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, SafariScribe, left the following feedback:
This was a notable article on the Women in Red wikiproject where all redlinked women are listed. Can you let me know what I did wrong? I exhaustively used all WP:RS that I could find on the subject. Any other sources will be highly unreliable or not found. Sddarealone (talk) 20:58, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
I've requested the image used in this draft to be deleted from Commons. It seems you took it from the Rolling Stone website, and uploaded it with a claim that it was provided under Creative Commons licence. Please do not do that, copyright is a very serious matter and must be respected at all times.
As for your comment above, being listed on the Women in Red project in no way guarantees that a subject is notable. By all means find a subject from there and carry out your research into it, I'm all in favour of supporting that project, but the onus is still on you to ascertain notability just like with any other subject you might choose; WiR listing is not a free pass to notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:56, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
Struggling to find scientific works to write about? Start with review articles or textbooks, which may highlight influential studies, theories or methods by women.
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, RangersRus, left the following feedback:
This draft duplicates another submission, Nirmal Kumar Mahalanobis, currently submitted for review. To save time, we will review the other submission only. Any future edits or improvements should be made on that submission, not here.
I am a new user as was obvious based on my profile and history. I did edits to an article in good faith. You rejected all my edits with no explanation. When I tried to explain why I did the edits and that I felt like I had expertise in ovarian cancer research, you immediately accused me of acting in bad faith rather then giving me the benefit of doubt or assuming that I acted in good faith. None of my edits did diminish the contribution listed nor did they put Ernst Lengyel or Hilary Kenny in a bad light. I added the references that did back-up the changes I made. I stoped editing the page and tried to explain my changes in the talk page but instead you escalated the situation to accused me of acting on bad faith on my talk page. This is very discouraging. As a reminder Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomersSocialJustice3 (talk) 15:25, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
Please don't assume my view on the content being discussed on WP:BLP. I'm very sure I had debated regarding the references and inclusion of Hilary Kenny's role in Lengyel's page. You were the one who talked about accusations regarding rejecting your statements because you claimed to be a subject matter expert.
I had provided the required citations and edits in my previous edits as I do have subject matter expertise
To quote: "Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia articles about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships". Which is not what I did but thank you for the accusation. I enhanced the accuracy by providing additional resources rather than do major text editing or adding paragraphs.
Difference of opinion doesn't mean one side is wrong and the other is right. A healthy debate needs to be civil. That's the reason I asked you to read about WP:CIVIL. I hadn't pointed out that you should stop editing because you are a newcomer so yes I follow WP:DONTBITE.
On that note I will like a third opinion so that we can close this discussion in a good manner. Sddarealone (talk) 18:08, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
How to avoid biting:
1. Improve, do not remove. If something does not meet Wikipedia's standards, first try to fix the problem rather than removing them.
4. Explain reverts via edit summary or on their user talk page.
You removed all my edits, even the ones that did not relate to their collaboration and the ones that were changes to grammatical errors.
For example: when I changed that Lengyel was the first author in the nature communications paper to Hilary Kenny was the first author and provided the link the manuscript where she was listed as first author.
I said I was subject matter expert regarding point 2.-4. as I am familiar with ovarian cancer research which is not a COI:
2.) Lengyel was not the first-author of the Nature Comms paper, Dr. Kenny was which was also highlighted in the reference that was provided in previous edits. 3.) There is no treatment using "stroma" stroma is a compartment of the tumor microenvironment. They published that NNMT inhibition in the stroma can reduce tumor burden. The reference cited here [8]is not even relevant to the statement and cites research on the origins of ovarian cancer. 4.) Lengyel was a Co-recipient of a CZI grant, he was not the sole recipient of the grant as highlighted by CZI's own publication.
None of these points were statements and points 2 and 4 were easily verifiable and had the source cited.
You accused me of having a COI: Editing by a declared self-expertise would be in conflict of interest and should not be done. and by stating I acted in bad faith: On this encyclopedia project, editors assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not appear to do at Ernst Lengyel. SocialJustice3 (talk) 19:45, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
@SocialJustice3 So did I explain regarding why your edits were removed in the edit summaries and also on the article talk page. Subject matter expert on a WP:BLP can't be proved unless you can state you directly worked with them or know about them.
I had also provided my reply also to why the references didn't seem to be reliable.
As I see from the references provided by you in your last edits above, in the first paper they had produced the research work as authors which doesn't refute the fact that they were co-directors on this particular work.
"They described a method that further supported previous work that determined the fallopian tube as the origin of ovarian cancer."
Next two sources clearly are not authored by Lengyel and his research team as it can be checked in authors list.
Last one doesn't explicitly state he received the grant for the female reproductive tract research work. You can raise the content disputes in WP:DRN if you still want to insert the references. Happy editing!
I'm not going to loop over same points back and forth here unless we have a third opinion. I have already raised the dispute to third opinion. Kindly refer back to the article talk page to discuss this matter. There's also dispute noticeboard where you can raise the dispute if you prefer. I'm not going to reply to any comments on my talk page regarding this further. Regards, Sddarealone (talk) 20:27, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
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.
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your recent edits to Calrossy Anglican School when you modified the page, you introduced unknown parameters. Just because you specify |some_param=some_variable does not always mean that variable will display. The |some_param= must be defined in the template. You can look at the documentation for the template you are using but it is also helpful to use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made and ensure that the values you have added are displaying correctly. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the page will look like without actually saving it. It is strongly recommended that you 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, contact the help desk for assistance.
Thank you. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 14:26, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
I quite overlooked those end parameters in the infobox as my objective was only to change the principal field that was unsourced in the last revision. diff. The bad display of the infobox must have been caused by the earlier revisions that were fixed by PrimeBOT. I hope that clears up things. Sddarealone (talk) 15:27, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
