Latest comment: 3 months ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your username, "Heavycrownpress", may not comply with our username policy. Please note that you may not use a username that represents the name of a company, group, organization, product, service, or website. Examples of usernames that are not allowed include "XYZ Company", "MyWidgetsUSA.com", and "Foobar Museum of Art". However, you are permitted to use a username that contains such a name if it identifies you individually (not your role), such as "Sara Smith at XYZ Company", "Mark at WidgetsUSA", or "FoobarFan87", but not "SEO Manager at XYZ Company".
oh dear. It's too bad wikipedia didn't catch it when I registered. Anyway, I think 'griffinsignal' should be approved. It's not a company, just a nod to my own fictional character. Heavycrownpress (talk) 21:57, 20 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Draft declinedThank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Your draft submission to Articles for creation has been reviewed but not accepted at this time.
FeedbackThe reviewer, ChrysGalley, left the following feedback:
The bad news is that this isn't the place for reviewing changes to existing articles, it's for brand new articles on a subject. (Maybe we should do that, but it's not what happens).
The good news is that you can just edit content into existing articles, if you have sources, so you don't need them to be reviewed here.
The unofficial "however" is that you should not word things via AI (or LLM), and some of the wording here signals, at least to me, that this may have happened here: the "further cementing" bit, which is classic LLM, nice words, slightly promotional, not exactly in the style of a human editor. So you can think about editing the existing article, but you must use your own words.
Hello, Jeffgriffinsignal!
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! ChrysGalley (talk) 13:05, 29 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
You have used sources that are either clearly noted as paid placement, unmarked press releases or marketing content, or blatant fake content farms which house unmarked SEO placement. One of Wikipedia's core policies is that contributions must be verifiable through reliable sources, preferably using inline citations. These sources step far beyond those policies. Please carefully evaluate your references in the future, and ensure that you are in compliance with our mandatory paid editing disclosures. Sam Kuru(talk)11:42, 17 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Draft declinedThank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Your draft submission to Articles for creation has been reviewed but not accepted at this time.
FeedbackThe reviewer, Athanelar, left the following feedback:
Latest comment: 1 month ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Nicolas Mathieu (writer), a link pointing to the disambiguation page Liberation was added. 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.)
Latest comment: 1 month ago17 comments2 people in discussion
Connemara (novel), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been accepted!
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 C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 23% of accepted submissions, well done! 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 submitting a draft for review. However, you may continue submitting drafts to Articles for creation if you prefer.
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.
Just to add @Jeffgriffinsignal, I have removed the photo of the book cover. I can see it is pending VRT approval, if they do approve then by all means reinstate the photo. It's just that at AFC stage we are very cautious on copyright issues and it would be unusual, though not unprecedented, for a publisher to release the cover of a book under licence. Thanks for submitting the draft. ChrysGalley (talk) 14:06, 11 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Trust me, it's a headache you don't want at this stage. If VRT gives the green light then please put it back. Usually I advise people to keep photos out unless they are 101% sure copyright is OK (e.g. over 100 years old or there is a pre-existing licence). ChrysGalley (talk) 15:42, 11 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
OK. I also removed those book cover images from the Nicolas Mathieu page since both are under VRT review. We'll see what the experts say. I like the idea of going through the AFC process in the future, since it ensures accurate grading in the class system. I'm not sure I feel confident to fulfill that process at this stage of my article creation experience. Jeffgriffinsignal (talk) 15:49, 11 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Yes, you are absolutely welcome to use AFC, usually there is a backlog though. So if you are working in an area where you are not certain then yes use AFC. I would do the same, if working on an article outside my usual area. But if it's familiar ground and you know the notability criteria well then maybe it's better to just put it in, in order to protect the limited AFC resources. There is a New Page Patrol what will check at some point. I take the point about "content assessment" but until it gets to the top layers such as FA and GA I'm not sure you can take it too seriously. ChrysGalley (talk) 16:00, 11 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
OK. I would like to work on the conversion from French Wikipedia for Aux animaux la guerre (Of Fangs And Talons). This is Nicolas Mathieu's debut novel and even more significant for his ecosystem than Connemara. It has significant awards and is more substantially written about in the American literary circles. Jeffgriffinsignal (talk) 16:20, 11 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
And this would be your second such article? Well by all means use AFC - it's always open to you. There are some very experienced editors who always put things through AFC. And by all means ping me if you want advice. The one thing I should have mentioned for this book is that translations are supposed to get a copyright nod in the edit summary. It's largely ignored these days, but the full details are here: WP:TFOLWP, ideally in the first or at least an early edit. This also applies when translating from English to French too, I have a few articles in French Wiki, however they have the additional requirement to add in a similar comment in the References section (which is actually a better arrangement). Personally I can't get too excited about it, but some people do. You will also notice the Talk page mention. ChrysGalley (talk) 17:45, 11 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
My second article of a literary work, yes. I did a lot of edits to the Nicolas Mathieu (writer) page and much of that was translated from the French wikipedia. I understand about using the translation notice in the edit summary, but how can I put the notice on the history now? Should I just do an edit now, paste the notice in the edit summary, and let it stand, or put a template on sections that are straight translations? Jeffgriffinsignal (talk) 18:06, 11 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Just add a dummy edit and put the wording in the edit summary, it is explained in the the "forget" section. And if you have started Aux Animaux, just put in the next update you do. It's just to keep the gnomes happy, and it's all best endeavours. ChrysGalley (talk) 18:46, 11 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
OK. I think I'm getting the hang of it. I made the translated article templates for the bits that were translated and a bot moved them to the talk pages (Connemara and Nicolas Mathieu pages) for me.:) Do those templates cover it? I can do the dummy edits too, but the templates I specified exactly what sections were direct/full translations. Jeffgriffinsignal (talk) 18:59, 11 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
That's not quite right, but I've fixed it for you in Connemara. So this change is purely in the edit summary, nothing in the actual article/draft, you don't need to add a template to the main page. If you now look at the History tab, under my name I put in the sort of wording you should have used. So Connemara is now done, as added the oclc number while I was there, but it could be just adding a blank space and deleting it.
For the Talk page, if you view that in edit/source code, you will see the line I put in there at AFC, which is actually more useful. So they are the two changes you need. That's a template, not the edit summary, in that scenario.
It does not apply here, but let's say you wanted (for now) to only translate part of a long article, so the English version was only a partial translation, and there would be scope for some other editor to add in more text from the original French. Or more likely I think, a living author whose French page is likely to be kept up to date more frequently than English. In which case there is another template for the main page in that more limited scenario, described here: {{Expand French|Connemara (roman)}}, just to show the furture expansion options. That would be content in the main screen, not the edit summary. ChrysGalley (talk) 19:27, 11 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
OK. I have his debut novel in my sandbox. I want to wait a bit before submitted it for AFC review. I'll double check the references and the other things like oclc and make sure the attribution is good for the translation. For this, I did not translate the whole French wikipedia page, since it's not that good. I only translated the synopsis section of the page. User:Jeffgriffinsignal/sandbox For the Nicolas Mathieu and Connemara pages, the only parts of those articles that were translated were (in the author's case) the Biographie section and for the Connemara novel, the summary section. Other sections were sourced from French wikipedia but not copied, as the text was actually not quite as good as it could be. Jeffgriffinsignal (talk) 21:09, 11 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
I have had to do similar things on some of my translations too, in both directions, and that's all fine. Sometimes it's only apparent how bad it is once you've started the translation effort. If there is any substantial piece of translation involved, then the edit summary is needed, it basically asserts Wikipedia's ability to use the material in different places. Ditto the template on the Talk page. The "expand" template is just a judgement call, if you really think there is no point in any other content coming over, via another editor, then just leave that one out. It's quite OK to add new material, there isn't a requirement to stay "pure" to the source. Each language has it's own rule on notability and sourcing so some variations are unavoidable. French Wikipedia, for example, has a 2 year notability rule, so in some cases one has to change the sources in order to show a 2 year gap, which we don't have to do in English. ChrysGalley (talk) 21:36, 11 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
I now wonder if "Aux Animaux la Guerre" shouldn't be named according to its English translation novel, Of Fangs And Talons, following precedent of his Prix Goncourt novel, And Their Children After Them. Connemara happens to be the same in both languages so I guess it's an open question as to which way to go. But maybe it should be Of Fangs and Talons since that's how it is known in English. Jeffgriffinsignal (talk) 23:00, 11 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
There isn't a right or wrong about that one. It can be changed later if the overall circumstances suggests it is best to use the English name. But that's fraught with problems. My own favourite book is Malraux's La condition humaine, which has a Wiki entry under Man's Fate. Well it's mostly known in the UK as Man's Estate, since it was a school textbook for a long time under that name, or the French name. The French name obviously has never changed but there are now 4 English titles for the same book, not all of them different translations. Even worse is In Search of Lost Time, when there are 6 English titles and most people would still look under A la recherche. But luckily we can set up "redirects" so that if people use any of these names they still bounce on to whatever the wiki title turns out to be. I see one of my colleagues has cleared this book, so congratulations on two books in one day! ChrysGalley (talk) 07:28, 12 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
OK. That makes sense. I'm neutral on the question but I think I'm slowly coming around to liking the use of the French title better because it is more distinctive. It does seem more recognizable in association with the author. "Of Fangs and Talons" doesn't quite click the same way. Jeffgriffinsignal (talk) 13:16, 12 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Aux Animaux la Guerre, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been accepted!
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 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 submitting a draft for review. However, you may continue submitting drafts to Articles for creation if you prefer.
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.
Latest comment: 1 month ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The welcome may be belated, but the cookies are still warm!
Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Jeffgriffinsignal! I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:
Oh, that's confusing. I honestly thought it was already disambiguated as Joseph Cohen (philosopher). Yes, please, it definitely needs to be disambiguated. Thank you. Jeffgriffinsignal (talk) 15:08, 1 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 19 days ago14 comments2 people in discussion
Draft declinedThank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Your draft submission to Articles for creation has been reviewed but not accepted at this time.
FeedbackThe reviewer, ChrysGalley, left the following feedback:
provide significant coverage: discuss the subject in detail, excluding routine coverage like product launches, staff appointments, or financial reports and listings in databases or listicles;
are reliable: from reputable outlets with editorial oversight;
are independent: not connected to the subject, such as press releases, the subject's own website, or sponsored content.
Please add references that meet all three of these criteria. If none exist, the subject is not yet suitable for Wikipedia.
There is good sourcing for what the organisation does and the prizes, no issue there. However the organisation itself has to demonstrate notability per WP:NORG. There is just one source that talks at length, the Monaco Now article from 2022. There may be some question marks about that piece's independence, but if leaving that to one side, we still need multiple examples of this level of sourcing.
I am going to try to improve it. There are a lot of alternatives I might consider for sources. Is there something particular about the existing sources? I can understand the problem with the Siri Hustvedt website; that's a personal website, not a news source, I understand that's not ideal. There are a lot of magazines and newspapers in Monaco and Paris that I might draw from, though. If I can improve the sources, would that make a big difference? I think I can.
@Jeffgriffinsignal - I hope you are able to improve the notability related sourcing. This need to be independent (so newspapers are usually OK, certainly Nice Matin and the Paris newspapers would be OK); they need to cover the organisation in "significant depth", so a few sentences isn't sufficient, it needs to be sufficient that a summary could be made. So avoid the habit of some editors just to have lots of drive by sources, or as the sources currently do, sources which really focus on something else such as the prizes. ChrysGalley (talk) 23:04, 2 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
I have done some work on it yesterday and today. There is still a ways to go. I made a Notes section as it was the only way to specify certain points made in YouTube sources. I was careful to indicate particular passages as quotes in references for statements in History and Organization. If you think this improves things, I will continue along these lines for the rest of the article. Thank you for your advice. You're always very helpful. Jeffgriffinsignal (talk) 21:42, 3 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the updates @Jeffgriffinsignal, and you do appear to be heading in the right direction, from a quick scan. Actually Wikipedia doesn't encourage direct quotes on the whole, it's quite ok to summarise, so long as it is accurate. That said, your use of quotes so far is fine. What sometimes happens if there is too much quoting is that it triggers our copyright checking bots, though that has not happened yet. Youtube can be problematic, however if it's from an officially recognised source that is less of a problem. You still need to be aware of the need for independent sourcing where interviews with those close to the association won't help for notability. However some of the other sources are now OK for notability by the looks of it. In terms of getting a draft accepted then the focus should be on notability earning independent sources, you can always add more non-independent verification style material after it has been accepted, in order to further improve it.
Normally I prefer to give re-reviews to other reviewers if there is a big difference from the first decline, which there now is. But as the resident francophone reviewer it's probably easier for me to do the next review in this case. So let me know when the article is ready for that. ChrysGalley (talk) 22:37, 3 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Well, I've reviewed and revised the whole page, and excepting the section on prizes & awards, I feel fairly confident that the rest of it is much approved regarding the notability test. The prizes and awards need a bit more work, but I'm spent for the day.:) I will return tomorrow at some point to see what I can do for the Prizes & Awards. Jeffgriffinsignal (talk) 00:30, 5 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
I've looked at the prizes now too. I think this section looks good. My one concern is the list of laureates of the principality prize. If you think we need secondary sourcing for each laureate, or if the past winners are verified substantially by the official website? Jeffgriffinsignal (talk) 13:47, 5 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
For details, which aren't controversial / self serving (so not the focus of the organisation) it's totally OK to use primary sourcing from the organisation. So first question: is this an exceptional claim? (e.g. "best winner ever"). Is the primary source more likely to accurate than some secondary source further down the track? So I think that would allow a single source to the official website in this scenario.
Second question: have you considered material like this:
Yes, there are undoubtedly those kind of secondary sources for each of the laureates, with Nice Matin and Monaco Matin, and others. Monaco Matin is not ideal because it's paywalled.:) Jeffgriffinsignal (talk) 15:13, 5 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Paywalls aren't a problem for Wikipedia sourcing, though less than ideal for our readers. It's ok to use them, as is fully offline sources, so long as full details are provided (page numbers). ChrysGalley (talk) 15:17, 5 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Ah, that makes sense. I also noticed that paywalled sources are annotated in the citation as such. I think I may be ready to try submission again. I'll give you a chance to have a look? And just let me know if you think I ought to give it another try, or keep working on it? Jeffgriffinsignal (talk) 18:01, 5 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Thanks, yes I think it's OK for acceptance in broad terms. Some of the tone is a bit over promotional, beware of any value-driven statement such as "highly", so if it's OK I'll dial that back for you. May be tomorrow before I get to it though. ChrysGalley (talk) 18:16, 5 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
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 C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 23% of accepted submissions, well done! 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 submitting a draft for review. However, you may continue submitting drafts to Articles for creation if you prefer.
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.
I think wikipedia confused me with the reviewer since I have that ability now, and then I got confused and thought I had to submit it again. Thank you for all your help.
Latest comment: 17 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Éditions du Rocher, a link pointing to the disambiguation page Georges Duhamel was added.
Latest comment: 10 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited System (magazine), a link pointing to the disambiguation page Yves Saint Laurent was added.
Latest comment: 2 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Charlotte Casiraghi, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
A URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters contains an invalid URL. Please edit the article to add the valid URL. (Fix | Ask for help)
Welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your username, "Heavycrownpress", may not comply with our username policy. Please note that you may not use a username that represents the name of a company, group, organization, product, service, or website. Examples of usernames that are not allowed include "XYZ Company", "MyWidgetsUSA.com", and "Foobar Museum of Art". However, you are permitted to use a username that contains such a name if it identifies you individually (not your role), such as "Sara Smith at XYZ Company", "Mark at WidgetsUSA", or "FoobarFan87", but not "SEO Manager at XYZ Company".
You have used sources that are either clearly noted as paid placement, unmarked press releases or marketing content, or blatant fake content farms which house unmarked SEO placement. One of Wikipedia's core policies is that contributions must be verifiable through reliable sources, preferably using inline citations. These sources step far beyond those policies. Please carefully evaluate your references in the future, and ensure that you are in compliance with our mandatory paid editing disclosures. Sam Kuru (talk) 11:42, 17 April 2026 (UTC) 
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Charlotte Casiraghi, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows: