User talk:Qcne/Archives/2025/September

Hi Qcne. Thank you for your work on Prime Minister Internship Scheme. Another editor, SunDawn, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thank you for creating the article! Have a blessed day!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ Contact me! 01:55, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Qcne, I've updated the draft and fixed the dead links. Could you please take a look and provide any further feedback that may need to be done to be compliant and within wiki standards.

draft:Heath Miller (promoter) - Wikipedia Noparking9 (talk) 14:50, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Noparking9. Of the sources in your draft, which three (and only three) are your strongest? They should each be from reliable publications, independent of Heath (very specifically NOT interviews), and devote significant transformational coverage to him. qcne (talk) 21:12, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

I think these but tell me if you feel otherwise. I'm looking for some other references as well. https://news.pollstar.com/2025/06/06/billy-mcfarlands-last-chance-honduras-pop-up-fyre-fest-backed-by-concert-industry-vet/

https://www.billboard.com/pro/webster-hall-interview-pollstar-nightclub-of-the-year-nomination-2016/

https://www.nylon.com/articles/lorde-robyn-ally-coalition-talent-showNoparking9 (talk) 21:41, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

There is a video with Jack Antonoff confirming a lot of details as well, although Heath is in the video with Jack. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSYcg9LXcLU&t=61s Noparking9 (talk) 21:45, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

this one, although not as wellknown as the 3 other publications, give a lot of great information. He is quoted but it is not in interview form.

https://starsandscars.com/feature-story-heath-miller-president-excess-db-entertainment/ Noparking9 (talk) 01:40, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Noparking9.

1. The first, is a little too much of an interview with Miller.
2. The second is an interview.
3. The third just looks to be a Tweet embed?
4. The starsandscars is good - it is an interview but does have enugh independent analysis for it to meet our "independent" criteria. Do you have any more like this?

qcne (talk) 20:02, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2025).

Administrator changes

Euryalus

• Admrboltz
• FloNight
• Floquenbeam
• Ganeshk
• JesseW
• Night Gyr
• Nixdorf

Interface administrator changes

Ragesoss

CheckUser changes

AmandaNP

SQL

Oversight changes

AmandaNP

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC is open on whether use of emojis with no encyclopedic value in mainspace and draftspace (e.g., at the start of paragraphs or in place of bullet points) should be added as a criterion under G15.

Technical news

• Administrators can now access the Special:BlockedExternalDomains page from the Special:CommunityConfiguration list page. This makes it easier to find. T393240

Arbitration

• The arbitration case Article titles and capitalisation 2 has been closed.
• An RfC is in progress to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the Arbitration Committee election and resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.

I resubmitted that draft^[a] in the hope of figuring out if any changes made to it since May^[b] would still be insufficient for the draft to be accepted. If that was still the case, I was expecting yet another decline, not for additional chances to be revoked. If I had precognitively known that resubmitting would doom the draft in this manner, I wouldn't have bothered to do so, and I wouldn't owe an apology to the other editors who worked on it.

– MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 11:16, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi @MrPersonHumanGuy. Since you've stubified the draft I have no issue in undoing the rejection. We will see what other reviewers think. qcne (talk) 13:14, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello! I would like to discuss the recent declining of my Joey Drew Studios draft. While I understand the need for independent sources for reliability, the sources provided from Twitter that are presented are from the owners of Joey Drew Studios themselves, therefore they should be reliable. Furthermore, most of those announcements are only made on Twitter, so there aren't any other sources that can be provided for the information cited, which are all correct to be clear. KawaiiCat (talk) 23:45, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi @KawaiiCat77. I think though that the draft goes into way too much detail about the history of the company, and because most of this detail is sourced to primary Twitter posts, it isn't that suitable to Wikipedia. What's the draft like if you cut it right down to only the stuff sourced by secondary sources? Remember: a Wikipedia article is supposed to be mostly a summary of secondary sources, with primary sources only used in a limited way. It's currently really difficult to tell if the company meets our criteria for inclusion: cut it right down to the essentials that are sourced to secondary sources, then let me know and I can take another look. qcne (talk) 11:18, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Alright, I have removed the Twitter sources and the information that were cited from them. If there's anything else that should be removed, please let me know. KawaiiCat (talk) 13:28, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi again @KawaiiCat77. I am really sorry, but I am just not seeing the sources that prove this company meets Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies):

1. You have Reddit posts, we can't cite social media really.
2. You have some primary sources i.e. business registration.
3. You have a few press releases and churnalism.
4. Of the news media sources, they discuss the game but not the company.

What I'd be looking for is three strong sources that are from mainstream, reputable gaming journalists that devote significant transformational coverage to the company itself, specifically not based on interviews with staff or regurgitating press releases. But, you have none of those.

It's pretty common for a product to meet our criteria for inclusion (i.e. Bendy and the Ink Machine) but not the company. So far, you've not shown the company does I am afraid.

Happy to have further look if you find any stronger sources. qcne (talk) 13:56, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	'Ello, thanks for your awesome userpage AfC guide and all you do at WP:AFC and WP:AFCHD! Cheers - GoldRomean (talk) 22:16, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! qcne (talk) 09:04, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi. Could you please check this version. Draft:Amadeusz Małkowski, it's improved. You could also change the name to: Madis (musician).

Zalasem1 (talk) 15:40, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Zalasem1. Unfortunately you still have not proven that this person meets Wikipedia:Notability (music). We need multiple (minimum of three) independent sources that are not based off interviews with him, that devote significant critical review to his work. qcne (talk) 18:03, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Regarding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Celeste_Jessin

Despite limited mainstream news coverage, the cybersecurity community widely recognizes "vmfunc" for impactful vulnerability research (notably CVE-2024-45489 in Arc browser), open-source tool development (SIF framework), and acknowledgments from major industry organizations (like vx-underground and Supabase). This track record demonstrates notable influence in the security industry outside of media sources and makes inclusion on Wikipedia both justified and valuable.

Whiteleaves (talk) 20:39, 15 September 2025 (UTC).

I have also edited the article adding more reliable sources and evidence.

20:41, 15 September 2025 (UTC). Whiteleaves (talk) 20:41, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Whiteleaves. If you remove all the social media sources and all the primary sources... what are you left with? Only a few sources that discusses the exploit, not really the researcher.

We have specific criteria, and the AI chatbot generated reply above does not show evidence they meet that criteria. qcne (talk) 20:50, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Oh wow, it’s surprising and a bit offensive of you to dismiss my message as an "AI chatbot" especially given the amount of manual research and effort I’ve put into improving and sourcing this draft....

Regarding the criteria the difficulty is that current coverage for security figures like Jessin often comes through technical reports, responsible disclosure records, and recognition from respected organizations which aren’t always the traditional media profiles but still represent real notability in the field. Major outlets like The Verge and ZDNet discuss the work tied to Jessin and/or made by them even if they focus more on the exploits than the biography, they still attribute technical discovery and impact.

If the expectation is only legacy media profiles focused entirely on the person, then yes, many modern technical contributors whose primary recognition comes from impact, innovation, and independent validation will get sidelined. Just search for their username on platforms like X and others, and see how much recognition they get from professionals in the field.. including people like John Hammond.

That simply doesn’t reflect the actual way notability is established in cybersecurity. The sources cited here are the most authoritative available for people in this space. Dismissing all industry and technical publication as "primary" or "social" undervalues real recognition.

So first of all....... yes, I am a human editor, and I believe the draft as revised genuinely meets Wikipedia’s intent for WP:NPERSON even if it challenges older standards for what counts as a source.

21:05, 15 September 2025 (UTC). Whiteleaves (talk) 21:05, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

If you didn't use ChatGPT to write that first paragraph, then I apologise - but it is written exactly like an AI chatbot would write it (100% probability AI generated on GPTZero!).

Wikipedia has policies and guidelines which we have to follow when reviewing articles. These aren't perfect, and do sometimes exclude non-traditional media sources. But we still have to follow them. You are free to try and build consensus to improve and change our policies and guidelines: start at Wikipedia:Village pump.

But, if following Wikipedia:Notability (people), I see no evidence in your sources that this person meets the criteria set out in that page. If you disagree: point out what specific criteria you think this person meets?

What we are looking for is some sort of transformative in-depth coverage from mainstream reliable journalists. If sources like that don't exist, then an article is not possible at this time. It might simply be too early in their career for those sources to exist. And that's fine: the vast majority of ethical hackers don't warrant an article on Wikipedia due to a lack of sources. It's not personal.

This doesn't preclude an article being made in the future when sources might appear.

Hope that helps, but let me know if you have further questions. qcne (talk) 21:15, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

no AI was used in writing my submission or responses... that tone you mentioned is just my personal style, i get that it can read a bit like an algorithm, but it’s honestly just how I type lol

I believe that post does meet the significant coverage in reliable independent sources albeit in ways typical for technical fields. Once again there's coverage in major industry media directly linking the Arc browser vulnerability to Jessin’s research and public communications. These outlets profile both the exploit and the discoverers, naming them and collaborators as the technical sources. For this sector coverage about the impact and the individual's role is how professional notability is established; even if the article doesn't read like a typical biographical profile, it’s recognition by mainstream media for pivotal work.

Furthermore, vx-underground’s endorsement is third-party and notable within the cybersecurity world, they themselves have a Wikipedia article and are considered a trusted authority. Same goes for other sources.. Supabase’s official blog is an external corporate source, not a self-publication, and that does account in the criteria for notability.

If you take those corporate posts into account, those news articles, and the fact that they have been recognized through existing notable figures, that's already much more than the "3 reliable sources" policy we have on Wikipedia.

Cybersecurity figures are routinely recognized through impactful discovery, responsible disclosure, and third-party acknowledgment from highly reputable sources. If the standard is exclusively long-form, personal journalist profiles, entire generations of technical experts and ethical hackers remain unrepresented—despite their verifiable influence.

Like..... Jessin is credited in several major outlets for a widely discussed critical vulnerability, has open source tools used across the community, and has acknowledged by industry leaders and collectives for years.. I do believe that that is substantial niche notability. Seriously, just check social media and you will see for yourself.

I genuinely believe that while it may feel early in terms of traditional media attention the scale and quality of recognition Jessin has received surpass typical thresholds for the field. It would strengthen Wikipedia’s coverage of cybersecurity by reflecting how contemporary notability works in our space. There are other published articles about people with much less impact on the cybersecurity field. This person has been one of the most talked about and prominent researchers in the security community for well over a year and a half.

If consensus stays with traditional profiles, then so be it, but I’d argue sources here are the best available, and do establish real recognition. Please consider this context in reviewing the draft. Appreciate ya keeping the door open for consideration.

Whiteleaves (talk) 21:29, 15 September 2025 (UTC).

Hi @Whiteleaves. Thanks for the detailed message. Unfortunately I still disagree. The current draft doesn't show the sigcov that we need as part of our Wikipedia:Notability (people) guideline. Endorsements and social-media attention are generally not acceptable to demonstrate notability, and notability is not inherited from a notable org or a widely covered vulnerability. Looking at the examples you provided..

1. vx-underground’s Twitter post: just a really short endorsement without any critical analysis.
2. Supabase's blog: I can't actually see that Celeste is mentioned in this source. Eva, another ethical hacker is. They seem to be different people?

I think you can make a good case that the exploit, CVE-2024-45489, could merit an article- and then Celeste could have a shorter section within that article that discuses. Could that be a compromise for now? qcne (talk) 09:21, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello, who do I contact to give a retired payroll number to so my property tax continues to be paid by my retired payroll. --Maudy McConnell (talk) 10:05, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Maudy McConnell - I am afraid you are on Wikipedia which is an online encyclopaedia and has nothing to do with property taxes in Ireland. We simply have an article on the subject, like you would find in a paper encyclopaedia.

Please visit the Ireland Gov website who will be able to direct you. qcne (talk) 11:05, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

I am curious what this user did to create such a detailed heading. It doesn't look like it was manually generated. Is there a button or page that does that? ~Anachronist (talk) 16:22, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

@Anachronist It's the automatic heading when a Mentee asks their Mentor a question as part of Wikipedia:Growth_Team_features#Mentorship. qcne (talk) 16:27, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Ah. OK. I thought there might be an "Ask me a question" button I could put on my talk page. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:09, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Oh, now I am not so sure - I just did a test Mentor question and it didn't have the heading.. qcne (talk) 18:15, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

@Anachronist We think it's part of WP:Growth Team features#Help panel. qcne (talk) 09:09, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps, that could be it. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:11, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I'm reaching out regarding my draft Departmental sports in Pakistan. You had previously declined it, and I've since worked on fixing the issues you noted. The draft was declined again, but I believe there is significant in depth coverage in reliable sources that establishes notability (e.g. this article from Dawn, and remaining citations). Would you be able to take another look and share your thoughts.

Regards JayFT047 (talk) 14:34, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi @JayFT047. I think this is fine. I have accepted it for you. qcne (talk) 14:45, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Qcne. As I am in the queue for my AFC Draft:Penta Security, I was reading through other's AFCs, and saw your comments really helpful. I was wondering if you can take some time (not much!) to help with my draft. Thanks! Gedww00 (talk) 03:50, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Gedww00. I don't read Korean so this might be difficult. But what would you say are the three (and only three) strongest sources from your Ref List? They should each be from reliable publications, independent of Penta (very specifically not interviews with staff, press releases, or churnalism), and devote significant transformational coverage to the company with some sort of critical analysis, review, discussion, etc. qcne (talk) 09:06, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi, @Qcne!

I would say...

1: D'Hoinne, Jeremy; Hils, Adam; Isoda, Yuichi; Kaur, Rajpreet. "Asia/Pacific Context: 'Magic Quadrant for Web Application Firewalls'". Gartner. Retrieved 2025-08-20.

This is a research from Gartner, a reputational critical analysis research firm, that covered Penta. The report covers 16 companies that provides Web Application Firewall, and Penta Security is mentioned as one of it, giving a very deep insight of the products and the company itself.

2: 장, 유미 (2024-12-09). "펜타시큐리티, 27년 만에 새 옷 입었다... "글로벌 경쟁력 강화"". ZDNET Korea (in Korean).

This is a news for ZDNET Korea, published in both its ZDNET site and also in Naver News. I would consider these as to be reliable and independent, secondary source. The news mainly focuses on how Penta went over a brand renewal. If you are not familiar with Korean, you can try Google Translate, and you will be able to see that it tells only how Penta is doing. Also, just in case you might think this is an interview, I would not consider as so since only a 'quote' is embedded on the last line to prove the news.

3: Park, Eeunju (2025-01-15). "펜타시큐리티, '클라우드브릭'으로 글로벌·B2C 사업 키운다" [Penta Security, Cloudbric's Global·B2C Market Rise]. Boan News.

This is a news from Boan News, one of the largest business security news platform in Korea, so meets notability. It tells the news of how one of its brand: 'Cloudbric' is expanding its business to B2C. This was a big news in Korean cybersecurity market, as Penta was the largest (in market-share and notability) cybersecurity B2B company and is heading to B2C.

Would this be enough? If you need more explanations of Korean sources please feel free to ask. Gedww00 (talk) 00:02, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Gedww00. Thanks for these. My concern with the last two is that they are churnalism- it's really just the reporter regurgitating what Penta has said in a press release. There isn't much independent analysis there. You can tell because both sources include stuff like "announced", or "said". Got any sources that give some independent analysis of the company? qcne (talk) 14:20, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Oh, sure. If that is the case, I would choose two analysis from Frost & Sullivan : link1, link2, link3

Frost&Sullivan is a reputational business analysis/consulting firm that published reports of Penta. It mentions one of its core product, and in the pdf it gives a very deep research of what they are.

Secondly, I can mention another analysis done by Gartner: link. Just like the first Gartner source it mentions Penta as one of the magic quadrant.

I hope these will pass the guidelines. Thanks for the continuous help. Gedww00 (talk) 00:04, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks @Gedww00. I think that just squeaks by notability. I have accepted. Please add some Wikipedia:Categorization! qcne (talk) 09:08, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your time and help. I'll add more categories and sources. Hope you have a great day! Gedww00 (talk) 01:30, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi User:Qcne, you reviewed Draft:Flowbox (software) a little over a month ago. I’ve made significant changes since, but it was declined again. I’m not asking for a re-review; I’ll resubmit after fixes. If you have a moment, could you point to any lines that still read promotional or any sources that don’t meet WP:SIGCOV/WP:ORG? I have been recieving conflicting opinions from other editors and reviewers. COI: I’m connected to the subject. Thanks! FactThread (talk) 09:03, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi @FactThread. I think the prose is pretty much okay now, I don't detect any promotional language. The issue is perhaps more that a lot of your sources are press releases (which are inherently adverts). Have you read Wikipedia:CORPDEPTH which outlines the types of sources we need? qcne (talk) 09:48, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi qcne,

Thanks for reviewing my article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:The_Canadian_Brewhouse, I took your advice removed unverified content. I did a lot of research to properly craft an article now. You had mentioned to only use third party sources, is it okay if I use The Canadian Brewhouse's website as a source for the number of locations? That's the only part I used it in. Hopefully the article is up to standard now!

Thanks, Rockymountain13 (talk) 23:55, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)

I looked at it. No problem using the company's website to verify the number of locations. The second source (Forbes profile) doesn't qualify as significant coverage, the third source is definitely churnalism, and the last source also gives the impression of churnalism, though not as strong. You basically have zero (or at most one) source that is reliable, independent, and gives significant coverage, which isn't sufficient.

You need to find two or three WP:Golden rule sources first before you even start writing an article. If you can't, then don't spend more time on it. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:05, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Good afternoon, @Qcne. I hope all is well.

I have made corrections to the page that I'm creating as per your request. I streamlined the page and have sent it for review.

I'm curious, if a notable musician has made contributions as long standing member of a popular band, but doesn't do a lot of publicity from reliable sources (based on the Wikipedia guidelines) does that prevent them from having their own page despite them being recognized by Wikipedia as a member of that band? MADANI360 (talk) 00:31, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi @MADANI360. On Wikipedia we have a special definition of "notable". It doesn't mean "famous" or "well known": think of notable to mean noted in multiple reliable secondary sources. Your draft currently has no evidence of that- the single source is just a few quotes from Touré.

A Wikipedia article is meant to be a summary of reliable mostly secondary sources, so, yes - if there are no secondary sources that discuss the musician then there can be no article.

Hope that makes sense? Let me know if you have more questions. qcne (talk) 09:51, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Good afternoon, @Qcne. Happy TGIF!

Thank you so much for the quick response. I greatly appreciate it. So, if I understand this correctly, the notable musician needs to have more than 1 reliable source which discusses the individual with the facts that are being shared on their Wikipedia page? If so, does this include their discography and/or simple facts such as they are a member of a group that is cited in reliable sources and no Wikipedia? MADANI360 (talk) 20:03, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

• ...reliable sources and ON Wikipeda MADANI360 (talk) 20:04, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

  @MADANI360 Not quite (but don't worry, it's complicated).

  There are a few criteria that make musicians automatically allowed to have an article. Things like a certified gold record, a single on the top 100 of a country's charts, a Grammy, etc.

  Because DJ Touré doesn't have any of those, I have to default to the first criteria, which is 1. Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician.

  Therefore to prove he meets that 1. criteria, we need to see for example three or more mainstream music journalists that discuss/review/analyse his music in an in-depth way, but not based off an interview.

  This excludes things like Discgogs, AllMusic, Spotify which just verifies that Touré created music, but doesn't prove that above 1. criteria. It also excludes things like his personal website, interviews he's done, press releases etc.

  If you can't find three sources that are in-depth, reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician then it's a good indicator that the musician doesn't yet meet our criteria so cannot have an article at this time.

  Hope that makes sense. qcne (talk) 20:13, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

  Ah I see. Thank you for being patient with me on this. If I understand this correctly:

  • If he had the RIAA certified awards or was found on the top 100 of any music chart this wouldn't be an issue.
  • Regarding #1: "we need to see for example three or more mainstream music journalists that discuss/review/analyse his music in an in-depth way, but not based off an interview."
    • Does this mean these 3-4 articles should be a discussion of his music only and not interviews he's done? I'm interpreting this as these articles need to be a critical review that either analyzes his abilities or his projects.

  Am I understanding this correctly? MADANI360 (talk) 21:04, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

  Exactly - critical review of his music from a mainstream journalist (not just a random member of the public with a blog) is the type of source we're looking for. qcne (talk) 14:28, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Eu quero publicar as informações que eu tenho para compartilhar --David Eduardo da Silva Silveira (talk) 00:33, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

@David Eduardo da Silva Silveira Por favor, siga as instruções em https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_wizard qcne (talk) 11:18, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

thank you for reviewing my articles I am sorry it is not up to standard I'll work harder next time 👍 Hej, Tachanka from Nitra! (talk) 16:01, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Hej, Tachanka from Nitra!. No worries - writing an article is really difficult! I'd recommend having a read of the policy and guidelines overview page at Wikipedia:Everything you need to know qcne (talk) 20:05, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

thanks I will read this Hej, Tachanka from Nitra! (talk) 14:59, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi Qcne,

thank you for reviewing my draft and providing me with tips for correction. I do believe it to now be properly drafted and was wondering if the edited version was okay now? PolyRider (talk) 10:57, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi @PolyRider. Do none of your three sources have any online presence? qcne (talk) 14:31, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

They do not these news and magazine articles were before everything was put online. For example the Peoples Magazine source was published June 22, 1987 Vol. 27 No.25 this information is not online. PolyRider (talk) 14:57, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. That is fine but will make it harder for reviewers to assess. I suggest you re-submit for review. qcne (talk) 15:21, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Coptic language on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 02:31, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Jymboy (talk) 18:13, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Jymboy. You have a draft at Draft:Nyanzi Martin Luther (Ugandan Teen Entrepreneur) which you have not submitted for review. It is written in a promotional tone, so you must re-write it before submitting it for review. Please carefully read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. qcne (talk) 18:27, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Let me retry Jymboy (talk) 18:48, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Can any voluntee editor help me with that,wikifying the article and removing the information looking promotional,I have been making alot of research on the subject and am like tires, I kindly request anyone who can to help,all information is sourced from credible sources Jymboy (talk) 18:51, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

@Jymboy Unfortunately it is up to you, as the draft author, to write and research the topic of your draft. qcne (talk) 19:18, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

@Qcne ehhh, check the recent updates and give me feedback Jymboy (talk) 19:46, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

I have mad some changes to it but you also help me on that project I also want to have some good number of articles written on Wikipedia Jymboy (talk) 20:32, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Since 2008 Pooja Movie Creations Group actively working pan India Known for Tv Media House and Publicity Agency. This Group founded by Pooja Sharma, group provide these services all over India tv media, radio advertising , IPL advertising , Barter media House Poojamoviecreationsgroup (talk) 11:21, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Poojamoviecreationsgroup. That isn't a question? qcne (talk) 11:32, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

no its not breaching policy Poojamoviecreationsgroup (talk) 11:40, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

if anything need to change as per the Wikipedia policy we shall change Poojamoviecreationsgroup (talk) 11:40, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

@Poojamoviecreationsgroup Your username gives the impression you are representing a company. This is not permitted. You must request a change of username immediately by following the instructions at Wikipedia:Changing username. qcne (talk) 11:42, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi there, as the school's comms coordinator, I'm trying to fix the broken backlink from Wikipedia to a webpage that doesn't exist on our website anymore. I'm not sure how to do that. It's number 13 under the 'Notes' section. The correct link to our History section now is https://www.stmga.org/about/?tab=137#tool_539429 --StmCathSchool (talk) 15:53, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi there @StmCathSchool. Firstly, I am sorry to say, your username breaks our Username Policy because usernames must represent an individual and can not represent an organisation, school, or team. Please could you request a change of username at Wikipedia:Changing username.

Regarding your edit, I have made that change for you. qcne (talk) 18:40, 30 September 2025 (UTC)