User talk:Flat Out

Thank you for taking the time to read my submission on Ferintosh Distillery. I believe the uncertainty in the archaeological paper refers to the exact location of the distillery, not whether it existed. I was able to find three other places in Scotland called Ferintosh, or variations thereof, but the description in the Act of Parliament (reproduced in facsimile at https://www.clan-forbes.org/culloden) confirms that production centred on Forbes' estates on the Black Isle. I wonder, would it help if I referenced specific pages within the books I cite? (I just found a full text link to the first book as well, but it does not look like an 'official' website https://www.akel.co.uk/work/books/Whisky.pdf). I am grateful for any advice you can offer to help me make my draft suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia. Donaldpayne (talk) 15:04, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I spent a bit more time on this, and the book you added was most helpful. I have cut out wikitable as unnecessary and can be found at the source cited, and have simplified some of the wording to make it more direct. All of the content I deleted/changed is still there n the previous versions and you can revisit those if you wish. Well done, I found the article very interesting. Flat Out (talk)

Stop deleting my edits you scumbag. Australia is a shitty continent. Your queen is dead bitch boy. 2600:1700:2CC0:CA0:E9DE:F6EE:69A6:8597 (talk) 23:49, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I may be a scumbag and live on a shitty continent but I wont hear a bad word against Freddie Mercury. Flat Out (talk) 23:55, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello , I ereased article Vojvodina's Party few houres ago. I have to explain . This political party don't exist in Register of political parties in Republic Of Serbia . check https://mduls.gov.rs/en/registers-and-databases/register-of-political-parties/ Explanation : The party with mention name existed long time ago by prevous low because: For the establishment of political parties in Serbia in the first two decades of multi-party rule, only one hundred signatures of adult citizens were required, with the payment of a symbolic monetary fee, so at one point, as many as 575 political ones were registered in the register parties. After the new Law on Political Parties was adopted in May 2009, which stipulates that a political party can be founded by at least 10,000 citizens of legal age, the number of parties was drastically reduced, so 116 political parties are currently registered in the register organization. The new law also stipulated the obligation to re-register existing political parties within six months, which was a condition for continued activity. Only about seventy parties were re-registered, and the rest were deleted from the register of political parties. https://www.danas.rs/vesti/politika/partija-kao-garsonjera-u-beogradu-koliko-kosta-osnivanje-politicke-stranke/ Up to now 2025. the mention party didn't register or re-register in Register so they don't exist as a official political party. Please make the necessary changes to the article, as it may mislead readers. With best regards Pisanija (talk) 15:04, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pisanija If you want to nominate an article, the Wikipedia deletion policy explains the criteria for deletion, and may help you understand when an article should be nominated for deletion. best wishes Flat Out (talk) 02:27, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: Gaetano Minale, shipment rejected on January 29, 2025. I don't agree with his response to the refusal, the draft is written in a biographical and real way for all the artistic and exhibition activity carried out over the 50 years. the related sources are comprehensive, just read. What was written is all manual work, only it was translated from Italian into English and therefore you believe it was copied and pasted. I kindly ask you to review everything and give a fair assessment. Thank you . Gaetano Minale

You have received a lot of feedback on your draft and I encourage you to make the necessary changes before resubmitting. The draft won’t be accepted in its current state. Flat Out (talk) 10:22, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it is compiled along the lines of Wikipedia but, as you say, there are things that need to be changed, please kindly indicate them in order to make the necessary corrections. Thank you GtnMnl (talk) 11:16, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GtnMnl what role have you played in development of the draft? Flat Out (talk) 03:22, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I turned to a Wikipedia expert authorized to compile profiles, certain InfoExpertWriter, I provided all my personal and artistic data, all the clippings from newspapers, art magazines and catalogs where I am present, because all my great exhibition and role activity important in art occurred above all from 1975 to 2000, therefore before the advent of the internet. I have an entire cataloged paper archive that I sent to InfoExpertWriter for compilation. In 2011, a laryngeal operation forced me to remain voiceless and debilitated; my activity has had to slow down now, at 87 years old before I leave I would like to see my artistic life on the great Wikipedia, please help me. Gaetano Minale GtnMnl (talk) 08:48, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Flat Out (discussion). This topic is not relevant enough to be included in Wikipedia. I asked you for help on how to be eligible to present a valid profile on Wikipedia and you instead give a definitive stop to the submitted draft because you say it is not sufficiently relevant. I thought I had found an administrator who was trying to show me the path to take, but no less you gave the definitive stop, not even the possibility of being able to try to correct what was not valid. Thanks to 87 years old still mortified without even having a minimum of respect. GtnMnl (talk) 15:10, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GtnMnl - to clarify, I am not an administrator. You do not "have a right" to a wikipedia article if you don't meet the criteria for notability. Wikipedia is not a platform to create "profiles' about people - if you want a profile then you should establish a website that displays all of your relevant information and legacy. Wikipedia articles are a summary of what is written about a subject in reliable sources. If you would like to explain how you meet the criteria for artists, and how other editors can verify that you meet the criteria, then I will happily assist. the criteria are listed at WP:NARTIST. Until them, the draft that has been written by the editor you engaged, will not proceed. Flat Out (talk) 00:19, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

well Mr Flat Out, I understand that the draft does not contain reliable sources as you say, I turned to an incapable person; I kindly ask you, could you point me to a trusted representative of yours who can analyze and compile my artistic profile in the exact way? I thank you if you can help me. Gaetano Minale 82.50.142.104 (talk) 06:57, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

no, I can’t suggest anyone to create an article for you, we don’t procure editors here. My point is, that regardless of which editor you engage, you don’t meet notability criteria. Please do not respond again on my talk page as I will not respond. Flat Out (talk) 07:02, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to read and respond to my draft page on author Jay Gallentine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jay_Gallentine. I've made an attempt to address your recommendations; changing some sources and adding an additional section to document significant coverage by reliable sources. Please let me know what you think when you get a chance. DavidHitt (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:52, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comment on the article's draft. Flat Out (talk) 23:28, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Robinmetral (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Mike Cheslik ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Thank you for reviewing Draft:Mike_Cheslik! This is the second time the AfC is declined for notability reasons. However, as I pointed out last time:

WP:NCREATIVE says that an individual is notable if "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". I'd argue that this applies here—see the Reception section for Hundreds of Beavers.

Do you agree that the subject (the director of a well-known film in this case) is obviously notable by this definition? If you do, can you help me understand what needs to change about the draft to get it accepted? (talk) 13:28, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Robinmetral thanks for your questiions, please note - such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work - how has this requirement been met? Pointing to a section of another article is not helpful, especialy if the sources that support notability are over there and not included in this draft. best wishes Flat Out (talk) 00:21, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your quick reply and apologies for the delay in mine! Does this mean that I should be using some of the sources that show notability of the work in question on the creator's draft page? I mentioned that the work "received critical acclaim, featured on several year-end lists for 2024, and earned a number of awards and nominations" but didn't add sources (which are on the work's page). Is this where I should be adding them? Robinmetral (talk) 07:46, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Robinmetral, yes that's the way to do it - received critical claim (source), featured on billboard top 100 (source) etc, Flat Out (talk) 00:28, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help! I'll add sources to the draft article as soon as I get the time. Robinmetral (talk) 03:21, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I added the chart position in Moldova for the day, week and month. I also added some recent interviews on Estonian television and Raadio 4. Is this enough for the group's importance? Kodru (talk) 09:33, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kodru please refer to WP:MUSICBIO and see if the band meets the criteria for establishing notability. I will have a closer look when im back on a desktop Flat Out (talk) 20:59, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ok, several points correspond: Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart, Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network (Estonian TV and Radio 4). Kodru (talk) 07:11, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kodru if you beleieve they meet the criteria you will need reliable sources that support that. At the moment you have 49 sources listed for a short article and a good number of them dpn't support notability. Trimming these back woould make it easier to assess. The sentence about eurovision votes for example only needs1 or 2 reliable sources. Flat Out (talk) 21:06, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I appreciate your time in reviewing my Wikipedia draft for WVS Cambodia. I understand your concerns regarding neutrality and the need for independent, reliable sources. I genuinely want to improve the draft to meet Wikipedia's standards but would appreciate some guidance on how to proceed.

Specifically, I would like to better understand your comment regarding sources: "should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed." I have included multiple independent and serious sources, like online news articles, external websites. Could you clarify what type of sources would strengthen the draft and establish notability more effectively?

Could you also provide specific examples from my draft that appear promotional? I want to ensure I rewrite these sections to maintain a neutral, encyclopedic tone.

Your insights would be invaluable in ensuring the article aligns with Wikipedia's guidelines. Thank you for your time and guidance. (talk) 13:12, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ARCWK2023, thanks for your email. The article has been written by someone close to the organisation and then sources have been added afterwards. The article is supposed to be a summary of what reliable sources have to say about a subject and from what I can see that's not very much. There are large sections of content that have no source, many of the sources are passing mentions only, and there is a reliance on reports that the organisation published. There is not enough written about WVS Cambodia to meet the notability criteria at WP:ORG and therefore will not be accepted.

Hi, I appreciate your time in reviewing my Wikipedia draft for Rebecca B. Alston. I understand your concerns regarding neutrality and the need for independent, reliable sources. I genuinely want to improve the draft to meet Wikipedia's standards but would appreciate some guidance on how to proceed.

Specifically, I would like to better understand your comment regarding neutrality: "In a biography of a living person, every claim needs a supporting reference, almost the entire body of the article is unsupported by reliable sources. It also appears that someone close to the subject has written, or contributed to this draft - please see conflict of interest." I have included multiple independent and serious sources, like online news articles and external websites (New York Times article, news interview, etc). Could you clarify what type of sources would strengthen the draft and mitigate the issue more effectively? I was given the information independently about the artist. What would be classified as a reliable source aside from what has already been provided?

Could you also provide specific examples from my draft that appear conflicting? I want to ensure I rewrite these sections to maintain a neutral, encyclopedic tone. Several direct references to museums and galleries are no longer operational, so direct access to verifying this information cannot be done with links, but I have access to the physical proof of verification such as invitations, art critiques from professionals, and previous shows. The artist in question is 73, so a lot of the material cannot be found online due to a significant portion of her career not being digitally published/available.

Your insights would be helpful in ensuring the article aligns with Wikipedia's guidelines. Thank you for your time and guidance! Archfusionpro (talk) 18:43, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Archfusionpro thanks for your questions. Wikipedia articles are a summary of what the consensus of reliable sources have to say on a subject. People who have a connection to the subject, often know a great deal more than is covered by reliable sources. People who are connected to the subject often write an article and then try to add sources afterwards. The section below is not supported by any sources - so the question is; how do you know any of that information? If you read it - add a reference, but if you know it because you are connected to the subject - you can't include it and you should declare the conflict. Please read the golden rule.

Alston had developed a geometric system in the mid-1970s, lending itself well to the interdisciplinary approach that was a direct influence from the Bauhaus while her color harmonies were vastly different. She was also influenced by music and other disciplines throughout.

The earliest body of art created by Alston upon graduating from Auburn University was developed while living for three years in Jackson, Mississippi. Alston set up her first studio focused on serigraph print making. She taught herself this technique with the help of a close friend, who was an acclaimed photographer. The techniques were developed while exploring color. The body of art created was The Interaction of Color and Form. She was influenced by Josef Albers' color studies. Alston integrated various geometric forms in her work as a result. Albers was one of the many colorists from the Bauhaus that influenced Alston, as well as Johannes Itten, Dutch color theorist Frans Gerritsen, and many other contemporary masters. Alston’s first exhibition took place in the Deposit Guaranty Plaza in Jackson, MS with most pieces being serigraph prints and large collages.

During her time as an assistant professor at Kansas State University, she worked with and had several exhibitions at Strecker Gallery in Manhattan, Kansas in from 1979-1980. This included mixed media works that addressed the vulnerability of the environment, work from Parative Ambiance, and mixed media pieces. She also exhibited with the Art Research Center (A.R.C.) in Manhattan, Kansas in 1980.

Flat Out (talk) 21:27, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for getting back to me! I was given documentation of her career and history (both found in writings, older articles, reviews, shows, and more) in order to create the page. Is there any way for me to receive help through you on suggested edits and changes, as well as how to rectify the issue of lacking direct sources (which cannot be found online)? Archfusionpro (talk) 19:07, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sources don't have to be online, they just need to be verifiable. Please see WP:Paid-contribution disclosure Flat Out (talk) 22:39, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. I wanted to ask if the section "The Constructivist: Reconstructivism & Deconstructivism" is cited correctly as an example? I am adding more written and outside sources now that I think I understand how to do it. Archfusionpro (talk) 19:22, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Archfusionpro it is clear that you have a conflict of interest, paid or otherwise, and you should follow the guidelines on disclosure. The draft is not an accurate summary of what reliable sources have to say about the subject, it's a promotionally-toned essay with sources added after the fact. If you believe the subject meets the criteria for notability I would suggest you re-write the draft based on the consensus of opinion in verifiable, reliable sources rather than retro-fitting sources into what you have now. I will be taking a break from reviewing articles for creation but there are other editors who can assist and you can also seek advice at the Teahouse.Flat Out (talk) 00:42, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input, I've added some reference including the citation reference of the book added, regarding some information on the varicity of the information stated. I have added the comment as source taken from the book bio which has been mentioned in the reference section as well. Please see if this is now okay. Himayun (talk) 14:43, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

well done Himayun on making the improvements you have. There are still some claims made in the draft that have no source that would allow another editor to verify the claim is true. I am more concerned that you haven't been able to show how Hakeem Muhammad Tahi is notable. For example, who did he influence and how do you know? Did anyone write about him or cite his work? Articles generally require coverage in sources that are independent of the subject. Flat Out (talk) 02:40, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Flat Out I'm glad you're satisfied with the small changes. Regarding this individual, he was well known in this part of the world. I once had the opportunity to visit his home and was truly impressed by his extensive personal library, which he had built over the years. He was recognized for his contributions to soil chemistry in his field of work. Unfortunately, by the time he retired, the office had not yet been digitized, making it difficult to cite sources despite extensive online searches. I am still looking for additional information, but as mentioned, he has little to no digital footprint. Therefore, I am relying on accounts from those who knew him and excerpts from the book, which I included in the summary. Will this be sufficient for approval or do I still need to verify the details further. That would be a tedious process and even if I manage to establish the connections, there’s always a chance that new concerns will be raised, which is quite frustrating. Can you not approve it on adhoc basis and once I've the citation available will update accordingly. Br-H Himayun (talk) 03:34, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Without verifiable sources (digital or otherwise) that indicate what other people wrote about Himayun, or how they used his works, the subject is not notable and can't be included. There are exceptions (noble-prize winners etc) but they don't apply in this case. Flat Out (talk) 04:02, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for clearing up some of the racial slurs added by an especially charming anonymous user. I really appreciate your help! The next time you run into edits that are that terrible--the really ugly stuff, you could drop a level-4 warning on the user's talk page, then hunt down an admin to have them blocked immediately .We don't put up with that kind of nonsense: they don't have to get multiple warnings. Thanks again for all you do! Noise! 03:24, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help Joyous!, I had reported them after the caution. When there's a clear pattern I don't wait. I'm back after a break but I've been around a while Flat Out (talk) 03:28, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, sorry. I hope I didn't sound condescending. Noise! 15:54, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Joyous! - Not all all! thanks for your help :) 22:34, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there. First of all, I'd like to thank you for reviewing my submission. I've gone ahead and revised certain parts I found to be in poor quality, additionally writing more information with corresponding citations. Currently, I'm not considering resubmitting it just yet and would highly appreciate if you could take a look over it and point out any passages you find encyclopedically unfit, since I'm inexperienced I'm lacking in that field, and I'll get to finding a good way to rewrite it.

Thank you for considering my request. (talk) 13:12, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pradedovići thanks for your post. The draft is looking pretty good, but I would make two observations two things. 1. What is the consensus of opinion in reliable sources towards the MDS term, and has that consensus been given due weight in the article?. 2. There are sections that are over-referenced. 3-4 good reliable sources are better than say, 7. Also, in the opening paragraphs, which should summarise the rest of the article, you don't need to use a citation of a point that is made and referenced in the body of the article. Flat Out (talk) 22:43, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Broadfields (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Norman Maurice Kadish ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi Flat Out.

Thanks for your message.

I am not sure what you mean when you say that this submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Do you mean that the material is factually incorrect, or that the facts are not verifiable?

Also, the comment about relying mostly on primary sources - if there is very little published material about the subject, it's not easy to write much that refers to this material. For example, the biographical material is mostly quoted from the website dedicated to the subject. Do you mean that this material is unreliable, even though it's presumably written by someone who had access to the biographical information?

It would be really helpful if you could give some specific examples of where you find the referencing either acceptable or not, with the reasons, so that I can improve the article.

Thanks for your help,

Broadfields.

Broadfields (talk) 12:36, 30 March 2025 (UTC) Broadfields (talk) 12:36, 30 March 2025 (UTC) @Broadfields thanks for your questions. Wikipedia articles should be a summary of what reliable sources have to say about a subject. If there is nothing published about the subject it is unlikely that it meets the criteria for notability. If you have a look at WP:Notability_(people)#Creative_professionals you will find the specific criteria for establishing notability that relate to this subject. If you feel the criteria are met, please let me know and I'll do my best to assist. Hope ths helps. Flat Out (talk) 22:49, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. That help me to understand the criteria better! Broadfields (talk) 13:24, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I added some detail to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Harrison_Parker after your comment Maybe the title should be Harrison McGowen Parker to avoid Disambiguation issues Marmeder (talk) 13:59, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Marmeder thanks and accepted.

I just wanted to let you now I was cleaning up the broken template on Amul that you reverted. I checked the sources cited and it looks good, but could you please review it to make sure i didn't add any errors? Thanks! KNHaw ^(talk) 04:20, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HI User:KNHa, that appears to be a different citation to the one I resolved. Thanks Flat Out (talk) 04:23, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:KNHa, I looked again and you were correct. The citation is complete. Thanks Flat Out (talk) 04:38, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Submission Draft:Kea Aerospace was declined by you on 1 Apr 2025. You stated that “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 brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements); reliable; secondary; and strictly independent of the subject.”

This submission has been previously declined because “This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article” and “This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view”.

The current submission was completely rewritten in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article.

The article has 12 reliable, secondary, in-depth, and strictly independent references.

I am a proud Kiwi and passionate about furthering New Zealand technology.

I’m sure you have a similar passion as an Aussie in furthering Australian technology!

I am proud of New Zealand achievements, and this is one of them. I’m not attempting to sell anything – my intention is purely to educate the Wikipedia readers on the advancement of aerospace technology.

I have done my level best to ensure that the article is written from a neutral point of view.

Please reconsider your decision.

TullaMelb (talk) 05:23, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TullaMelb, and thanks for your post. Are you in Melbourne? I am. Wikipedia articles should be an accurate summary of what other people have to say about a subject. Sometimes we know more about a subject than what is written in independent sources, and that's a pity but you cant include what other editors cant verify to be true. A few comments about your draft - please turn your bulleted lists into prose. Sometimes bullet points are relevant especially if they are reflected that way in a source, but not an entire article. Secondly, just FYI - anything written by the subject (press releases, company announcements, industry announcements etc are not reliable sources and do not support the criteria for establishing notability. I'll take a deeper lpok at this subject but it may end up started off as a stub and that's also OK. If you have a look at the this stub I created, you will see that other editors have expanded it over time into John "Snowy" Cutmore. So, in summary - write in sentences about what other people have to say about your subject and which tells a story that people who dont know anything it can follow. Best wishes Flat Out (talk) 03:49, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Ironcladhead (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Jamil Azar ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi there Flat Out! Hope you're well and thank you for reviewing my article on Jamil Azar the broadcaster. You rightly observe that some of the article wasn't backed up by online sources, and this is correct. However, we only have paper copies of things like employment records and memos to back this up. In your experience how do people get past this problem of only paper sources existing? If I strip the article back to the bare bones of what is sourced online, would that be better for you? With thanks and best wishes RuthIroncladhead (talk) 18:52, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ironcladhead and thanks for your question. Sources do not have to be digital but they don't need to be verifiable. The key issue you have is that Wikipedia articles are supposed to be what independent sources have to say about a subject, but your draft is largely what the subject or people close to the subject know, with sources added afterwards. This is why we discourage articles by people with a COI. Employment records and memos are not likely to support notability. Archived newspapers (libraries still hold scanned copies of articles and many are archived online), books etc can be cited. Flat Out (talk) 03:27, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Flat Out! Thank you so much for your editorial steers. Yes, I realise that because I have a connection, even though I'm writing impartially, my 'inside knowledge' is bound to come out. I can't find anyone with English as a first language to write this article about my Dad. He has a Wikipedia page in Arabic, which I don't speak, and which also irks me because much of the information on it contains certain inaccuracies/incompletenesses when I run it through Google Translate. The Jordanian government recently released a 5-minute documentary on him as part of their series on notable Jordanians, but I'm up against the language barrier in terms of what it will be usefully deemed to verify. So, this is my attempt at trying to create an article that is neutral and accurate. I'm a former journalist, and feel your pain as they say. :-) All I can say is I'll try harder to adhere to your standards. I'll try stripping back the article so that the first half of his life is gone, because I don't know where in English to look for that information, and I'll try resubmitting to you - if I may? - when I have only the bare bones of the second half of his life that are supported by sources. Thank you again so much for your help. Ironcladhead (talk) 15:26, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the comments of this draft you write 'Lastly, you have claims that are only partly supported (eg Sir John Franklin visited a ship, but where is the evidence that Little was (a)on that ship and (b) met Franklin?'

In Little's naval biography (3rd superscript) it is stated he served on the HMS Vindictive. The 4th superscript then supports the claim that officers of the Vindictive including one 'Lieutenant Little' welcomed Sir John Franklin aboard once in Tasmania.

'Little and Stewart were obligingly assiduous in explaining the different objects to the party. Captain Scott, of the Royal Marines, commanded the guard of honor to receive the Lieutenant Governor.' The Lieutenant Governor being Franklin. I think this is more than enough proof to at least make the claim that they met in passing.

I am unsure why the Naval Biographical Dictionary is considered 'unreliable': the same information can be found here, in a full scan of the book which the Naval Wiki gets its information from: https://archive.org/details/cu31924027921372/page/662/mode/2up

Please let me know if there's any more info I can dredge up to make the article more reliable, but I do think that there is sufficient evidence to prove everything written there. I have never written or edited an article myself so I don't know how to go about making the sources more clear (it's not my article). Snuff1848 (talk) 03:51, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Snuff1848 I can't locate the draft you are referring to. Flat Out (talk) 03:54, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I have never used Wikipedia like this before haha I should have linked it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Edward_Little_(Royal_Navy_officer)

Also I hope I didn't come across as rude at all in my posting. Snuff1848 (talk) 03:55, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Snuff1848, everything that is written in an article must be able to be verified by another editor by checking the source provided. I'm not sure, but you seem to be suggesting that a synthesis of sources (not the actual source cited) support the claim made? The Naval Biographical Dictionary is reliable, the wiki page cited is not and this is easily fixed by the author. Lastly, becasue you are interested the Franklin Expedition section has no supporting erefences. Flat Out (talk) 04:08, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the first part of your reply. Are you saying it's considered a synthesis of information because knowing that Little served on Vindictive from one source supports the claim that he is the same Lt. Little serving on the Vindictive mentioned in the Launceston Advertiser article that I quoted?

I will address the issue of the Naval Dictionary source and the Franklin Expedition section with the author. Snuff1848 (talk) 04:20, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll change the Naval Biographical Dictionary link. I can do that. I don't understand why was the source that requires a paid account removed.

Please read here Flat Out (talk) 06:09, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As we have previously discussed. I understand that a document behidn a paywall might be harder to verify but there are factors that have to be consider. Firstly all websites which host "London, England, Church of England Baptisms, Marriages and Burials, 1538-1812" are behind a paywall, secondly it is a real document which can be found on these sites and they do offer free trial. Also the website which I used as a source (Ancestry) has this document provided by The London Archives (https://www.thelondonarchives.org/your-research/research-guides/parish-registers) which gives it credibility. Now since I know that Wikipedia generally uses a lot of sources which are behind a paywall I went through two pages and both had a paywall source (James Fitzjames - reference 8, Horatio Nelson - reference 168). The only other way I can source the date of birth and baptism is by a screenshot which somebody posted to Tumblr but I supposed that won´t pass. I´m genuinely lost at how to continue with this source. TomuKdoNasMaRad (talk) 14:08, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TomuKdoNasMaRad feel free to use whatever sources you believe meet the criteria for reliable sources. Flat Out (talk) 23:08, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is a solid source and there is an option of free trial if you really want to verify that, but I don't know why it would be removed. I'm sorry if I've said anything wrong, i'm not that well versed in making articles. Also the source about Little and Franklin meeting states that they met. I don't have the exact quote in my mind right now but it was stated there.

OK no problem.Flat Out (talk) 06:09, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for any info TomuKdoNasMaRad (talk) 06:02, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This was declined on the grounds that it was not written in an encyclopedic format. I consulted with a Wikipedia editor and got some guidance as to how to do that. In addition, there have been several notable citations added and would like to request that you take another look at it. Thanks.

Draft:Sarah Herrera Aoxomoxoa1313 (talk) 03:00, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Flat Out,

I hope you're doing well. I wanted to kindly follow up again regarding my resubmitted draft Draft:Rahat Mahajan. It has now been over 18 days since the resubmission, and I haven’t yet received feedback.

I have carefully addressed your previous comments by revising the article to reflect a neutral tone, removing any promotional language, and ensuring that all content is verifiable with independent, reliable sources.

Additionally, as recommended by User:CNMall41, I have clearly disclosed my conflict of interest and paid editing status on my user page User:Mahamudracollective, adhering fully to Wikipedia guidelines.

If you're currently unavailable to review, please advise on how I might request another reviewer to assist.

Thank you for your time and guidance.

Warm regards, --Mahamudracollective (talk) 22:39, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]