User talk:Aeon Sentinel

Hi Aeon Sentinel! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! CNMall41 (talk) 00:17, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi, and welcome to WikiProject Articles for creation! We are editors who work together on the Articles for creation and Files for upload processes.

Some helpful tips:

• Take time to read the reviewers' instructions.
• Feel free to ask for help at the reviewers' talk page.
• Submissions to be reviewed can be found in Category:Pending AfC submissions and there is a useful list which is maintained by a bot.
• You might wish to add {{AFC status}} or {{AfC Defcon}} to your userpage, which will alert you to the number of submissions. There is also a project userbox. If you haven't done so already, please consider adding your name to the list of participants by subject.
• Several of our members monitor Wikipedia's help IRC channel, and you are welcome to join in to ask Wikipedia-related questions.
• The IRC channel #wikipedia-en-afc ^connect is used occasionally for internal discussion regarding the AfC process, and also serves as a recent changes feed, displaying all edits made in the Articles for creation namespace.
• The help desk is the place where new editors can ask questions about their submissions. You are welcome to help in answering their questions.

Once again, welcome. sksatsuma 18:48, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions to Jeftimije, Metropolitan of Zeta. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability and only links to foreign-language, badly formatted sources - could an average English reader verify the reliability of these without basic author information, ISBNs?. 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 the draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Joy (talk) 05:15, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your feedback.

However, I want to discuss this. Before accepting the draft, I checked all the sources in translation, concluding that they are indeed notable. And I believe there is no problem in them being not in English per WP:NOENG.

As for your comment regarding formatting, please see WP:AFCSTANDARDS paragraph 4.

Best, Aeon Sentinel (talk) 12:11, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

The reason I'm perhaps not as lenient as those standards is because this is the WP:ARBMAC topic area, and we've already had a long history of problems with bad sourcing, and we still have at least a few user accounts topic-banned or blocked while they were ostensibly linking to reasonable sources found e.g. at Google Books, but they couldn't coherently cite them, and it turned out that they promoted various tendentious or fringe theories.

If you don't actually fix these citations while reviewing, or tag them, it's hard to tell that we're in the clear. I know this may seem like an imposition, and a waste of volunteer time, but I don't like the risk of having to waste so much more volunteer time later, all the while having readers misguided by bad articles, either. --Joy (talk) 09:36, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your clarification! I will look closer at the article's citations, maybe even fix it by myself when I have time. Only after these adjustments have been made I will accept the draft, if the plan is okay by you.

Have a pleasant day!

Best, Aeon Sentinel (talk) 16:52, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions to Karl Scheydt. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. 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 the draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:15, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments! I will be sure to try and improve the article.

Best regards,

Aeon Sentinel (talk) 00:21, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi Aeon Sentinel! Thanks for your AfC reviews. I noticed a couple of your reviews while looking at pages you had previously declined, and just wanted to make some suggestions for your future reviews. It seems like you are often directing people to rewrite their pages in accordance with WP:MOS, which in my view isn't the most useful advice to be giving to new users. For instance, when you declined Draft:Giselle Anne with the custom reason "Please rewrite the draft inline with WP:MOS guidelines", that doesn't tell the creator anything about which specific part of the tens of thousands of words in the MOS pages they need to address in order to have their draft accepted. Compliance with the MOS is also not a requirement to accept a draft at AfC — the only thing that you need to be checking is that the draft has a greater than 50% chance of surviving AfD, and that there are not any glaring content problems or policy violations (e.g. copyright or BLP violations). I was also quite confused by your decline of Draft:Rudolf Prietze, which seems to drop a lot of different links to policies and guidelines — many of which, such as WP:LEAD, are not really relevant here — without really explaining what the specific issues with the draft are.

My advice would be to stick to using the regular decline templates and try not to substitute in a custom decline reason unless there is something particularly unusual or unique about a draft. When you decline a draft there should also typically be a notability-related decline reason attached. Unless the issues with something like tone are absolutely egregious, I would very rarely decline a draft without notability being one of the reasons why. Hopefully that makes sense, and thanks again for your AfC reviewing! Just let me know if you have any questions. MCE89 (talk) 07:49, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the precious advice. I will be sure to be more detailed in my future reviews!

Best,

Aeon Sentinel (talk) 21:57, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello! Thank you for your attention to the draft. I have studied WP:NPOV, WP:SNPOV, and WP:BALANCE, but unfortunately, I do not completely understand what is wrong with it. I seem to be relying on independent sources and retelling what they say in encyclopedic language. Dean Marris (talk) 20:26, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Dean Marris! Thank you for your paid contributions disclosure.

It's not just about summarizing sources accurately, but also about selecting them appropriately. The current draft presents an imbalanced view that leans too positive. Initiatives and partnerships are great, but such PR campaigns have little to none encyclopaedic value. Additionally, there are significant events related to 1win that should be included. For example, here are some sources I found:

https://www.heise.de/en/news/1win-data-leak-Almost-100-million-user-data-records-at-Have-I-Been-Pwned-10268661.html

https://sbceurasia.com/en/2024/01/10/kazakh-authorities-are-investigating-the-activities-of-online-casino-1win/

To meet Wikipedia's standards, the article needs to balance different views and avoid advertising or presenting the topic from only a positive angle. Please incorporate these other significant events to create a more neutral perspective.

Best,

Aeon Sentinel (talk) 19:23, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

OK. Done. Could you please take a look again? Dean Marris (talk) 21:59, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Dean Marris!

I have checked the new version of the article, and I would say that this is a good start, however the article is still far from being balanced and neutral. I have found two essays that I think might help you, please consult WP:GCONT and WP:NIF.

Happy editing!

Best,

Aeon Sentinel (talk) 14:57, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello! I've expanded on the data breach. I don't even know what else I could add to make the article more balanced. Please take another look again. Thank you! Dean Marris (talk) 17:55, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2025 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:53, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

:) Aeon Sentinel (talk) 21:42, 18 November 2025 (UTC)