Vorkosicat27

Your submission at Articles for creation: The Association of Charity Independent Examiners (October 17)

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

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.

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
  

Make sure you add references that meet all four of these criteria before resubmitting. 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:The Association of Charity Independent Examiners 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.

DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:57, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Vorkosicat27! 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! DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:57, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

That's fine but how do I get it back into my sandbox so I can carry on working on it? Vorkosicat27 (talk) 15:07, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

You don't. The preferred location for pending drafts is the draft space, hence why I moved it there. You're welcome to continue working on it in its current location. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:16, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

thank you. Vorkosicat27 (talk) 15:16, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:The Association of Charity Independent Examiners

Hello, Vorkosicat27. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:The Association of Charity Independent Examiners, 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) 17:06, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Draft:The Association of Charity Independent Examiners

If this was the first article that you created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

The page Draft:The Association of Charity Independent Examiners has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appeared to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appeared to be a direct copy from https://www.accountingforgood.co.uk/blog/post/12264/what-is-independent-examination-of-charity-accounts/. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition has been be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, you may contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you may open a discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:16, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Vorkosicat27! 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:16, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

August 2024

Hi Vorkosicat27! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Boots theory that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Thank you. TompaDompa (talk) 09:13, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Connie Rosen (December 14)

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.

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:Connie Rosen 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) 19:08, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

December 2025

Your edit to Draft:Connie Rosen has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for information on how to contribute your work appropriately. For legal reasons, Wikipedia strictly cannot host copyrighted text or images from print media or digital platforms without an appropriate and verifiable license. Contributions infringing on copyright will be removed. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:45, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

January 2026

Hello, I'm Tacyarg. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Noel Streatfeild, but you didn't provide a reliable source. On Wikipedia, it's important that article content be verifiable. If you'd like to resubmit your change with a citation, your edit is archived in the page history. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Please don't add your own analysis. Tacyarg (talk) 15:20, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Dear Tacy,

I drew on reliable sources and will continue working to improve this page.

However I am unclear why you have reverted the page rather than deleted the offending section. This is unhelpful as it is not clear what you regard as opinion, in a lengthy factual edit. Vorkosicat27 (talk) 16:45, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your reply above and your message on my Talk page. Looking at the series of edits I reverted, you had added some unsourced material which looked like your own commentary, and some statements referenced to reading19001950.wordpress.com and www.whitegauntlet.com.au. I think you're probably right about the former being an RS; I reverted it on the grounds of it being a blog (see WP:BLOGS), but I think it's covered under the subject-matter expert exception described in the blog guidance. My apologies. I'll put it back in. The other I don't think is an RS, but you're welcome to ask for other opinions on the article's Talk page. Tacyarg (talk) 21:34, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

CS1 error on Michaelina Wautier

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

• A dates error. References show this error when one of the date-containing parameters is incorrectly formatted. Please edit the article to correct the date and ensure it is formatted to follow the Wikipedia Manual of Style's guidance on dates. (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) 11:00, 28 March 2026 (UTC)