ping>13:22, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by JesusisGreat7 was:
Your draft shows signs of having been generated by a large language model, such as ChatGPT. Their outputs usually have multiple issues that prevent them from meeting our guidelines on writing articles. These include:
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Bagh Singh Hallowalia and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
Hello, HilssaMansen19!
Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! JesusisGreat7☾⋆ | Ping Me18:14, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@JesusisGreat7 I don't think there is any part of the draft that may feel like LLM creation as you can check it's history very easily. It has been added and edited for several days word to word by me. As a reviewer, that comment is vague and incomprehensible per the policies as it fits well in the criterias to be accepted with properly attributed sources and data. Kindly take a look at it's history as I removed almost any grammatical errors or others to make it a perfectly attributed and well written article in multiple days of work. Thanks! HilssaMansen19Irien1291S• spreading wiki love ~ Message here; no calls18:26, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @HilssaMansen19, I am an AfC reviewer! I don't believe that LLM is an issue, rather the references you have used in Draft:Bagh Singh Hallowalia only provide trivial mentions. Basically, Hallowalia is only mentioned very briefly in the sources you have provided. Unfortunately, this means that this individual is likely not notable enough for their own article. I hope this information is helpful for you! Happy editing! 11WB (talk) 21:19, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by 11wallisb was:
This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:
in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
The comment the reviewer left was:
The references you have used only provide trivial mentions to the individual. They are only mentioned very briefly in the sources you have provided. Unfortunately, this means that this individual is likely not notable enough for their own article.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Bagh Singh Hallowalia and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
@11wallisb There is notability and it passes the WP:NBASIC. Each fact and data mentioned is attributed by the sources. We are talking about a historical figure and with several mentions in various sources we can build up notability. There are various facts that should be considered including the subject's historical role as a warrior and leader in History of Sikhism. Other than being uncle of another historical figure,
Another Important part of Sikh history: Left under care of Mata Sundari, incharge of Sikh affairs as a guide in those times and brought Jassa Singh Ahluwalia back from Delhi to Punjab and detailed account added (s)
Established: Hallowal (s)
Took control of entire Doaba and became a prominent military commander or leader of Sikhs (s)
Died/martyred while fighting Mughal forces (s)
All are sources in significant and small mentions but all in all verifies all the facts and meets WP:GNG.
Thank you for your message. Unfortunately, from my review yesterday, this currently isn't the case. You are an extended confirmed user, so you do have the ability to bypass AfC and move the draft straight to mainspace. Of course doing this would be very ill advised and would run the high likelihood of your article being sent to WP:AfD (which is what AfC helps to avoid). It is your decision, however at this current time I don't believe the individual in your draft is notable enough to be accepted through AfC. 11WB (talk) 16:11, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have also been active in AfC reviewing and previously, had some issues with Sandbox. I just wrote while letting the process work. I still don't see how "trivial mentions" as you reviewed is accurate. The previous review seems to be a series of such unwarranted reviews by the editor by claiming LLM and many discussions have been going on at their talk page. I perfectly quoted several more quotes from scholarly works. Just so you are aware that any article would need these Three best sources as that is the general practice of reviewing may or may not be followed by many. AfC or mainspace is not an issue here as the sources added here discuss all the events as quoted about the subject. NBASIC and apparently all GNG criterias met. SIGCOV as in many sources is there and about multiple events point to point. So that AfC review is improper and not even carefully done as quotes the references would have been contradicting your review before you wrote that whether checked or not @11wallisb that is a major issue here. HilssaMansen19Irien1291S• spreading wiki love ~ Message here; no calls16:27, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you believe that Hallowalia is notable then you are more than welcome to resubmit! I completely respect that you have taken the time to write and research sources for this, so at any point you feel the draft is ready for a new review then that is open to you as an option! I can see that another editor has opened an AfD for one of your other articles, whilst not strictly necessary, I am interested to see how consensus forms nevertheless. Happy editing! 11WB (talk) 16:47, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, it appears someone else opened that AfD! I can see you have given a detailed response, which is encouraged! I wish you the best of luck with this! (I didn't immediately differentiate their message with yours, I apologise for this!) 11WB (talk) 16:57, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bhajan Singh Walia until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
Hi @HilssaMansen19Irien1291S:, I’ve made the changes you suggested to *Draft:Guy Gugliotta*, removing primary sources and replacing with a few additional reviews/notable secondary sources. Could you please review it when you have a chance? My thanks to you and the other wiki editors for your patient help ~~~~ Portia3201 (talk) 12:25, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Portia3201, I just checked it. Thank you for your work. Can you also do the following?
Thank you. This has been a learning process. I really do appreciate all of the support I have gotten from the editors and the fact that you all have been so accessible and patient.
Nice to meet you and it's my pleasure to guide you. You have been very patient and positive about the entire AfC reviewing process. I have shortened the career section and intro as per prior mentions. When you find some RSs, you can always add it back. Best Regards, HilssaMansen19Irien1291S• spreading wiki love ~ Message here; no calls13:02, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I combed and fixed. The learning continues! (started out as a copy editor in the paleolithic age, so I believe I am getting there). Thanks again. Portia3201 (talk) 15:34, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @HilssaMansen19 thanks for your feedback on my Draft: Annie Minogue Band.
Please could you help me with which sources you advise are not verifiable enough?
And then regarding the style and tone, could you point me to where this is incorrect? I have read through the links you shared, but I am a bit confused as to WHAT doesn't align. I have removed gender references under history, by changing daughter to child, and removing the sentence after that, as I didn't feel it was necessary anyway.
Please help guide me to what else I can change or remove to get this approved?
Thanks for reaching out. Firstly, the references are insufficient other than the award one and more review or announcements on reliable sources are needed. Next, check how an article should be divided per Wikipedia:Manual of Style. The entire article is in one section rather than separate sections as you have used sub sections for them. Just check articles like Got7 or Coldplay and copyedit per that style! Best regards, HilssaMansen19Irien1291S• spreading wiki love ~ Message here; no calls04:03, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @HilssaMansen19 thanks for the feedback. With regards to the references, I did ask on the Wiki chat page about all of those, and I was advised that ALLmusic is an acceptable reference for Wikipedia, and I was also told that the others are ok? So I have left these as is for now, as I don't have any other outside sources that can be used effectively here?
I have resturctured the page to align with the examples you gave me, so I hope that it is more in line with Wikipedia standards?
Sure, what I meant was you need to make the draft appear to be an article itself. First of all please remove section with band name and divide it in sections not in subsections. == Section == and === are subsections ===. They are fine as one is a magazine print, award, album release or lists but as I said, more are needed. Insufficient to determine notability on that but they do build up some notability. I am preoccupied with work but can you find more sources even newspaper/any print mentions or reviews on their albums or certifications? It would be a great for the article to stop it from being deleted even if accepted. HilssaMansen19Irien1291S• spreading wiki love ~ Message here; no calls10:42, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead and submit it if you believe it's ready now. As I have previously declined and we have this conversation, it would be best if another reviewer determines to accept it or not. I will help you edit it later as I am already involved in the improvement here. There are some minor changes needed, I will help you do it. HilssaMansen19Irien1291S• spreading wiki love ~ Message here; no calls10:40, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much @HilssaMansen19 I have resubmitted. Can you only make changes to the article if it is approved? Or are you able to make edits to my draft?
I surely understand that too long review is quite frustrating when you submit a well written article. It takes time and hopefully, will be done sooner. One of my drafts after 2 not-properly-checked reviews is still pending for nearly 2 months now, idk. I would have reviewed yours again but as I am an editor there myself, it will not be right. What you can do is - find any active reviewer or admin doing reviews in related fields and request it on their talk page. All the best! HilssaMansen19Irien1291S• spreading wiki love ~ Message here; no calls14:27, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @HilssaMansen19 I hope you are well. I am writing to you as you have been the only Wikipedia editor thus far that has been helpful with my article, and given me constructive feedback. I did some research earlier today, and decided to try publishing my article to the mainspace myself, which I see now was the incorrect way to go about this. Another editor has now flagged it for AfD - see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annie_Minogue_Band
Is it possible for you to respond on that discussion thread to motivate for my article Annie Minogue Band?
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by 11wallisb was:
This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:
in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
The comment the reviewer left was:
Editing has been done to this draft since the last decline, however the issues regarding trivial mentions remain. I would advise the author to include page numbers on the inline citations so that reviewers know exactly where to look when checking the sources. These would work much better than the lengthy quotes that the author has added instead. This is a well researched draft, however notability is still not definitive and the issues regarding the inline citations mean this draft is not yet ready to be accepted.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Bagh Singh Hallowalia and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
You have recently edited a page related to the region of South Asia (India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal), broadly construed, including but not limited to history, politics, ethnicity, and social groups, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia's norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
Additionally, you must be logged in, have 500 edits, and have an account age of 30 days in order to make edits related to two subtopics: (1) Indian military history, or (2) social groups, explicitly including caste associations and political parties related to India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal.
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.
Hi @HilssaMansen19
I trust you are well. I see that my article Annie Minogue Band has now been deleted. I wanted to find out if it is possible firstly to recover the previous article contents to start creating a new draft?
And secondly, would it be possible for you to help me write the draft better, to try get the article approved?
Or, do you recommend we start a new article on Annie Minogue as a person rather, instead of the band?
I would appreciate some advice and guidance here.
~~ Van1985 (talk) 07:12, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
I am doing well and I hope you are too. I have been busy in work. As for the draft, to appeal, it would be better to ask the closing admin/non-admin. In this case, it is OwenX, an admin. It would not be much helpful if you rewrite it without securing more sources to help prove the band's notability. Try checking for an article on Annie Minogue and a sub-section about the band can be made with redirecting the deleted draft to it "later", if the article gets accepted and an admin accepts the appeal. The focus should be only on the subject that is Annie Minogue. HilssaMansen19Irien1291S• spreading wiki love ~ Message here; no calls11:52, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply.
So are you saying that I should ask this admin, OwenX, if it would be acceptable to create an article on Annie Minogue and So should I appeal for my draft of Annie Minogue Band to be brought back into draft space, is that what you are saying?
And then to try in the meantime to create an article on Annie Minogue that could then link to the Annie Minogue Band article at a later stage if it is approved?
In terms of creating a new article for Annie Minogue, is it best to create this in the mainspace, or start with a draft? I don't want to risk it being deleted like my last one - what are your thoughts on the notability?
Ask for closing admin on how to rework on the Band article or save it and present your case. For Annie Minogue, you can write that article with or without asking but for notability, find sources to meet Wikipedia:NSINGER. You can also ask for help in Wikiproject on notable Women. Women in Red, that is here. Hope it helps! I will not be active often for some time, have some work! HilssaMansen19Irien1291S• spreading wiki love ~ Message here; no calls15:09, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Before adding a category to an article, as you did to Walia, please make sure that the subject of the article really belongs in the category that you specified according to Wikipedia's categorization guidelines. The category being added must already exist, and must be supported by the article's verifiable content. Categories may be removed if they are deemed incorrect for the subject matter. Please don't overcategorize pages SMasonGarrison 13:18, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. 37.111.159.180 (talk) 21:22, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
