User talk:Divnanoc

Hello Divnanoc, welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Liance, and I've been editing here for a while. I wanted to thank you for submitting Draft:Frederic Charles Cooper to WikiProject Articles for Creation and helping to grow the encyclopedia! We appreciate your contributions and hope you stick around. I can see you've already started writing draft articles, so here are a few more resources that might be helpful:

• The Teahouse - ask Wikipedians for general editing help
• Articles for Creation Help Desk - ask reviewers for draft article help
• Creating your first article
• Referencing for beginners
• Wikipedia Manual of Style

I highly recommend visiting The Teahouse if you are unsure about anything Wiki related. It's a place where experienced editors answer questions and assist newcomers in the editing process. In addition, please do not hesitate to reach out on my talk page if you have any specific questions. Once again, welcome! I hope you enjoy your time here. ~Liance^talk 22:00, 12 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Liance was:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Possibly notable but needs sources to prove it. Where did you get the info in the Biography section?

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:Frederic Charles Cooper 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.

~Liance^talk 22:01, 12 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello. The biography section amended with more details and more references added. Divnanoc (talk) 14:33, 14 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Divnanoc! 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! ~Liancetalk 22:01, 12 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello Divnanoc! Your additions to Draft:Frederic Charles Cooper have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, it's important to understand and adhere to guidelines about using information from sources to prevent copyright and plagiarism issues. Here are the key points:

• Limited quotation: You may only copy or translate a small portion of a source. Any direct quotations must be enclosed in double quotation marks (") and properly cited using an inline citation. More information is available on the non-free content page. To learn how to cite a source, see Help:Referencing for beginners.
• Paraphrasing: Beyond limited quotations, you are required to put all information in your own words. Following the source's wording too closely can lead to copyright issues and is not permitted; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when paraphrasing, you must still cite your sources as appropriate.
• Image use guidelines: In most scenarios, only freely licensed or public domain images may be used and these should be uploaded to our sister project, Wikimedia Commons. In some scenarios, non-freely copyrighted content can be used if they meet all ten of our non-free content criteria; Wikipedia:Plain and simple non-free content guide may help with determining a file's elegibility.
• Copyrighted material donation: If you hold the copyright to the content you want to copy, or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license the text for publication here. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• Copying and translation within Wikipedia: Wikipedia articles can be copied or translated, however they must have proper attribution in accordance with Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. For translation, see Help:Translation § License requirements.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices. Persistent failure to comply may result in being blocked from editing. If you have any questions or need further clarification, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 20:04, 14 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Jannatulbaqi was:

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:Frederick Charles Cooper 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.

Baqi:) (talk) 15:31, 29 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello,

I am sprinkled with sinceriest and endless apologies and pardons regarding the following text, but could you please to clarify what references (or authors) caused the doubts about "the independence" of sources and/or notability of the subject.

The Subject was the full member and exhibited in the Royal Academy of Arts and not only in that place. More than fifty of his works are stored and exhibits in the British Museum, one of the most important museums of the Planet. He was the only painter who drew the process, monuments and other heritage from one of the famous archaeological expeditions in the history of Great Britain.

The Sources are so independent and encyclopedic that I can't imagine sources more independent and authoritative. John Curtis (*ref. 3), who was a Keeper of the Middle East Department at the British Museum 1989-2011 and presently Chief Executive Officer of the Iran Heritage Foundation, President of the British Institute for the Study of Iraq, and a Trustee of the Honor Frost Foundation, dedicated the whole chapter in his book to the Subject and his meaning. Algernon Graves (*ref. 5), is an author of the most completed encyclopedia of British artists arisen from Royal Academy, described the works of the Subject. Huon Mallalieu (*ref. 9), one of the world's leading and respected art historians, ascribed the works and the biography`s details of Subject in his Dictionary of British Watercolour Artists up to 1920. I leave out of this text the biographical notes of Lord Layard, whose contribution to English history is, I hope, beyond question of independency. All of this people lived (or proceed to live) in different times, worked (or proceed to work) in the different areas, had no direct or indirect connections with the Subject.

It is my sincere opinion that the criteria where "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject" is inline and undoubtful. Divnanoc (talk) 16:00, 2 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Frederick Charles Cooper, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Theroadislong (talk) 17:10, 4 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. Divnanoc (talk) 17:12, 4 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your contributions to William Henry David Birch. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it consists of machine-generated text. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Vegantics (talk) 21:30, 11 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your detailed comment. But the article doesn`t have machine-generated text and it is easy to prove in two simple steps:

1. 60-70% of the references cited in the article are inaccessible to current AI models, and these models do not refer to them when generating and/or finding possible information about person described in the article. I have just checked it twice.

2. Nearly all AI models (with the possible exception of couple specials currently training by myself) confuse with two English artists named David Birch: David Birch R.O.I. and David Birch of Cotswolds, as well. Similar confusion can also be found in some artist`s biographical descriptions online. This article is also like an attempt to prevent such confusion. Anyway, the draft has been revised and is now submitted for review. Divnanoc (talk) 20:21, 12 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Sorry. what? A person included in almost all important English art encyclopaedias of XX century, and who was a head of one of the best English art schools for 31 years doesn`t match Wikipedia criteria? 13 independent references included 3 books dedicated to the Britain`s artists are not enough? Absurdly. Divnanoc (talk) 16:39, 23 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Before adding a category to an article, as you did to Chen Jiagang, please make sure that the subject of the article really belongs in the category that you specified according to Wikipedia's categorization guidelines. The category being added must already exist, and must be supported by the article's verifiable content. Categories may be removed if they are deemed incorrect for the subject matter. Thank you. ^SMason_Garrison 23:07, 11 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by ToadetteEdit were:

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.

The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners. Thank you.

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:William Henry David Birch 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.

ToadetteEdit (7M articles) 15:39, 23 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Sorry. what? A person included in almost all important English art encyclopaedias of XX century, and who was a head of one of the best English art schools for 31 years doesn`t match Wikipedia criteria? 13 independent references included 3 books dedicated to the Britain`s artists are not enough? Absurdly. Divnanoc (talk) 16:39, 23 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:William Henry David Birch. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 17:13, 23 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, but who are "they"? If you mean Birch R.O.I., he`s at least "been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums". It is ascribed and easy to define. Divnanoc (talk) 20:59, 23 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

"They" is William Henry David Birch, you say he has work in the Brighton Museum & Art Gallery but the source fails verification, which "other permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums" is he in? You need to add the content and source it for the draft to be accepted. Theroadislong (talk) 21:06, 23 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Artnet is the reliable source that shows the circulation of artworks (in or between the collections) and biographical details (including the verification of Brighton Museum), as well. But ok, the direct links added:

https://artuk.org/discover/artists/birch-william-henry-david-18951968-4213

https://collections.brightonmuseums.org.uk/records/5e976743c7e31100174770a6 Divnanoc (talk) 10:29, 25 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:William Henry David Birch. Thanks! 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 21:48, 26 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Disagree. This is an example of article shown that the person exists. Birch described in at least two important British art encyclopaedias, references 2, 11 ("The person is regarded as an important figure"); His works are in collections of notable museums and galleries according to references 13, 14 that has descriptions here in Wiki ("been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums") and it was explained above. It is comprehensive research from open sources for today and I doubt that the new will leak anytime soon Divnanoc (talk) 22:40, 26 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Divnanoc Disagree all you wish. Your disagreement here will not influence me, nor, really, will anyone see it. People do not readily drop by user talk pages. There is nothing to prevent your resubmission for further review if you feel that to be appropriate. I do not propose either to accept or decline it. I'm all for having a good argument, but this is not one. Arguing your ground is relatively valueless on Wikipedia. Improving your draft has a substantial value. Please enjoy doing so.

With regard to your example, please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. There are many inadequate articles from the early days here and far too few volunteers to find them all. Than you for finding this one. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 23:17, 26 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by MCE89 were:

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.

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Please add citations for the unsourced sections, and add additional independent sources.

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:Tatyana Alexandrovna Nozhkina 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.

MCE89 (talk) 06:17, 3 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Overwhelming with my endless apologies, regrets and other activities, but what kind of sources defined as not reliable? Primary page of WSJ? Washington Post? Dozens of leading international media not mentioned in the draft, in context of her defense work for Evan Gershkovich or other persons? Internationally acclaimed legal ratings? All of the sources mentioned and checked as independent (excluding couple of sites from more than 20s describing the details of her career) and almost every sentence has its own reference. "Significant coverage" also send us to:

- https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/us-reporter-gershkovich-appeal-against-arrest-detention-russian-jail-2023-04-17/

- https://www.politico.eu/article/russian-court-dismisses-wall-street-journal-reporters-appeal-gershkovich-espionage-case/

- https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/apr/18/russian-judge-rejects-wsj-reporter-evan-gershkovichs-detention-appeal

- https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/18/world/europe/wsj-reporter-evan-gershkovich-moscow-court-detention.html

and even Egypt https://www.egyptindependent.com/lawyers-for-detained-american-reporter-detail-conditions-in-russian-jail/#google_vignette ... Divnanoc (talk) 13:05, 3 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Those sources only provide passing mentions of Nozhkina, not significant coverage. You need to find sources that are entirely independent of her (i.e. not professional profiles, interviews etc.) and that discuss her directly and in detail. There are also a number of unsourced statements that need to be cited, starting with her date of birth.

In addition, you've indicated that the photo in the draft is your own work. What is your relationship with the subject of the article? MCE89 (talk) 13:14, 3 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

I know the difference between sources, and I permanently follow the detailed rules of Independent sources that say:

(i) a person`s coverage in "News media, popular or scholarly book..." defined as potentially independent, unlike the sources listed in the same rules that are non-independent (Person, family members, friends, employer, employees);

(ii) the Non-independent sources identified as well;

(iii) an "independent" source is one that has no vested interest in the subject.

None of the resources with the characteristics breaking the above mentions were used in writing the draft, with the exception of two references to her work (allowed) and the statement that the person ‘did not dream of becoming a lawyer,’ taken from her interview. Other references are independent, has secondaries (like journalists opinions), discuss the legal cases where she was involved in details, parallel, perpendicular, linear, amorphous, etc. Without the air of a socialite, but simply from a professional point of view.

"In addition to your addition". I found the question is offensive, inappropriate and absurd, as you are clearly trying to accuse me of publicity, despite the formal tone of the article, neutral point and the confirmation of all the facts stated in it by independent sources (according to Wikipedia rules). But I will answer. I have no connection to the person. However, as a lawyer with more than twenty-five years of experience and who sometimes writes the notes on court proceedings for students and professional media (none of them used in a draft), I have closely watched some of her trials. After the trial of Gershkovich, which is in the current motives behind his accusations in the RF seems like something of a feat or a kind of heroism for lawyer, I did not hesitate to create an article for Wiki and then call to ask for a photo to provide with. And since I’ve been into photography from nine years old and studied with Soviet technic toys such as Smena, Zenith, Lomo LC-A, etc., I know a thing or two about the process. Especially since some photos of prominent figures (with whom I also have no "relationship") from my own photo banks were willingly used by the Russian media some time ago. So I took this photo easily, independently and without using any tricks. That`s the story. Divnanoc (talk) 16:19, 3 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Divnanoc. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Chen Jiagang, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five 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) 15:06, 9 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Qcne were:

This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.

Your draft shows signs of having been generated by a large language model, such as ChatGPT. Their outputs usually have multiple issues that prevent them from meeting our guidelines on writing articles. These include:

• Promotional tone, editorializing and other words to watch
• Vague, generic, and speculative statements extrapolated from similar subjects
• Essay-like writing
• Hallucinations (plausible-sounding, but false information) and non-existent references
• Close paraphrasing
  

Please address these issues. The best way is usually to read reliable sources and summarize them, instead of using a large language model. See our help page on large language models.

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:Ramiro Davalos 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.

qcne (talk) 19:09, 18 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

False statement. No promotional tone: every sentence based on independent source, encyclopaedic information (including Wikipedia), published research papers (including the direct citations). No AI usage (the assumption of non-existent references is particularly amusing. What kind, for example?). Divnanoc (talk) 13:37, 19 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Divnanoc True statement. Promotional and casual tone includes:

> The future painter; deeply involved; acclaimed; remained content; musical talent sang with a pleasant voice; visual journey etc

And you absolutely used an AI chatbot because two of your sources contain "utm_source=chatgpt.com" in the URL.

You also can't use the ZH Wiki as a source. qcne (talk) 13:44, 19 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

Translation for reference # 5 (Enciclopedia Digital de la Provincia de Salta (in Spanish). Divnanoc (talk) 13:54, 19 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

I haven't mentioned Ref 5, what are you talking about? qcne (talk) 14:03, 19 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Divnanoc. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:William Henry David Birch, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five 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) 22:06, 26 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.)

List of cover versions of Leonard Cohen songs

added links pointing to Sting, James, Dion, Ian McCulloch, Kurt Wagner and Sharon Robinson

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 17:53, 21 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your recent edits to John Yardley (painter) when you modified the page, you introduced unknown parameters. Specifying |some_param=some_variable does not always mean that variable will display. The |some_param= needs to be defined in the template in order to work. You can look at the documentation for the template being used, but it is also helpful to use the preview button before saving an edit; this helps find any errors that have been made and ensures that the values added are displaying correctly. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show what the page will look like without actually saving it. It is highly recommended that editors use this before saving. Note I have likely fixed the error by now so check the history of the page to see how it was fixed. If you have any questions of if I can help explain further, please let me know! You can also contact the help desk for assistance. Thank you. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 00:00, 22 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I'm Gurkubondinn. An edit that you recently made to Draft:Reporter (fashion brand) seemed to be generated using a large language model (an "AI chatbot" or other application using such technology). Text produced by these applications is not allowed on Wikipedia, and may contain factually inaccurate statements, fictitious citations, or other problems. You should instead read reliable sources and then summarize those in your own words. Your edit may have been reverted. If you want to practice editing, please use your sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or ask your questions at the Teahouse, a friendly place for new users. Thanks. ‑‑gurkubondinn 14:17, 24 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

A tag has been placed on Rada Krivokapić-Radonjić requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person, a group of people, an individual animal, an organization (band, club, company, etc.), web content, or an organized event that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator.

AriuCH (talk) 22:27, 22 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

The article Tatyana Alexandrovna Nozhkina has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Biography of a practising lawyer that does not appear to meet WP:NBIO or WP:GNG. I could find no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources; available sources are the subject's own law firm website and passing mentions in connection with cases she handled, which do not establish notability. The text also appears to be largely LLM-generated, with promotional tone and claims not supported by the cited sources.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion based on established criteria.

If the proposed deletion has already been carried out, you may request undeletion of the article at any time.

This is an automated notification. Please refer to the page's history for further information. DatBot (talk) 00:30, 23 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Strongly oppose deletion. The nomination is based on several unsupported assertions and, at least in a couiple important respects, is demonstrably incorrect. Hardly, it contains deceptions and lies.

(i) The claim that this is an LLM-generated version of the article is not supported by the evidence. This is the author's version of the article, and that can be established by a simple comparison with versions published over the Internet (like the Draft Version of an article previously published here). For example, the LLM-generated version on Grokipedia taken from my wiki draft article is substantially different from the human-written version here. It is easy to verify and check for yourself. The mere fact that someone considers the prose to "look like AI" is not evidence of AI authorship. Wikipedia's current LLM guideline expressly states that sanctions require evidence beyond basic stylistic or linguistic indications.^[1]

(ii) The accusation of a "promotional tone" is entirely unsupported. No specific sentence is identified, no promotional wording is quoted, and no particular policy violation is demonstrated.

(iii) The nomination ignores the subj's extensive professional recognition. She has been recognized as a leading criminal lawyer by all three major professional rankings cited in the article: The Legal 500, Best Lawyers, and the Pravo.ru-300 ranking. This is independently reported by legal-industry sources, including Pravo.ru and Legal Insight. On the contrary, the "own law firm's website" that you are mentioned is empty — it contains no information whatsoever. This is simply a false accusation and pure vandalism.

(iv) The assertion that there is no significant independent coverage is plainly contradicted by the sourcing. Legal Insight published a substantial interview devoted specifically to subj, covering her career, professional specialization, experience and position as managing partner. This is not a passing mention in connection with somebody else's case; it is sustained secondary coverage of subj herself.

The nomination should be rejected. Divnanoc (talk) 15:28, 23 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

A tag has been placed on Tatyana Alexandrovna Nozhkina requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia, as it exhibits signs of having been generated by an AI model. Text produced by these applications is prohibited on Wikipedia. For further information, see section G15 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think these signs were incorrectly identified, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Additionally – if you would like to create an article but find it difficult, please ask for help at the Teahouse. ‑‑gurkubondinn 14:21, 24 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:AI noticeboard regarding your edits. The thread is User:Divnanoc. ‑‑gurkubondinn 14:39, 24 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Divnanoc. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Miguel Canals', a page you created, has not been edited in at least five 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) 16:09, 30 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Mobile Homes, a link pointing to the disambiguation page British was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 8 November 2026 (UTC)Reply