User talk:Roast Etti

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

Your submission at Articles for creation: Naren J. Chitty (March 27)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by DoubleGrazing was:
This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
Mostly unreferenced.
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.
DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:34, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dear DoubleGrazing, Many thanks for having looked carefully at the draft. As you can see I have revised and resubmitted following (as far as I can tell) your guidelines. I am happy to undertake further edits as required. The main reason for this response is that following resubmission and change-of-status to draft has been resubmitted and is currently awaiting re-review, a message was received from a consultant at Wiki Submissions (from a 51 country code - Peru) offering free consultancy from experts in setting up the webpage. Please advise me if this is part of the standard Wiki process or something other. Best, Roast Etti Roast Etti (talk) 04:25, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, no that is most certainly not part of the standard process, and has nothing to do with Wikipedia. My advice would be to steer well clear of such offers, as you are likely to have your money taken and may not get anything in return. Or at least not anything that you couldn't do yourself for free. Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:13, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, Roast Etti! 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! DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:34, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Naren J. Chitty has a new comment

[edit]
I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Naren J. Chitty. Thanks! Cabrils (talk) 03:17, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Naren J. Chitty (August 14)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Tutwakhamoe was:
This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs to
Make sure your draft meets one of the criteria above before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If the subject does not meet any of the criteria, it is not suitable for Wikipedia.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
Relies exclusively on trivial mentions, entry on databases and contents published/co-published by the subject. Please include multiple significant coverage from reliable and independent sources to prove the subject's notability.
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.
Tutwakhamoe (talk) 02:18, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Naren J. Chitty

[edit]

Hello, Roast Etti. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Naren J. Chitty".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. ✗plicit 14:01, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wiki Editors,
Following feedback by Tutwakhamoe on 14 August 2023 and Cabrils on 8 August 2023  the entire draft was completely revised by me. There was no further feedback, but the draft was removed from Wiki Drafts early in 2024. I appealed and it was re-instated. Circa 27 May 2024 Following feedback by Tutwakhamoe on 14 August 2023 and Cabrils on 8 August 2023  the entire draft was completely revised by me. There was no further feedback, but the draft was removed from Wiki Drafts early in 2024. I appealed and it was re-instated. Circa 27 May 2024 WereSpellChequers noted having edited the article and that the author was to be informed. However, I have not received any feedback from WereSpellChequers. There is also a requirement to RESUBMIT and warning “that if the issues are not fixed, the draft will be declined again”. As I said feedback has not been provided. I look forward to receiving feedback if resubmission is required.
Thank you for your kind assistance. Roast Etti (talk) 13:00, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Naren J. Chitty (May 26)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Greenman was:
This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
External links should also be removed or converted to inline citations where appropriate. Please ensure any WP:COI is addressed.
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.
Greenman (talk) 10:13, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Naren J. Chitty (July 2)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by MediaKyle was:
This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.
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.
MediaKyle (talk) 23:00, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Naren J. Chitty (August 5)

[edit]
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 address these issues. The best way is usually to read reliable sources and summarize them, instead of using a large language model. See our help page on large language models.
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.
Jesus isGreat7 ☾⋆ | Ping Me 05:46, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
JesusisGreat7, Thank you for the feedback which was greatly appreciated.
I am a little confused by the different types of feedback received since I started on this project, for instance the following: "Holder of a named chair, editor of a notable journal, and member of the Order of Australia, so should pass WP:NACADEMIC. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:34, 2 July 2025 (UTC)".
The Order of Australia is a prestigious national award bestowed by the Head of State of Australia. Details of Professor Chitty's award are as follows, as listed on the Governor General's website:
"Professor Narendranath Jayantha CHITTY
Member of the Order of Australia
Carlingford, NSW
Post-nominals
AM
Awarded on
26th of January 2009
Award event
Australia Day 2009 Honours List
Citation
For service to education, particularly in the field of international communications as a researcher and academic, and to a range of professional associations."
One needs to search "Naren Chitty" at the following URL of the Governor General: https://honours.pmc.gov.au/honours/search?searchText=naren%20chitty
In seeking your valuable advice should I focus on fleshing out the following: "For service to education, particularly in the field of international communications as a researcher and academic, and to a range of professional associations" in the wiki draft?
By the way an LLM was not used. If you could let me know which link you thought was problematic and which statement appeared to be an LLM hallucination I will respond here so that these issues could be clarified.
I look forward to redrafting the piece based on your expert guidance. Roast Etti (talk) 03:57, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Naren J. Chitty (September 22)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Paul W were:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners. Thank you.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
Little significant coverage about Naren Chitty in the references provided (indeed, some - refs 5 and 6, for example - do not even mention him but just provide context). The article was a mish-mash of disjointed sections - I have tried to edit this into some kind of chronological order similar to biographies of other academics, but it needs more work, and it needs inline citations giving detailed profiles/background on Chitty in reliable independent secondary sources (more than just passing mentions).
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.
Paul W (talk) 14:22, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the useful feedback which I have tried to address. Roast Etti (talk) 04:49, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

[edit]
Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively as a sockpuppet of User:Breville33 per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Breville33. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.
Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.
Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.
asilvering (talk) 00:08, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]