| This is KKibus's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments. |
|
Your submission at Articles for creation: Sergo Kibus (December 22)
This is the English language Wikipedia; we can only accept articles written in the English language. Please provide a high-quality English language translation of your submission. Have you visited the Wikipedia home page? You can probably find a version of Wikipedia in your language.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Sergo Kibus 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, KKibus!
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! ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 23:19, 22 December 2024 (UTC) |
Concern regarding Draft:Sergo Kibus
Hello, KKibus. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Sergo Kibus, 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) 00:08, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
Your draft article, Draft:Sergo Kibus
Hello, KKibus. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Sergo Kibus".
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! 23:22, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
Reply
Thanks for message.
Although you have declared your conflict of interest, it is important that you do so on User:KKibus.
When you write about a film:
- you must provide independent verifiable sources to enable us to verify the facts and show that they meet the notability guidelines for films. Sources that are not acceptable include those linked to the film or an associated organisation, press releases, YouTube, IMDB, social media and other sites that can be self-edited, blogs, websites of unknown or non-reliable provenance, and sites that are just reporting what the film company claims or interviewing them. Note that references should be in-line so we can tell what fact each is supporting, and should not be bare urls.
- Your text was almost completely unsourced, and of the two references you did give, one was your own imdb page, clearly not an independent third-party source.
- There is a long list of urls at the bottom, no idea what they are for. If they are intended as references, they should be in the text
- the only verified fact that might help with notability is the Uppsala Short Film Festival award, probably not enough on its own to prove notability.
- You must write in a non-promotional tone. Articles must be neutral and encyclopaedic, with verifiable facts, not opinions or reviews.
- It's full of unsourced claims and promotional opinions The film offers a powerful new perspective on the impact of war... Her films... have been selected for numerous prestigious festivals... In addition to her work in animation, she is an artist, illustrator, and sketcher... has participated in several group exhibitions and held three solo exhibitions of her own. and so on, just promo throughout. Also, calling her by her first name isn't exactly encyclopaedic.
- There shouldn't be any url links in the article, only in the "References" or "External links" sections.
- Your text is littered throughout with external links which you seem to have used instead of wikilinks or proper references. ther shouldn't be any.
- You must not copy text from elsewhere. Copyrighted text is not allowed in Wikipedia, as outlined in this policy. That applies even to pages created by you or your organisation, unless they state clearly and explicitly that the text is public domain. We require that text posted here can be used, modified and distributed for any purpose, including commercial; text is considered to be copyright unless explicitly stated otherwise. There are ways to donate copyrighted text to Wikipedia, as described here; please note that simply asserting on the talk page that you are the owner of the copyright, or you have permission to use the text, isn't sufficient.
- Your synopsis seems to be a close paraphrase of this, which is not permitted. Why is it in italics?
Have a look at Alien: Romulus. You don't need to aim for that standard, but it may help with layout and referencing (ref 34 is dodgy though).
Before attempting to write an article again, please make sure that the topic meets the notability criteria linked above, and check that you can find independent third party sources. Take your time, you need to show significant improvement to survive. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:13, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
- You seem to have ignored all the advice above and just resubmitted the same junk. I will block you if you do something similar again Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:41, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
- Hello,
- I am sad to read your reply.
- I really appreciated your notes and have tried my best to follow them. I have:
- removed all URL links,
- added Wikipedia links for relevant topics,
- removed all promotional content, and
- ensured that all references come from legitimate, official sources.
- I am still confused about what might be missing, and I would really like the page to meet Wikipedia’s standards.
- Could you please confirm if you are reviewing the same draft that I have been working on? KKibus (talk) 12:43, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
- I withdraw the comment above. It looks as if an editor found a sandboxed version of your draft and moved it to draftspace. You shouldn't have two versions of a draft, and definitely shouldn't have two submitted for review, but otherwise you appear to be blameless, I should have checked the history, apologies Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:58, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
- Hello Jimfbleak,
- I apologise for any confusion and inconvenience caused earlier. Thank you for your clarification and for taking the time to review my draft. I just wanted to confirm whether my most recent draft has now been officially submitted for review. If so, I understand that the review process can take up to two months, but I wanted to make sure that my submission has been received correctly and is currently in the queue.
- I appreciate your patience and guidance. KKibus (talk) 07:40, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
- I withdraw the comment above. It looks as if an editor found a sandboxed version of your draft and moved it to draftspace. You shouldn't have two versions of a draft, and definitely shouldn't have two submitted for review, but otherwise you appear to be blameless, I should have checked the history, apologies Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:58, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
- You seem to have posted the review notice twice, but someone will remove that Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:35, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: Rebel Frame (November 5)
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
- strictly independent of the subject
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, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.
The comment the reviewer left was:
A lot of this reads like an advertisement for the company, which is not allowed
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Rebel Frame 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.
Your submission at Articles for creation: Kadriann Kibus (December 5)
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Kadriann Kibus 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.
Draft: Winter In March
Hello,
A few months ago I submitted a draft article for the animated short film Winter In March. I received some constructive feedback and made the suggested edits. However, I recently checked and it seems that the draft is no longer accessible, and I cannot find it in my drafts.
Could someone please clarify whether the draft is still under review, or if it was deleted? If it was deleted, I would appreciate any guidance on how I can revise it to meet Wikipedia’s requirements so that it can be successfully recreated. I truly hope the draft still exists so I can adjust it according to the feedback.
Thank you very much for your time and help.
Best regards,
Managing a conflict of interest
Hello, KKibus. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for article subjects for more information. We ask that you:
- avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
- propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the Edit Request Wizard), including links or details of reliable sources that support your suggestions;
- disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § How to disclose a COI);
- avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam § External link spamming);
- do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.
In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.
Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicizing, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Up to and including autobiographical Draft:Kadriann Kibus. Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 18:53, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
- Hello, and thank you for your previous guidance.
- I would like to ask for renewed access to my draft article about the film WINTER IN MARCH. I fully understand and acknowledge that I have a conflict of interest, as I am directly involved with the film. I have disclosed this COI both on my user page and on the draft’s talk page, and I am not seeking to publish or edit the article directly beyond providing sourced information.
- My goal is to prepare a neutrally written, well-sourced draft that independent editors may review and decide whether it meets Wikipedia’s notability and content guidelines. All statements in the draft are supported by independent, third-party sources such as festival winner announcments, journalistic articles, and publicly available reviews. I have avoided promotional language to the best of my ability and welcome specific feedback or examples of sentences that may still appear promotional, so I can correct them.
- Because the film is still early in its international release and only limited third-party documentation exists, I am currently the only person with access to certain factual production details. I am not attempting to promote the film; I simply want to provide accurate verifiable information for consideration by uninvolved editors—especially as the film is participating in Oscar eligibility submissions, which require clear documentation.
- Could you please restore access to my draft so that I can continue preparing an accurate, neutral version for review? I will not publish it myself and will only make edit requests in accordance with COI policy.
- Thank you very much for your time and assistance.
- — KKibus KKibus (talk) 10:32, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: Winter in March (December 10)
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:
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
- in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
- reliable
- secondary
- independent of the subject
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Winter in March 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.
- Dear TheInevitables,
- Thank you very much for reviewing the WINTER IN MARCH draft. I truly appreciate the time you took to provide feedback.
- I would like to kindly request more detailed guidance regarding the rejection. Could you clarify which sources or parts of the draft do not meet Wikipedia’s standards for reliable, secondary, and in-depth references? Any clarification or examples would be extremely helpful so that I can address the issues properly before resubmitting.
- My goal is to ensure the article meets Wikipedia’s standards, and I would greatly appreciate any guidance you can provide.
- Thank you again for your time and assistance.
- Best regards,
- Elise KKibus (talk) 15:23, 10 December 2025 (UTC)