User talk:Kalinators
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| This is Kalinators's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments. |
|
Your submission at Articles for creation: Kalin Stefanov (backgammon player) (June 3)
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Kalin Stefanov (backgammon player) 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.
- If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.
|
Hello, Kalinators!
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! Waqar💬 13:46, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
|
- Hello. Unfortunately this is not true. I have clearly posted the WBIF page of the youth championship where the Kalinator is a runner-up, as well as the article about the 2024 Geneva Open. Additionally I posted the article about BC Stuttgart where it is stated the club is the first pool-billiards club in Germany. And last but not least, multiple youtube videos additionally verify the truthfulness of the information. I will submit the article again, without editing anything, and I ask you for a more careful review or forwarding the review to a more experienced editor. Kalinators (talk) 14:02, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: Kalin Stefanov (backgammon player) (June 3)
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Kalin Stefanov (backgammon player) 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.
- If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.
- Hello Maliner, I will copypaste my answer to Mr. Waqar who rejected it a few minutes before you:
- Unfortunately this is not true. I have clearly posted the WBIF page of the youth championship where the Kalinator is a runner-up, as well as the article about the 2024 Geneva Open. Additionally I posted the article about BC Stuttgart where it is stated the club is the first pool-billiards club in Germany. And last but not least, multiple youtube videos additionally verify the truthfulness of the information. I will submit the article again, without editing anything, and I ask you for a more careful review or forwarding the review to a more experienced editor. Kalinators (talk) 14:13, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
June 2024
Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. VVikingTalkEdits 14:47, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
AfC notification: Draft:Kalin Stefanov (backgammon player) has a new comment
Your submission at Articles for creation: Kalin Stefanov (backgammon player) (July 22)
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Kalin Stefanov (backgammon player) 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.
- If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.
- Hello, last month we had the same discussion and you and another editor clearly approved sources 2 and 5. Source 1 is clearly independent, as it is a main media in Stuttgart reporting about me after noticing and inviting me for an interview. Could you please specify how exactly this is not independent?
- Also, your contradicting comment now compared to last month's clear approval of sources 2 and 5 are not very amusing. As to source 6, it later appeared, and once again, is clearly reporting on me as I am even on the headline. So you are trying to imply that the headline is a "passive mention"? Sorry, but stating this does not make sense. Kalinators (talk) 11:04, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- And forgot to note: You made no comment on sources 4 and 5 while they are the only ones that actually do not report about me, but are rather posted there to provide evidence about BC Stuttgart 1891. I am amused how you left no comment on these sources while criticising the sources clearly reporting about me. Kalinators (talk) 11:07, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Qcne
- Last month Qcne was the other editor who I communicated with and together with @DoubleGrazing approved sources 2 and 5. I was told that once a 3rd one is found, the article would be approved.
- Now this happened with Stuttgart Wochenblatt, so I reposted the article and DoubleGrazing was quick to reject it while contradicting with his own statements from last month. I resubmitted the draft and kindly ask @Qcne to review it himself and provide his comments. Thank you. Kalinators (talk) 11:10, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Firstly, can you stop being so adversarial about this. You don't have to attack reviewers just because you don't get your way. You're sailing pretty close to the wind in any case, since your only aim here seems to be self-promotion, so you should really want to work with reviewers, not against them.
- Secondly, you don't get to dictate who does or doesn't review the draft. If Qcne is happy to do that, by all means, but if someone else gets there first, you really shouldn't have a problem with that.
- Thirdly, I can see that you've just resubmitted the draft following my review, without any attempt at improving it (and not for the first time, either). This is a sure-fire way to get your draft rejected, so I would advise against it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:20, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Now, I don't recall ever "approving" any sources, and it also doesn't look to me like the current sources #2 and 5 were even there when I last reviewed this, so I'm not sure what you're referring to there.
- And no, #1 is not independent, because it simply says what you've told the publication.
- Whether you are "on the headline" or not is immaterial; that is not the definition of significant coverage, which is what we require. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:22, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- @DoubleGrazing Yes, they weren't there in the first time of review. I sent them in a discussion with you and Qcne after you cleared up what is required as a source. Both you and him said that Bta and Iskra work and if one more is found and the draft is rewritten to contain only the information they say, it would be approved.
- If being the main topic of an article is not significant coverage, and you yourself said it works, last month, then what is?
- About 1: If you review the posts of Stuttgarter Wochenblatt, you will notice they are a pretty reliable and respected media among Stuttgart. They invited me to an interview in order to be able to publish full information and not do guessing, so basically, they made sure they were posting truthful information. How does the fact that they wanted to post facts only makes it dependant? They don't write articles about *everyone*. and are selective as to who they should invite...
- I did not mean to attack you, I just didn't find it amusing that you contradicted yourself. If you have taken it as an attack, please accept my apologies. I was able to resolve all issues that you and other editors noted in the first time of posting, which is essentially working *with* reviewers. I did not dictate that Qcne *must* review it, I kindly asked him to. If someone else does this, that's fine. I resubmitted it because I believe someone else might interpret it differently considering last month sources 2 and 5 got approval.
- P.S. Ignore my comment about 3 and 4 above, I somehow missed your comment on them. They indeed do not report explicitly about me - they are just there to quote about BC Stuttgart and me being a member there. Kalinators (talk) 11:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Okay, you're talking about a discussion on the help desk, rather than my earlier review of this draft. Got it now.
- From memory, at the time I said something along the lines of the two sources you mention being better than anything I'd seen in the draft, and that we were on the right lines in that sense. I don't recall "approving" anything per se, but I could be wrong; I review many drafts, and have many conversations on the help desk.
- I'm more than happy to recuse myself from reviewing this draft again, or debating the matter at the help desk, should you take this there, so that you get another opinion (whether Qcne's or other) on the draft. And on that note, I exit stage left. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:51, 22 July 2024 (UTC)