User talk:AllWeKnowOfHeaven

RoySmith (talk) 00:04, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RoySmith (talk) 00:03, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Barbecue in South Carolina, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 18:49, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for creating Grape hull pie! ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 06:52, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! AllWeKnowOfHeaven (talk) 20:23, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Z1720 (talk) 00:02, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I create lots of entries about restaurants (sometimes with resistance), so your work on food-related entries pops up in my watchlist now and then. Just wanted to say thanks for working to create and improve so many articles related to food and drink. Happy editing! ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:06, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Another Believer: Thanks man! You're doing a lot of great work too covering restaurants. That's an important part of local and cultural history even though most people don't think of it that way. Communities are built around foodways. AllWeKnowOfHeaven (talk) 15:19, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply] Agree. I wish more editors saw restaurant entries as covering culture and history, not just companies. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:28, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, AllWeKnowOfHeaven. Thank you for your work on Dukes Bar-B-Que. User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, I had the following comments:

I'm thrilled to share the exciting news that your article has met all of Wikipedia's guidelines! After a careful review, I'm happy to say that it's good to go. Great job! Wishing you and your family an absolutely fantastic day ahead!

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

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 00:48, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that's awesome! I hope you have a fantastic day as well! AllWeKnowOfHeaven (talk) 17:36, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RoySmith (talk) 00:03, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, AllWeKnowOfHeaven. Thank you for your work on Southside Market & Barbeque. User:Netherzone, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for creating the article.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Netherzone}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Netherzone (talk) 00:49, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:45, 6 August 2023 (UTC) 00:02, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Southside Market & Barbeque, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Elgin. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Fish ribs has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 29 § Fish ribs until a consensus is reached. Utopes (talk / cont) 05:33, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, AllWeKnowOfHeaven. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:American Deli, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 11:06, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, AllWeKnowOfHeaven. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Jar jow, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 20:06, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, AllWeKnowOfHeaven. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Jar jow".

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.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 19:02, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AllWeKnowOfHeaven. Thank you for your work on Garry Kennebrew. 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 very blessed weekend!

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) 10:28, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AllWeKnowOfHeaven. Thank you for your work on Jar jow. Another editor, JSFarman, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Great article!

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

JSFarman (talk) 06:29, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello AllWeKnowOfHeaven, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

While your contributions are appreciated, I wanted to let you know that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, Fried macaroni, should be deleted, as I am not sure that it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia in its current form. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fried macaroni.

Deletion discussions usually run for seven days and are not votes. Our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. The most common issue in these discussions is notability, but it's not the only aspect that may be discussed; read the nomination and any other comments carefully before you contribute to the discussion. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Uncle Bash007}}. And don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Uncle Bash007 (talk) 03:31, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Black's Barbecue, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lockhart.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:02, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, AllWeKnowOfHeaven

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Klbrain, and I thank you for your contributions.

I wanted to let you know, however, that I've proposed an article that you started, List of restaurants in Fort Worth, Texas, for deletion because it meets one or more of our deletion criteria, and I don't think that it is suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. The particular issue can be found in the notice that is now visible at the top of the article.

If you wish to contest the deletion:

1. Edit the page
2. Remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
3. Click the Publish changes button.

If you object to the article's deletion, please remember to explain why you think the article should be kept on the article's talk page and improve the page to address the issues raised in the deletion notice. Otherwise, it may be deleted later by other means.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Klbrain}}. And remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Klbrain (talk) 20:02, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please i have some literate books which i have read and were very helpful can i contribute more of them? and can i be guilded by you in other not to violate any rules. @AllWeKnowOfHeaven and i dont know if literatures books and authors aren't accepted on wikipedia because the jeanne bender was actually tagged for deletion can you guilde? Emilydaniel (talk) 21:33, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Emilydaniel: Looks like your page was nominated for deletion because they don't think the page is notable and you didn't mention that you were paid to make it. Just follow the guidance that people are giving you on your talk page and the deletion nomination. AllWeKnowOfHeaven (talk) 18:38, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Thanks, I will Emilydaniel (talk) 19:39, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sennecaster (Chat) 00:03, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi can you please tell me which sources I should remove or change. Which one you think are not reliable in the context in which they are referenced?

1- Talk: Anonymity in practice: Xx network, 12-1pm EDT 10/4 online
2- https://eprint.iacr.org/2016/008.pdf
3- What is cMix? Is it Different from cMix? (15 September 2023)
4- Polkadot (DOT): Definition, History, and How It Works
5- The quantum future is coming and David Chaum’s xx network is ready for it — Inside Quantum Technology (June 2022)
6- David Chaum Says His New Cryptocurrency Is Quantum Computer Resistant — Cointelegraph (2019-08-21)
7- Chaum, David; Larangeira, Mario; Yaksetig, Mario; Carter, William (2021), W-OTS(+) up my Sleeve! A Hidden Secure Fallback for Cryptocurrency Wallets, 2021/872
8- Sleeve Wallet Generation Tool — xx Network Docs (learn.xx.network)
9- Chaum, David; Cardoso, Bernardo; Carter, William; Yaksetig, Mario; Aroso, Baltasar (2023), Phoenixx: Linear consensus with random sampling, 2023/1262
10- Yin, Maofan; Malkhi, Dahlia; Reiter, Michael K.; Gueta, Guy Golan; Abraham, Ittai (2019-07-23), HotStuff: BFT Consensus in the Lens of Blockchain, arXiv:1803.05069
11- Team, The Diem (2021), DiemBFT v4: State Machine Replication in the Diem Blockchain
12- Xx Messenger — Apps on Google Play
13- Elixxir / Xx Messenger Android — GitLab
14- Todos los secretos que el cripto pionero David Chaum le reveló a Forbes
15- phoenixx.io
16- Proxxy — proxxy.xx.network
17- Proxxy — xx Network Docs
18- Haven — haven.xx.network
19- Elixxir / Haven — GitLab
20- Crypto forefather David Chaum issues new digital currency — The Block
21- Directory Jstrob (talk) 10:52, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Jstrob: Look for generally WP:reliable sources and remove ones that don't seem to match these guidelines. AllWeKnowOfHeaven (talk) 23:24, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @AllWeKnowOfHeaven! Thanks for your help on formatting the Bluevine post–this is the first time I have worked on a post so it's helpful to understand the do's and don'ts. I think we got all the formatting right this time, so hopefully it will be published. Regardless, I appreciate your help! RobBV (talk) 20:48, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @RobBV: thanks for doing that! AllWeKnowOfHeaven (talk) 23:27, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, and thanks for AFC reviewing! I'm here via Draft:On the Beginning of Human History, with a request that you please don't decline drafts for things like It's still much too detailed and could do with fewer subsections. This is an editorial opinion, and it doesn't have anything to do with whether the draft would be deleted at AFD or otherwise breaks important content policies, which is the AFC acceptance bar. We're not WP:GAN. We're just here to take the load off AFD and off CSD taggers. Thanks again for reviewing. :) -- asilvering (talk) 18:40, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering: That was my mistake, I'll focus more on cut-and-dry policy issues instead of editorial quibbles. Thanks for the reminder! AllWeKnowOfHeaven (talk) 20:59, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! You reviewed my initial submission of Draft:Agentforce, which was recently declined a second time.

I was hoping you would be willing to review the page and provide some feedback on the current draft, because I believe it reflects reliable, significant coverage of a notable subject (one that has the potentially to be particularly disruptive, and not necessarily in a good way), based on the citations provided and the page's contents.

The second reviewer also noted the page read as advertorial, which was obviously not my intent (and you also did not note) - just to allay any concerns, I have also edited down some of the page's descriptive language.

This is my first time submitting a page, so any feedback is helpful. Thank you - appreciate your time and contributions to the project! 12EnergyPizzas (talk) 22:41, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @12EnergyPizzas: Thanks for editing the page after the second reviewer's feedback. I think their feedback for you was fair. I didn't tag every issue, just the one that I thought was most important (notability) and they also might notice things that I miss. After reviewing the references in the article, I'm still not sure that it is notable. AllWeKnowOfHeaven (talk) 20:26, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Appreciate the response and feedback. I would argue the subject is independently notable - there are other uncited articles I believe meet those standards, like this one - as a piece of technology. I also think last week's news of its deployment within federal operations, which was covered by Axios and Gizmodo (among others) further support that notion - both because of how it is being used, and the potential impacts (and those we've already seen) it has on workforces and productivity as a result of its advancements. 12EnergyPizzas (talk) 21:14, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] The most important guidelines re: companies are WP:NCORP and WP:GNG, I'm not sure the sources meet that. The potential impacts of something aren't something that Wikipedia can predict, so it can't help with notability. A different reviewer rejected the draft again for similar reasons. I left a note on your talk page about how to disclose a conflict of interest if you have one. AllWeKnowOfHeaven (talk) 20:51, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] I wanted to have a discussion to get clarification, as I had read the relevant guidelines before considering a topic for my first attempt at writing an article from scratch, and disagreed with the conclusions. To clarify my last comment, I think the potential impacts of any unsecured AI technology within the federal government (ICE, for example) are incredibly problematic. We disagree on the notability of the topic - that's fine, but immediately jumping to the conclusion I'm some agent, pun intended, for Agentforce is absurd. That being said, I do appreciate the discussion, and thank you again for explaining your thought process behind the rejection. 12EnergyPizzas (talk) 23:42, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Recently you declined my draft of the article of the person Roman Foltyn, who has received an oscar for his contribution to the Trinity 2 system. I was wondering, if you can tell me your reasons, so i can improve the article. Thanks a lot! Lauramaris (talk) 10:15, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Lauramaris: absolutely. My main concern was that most of the sources are not reliable or independent, and the tone of the page is promotional. All of these issues can be fixed by adding better references and editing the page before resubmitting. Thanks for contributing! AllWeKnowOfHeaven (talk) 10:35, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Hi, thank you for the fast answer! I deleted some of the references such as to ARRI (company page). I also changed the wording from "which was the first" (might be promotional?) to a more neutral version. Since I believe the list of films in which the system was used is your reference to promotional, I deleted this part as well. Since I can find no more reliable source than the oscar site itself and their youtube and press channel, I hope these will be amongst the other press artcles be enough. Can you please have a look at it again? Or do I have to go through another process with another person from here on? Thx :) Lauramaris (talk) 07:49, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] @Lauramaris: Thanks for the work on the draft, but the sources don't meet WP:GNG. Receiving an Oscar will help with notability but may not be enough on its own. If you can continue to improve the draft, you can resubmit it so that another reviewer can assess it. AllWeKnowOfHeaven (talk) 21:11, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, just wondering what exactly was wrong with the sources? Not contesting the decision, I can’t figure out which of the guidelines I’m violating? --DollarStoreBa'alConverse 12:44, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @DollarStoreBaal44: WP:NCORP explains the guidelines for company pages and sources. If you can add better sources, then do that and resubmit the draft so it can be reviewed again. Thanks! AllWeKnowOfHeaven (talk) 21:01, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Thank you for reviewing my article.

I have removed promotional wording and replaced it with neutral wording.

I appreciate your help with the article. Orlando Davis (talk) 13:50, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Orlando Davis: Thanks, I'm taking a look at the article now. AllWeKnowOfHeaven (talk) 20:59, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AllWeKnowOfHeaven, Thank you for reviewing my submission for Grigoriy Hansburg. I noticed it was declined due to a perceived lack of reliable sources. I would like to clarify a few points regarding the sources already provided in the draft, as they are among the most authoritative academic references available in Ukraine. The article includes information from: The Ukrainian Musical Encyclopedia (Українська музична енциклопедія): This is a specialized, peer-reviewed academic publication by the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine. The Encyclopedia of Modern Ukraine (Енциклопедія Сучасної України): This is the highest-level national encyclopedia (similar to Britannica or the Brockhaus), curated by the National Academy of Sciences. Both of these sources are secondary, independent, and provide extensive biographical data on Mr. Ganzburg, which should satisfy the Wikipedia Notability Guidelines for academics and musicologists. Additionally, I have included links to official government/academic documents available online to verify his titles and contributions. Could you please take another look at these specific references? If you feel they need to be formatted differently or if more specific citations are required, I would appreciate your guidance on how to make them more visible to satisfy the verification requirements. Best regards, Deboraverin (talk) 15:06, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The draft:Grigoriy Hansburg is basically a translation into English of the article on Hansburg in the Ukrainian Wikipedia [1]. Best regards, Deboraverin (talk) 15:17, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] Hi @Deboraverin: Thank you for explaining all of this. Those are good sources and based on the Encyclopedia of Modern Ukraine, I think that the topic is notable. It would improve the article if you could add citations to different sections and paragraphs, these pages explain how: Wikipedia:Citing sources and Help:Referencing for beginners. Good work and thank you for contributing! AllWeKnowOfHeaven (talk) 17:02, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] Hi AllWeKnowOfHeaven, I've added the links. Please publish the article. Thank you. Deboraverin (talk) 15:54, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] Thank you @Deboraverin: looking at it now. AllWeKnowOfHeaven (talk) 21:41, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] @Deboraverin: I'm 100% certain that this article is notable but I did notice a few issues. Some of the information in the draft is without a source, or cites a source that doesn't actually verify the draft's claims. It would be good if you could edit the draft to ensure that everything has a reliable source. And if you can't find a source for some information, it's ok to just remove that info. AllWeKnowOfHeaven (talk) 22:10, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] Thank you, I will do this in the next few days. Deboraverin (talk) 00:53, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

	The High Density Calorie Award for finding gaps in our shelf stable food knowledge
	I bestow upon you the High Density Calorie Award for finding gaps in our shelf stable food knowledge by creating the Bar (food) page! Its hard to find structural gaps on Wikipedia, but sometimes you do -- and you filled it with the densest, most shelf stable possible calories! Keep up the great work! Sadads (talk) 16:26, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sadads: Thank you! I was honestly surprised to see that it didn't exist already. It's rare to get a chance to create a "foundational" page. AllWeKnowOfHeaven (talk) 16:09, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AllWeKnowOfHeaven, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the autopatrolled user right to your account. This means that pages you create will automatically be marked as 'reviewed', and no longer appear in the new pages feed. Autopatrolled is assigned to prolific creators of articles, where those articles do not require further review, and may have been requested on your behalf by someone else. It doesn't affect how you edit; it is used only to manage the workload of new page patrollers.

Since the articles you create will no longer be systematically reviewed by other editors, it is important that you maintain the high standard you have achieved so far in all your future creations. Please also try to remember to add relevant WikiProject templates, stub tags, categories, and incoming links to them, if you aren't already in the habit; user scripts such as Rater and StubSorter can help with this. As you have already shown that you have a strong grasp of Wikipedia's core content policies, you might also consider volunteering to become a new page patroller yourself, helping to uphold the project's standards and encourage other good faith article writers.

Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! Sohom (talk) 18:05, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks AllWeKnowOfHeaven for your review of Draft:ChromaWay. I always try to keep my Wikipedia writing fully neutral and verifiable, but I may be missing something here. Could I ask you to point to a specific sentence or section that you felt came across as promotional, so I can address it directly? Many thanks! /Urbourbo (talk) 22:04, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Urbourbo: the whole page seems to focus on the company's financials, innovations, offerings, and how great it is. An encyclopedia article is usually a bit more sober and is only going to include really relevant and well referenced information. It shouldn't seem like a press release. AllWeKnowOfHeaven (talk) 03:55, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] Thanks for taking your time to explain. I've now made another attempt to clean up the language. Best, /Urbourbo (talk) 11:56, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I saw your review for the draft I submitted. You wrote that it has promotional tone. It is not the issue discussed on the talk page and I believe there is nothing promotional in the article, no exaggerated or controversial claims. Draft:Winston Weinberg There are also no promotional paid sources used, but only reputable legacy media.

Would you please point out what is advertising there to I could address it? Thanks in advance! WestwoodHights573 (talk) 00:49, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @WestwoodHights573: the overall page feels resume-like and am not sure if it's notable. I'm more or less in agreement with the source assessment by @SmokeyJoe: and the results of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Winston Weinberg which was just a few days ago. I'm leaning towards the idea that this page isn't suitable for Wikipedia. AllWeKnowOfHeaven (talk) 03:52, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] Hi @AllWeKnowOfHeaven! Thanks! Here is the source assessment we did with SmokeyJoe on his page, as we did not have it on the talk page of the article. We discussed there the sources that qualify for GNG. User talk:SmokeyJoe#draft The Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Winston Weinberg was during the holidays, and did not include actual discussion about concrete points. That is why I recreated the draft, to make appropriate edits there, and find different sources, which I have been doing with the help of SmokeyJoe. WestwoodHights573 (talk) 04:00, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] Hi @WestwoodHights573: I don't know if the sources you found demonstrate notability for Winston Weinberg, they're mostly about Harvey. It seems like SmokeyJoe didn't exactly see eye-to-eye with you on them being sufficient either. I appreciate you taking the time to work on this and find all this stuff, I just don't think it's enough. AllWeKnowOfHeaven (talk) 15:36, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

		The Articles for Creation Barnstar 2025 Top Editor
		In 2025 you were one of the top AfC editors, thank you! --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:55, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Ozzie10aaaa: Woah,, very nice! AllWeKnowOfHeaven (talk) 21:42, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @AllWeKnowOfHeaven: @ChrysGalley:,

I am writing to ask for advice regarding the rejection of Draft:DropDesk.

I have been working with reviewers ChrysGalley and TheObsidianGriffon over the last week. ChrysGalley specifically requested that I remove promotional sources and fix the attribution of a Motley Fool analysis (which was incorrectly cited as Nasdaq). I performed all the edits.

I believe the issue while stripping down the article and removing sources, made the article and sources look far thinner than it is.

Could you clarify if these specific sources were deemed non-significant, or if the rejection was based on the reduced quantity of citations?

I would appreciate the opportunity to re-integrate some of the industry coverage (like Restaurant Dive, CBS Insights, Etc) if you believe it would help establish notability.

Thank you for your time. GrahamABeck (talk) 01:52, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@GrahamABeck: I rejected the article because I didn't really see sources that were of the calibre required by WP:significant coverage. I did some searching on my own WP:BEFORE and figured that this isn't ready to meet notability guidelines yet. Adding the sources you removed wouldn't really help, the problem was they weren't the right kind of sources. AllWeKnowOfHeaven (talk) 18:45, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @AllWeKnowOfHeaven: Many thanks for taking your time to review Draft:Chromia (blockchain). With regards to your comment about reliable sources, were there any sources in particular that struck you as unreliable? I believe that practically all of them are written by independent journalists in reasonably large news outlets. Similarly, regarding your comment about advertising language, if you could point out any particular phrases that you feel would need to be reworked, that would be highly appreciated. All the best, /Urbourbo (talk) 21:11, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Urbourbo: Most crypto news sites are considered unreliable for Wikipedia, so pretty much all of those and any primary sources connected to Chromia. AllWeKnowOfHeaven (talk) 18:46, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Thanks @AllWeKnowOfHeaven: I have now gone through the text again and made a number of edits to address your concerns, including reducing feature-oriented language and removing comparative phrasing. Some crypto-related and two interview sources remain, but I've made an effort to limit their usage to basic factual verification only. What do you think? If you have any further feedback before I resubmit, it would be highly appreciated. All the best, /Urbourbo (talk) 11:58, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] @Urbourbo: If it were me, I wouldn't approve the draft with the current sourcing and the way that it is written. It's still too promotional and not notable enough. AllWeKnowOfHeaven (talk) 17:45, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] @AllWeKnowOfHeaven: Thanks for sharing your assessment! I'll probably strip it down drastically then before resubmitting. Best, /Urbourbo (talk) 20:56, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you just reviewed the page I made Draft:Skild AI and maid a note this submission appears to read more like an advertisement. Can you please help me understand what is promotional there? So I could address it.

Description is very short. Funding section is standard: size of funding and who are the investors. Then I made a section called "Technology", which is also very short and explains what is the project about. There is no promotional language. For example here:

Skild AI develops large-scale AI models intended to control and coordinate robotic systems without tailoring software to each specific robot type. The company refers to its core model as the “Skild Brain,” a general-purpose AI designed to operate across various robotic embodiments and environments. These models are trained using simulated data and human demonstration videos to accelerate learning and generalization across tasks and hardware. WindsorMaster47 (talk) 19:32, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The page puts a focus on the company and its products goals, aims, and features. It feels more like information you'd see in an advertisement than what you'd see in an encyclopedia article. AllWeKnowOfHeaven (talk) 19:33, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Thank you! I understand now. I fixed that. I also explained on my talk page how I know about this place. WindsorMaster47 (talk) 19:57, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] OK, you can resubmit the article. AllWeKnowOfHeaven (talk) 20:18, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] I did! I made a reception section, added 2 sources for it and about governance. Feel free to take a look, make better edits or let someone else to review. I appreciate the feedback. WindsorMaster47 (talk) 20:21, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reviewing Draft:Power Integrations, Inc.. I need more help on figuring out why the sources I used don't fit the requirements as in-depth, reliable, secondary and strictly independent.

More than half of the sources I cited are bylined articles from well-known industry publications. They focus on Power Integrations, but are not promotional, and not initiated by the company. In addition to those, the following sources are all from major news outlets. They feature Power Integrations as the main subject, but focus on the news and are balance in their reporting.

I need more guidance on how they are lacking so I can find more suitable sources. Thank you.

3. Reinhardt, Andy (1998-10-05). Gross, Neil (ed.). "A Cork for Leaky Electronics". BusinessWeek.

8. "Pulling the plug on standby power". The Economist. ISSN 0013-0613. Retrieved 2025-12-16.

9. Landers, Jim (2001-08-22). "Bush war against `energy vampires' is tricky business". Chicago Tribune.

10. Wayner, Peter (2003-05-01). "How to Sidestep a Two-Pronged Vampire". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2021-05-05. Retrieved 2025-12-15.

11. "2 Executives Resign at Circuit Maker". The New York Times. 2006-05-06. Retrieved 2026-01-12.

23. Nellis, Stephen (2025-10-13). "Power Integrations joins work with Nvidia on power supply push". Reuters. Retrieved 2025-12-12.

24. Ballesteros, Angelica (2025-10-14). "Power Integrations (POWI) Jumps 24% on Nvidia Partnership". Yahoo Finance. Retrieved 2025-10-14.

25. Opdyke, Jeff (2001-06-27). "Power Integrations Discourages Flighty 'Momentum' Investors - WSJ". Wall Street Journal. ISSN 0099-9660. Retrieved 2026-01-12.

~2026-77768-0 (talk) 21:46, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This page Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) will help you to understand. You should also follow the other reviewer's advice and try to make sure it does not seem like an advertisement. AllWeKnowOfHeaven (talk) 19:07, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] AllWeKnowOfHeaven, I think another look may be needed. I've looked at "2 Executives Resign At Circuit Maker", "Power Integrations joins work with Nvidia on power supply push", and "Power Integrations Discourages Flighty 'Momentum' Investors", and all three look to me like significant coverage in independent reliable sources. If they still seem inadequate to you, could you please explain why? —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 00:11, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] @Mx. Granger: Well they seemed routine to me but I won't fight it if you think otherwise, I'm sure you know what you're doing. AllWeKnowOfHeaven (talk) 21:16, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AllWeKnowOfHeaven, I wanted to ask what mistakes i'm doing with the citations for ASAP Semiconductor and can you guide me in getting this article live. I think ASAP Semiconductor is notable enough to be published on wikipedia. MHaroonAliKhan (talk) 06:13, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]