User talk:MCE89

This is MCE89's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 30 days are automatically archived 1 or more at a time by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 10.

Hi MCE89, while monitoring the 1325 (LLM) edit filter I came across a strange situation. As documented at Talk:Risala Ahlus Sunnat wal Jamaat § LLM-generated content (and I have many more diffs ready to go), this is a user with a non-native English level who has been using LLMs to create and expand articles for years, despite denying this. The LLM use is an issue, but one I can manage. What I could use your help with is this: Owais Al Qarni user space. The user has a ton of pages in user space: several of these User:Owais_Al_Qarni/40, User:Owais_Al_Qarni/42, User:Owais_Al_Qarni/AlmaZ seem to be either copies of or machine translations of (mostly non-English) sources. Per Special:Diff/1322830871 they say they are keeping these in their user space to "study". The user does not typically identify what the source is and as evidenced by their claims about not using LLMs, is not very collaborative. So I don't know how to find the source and then check to see whether it is copyrighted. I assume there are multiple copyvios in their user space but I don't know what to do about it - open a CCI case? Start tagging relevant user space pages for G12? Do nothing because all of these sources are public domain? I figured you would know. NicheSports (talk) 12:56, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@NicheSports ...yeah, yikes. It looks like they have had at least 5 prior copyright warnings [1] [2] [3] [4] [5], although they are all from quite a while ago. I had a look at the userspace pages and User:Owais Al Qarni/AlmaZ is definitely a machine translation of this book, which is under copyright as far as I can tell. User:Owais Al Qarni/40 just contains a copy-paste of this copyrighted website. User:Owais Al Qarni/35 is obviously an LLM translation of something given that it includes things like If you want, I can **continue translating the remaining sections**, including his full literary achievements, awards, and the broader impact of his work on Urdu literature, and then **compile everything into a complete English biography**. Do you want me to do that?, but there's no real way for me to find the original source. User:Owais Al Qarni/42 also seems to clearly be a translation of something, but again I didn’t have any luck tracking down the source. I'm also finding quite a lot of translation copyright issues in their recent mainspace pages too, e.g. Safarnama Rum-o-Misr-o-Sham seems to have some loose transvio of [6]. Al-Aqaid al-Nasafiyya contains transvio of this Russian-language source [7] and this Turkish-language source. [8]. Al-Itqan contains transvio of the same Turkish-language source [9]. Abu Taher Nadwi is a pretty close translation of [10]. Lumat al-Itiqad contains some pretty close translation of this Urdu source.

Anyway, apologies for all of that detail. Given what I was finding, this reply unfortunately basically turned into a draft of my CCI request halfway through writing it. It's getting late for me, but I'll probably make that CCI request tomorrow. Thank you for flagging this. MCE89 (talk) 14:24, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much. I'll watch for the CCI filing to see if I can help once it is open. One request: I was already aware of User:Owais Al Qarni/35 - can you hold off on SD-nominating that specific page for now? It unambiguously qualifies for G15, but the chances this situation leads to a sanctioning conversation are high, and that page is relevant. NicheSports (talk) 14:36, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. And yep, will hold off on removing or tagging anything for the moment. MCE89 (talk) 14:39, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MCE89 letting you know that after the CCI investigation was opened I filed a companion case at AINB. See WP:AINB § Owais Al Qarni. No action needed, just an FYI. Thank you for your help with this a few weeks ago. NicheSports (talk) 18:13, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On Everett Peck's article, I was unaware that I was copying from Lambiek. What gives? I didn't want to cherrypick, but I had to include everything, but there is too much people to list and how I did not think I was committing copyright infrigement.

Everett Peck - Lambiek Comiclopedia ~2025-31339-58 (talk) 17:02, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @~2025-31339-58! When making edits, you need to make sure that you're summarising the source's ideas in your words. Factual information from the source is fine to use, so it would not be a copyright issue to list the same influences (although I'd suggest that you might not want to include all of the names listed in the source). But you can't take language directly from the source. For example, your edit took the phrasing Peck grew up reading Mad Magazine and loved the work of... directly from the website. Let me know if that is unclear at all or if you have any questions. MCE89 (talk) 02:30, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MCE89, like this instead?

"Everett Peck cited Roland Searle, Don Martin, Basil Wolverton, Virgil Partch, Carl Barks, Robert Crumb, Walt Disney, Max Fleischer, Jay Ward, Tex Avery, Bob Clampett, Chuck Jones and Frank Tashlin." ~2025-31339-58 (talk) 06:55, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that would be completely fine from a copyright perspective. MCE89 (talk) 07:16, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong ~2025-43401-68 (talk) 16:47, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Thank you so much for taking the time to review the page I recently submitted on criminologist, Alex del Carmen. I was hoping for more clarity as to why the page wasn't accepted, so that I can improve my chances of it being approved when I resubmit. I looked through the notability guidelines for academics, and believe Del Carmen qualifies for the majority of that list, including: number 1 with his contributions to the field of police work and racial bias; number 2 with the consent degree appointments; number 5, as he was a named chair, and number 6 in the public discourse he facilitates as an expert criminologist on news outlets. Going through my sources, I see that a few are not independent, so I'll remove those and trim the section on public commentary so as not to be redundant--but any other feedback or suggestions would be incredibly helpful. Thank you again. MissLizy1223 (talk) 21:15, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @MissLizy1223. Sure, happy to. Going through each of the WP:NPROF criteria that you've mentioned:

• WP:NPROF#C1 requires evidence of significant scholarly impact, typically well beyond that of the average professor/researcher. Usually we're looking for things like very highly cited research, or major academic honours. Del Carmen's citation record doesn't meet the threshold that's generally applied for this criteria, and while it looks like he's made solid contributions to his field, I don't see anything that would meet this criteria.
• WP:NPROF#C2 requires major academic awards. His consent decree appointments might help with notability slightly, but I wouldn't consider them academic awards for these purposes.
• WP:NPROF#C5 requires a named chair, e.g. being named "the John Doe Professor of Such-and-Such". I can't see any mention of del Carmen holding such a named chair either within your draft or on his faculty pages?
• WP:NPROF#C7 requires evidence of substantial public impact. It's assumed that most professors will sometimes gives quotes and expert opinions to the media, so this is not enough on its own to satisfy this criteria.

Hopefully that helps — unfortunately it doesn't seem to me that he passes the specific notability criteria for academics at this time. It's still possible that he might pass the general notability guideline, but to establish that you will need to add more independent, secondary sourcing that discusses del Carmen in detail. MCE89 (talk) 23:12, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I noticed that you approved the draft Draft:Rosemary Hopcroft, but i don't think it was quite ready for the mainspace. The main issuse I saw was that most of the sources weren't secondary; many were from either her places of employment, or were articles (or commentaries thereupon]] that Rosemary wrote. Additionally, it seems to be a WP:AUTOBIO based on the riginal authors names. Anyway, I appreciate your AfC work, but I have dratified the article again. Also, I don't know if I would have gone as far as to rate the article as C-class, see the grading scale

I appreciate your efforts! -Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 16:02, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Commandant Quacks-a-lot. I disagree with your draftification. You'll see that I added multiple reviews of her books, which are secondary, in-depth sources discussing her work, and based on those I think she very clearly passes WP:NAUTHOR criteria 3. I'm not sure sure why you say that most of the sources aren't secondary — exactly 2 of the 14 sources are primary, as well as 1 interview published in an academic journal. The remaining 11 are all secondary sources. I agree that it's obviously an autobiography, but that is entirely permitted (although discouraged), and the creator did everything right by going through AfC. I don't see any grounds for draftification here and am going to move it back to mainspace — you are welcome to nominate it at AfD if you would like. MCE89 (talk) 16:12, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I was focusing more on the WP:NPROF aspect of the article. And some of the sources, if secondary, are very trivial mentions of her. Anyways, thanks for pointing out the WP:NAUTHOR to me. Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 17:57, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MCE89,

Thanks for the review. I accept the decline—I know BLP standards are strict.

I saw you tagged the decline as `prof` (academic notability). I wanted to ask a quick question to make sure I fix the draft correctly for next time.

While the subject is a scientist, the draft has two major sources from Portuguese national media that I think might meet the General Notability Guideline (GNG) rather than just the academic criteria:

• A 2-page feature interview in Público (regarding the COVID Moonshot work).
• A detailed profile in Diário de Notícias (regarding the Nobel work).

I suspect the depth of these wasn't clear because of the language barrier. I've just updated the citations to include **translated quotes** so you can see they are detailed profiles, not just routine mentions.

Do you think these translated details help demonstrate the "significant coverage" needed for GNG?

Thanks for your help.

Aragaod David Aragao (talk) 22:17, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Aragaod The piece in Diário de Notícias helps, although its level of significant coverage of Aragāo is somewhat limited as it's mostly about the work that he did with Kobilka. Similarly, the piece in Público provides fairly limited coverage of Aragāo and is largely about recounting the work that his lab was doing. I don't see quite enough there to pass WP:GNG, which would require slightly more direct coverage of Aragāo as a subject in my view, although you are welcome to resubmit and get another reviewer's opinion.

I'd also really encourage you not to use LLMs to communicate or write content on Wikipedia in future, see WP:LLM for more on why. MCE89 (talk) 02:04, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @MCE89. I will digest the input and, from there, see if I will continue further, wait a few months, ask for help or give up. By the way congratz on the featured status article, spend sometime reading it and now am interested in reading one of her stories :). Thanks for the effort for the community. ~~~~ David Aragao (talk) 02:23, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, MCE89! The article you nominated, Mary Fortune, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, FrB.TG (talk) via FACBot (talk) 23:06, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	I really appreciate you taking the time to review drafts and commenting on my reviews in the backlog drive. As a new reviewer, they have definitely helped. HwyNerd Mike (t | c) 06:27, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much @HwyNerd Mike, and thank you for all your reviewing! MCE89 (talk) 06:32, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello MCE89!,

Thank you for reviewing my submission. I understand that the draft was not accepted due to concerns about whether the references demonstrate significant coverage.

I would greatly appreciate it if you could provide more detailed feedback. I am unsure which references are considered insufficient, as all of them are from official and reliable sources. Any clarification would help me improve the draft and ensure it meets Wikipedia’s notability and sourcing guidelines.

Thank you very much for your time and assistance. KKibus (talk) 14:21, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @KKibus! To establish notability, you need multiple sources that are independent of the subject, reliable, and that provide significant coverage. Usually for this kind of subject, that would look something like a profile written by a journalist and published in an established newspaper. Database listings and similar websites do not contribute to notability.

Hopefully that helps — let me know if you have any questions. MCE89 (talk) 14:25, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask why you accepted Draft:Hesham Rakha in such a state? I moved it to draft without realizing it was previously accepted, because I didn't imagine that an autobiography this promotional could have made it through AfC. I'd like to understand what you saw in it. Thanks, MediaKyle (talk) 20:37, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @MediaKyle. He passes WP:NPROF#C1 multiple times over, has multiple separate fellowships that all satisfy WP:NPROF#C3, and has a named professorship that is an automatic pass of WP:NPROF#C5. Feel free to slap {{promotional}} and an {{autobiography}} tags on it, but the role of AfC is to determine whether a draft has a >50% chance of surviving AfD, which this very clearly does. You'll also see that I removed a bunch of promotional content before accepting it — the creator just added a lot of it back in after I moved it to mainspace. Honestly, I don't think draftification was appropriate here. I would have just tagged the issues and given the creator a firm warning that they needed to stop editing it directly and start using edit requests due to their COI. MCE89 (talk) 04:00, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:AFCR... Whether an article has a 50% shot at surviving an AfD is not the only metric we apply at AfC. Part of an AfC assessment is also determining if an article meets WP:NPOV, which this autobiography certainly did not, even prior to the author adding a bunch of material back. This is why we have decline messages for "resume" and "npov". While I wouldn't have draftified it again if I noticed it already went through AfC once, I stand by the decision, and I would ask that you leave it for another reviewer. Thanks, MediaKyle (talk) 04:06, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MediaKyle An article does not need to fully satisfy WP:NPOV to be accepted, please see WP:AFCPURPOSE. It's completely fine to accept an article despite issues with tone if those issues could be fixed in mainspace through normal editing. I'll leave this for another reviewer as you request, but I see draftifying an article that has already gone through AfC as against the spirit of WP:DRAFTOBJECT, given that I have implicitly already objected to the move by moving it into mainspace. It's also confusing for the submitter, who I think could probably still use a clearer explanation from you than just telling them that they need to go through AfC. MCE89 (talk) 04:16, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If an article has WP:NPOV don't promote it to mainspace. It needs to fixed in draft. scope_creep^Talk 10:01, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep NPOV issues obviously exist on a spectrum. I've declined plenty of drafts for NPOV failures, but it is absolutely fine to accept a draft that could use some mild trimming of resume-like content or puffery. AfC is supposed to screen primarily for notability and for serious failures to adhere to our content guidelines, not to ensure that all pages entering mainspace are perfect. MCE89 (talk) 10:21, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to read the good article reviewing instructions fully and make sure they say what you think they say. Under "Reviewing workflow, step 3: Suitability", it says point blank that if a submission "is not written from a neutral point of view" then you decline it. There's no "spectrum", and even if there was, this was on the far end of it. I'm disappointed and concerned to see you doubling down on this. MediaKyle (talk) 11:34, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MediaKyle I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Of course there is a spectrum — there are otherwise acceptable drafts that contain one of two pieces of mild peacock language, and there are drafts that are G11 levels of spam. In this case I agree that the listing of awards was excessive (which is why I cut it down before I accepted the draft), and that the list of research achievements could have been written more neutrally. But I disagree that this was so overwhelmingly promotional that the only acceptable response was an NPOV decline. MCE89 (talk) 11:42, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved this Draft:Christoph Rass back to draft. Why did you promote to mainspace? The references for a BLP are a mess. There is no page numbers in the book references and uses a ton of primary and spammy sourcing, some of them to shops. Lots of the content aren't sourced failing WP:V, some of it same profile web page that doesn't have the info. It appears to be sourced but isn't. It is completely unsuitable for mainspace. There is no doubt the guy is notable but the article needs a significant amount of work, before it goes back. scope_creep^Talk 10:05, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep. A lack of page numbers in book references is absolutely not a reason to decline a draft at AfC, see WP:AFCSTANDARDS. I'm not sure I understand any of your reasons for draftifying this page. There are sufficient secondary, in-depth reviews of his books cited in the draft to establish that he meets WP:NAUTHOR criteria 3, and his named professorship at the University of Oregon is also an automatic pass of WP:NPROF#C5. Given that you yourself have just admitted that he is notable, I'm not sure why you used the draftification reason it needs more sources to establish notability. Your COI draftification reason is also not applicable to an article that has already gone through AfC, since going through AfC is exactly what we require of editors who have a COI. I agree that it could use some clean up of the sourcing, but I did a spot check of the primary biographical claims before accepting it and I don't see the major issues that you are referring to. MCE89 (talk) 10:18, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is the absolute reason as its a failure of WP:V. That was the first thing I spotted. Page number are criticial for the reader to find and read the content. Is the reader supposed to search through reams of books pages, archives, journal articles to find the information? A manual search everytime. Come on. That is really poor reviewing. The sourcing has been done really quickly and is really sloppy and there is insufficient secondary coverage for the BLP. It is mostly based on primary coverage which is unacceptable for a BLP. The fact he is notable doesn't give the subject an automatic right to be in mainspace when the article references are such a mess. That is the whole point of draft. On the coi editing, it be slim but there is something going on. I was originally going to take it to Afd as a TNT case and then rewrite it myself but thought better of it. I intend to check all the other articles you've reviewed in the last couple of months. I wasn't planning to do until I saw that message above. scope_creep^Talk 10:39, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep You're absolutely welcome to check my other reviews and send any pages that you would like to AfD. Page numbers for book and journal sources are definitely not a requirement at AfC, and in fact they're not even a requirement for GAs. But I also don't see where the lack of page numbers would hamper verification in this particular draft. Almost the entire thing is sourced to his university profiles and to secondary reviews of his books that are a few pages long at most. I don't see anywhere where the lack of page numbers is a serious failure of WP:V. I also disagree that the page is mostly based on primary coverage and that there is insufficient secondary coverage — the page cites plenty of in-depth secondary reviews of his work. If you disagree, feel free to send it to AfD. MCE89 (talk) 10:49, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One can be pretty sure that something like Red Lotus Sea already has an article on Wikipedia. Abductive (reasoning) 13:05, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Abductive Ah, thanks for spotting that! I had exactly the same thought and searched by its Thai name, checked Kumphawapi district as well as checking whether the images appeared on any other pages before accepting it, but didn't find anything. I missed that link at the start of the Geography section though, appreciate you catching the mistake. MCE89 (talk) 13:14, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've finished reviewing Draft:Acadian borders, which I approved. Thanks for checking in! Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 16:06, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Commandant Quacks-a-lot, and sorry for following up on it! Just wanted to double check that you were still reviewing it :) MCE89 (talk) 16:17, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your good article nomination of the article Truganini has passed; congratulations! See the review page for more information. If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Jens Lallensack -- Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:05, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @MCE89! Thank you for your time for rewiev of Draft:Albin Czernichowski. I am asking you for help because I do not understand what I am doing wrong. The article has been not accepted again. In my opinion the person meets criteria 1 and 7 what is confirmed by independent sources. Please advice me - what I am missing? AdamWilanowski1980 (talk) 20:32, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @AdamWilanowski1980! Typically to meet criteria 1 of WP:NPROF you would need to show a substantial impact on the subject's field of research, as demonstrated by something like a very strong citation record, or by some other kind of independent recognition of their research impact. In this case it looks like Czernichowski has had a solid impact on his scientific discipline, but I don't see any sign of the kind of recognition that would typically satisfy criteria 1. While citation count is definitely not the only metric that's applied here, his h-index of 10 is a fair way off the usual thresholds for meeting this criteria. On criteria 7, this requires evidence of substantial impact outside academia. Having a number of patents is not sufficient to demonstrate this — we would need evidence that independent, reliable sources have recognised his work as impactful. MCE89 (talk) 06:44, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review and the helpful feedback. I appreciate your guidance. Best regards, ~~~~ Free Horizon 54 (talk) 21:57, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what articles you might need, as I've included the source for each part, and they're all individual achievements for only her outside her group

However, these are three prominent fashion articles that highlight gaeul's prominence and personal accomplishments outside of the grou

three best sources that provide significant coverage of her personally:

한층 더 짙어진 가을

아이브 가을, 中 매거진 커버 장식…선배미 제대로 터졌다 | 한국경제

그냥 있는 그대로 예쁜 가을

Please help me understand the type of sources you require for submitting the article,I worked really hard on this article and gathering its sources wasn't easy. I made sure to include a source for every part I wrote.

StarEditor92 (talk) 11:35, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @StarEditor92! Thanks for this, that definitely helps. I hadn't realised that so many of the sources just referred to her by the nickname "Autumn", so I likely missed some of these when I did my initial review as I was looking for sources that mentioned her by name. Unfortunately though I still don't think these sources quite establish her notability. One is an interview, which is not an independent source. The other two essentially just describe photos that she posted. This one is probably the best, but it really only provides about 1.5 paragraphs of actual coverage of Kim Ga-eul. The type of sources that I would suggest looking for to establish notability are profiles of her in reliable publications, or any other coverage that goes into at least a little bit of detail about her life and/or career. Hopefully that helps, and just let me know if you have any questions! MCE89 (talk) 11:47, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://biz.chosun.com/entertainment/enter_general/2025/03/20/WVDZVMNZGQP7QG2QKTBUFUQ6BM/

https://biz.chosun.com/en/en-entertainment/2025/09/14/UQP7FSKFVJFQZFCTYZ5UODA77Y/

맏언니 아이브 가을에 관한 흥미로운 사실들

Thank you for the clarification and your kind reply.

I searched again and found these three articles covering a part of her life If this isn't enough, I don't think there's anything more to add.

I will stop editing this article until later, or until there is more evidence to support publishing it. Thank you. StarEditor92 (talk) 12:04, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's definitely a good start. I probably wouldn't quite accept the draft based on these sources, but you're very welcome to resubmit it for another reviewer to take a look as it's possible another reviewer might come to a different conclusion. You've also done really great work on the draft, so definitely don't be discouraged! You definitely always have the opportunity of coming back to it later if more sources are published that support her notability. MCE89 (talk) 12:11, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

resubmit it for another reviewer how to do that?Is there a specific option, or do I just have to resubmit the article? I'm afraid it might get deleted; I worked hard on it and I don't want to risk losing it. StarEditor92 (talk) 12:14, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's definitely no reason to worry about it getting deleted. A draft page will usually only be deleted if it meets one of the criteria for speedy deletion (e.g. if it is spam or vandalism). A draft can also be deleted if it goes six months without being edited at all, but if that happens you'll just need to make a request at WP:REFUND and an administrator will restore it for you. To resubmit the draft, just look for the blue button that says "Resubmit" in the bottom left of the red box at the top. You can also add {{subst:submit}} to the top of the draft. MCE89 (talk) 12:26, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your responsiveness and kind replies; I appreciate it very much. StarEditor92 (talk) 12:29, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You could always keep a copy of the article in your userspace, or save it in a text file on your computer. I understand wanting to keep your own work "safe", regardless of what happens to your AfC. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 22:30, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do that too thank you for your suggestion StarEditor92 (talk) 04:17, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On 9 December 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Caroline Hodgson, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that one newspaper labelled Caroline Hodgson the "wickedest woman in Melbourne"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Caroline Hodgson. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Caroline Hodgson), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to nominate it.

~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:02, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 20,324 views (846.8 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of December 2025 – nice work!

GalliumBot (talk • contribs) (he/it) 03:28, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for approving the article Tobacco industry in Switzerland.

Could you add a link to it in Template:Cigarettes > Tobacco industry > By country ?

Thanks in advance! Atis Muller (talk) 20:05, 9 December 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Of course, done! Thank you for creating the article :) MCE89 (talk) 17:12, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MCE89,

Thanks for your time in reviewing the submission.

I'm a bit confused by the rejection. The references provided are from independent sites. For example AccountingWeb and InternationalAccountingBulletin are publications that cover the bookkeeping industry and relay the major news. They have deep industry knowledge so are reliable.

Only the IRIS reference is indeed not independent since it's the parent company of Dext. I had third party reference too to relate the acquisition but they were inaccurate. That's why I decoded to use the official one IRIS' site. It's not independent but it remains objective and just announcing the acquisition. I thought that would be more trustworthy for readers.

Please help me understand the current issues or additional types of sources you require for submitting the article. I worked on this article and I'm looking forward to see it live. I made sure to include a source for every written part and used a variety of sources to cover the article. I also referred to other WP pages to enrich the information provided to the reader of this page. Lex-Ba-D (talk) 16:58, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Lex-Ba-D! To be eligible for a Wikipedia article, you need to show that there are multiple sources about this company that are independent, reliable, and provide significant coverage. Wikipedia has particularly strict requirements for companies, which means that sources need to provide a deep level of coverage and be much more strictly independent of the company itself.

In this case, the two main issues are that your sources are largely published by relatively niche industry publications rather than mainstream outlets, and provide fairly trivial coverage of the company. Pieces that are based largely on the company's own statements or that report on routine business news, such as a new partnership, acquisition, or funding round, aren't enough on their own to establish notability. We need sources that provide some kind of independent analysis, commentary, overview, or evaluation of the company. Unfortunately I didn't see that kind of depth in any of the sources currently cited in your draft. MCE89 (talk) 17:08, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On 11 December 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Australian Church, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Charles Strong founded the Australian Church (building pictured) after facing heresy charges, and attracted many elite congregants including a future prime minister? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Australian Church. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Australian Church), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to nominate it.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there,

I see you around, and I would like to ask you for feedback about this topic. Many reviewers declined it, and I tried to solve it as I felt it was potentially a notable topic. I had a discussion in AfC help. I had to decline it for now. What is your opinion about this topic? I see someone commented that it is ready to be accepted. Awaiting your response. AlphaCore talk 00:43, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MCE89: Hi, I've made revisions since your December 6 review of Draft:FBI Section 702 surveillance violations: neutralized the title (now "FBI Section 702 query violations"), added secondary sources throughout, and added an FEC citation for the donor citizenship claim. The FISC opinions are now consistently paired with secondary source coverage (Reuters, WaPo, NBC, CBS, The Hill). If there are specific passages you feel still constitute OR, happy to address. Thanks! Bladerunner24 (talk) 01:42, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @MCE89,

Thank you for reviewing my draft on Yakov Ivanovich Gerasimov and for your constructive feedback. I have carefully read your comments regarding the need for reliable sources, and I have addressed these issues.

Specifically:

1) I have added clear descriptions to each reference in the "References" section to explain their origin and authority.

2) I have replaced one of the less formal references with a more authoritative source.

These sources are independent, published, and directly affiliated with the institutions (MSU and RAS) where Yakov Gerasimov worked, making them reliable for verification.

I would be grateful if you could take another look at the updated references and provide any further guidance on the article's style.

Thank you for your time and assistance. SchneiderMark (talk) 13:12, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @SchneiderMark! That looks much better. The main issue remaining is that there is still a significant amount of unsourced content, including the entirety of the "Editorial and organizational activities" and "Scientific works" sections, and whole paragraphs in the "Early life and education" and "Scientific and pedagogical activities" sections. I'd suggest adding citations for those paragraphs, checking that all of your existing citations fully support the article's text, and then resubmitting. MCE89 (talk) 13:17, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I would appreciate your help with specifics as to the reasoning for declining the page. This is the second time it was declined and I am trying to improve it based on comments. I removed pretty much everything that could be considered promotional (which included the effects on the community) and kept this as factual/encyclopedia-ish as possible. Ephrata National Bank is a pretty strong force within their community, but their community is small versus someplace like Philadelphia. Is there a specific number of outside sources that are required? We are using ABC, Wall Street Journal, Lancaster Online, Central Penn Business Journal among other historical books. I am at a bit of a loss to figure out where to go from here. Any additional help you could provide would be appreciated! Thank you for your time!

Trish Casey (talk) 17:35, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Trish Casey Of course! I think you've done a good job of fixing up the tone, and I don't see any major issues with promotional language anymore. Wikipedia has particularly strict inclusion requirements for companies, including that coverage should be deep and significant and strictly independent of the company itself. Generally local coverage of routine events like changes in leadership or acquisitions would not meet that threshold. Unless there's any further coverage, I unfortunately think Ephrata National Bank may not meet the relevant inclusion criteria. But given the company's local presence, have you instead considered trying to incorporate some of this material into Ephrata, Pennsylvania? I wouldn't expect anyone to have any issue with you adding a brief section on the bank and its history to that article. MCE89 (talk) 17:48, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the blog article that I referenced. However, I have kept the youtube link because it is an interview with Bhoomi Harendran herself. I hope it counts as a reliable source. Please forgive me if I make a mistake. I'm kinda new to the whole thing :) Samfedo (talk) 08:27, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Samfedo! That should be fine. Using something like an interview with the subject of the article is okay under specific circumstances — you can read WP:BLPSELFPUB and WP:ABOUTSELF for more on when this is permitted. In general you can use Harendran's own statements, provided the information is not exceptional or self-serving, and doesn't relate to third parties. I can still see some issues with your sourcing though — for instance, what makes this piece a reliable source? I probably also wouldn't use this Medium post as a source. MCE89 (talk) 08:36, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. I have removed the sources that your pointed out as "not reliable" with the information only present in those sources. I also added some more reliable sources to the article. Please check and let me know if there are any improvements to be made. Samfedo (talk) 11:17, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The sourcing looks better, but I'd suggest going through the draft again and making sure each statement is clearly supported by the cited source. To give one example, your draft contains the statement Bhoomi Harendran was born on August 16, 1990, in Borella, Sri Lanka, but I can't find her date or place of birth in the source cited. You should make sure that claims like Harendran is considered one of Sri Lanka's foremost human rights defenders and Her most significant contribution is her active advocacy for the Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) are supported by citations to secondary sources, rather than being your own opinion. MCE89 (talk) 11:24, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I will make relavant changes accordingly. Samfedo (talk) 11:47, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The date is from a documentary from "Tell Her Story - A Storytelling Contest run by the Institute for South Asia Studies at UC Berkeley & Facebook" accessible here, which I have forgotten to cite. Thank you for pointing out the mistake. I hope it's considered a reliable source. Samfedo (talk) 11:58, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reviewing this draft so promptly, I appreciate your time.

Ihave revised one more time the article to better reflect the subject’s notability in line with Wikipedia’s notability guideline (General and Academic, particularly criterion 7 (substantial impact outside academia in an academic capacity).

The article is updated to emphasize independent coverage by national media and professional organizations in which the subject is cited or invited as a legal expert, including interviews and features in established Croatian outlets, as well as participation in publicly documented conferences and institutional events addressing regulatory and public-policy topics. Specifically:

- Expanded sourcing in the Academic career section using independent media and institutional references;

- Added an independently sourced academic award in Honors and awards;

- Clarified and strengthened sourcing in Public policy work and institutional engagement;

- Clarified the subject’s Jean Monnet Chair, a named chair awarded by the European Commission, in line with the guideline concerning distinguished or named academic appointments.

All statements are supported by independent, reliable sources.I would be grateful if you could review the updated draft when convenient. Thank you again for your guidance. It has helped me significantly improve the quality of the article. Percivalhanguyen (talk) 09:53, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Percivalhanguyen. I've had a look again, and I'm still not seeing any clear evidence that Jozipović meets our inclusion criteria for academics. I can't see any prior discussions about whether the Jean Monnet Chair is sufficient to establish eligibility for an article, but from what I can find it seems to be much more similar to a funded teaching fellowship than the kind of named professorship that would satisfy WP:NPROF#C5. Participating in events as an expert and giving occasional quotes or interviews to the media is fairly routine for an academic, and wouldn't satisfy WP:NPROF#C7 without stronger evidence of substantial impact or influence. I also don't see any instances of detailed coverage of Jozipović in independent, reliable sources that could contribute to him instead meeting the general inclusion criteria. MCE89 (talk) 10:07, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning MCE, thank you for your prompt reply and detailed comments. They were very helpful in clarifying where the article needed improvement.

I would like to clarify why the article meets Wikipedia’s General Notability Guideline and the definition of significant coverage (WP:SIGCOV) that you mentioned.

The article does include multiple instances of independent, reliable secondary sources that provide non-trivial, person-focused coverage of the subject. These sources discuss the subject directly and in context, rather than merely mentioning him in passing or citing him solely as an expert.

In particular:

• Dalmatinski Portal - “Borba protiv digitalnog kriminala: ilegalne kripto-transakcije u 2024”, which describes the subject's role and expertise in addressing legal challenges related to digital crime and financial regulation.
• Slobodna Dalmacija - “Dr. Šime Jozipović krenuo sam u svijet da bih radio i učio od najboljih u mojoj struci”, the subject's focused feature article
• Večernji list - “U Londonu i na Harvardu nudili su mi dobro plaćene odvjetničke poslove…”, an in-depth interview/profile centered on the subject's professional path and academic trajectory.
• 24sata- “Mladi stručnjak odbio Harvard…” provides additional narrative coverage of the subject's early career decisions.
• Dalmacija Danas- “Prestižna nagrada: Veliki uspjeh mladog splitskog znanstvenog povratnika” discussing the subject's recognition and professional standing.

These sources suggest that the subject meets the General Notability Guideline multiple independent instances of significant secondary coverage.

Thank you again for your time and review. Percivalhanguyen (talk) 02:41, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Update, I’ve just found and added the following source as well:

Slobodna Dalmacija – “A young expert from Split receives a prestigious Jean Monnet Chair: Dr. Šime Jozipović will prepare students-entrepreneurs for the market battle”, the subject's focused article reporting on his academic appointment and professional recognition. Percivalhanguyen (talk) 09:31, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Percivalhanguyen. It looks like you've resubmitted the draft, so another reviewer will take a look at the new version eventually and make a decision about whether to accept or decline it. Looking at these sources, I personally don't see enough to meet the general notability guideline. Several are interviews or are composed almost entirely of quotes from Jozipvić, which means they are not independent sources. Others appear to be relatively shallow announcements of him receiving awards, without significant coverage of him or his work. But the next reviewer may feel differently, so you'll just need to wait and see what they think. MCE89 (talk) 09:40, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good evening MCE, just in case a future reviewer has a similar concern, I’d really appreciate understanding your reasoning here, as it would help me improve how I select and structure sources for future articles.

- From WP:Independent sources, I understood that sources can still be considered independent even if: the subject is quoted heavily, or the article is presented in an interview format, as long as the outlet controls the content and the subject did not publish it themselves. Interviews published by independent newspapers would therefore still qualify as independent sources.

- 3 of the sources I listed in previous response are under interview format, but they are not pure Q&A pieces. They contain third-person narration written by the journalist, including background, career context, and professional trajectory, with quotations used to support that narrative rather than replace it. In these cases, the source itself explains who the subject is and why he is notable, without requiring inference or original research. To be specific, the Slobodna Dalmacija and Vecernji list articles include extended third-person descriptions of the subject’s education, career decisions, and professional focus before and between quoted statements. And, while some articles report on specific recognitions or appointments, they go beyond a one-line announcement by providing context about the subject’s work and career. Percivalhanguyen (talk) 08:02, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What we require is significant coverage (i.e. coverage that addresses Jozipović directly and in detail) that was written by someone unconnected to him. Interviews and quotes don't meet that criteria, because they are Jozipović's own words. If a source also contains significant coverage written by an independent party (e.g. a biographical introduction in the journalist's voice before the interview), then that source may contribute towards notability. But in the case of the Slobodna Dalmacija piece for instance, that only amounts to a couple of sentences. MCE89 (talk) 08:11, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review.

I understand the concern about primary sources/press-release style sourcing. I’ve now added an independent secondary source from AOK-Bundesverband and I would like to clarify which sources are intended to demonstrate notability vs. which are only used for factual verification. For notability (WP:NCORP / WP:ORGCRIT), the draft relies primarily on independent, secondary, editorial coverage, in particular:

- WELT (10 Oct 2025; feature on the German AI Prize / start-up award winner Simply Onno)

- Sächsische Zeitung (31 Mar 2025; article describing the service and its background)

- AOK-Bundesverband (14 Oct 2025; independent coverage of the Dresden project/studies describing the system developed with Simply Onno)

Other references (e.g., official pages and trial registry entries) are kept only to verify specific factual statements (e.g., trial registration/details), not to establish notability. If you have time, I’d appreciate a fresh look at the updated draft with these key independent secondary sources in mind. PolanskiW (talk) 12:32, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The source included in your draft about the WELT award is clearly labelled as a press release [11]. The piece in Sächsische Zeitung is stronger, but it relies quite heavily on quotes from the founder and doesn't provide the independent, detailed coverage that is required to satisfy Wikipedia's strict inclusion requirements for corporations. The piece published by AOK only provides a passing mention on Simply Onno rather than significant coverage, and it's not clear to me that AOK (a health insurer) is an independent or reliable source here.

Please also stop using AI to write here, see WP:LLM for more on why it's really not a good idea. MCE89 (talk) 12:47, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the detailed feedback. Agreed on the WELT award reference. I’ve removed the Axel Springer press release and replaced it with WELT’s editorial article: https://www.welt.de/wirtschaft/deutscher-ki-preis/article68e8e5ca0bda2290ccea6dd0/start-up-preis-wenn-mal-wieder-niemand-die-diagnose-versteht.html

I’ve added the AOK article as an extra reference for the study section. I am only using it for context/verification there. But I see your point. Thanks again for your time. I will resubmit the draft when more reliable sources are available. PolanskiW (talk) 13:08, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello MCE89,

Thank you very much for taking the time to review my draft and for the detailed feedback. I appreciate your guidance.

I have revised the draft to address the concerns you raised. The article now includes additional independent, reliable secondary sources from established Thai media outlets (including Sanook and TrueID) that provide more substantial coverage of the subject. I have also removed or replaced non-functioning URLs and ensured that all references are accessible and verifiable.

I hope the revisions better align the draft with Wikipedia’s notability and sourcing guidelines. Thank you again for your time and assistance, and I would appreciate any further feedback if additional improvements are needed.

Best regards, CKZ3991 (talk) 16:04, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @CKZ3991! It looks like you've accidentally added the new version of the draft to your talk page at User talk:CKZ3991 instead of updating the draft at Draft:Ponlawit Ketprapakorn, so you'll probably want to move it over to the right place. Let me know if you need a hand with that at all. The first thing I noticed when looking at the new version is that your citations don't appear to match the article text in several places. For instance, your draft says that his date of birth was 1 June 1996, while the source you cited says that his date of birth was 25 March 1999. If this new version was also written using AI, I'd really suggest that you stop using these tools — see WP:LLM for more on why using AI on Wikipedia is not a good idea. MCE89 (talk) 16:18, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MCE89,

Thank you for pointing that out, and apologies for the confusion. You’re absolutely right — I mistakenly edited my user talk page instead of updating the draft, and I’ve now moved the revised content to Draft:Ponlawit Ketprapakorn.

I’ve also corrected the date of birth to match the cited source (Sanook) and reviewed the draft to ensure the citations align properly with the text.

Thanks again for your time and for flagging these issues — I appreciate the guidance.

Best regards,

CKZ3991 (talk) 16:23, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CKZ3991 It doesn't look like you managed to move the content to the right place, but that's okay, I've just gone ahead and done that for you. It also looks like you've lost a lot of the sources you had in the original versions and are now instead citing IMDb, which is not considered a reliable source. Again, I'd really suggest that you stop relying on AI to write for you on Wikipedia — it's just not very good at understanding how these things work. You might instead find WP:YFA helpful as a guide to writing your first article, and you can always ask any questions you have about editing at the Teahouse, which is our help forum for new editors. MCE89 (talk) 16:42, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh sorry I’m still learning to navigate this page. Thank you so much for your guidance. I’ll try again soon ~2025-40391-27 (talk) 16:49, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for taking the time to review my draft.

The text on the site https://musical-world.com.ua/artists/ganzburg-grygorij-izrayilevych was taken from the Ukrainian Wikipedia: https://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%93%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B7%D0%B1%D1%83%D1%80%D0%B3_%D0%93%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%96%D0%B9_%D0%86%D0%B7%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%97%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87 That is, it was originally published under a free and compatible copyright license.

Deboraverin (talk) 10:00, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Deboraverin! As I said on your talk page, that was my mistake — I should have spotted that the website had translated the text from the Ukrainian Wikipedia. I've restored the content and it's now back in the queue for a reviewer to look at. In future, please make sure to follow the instructions at Help:Translation#Licensing and provide attribution whenever you copy from another Wikipedia. You can do this by using an edit summary like NOTE: This edit contains material translated from the existing Ukrainian Wikipedia page at [[:uk:PAGENAME]]; see its history for attribution. Thanks, and sorry again for the error on my part! MCE89 (talk) 10:05, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. Deboraverin (talk) 10:44, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see you actively reviewing AFCs and am impressed by your work on the December drive.

So my question is, do we have any tool to check AI Plagiarism checker to check LLM generated contents? AlphaCore talk 22:27, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @AlphaCore! Thanks for your work on AfC reviewing as well :)

I don't do a ton in the AI cleanup space so you might have better luck asking some of the experts at WP:AINB, but the general advice is that automated AI detection software should be used very cautiously if at all. I'll sometimes run text through https://app.gptzero.me/ if I'm unsure and want an additional data point, but you definitely shouldn't decline a draft or label something as either AI-generated or non-AI-generated solely based on the output of one of those tools (see WP:AIDETECT for more on why). WP:AISIGNS is a really good resource for some of the things to look out for though. MCE89 (talk) 22:46, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MCE89 Copy that. Thanks :) Good luck for #1 ;) AlphaCore talk 22:56, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On 15 December 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Pacific Australia Labour Mobility scheme, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Pacific Australia Labour Mobility scheme has been criticised for placing workers at risk of modern slavery? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Pacific Australia Labour Mobility scheme. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Pacific Australia Labour Mobility scheme), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to nominate it.

Gatoclass (talk) 00:03, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thank you for reviewing my draft.

My article was declined, and I’d like to understand which specific notability or sourcing issues I should improve before resubmitting. I want to make sure I fix it correctly.

Thank you for your time. Dileepnnit (talk) 04:36, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Dileepnnit. I left a comment when I declined the draft explaining the reasons, which were:

There are still the same issues with unsourced content and citations that do not fully verify the preceding text. There are also instances of a non-neutral point of view through the draft, such as claims like His clinical work combines surgical precision with research into improving postoperative visual outcomes and patient accessibility

I'd also refer you back to the earlier comment that you received from the previous reviewer, which does not seem to have been fully addressed. If you have any specific questions, let me know and I can explain in more detail. MCE89 (talk) 06:04, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MCE89 I Can Submit Draft:2030 FIFA World Cup final Right Now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony British 99 (talk • contribs) 16:19, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tony British 99 You can, but for the reasons we discussed the other day I'd advise against it. You've now had 7 reviewers tell you that it's too soon for this article to be published, so I think it's very unlikely that the draft will be accepted. MCE89 (talk) 16:23, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

thank you sir Tony British 99 (talk) 16:25, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ty for the note re: Broadway World on Draft:Helen Shaw (theater critic), do you have any further suggestions? I think Playbill is more reliable but they do run lots of press releases as industry news, this citation appears to be, so I've used it only as a secondary source. BrechtBro (talk) 21:11, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It looks good to me! I think you're right that the coverage is pretty borderline on notability, so I'll probably leave this one to another reviewer and see what they think (although I've removed the inappropriate tagging). But you've done a great job putting it together, I don't have any other real suggestions for improvements given the available sourcing. MCE89 (talk) 21:20, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ty. i've looked for additional sources but searches are swamped both by discussion of her appointment and her own work, and third party profiles are unusual for critics. fortunately the notability guidelines on academics is at least explicit on that point. BrechtBro (talk) 22:31, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On 16 December 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Truganini, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that, upon the death of Truganini (pictured), the Aboriginal population of Tasmania was declared to be extinct? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Truganini. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Truganini), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to nominate it.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 35,647 views (1,485.3 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of December 2025 – nice work!

GalliumBot (talk • contribs) (he/it) 03:28, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Cgoncalvesmkt (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Quotient Sciences (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Thanks for reviewing my latest submission! Since this seems to be an issue with the depth of coverage in the sources, as I believe I have included reputable and secondary sources in the citations, I wanted to ask what depth of coverage would be deemed acceptable to prove notability, and where the current sources fail at doing this?

I want to understand whether it's still possible to have a pathway to approval by adding specific types of sources, or if it will essentially not be possible to prove notability despite the existing sources.

Thank you!

Cgoncalvesmkt (talk) 10:08, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Cgoncalvesmkt! To demonstrate notability, you need sources that are independent, in-depth, and reliable. At the moment you have lots of sources reporting on relatively routine or trivial news, such as new partnerships and facilities, that don't meet the threshold for in-depth reporting. Some of your sources, such as this one, also aren't independent ("Quotient Sciences is a Business Reporter client"), or are based largely on quotes from the company and people affiliated with it. To establish notability we are looking for sources written by independent parties (i.e. journalists) that provide some kind of original analysis, commentary, description or overview of the company, and that go beyond routine reporting on normal business activities. MCE89 (talk) 12:26, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback on my article sumission: Draft:Christian Sandor . I have revised the article according to your suggestions. Copyvio now only detects as duplicated text the name of conference venues; but, this is impossible to avoid. ChristianSandor (talk) 12:20, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @ChristianSandor! That all looks completely fine from a copyright perspective now. I'll leave the draft in the queue for another reviewer to take a look at, but to give a couple of bits of advice: you should remove all references to Wikipedia itself (see WP:CIRCULAR), and you should remove all of the external links from the article body, replacing them with inline citations where appropriate. You'll also likely need additional sourcing to demonstrate that you meet either the general inclusion criteria or the inclusion criteria for academics, as I'm not seeing evidence that you meet the eligibility criteria for a Wikipedia article in your draft as it stands. Claims like He is married and has a daughter born 2018 also need to be either cited to a reliable source, or else removed. Good luck with the draft! MCE89 (talk) 12:31, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your fast and helpful reply! A few questions back!

Can i still edit the article now to incorporate your suggestions? Or, is it too late because it is already submitted for review?

About criteria for notability: Looking at WP:NACADEMIC i think that meet at least citerion 2 (see the list of awards at top-tier international conferences in my draft) ChristianSandor (talk) 13:37, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely, you can continue editing your draft at any point. Criterion 2 of WP:NACADEMIC is a pretty high bar, and usually we'd be looking for an award that is highly prestigious and likely has a Wikipedia article itself. For instance, winning one of the awards listed at List of IEEE awards would most likely qualify, but things like best paper/best presentation awards (even at top conferences) are not likely to be enough on their own. I don't think you're too far off meeting the inclusion criteria, but it seems to me that you might not quite meet Wikipedia's specific definition of notability just yet. But if you can find and add any independent, secondary sources about you and your research (e.g. papers published by other researchers that describe in detail your work and its significance), that would definitely help. MCE89 (talk) 13:47, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MCE,

I'm reaching out regarding the article I'm trying to publish. It's about the company called Comtrade Gaming, but it always gets declined. The last message I got from you was something about published sources. Can you please help me with this? Is there a way that this article can get published?

Looking forward to hearing from you.

Best, Gregor GregorWiki2025 (talk) 09:06, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GregorWiki2025. Wikipedia has specific inclusion criteria for which subjects are eligible for a Wikipedia article. The decline message that I left you summarises those requirements, so you might find it helpful to start by reading through that carefully to work out what you need to add to your draft to show that this company meets those requirements. Alternatively, WP:42 lays out the inclusion criteria in a simplified form. A Wikipedia article needs to be a summary of what reliable secondary sources have said about the company, so I'd start by reducing your usage of sources published by Comtrade Gaming and affiliated organisations. Instead, look for secondary sources — is there any additional coverage of this company in newspapers, books, or similar? You might also find WP:YFA a helpful guide to the basics of writing an article on Wikipedia. MCE89 (talk) 09:13, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GregorWiki2025, can I also ask whether the accounts User:Gregorvalentan and User:GamingEditor SLO belong to you? MCE89 (talk) 09:22, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MCE89,

Thanks for checking.

User:Gregorvalentan is my previous account.

User:GamingEditor SLO does not belong to me. GregorWiki2025 (talk) 10:28, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GregorWiki2025 Thanks for clarifying. Do you work for Comtrade Gaming or have any connection to the company? And do you have any other past accounts? MCE89 (talk) 10:42, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I work for Comtrade Gaming.

Like many companies, we felt it was reasonable to have a factual Wikipedia article, so the public can learn who we are, what we do, and our background, key milestones, and references. The intention was not promotional, but informational, especially as we operate internationally and employ people across multiple locations, where Wikipedia can serve as a neutral and reliable reference point for general information.

Apart from the account User:Gregorvalentan, I do not have any other past accounts related to editing this topic. GregorWiki2025 (talk) 12:28, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In that case please make sure to follow the instructions at WP:PAID for making the required paid-editing disclosure. You can do this by adding {{paid|employer=Comtrade Gaming}} to your userpage. It would also be good practice to put a note disclosing your past account on your userpage for transparency. MCE89 (talk) 12:37, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification.:)

I have now added the

This user, in accordance with the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use, discloses that they have been paid by Comtrade Gaming for their contributions to Wikipedia.

disclosure to my user page and also noted my previous account (User:Gregorvalentan) for transparency.

Please let me know if anything else is needed. GregorWiki2025 (talk) 10:40, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GregorWiki2025 While as per WP:PAID you are only required to use one method of disclosure, I think it would be appropriate to also make this disclosure on the article talk page, as that is the specific article on which you are working. You can use the Template:Connected contributor (paid) template (check documentation) on the Draft talk:Comtrade Gaming page. You should also follow the guidelines on WP:COI

I have a pre-formatted version of the template for you to copy/paste: {{Connected contributor|User1=Your username|U1-declared=yes|U1-otherlinks=(Optional) Insert relevant affiliations, disclosures, article drafts or diffs showing COI contributions.}}

In the section I marked as REPLACE WITH, add disclosures as per the aforementioned policies. Mitchsavl (talk) 22:33, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: I did not actually mark it as REPLACE WITH, instead as (Optional). Mitchsavl (talk) 22:44, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I've corrected the mistake you pointed out and the draft Draft:Google_Nest_Incident is now ready. Let me know if there are further details before I re-submit. Thanks :) Josep a11 (talk) 06:57, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Josep a11! That definitely looks like an improvement. Personally, I'm still not quite convinced that this event requires a standalone page and would probably recommend that you instead expand the discussion of the incident within the existing page Google Nest. But if you resubmit the draft it will go back into the queue for another reviewer to take a look at and give their view. Before you do so, I'd recommend making sure that the remaining unsourced content (including parts of the "History" section) is cited. MCE89 (talk) 07:15, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You might be tired of reviewing AFCs ! Great work :) AlphaCore talk 21:54, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @AlphaCore! MCE89 (talk) 07:38, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I added two more sources to the Theodor Lundbergh draft, and re-submitted it. He has also now made his UEFA Europa League debut, playing from start against FC Porto. Thus I think he should be considered notable enough to warrant an article. Kind regards :) Ednhzrd (talk) 08:10, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Ednhzrd! That does look a bit better, although you still don't have any sources that appear to contain clear significant coverage. This one just reports that he was injured, and this is mostly composed of quotes from Lundbergh and a team representative, with only a couple of sentences of independent commentary. I'll leave this one in the queue for another reviewer to take a look at though, as they may come to a different conclusion — best of luck with the draft! MCE89 (talk) 08:18, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, wanted to know if this draft passes wiki’s notability guidelines. As per criteria for artists, the subject has received rotation on national broadcasters such as Radio Canada International and CBC Radio. Most of (if not all) the sources are reliable and independent. Let me know your thoughts, regards. ~2025-41974-68 (talk) 12:37, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @~2025-41974-68! I've looked at all of the sources, and my sense is that there isn't quite enough there to establish that she meets the general notability guideline. The majority of the sources are either interviews (which are usable as sources, but do not contribute to notability), or provide only passing mentions of Browne. The only exception is this source, which appears to essentially be a reprinting of an announcement and doesn't contain much in the way of independent reporting. I'm also a bit unsure about this source, which seems like it may be user-generated content based on the line at the bottom that reads This post was created with our nice and easy submission form. Create your post!. Are there any reviews of Browne's music or any other independent coverage of her work that you could add to this draft?

I'll admit that I don't have much experience assessing the more niche WP:NMUSIC criteria though, such as Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network, so you may need to reach out to someone else or ask for advice at Wikipedia talk:Notability (music) on that one. MCE89 (talk) 12:52, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, makes sense. Thank you for your input. Much appreciated. Probably till whenever there’s more sources to establish notability, I’ll wait. Thanks again.~2025-41974-68 (talk) 12:57, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I would like to publish this draft regarding Eccentrica, a very cool brand that makes supercars in San Marino. The page is only encyclopedic and the founder, Emanuel Colombini already has a page on en.wiki.

Could you pre preview the page before publishing it? Thank you in advance :)

Willydieci (talk) 16:06, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Willydieci! The reason I declined this draft is that it doesn't yet show that the company meets our inclusion criteria. To show this, you need to include multiple instances of detailed coverage of Eccentrica in reliable, independent sources. You have a few sources that describe Eccentrica's cars, but none that really describe the company and what it does in detail. Wikipedia has particularly strict inclusion criteria for corporations, which means you need to find sources that have independent commentary, analysis or reporting on the company. Once you've found these sources, you can resubmit the draft for review by clicking on the blue "Resubmit" button. Most of the draft is also currently unsourced — it's important that you add citations to tell readers where the information in the draft is from and to allow the draft's claims to be verified. If you have questions about any of this, just let me know or you can try asking at our help forum for new editors. MCE89 (talk) 16:14, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MCE89, I saw you left comments on my draft for Mir Hwang. Apologies for the delay here, I've been busy with studies and have just started my holiday break. I will review them ASAP and let you know if I have any questions. SimonMubarak (talk) SimonMubarak (talk) 19:00, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your good article nomination of the article Chinese Australian Herald is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of DannyRogers800 -- DannyRogers800 (talk) 00:26, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2026!

Hello MCE89, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2026. Happy editing, Abishe (talk) 12:04, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Abishe (talk) 12:04, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Merry Christmas to you too. MCE89 (talk) 00:20, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there, Thank you for reviewing my article submission. I was trying to find a similar article to compare that *was* accepted and I came across the Scott F. Crago article. I just want to know what differences that article and the one I submitted have so I can improve mine. ~2025-42691-66 (talk) 23:03, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @~2025-42691-66! Most articles on Wikipedia have never really been "accepted" — the one you've found was created in 2007, when our inclusion criteria were looser and the processes for reviewing drafts didn't exist in their current form. There are lots of Wikipedia pages that don't meet our current standards and just haven't been looked at yet, so it's not usually very helpful to compare your draft to existing pages if you're trying to understand what you need to do to have your draft accepted.

To have your page accepted, what you need to demonstrate is that Jai Winding is notable according to Wikipedia's definition. The usual way to demonstrate this is to show that there are multiple sources that are entirely independent of Winding, that are reliable, and that discuss him in detail. For instance, this could look like a profile of Winding written by a journalist for a newspaper, or a professional critic's review of his music. There are also some alternate notability criteria specific to musicians at WP:NMUSICIAN (e.g. reaching a national music chart, or being nominated for an award like a Grammy). MCE89 (talk) 00:20, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thank you for the explanation. ~2025-42691-66 (talk) 06:37, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On 26 December 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Catherine Helen Spence, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the final novel by Catherine Helen Spence (pictured) remained unpublished for over a century after being labelled "socialistic" and "dangerous"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Catherine Helen Spence. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Catherine Helen Spence), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to nominate it.

Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:02, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wish that you may have a very Happy Holiday! Whether you celebrate Christmas, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, Hogmanay, Festivus or your hemisphere's Solstice, this is a special time of year for almost everyone! May the New Year provide you joy and fulfillment! Thanks for everything you do here. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:19, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Coffee/Holidays}} to your fellow editors' talk pages.

Thank you, happy holidays to you too! MCE89 (talk) 00:10, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red | January 2026, Vol 12, Issue 1, Nos 357, 358, 359, 360 Online events: New: Sports (year-long initiative) | Alphabet run - countries starting with A Continuing: #1day1woman ( year-long initiative) | Women who died in 2025 Announcements from other communities Wikipedia turns 25! Celebrate Wikipedia Day on Jan 15, 2026. Tip of the month: Consider becoming a new page reviewer to help reduce the huge backlog of women's biographies. Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events and add any general ideas on developing the project. Follow us on social media: Instagram | Pinterest

--Rosiestep (talk) 23:32, 26 December 2025 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

	Happy New Year 2026
	I wish you an amazing 2026. Happy New Year in advance AlphaCore talk 13:55, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, happy new year! MCE89 (talk) 18:18, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

January–February 2026 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol
New Pages Patrol is hosting a one-time, two-month experimental backlog drive aimed at reducing the backlog. This will be a combo drive: both articles and redirects will earn points. The drive will run from 1 January to 28 February 2026. The drive is divided into two phases. Participants may take part in either phase or across both phases, depending on availability. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled during the drive. Two-month drive-exclusive barnstars will be awarded to eligible participants. Each article review earns 1 point, while each redirect review earns 0.2 points. Streak awards will be granted based on consistently meeting weekly point thresholds. Barnstars will also be awarded for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Interested in participating? Sign up here.
You are receiving this message because you are a New Pages Patrol reviewer. To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself from here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:22, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I recently noticed that the draft I submitted for In Space with Markiplier was declined by you because of the lack of sufficient and professional reviews. So, as a result, I'm thinking of just going ahead and merging it into the Heist with Markiplier article under the "Sequel section". But, I want to know what you think: would this be a better option since this can't be its own article just yet (and since you were the one who declined it anyway)? Please let me know when you have time. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Jibblesnark86 (talk) 04:55, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Jibblesnark86! I think that's a good plan, assuming that there is no additional coverage of In Space with Markiplier beyond what is currently cited. Without any reviews of the sequel in reliable sources I think it's unlikely that the standalone article would survive an AfD, so merging it into the existing article seems like a good alternative. Thank you for your work on the draft! MCE89 (talk) 05:08, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay! I'll go ahead and do just that. Thank you for your input, and thank you for the nice words about the draft. Have a happy new year in advance! Jibblesnark86 (talk) 05:10, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Are you (part of) the reason CopyPatrol currently has zero open cases? --pro-anti-air ––>(talk)<–– 04:55, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Pro-anti-air! Definitely can't take all the credit, but always nice to see it get down to zero. MCE89 (talk) 05:01, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I think this draft I created is notable enough for inclusion. Could you please check it out? Thanks!~2025-43688-12 (talk) 06:17, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @~2025-43688-12! You've now submitted the draft, so it's in the queue and an AfC reviewer will take a look at it eventually. Looking at your sources though, I'm not sure there's enough there yet to show that this organisation meets Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. Interviews like this one can be useful sources, but they don't help show that the organisation meets our inclusion criteria because they are not independent sources. This source includes a disclaimer saying "ModernGhana is not responsible for the accuracy or reliability of this report and its contents", which makes me concerned that it may not be a reliable source. Some reviewers will also be a little more sceptical of unbylined articles like this one from Nigerian media outlets like that have a history of publishing undisclosed sponsored content, especially when those articles are written in a promotional tone and heavily feature quotes from people connected to the organisation.

To show that this organisation is eligible for an article, I'd suggest that you look for additional sources that discuss it in detail, and that are reliable and entirely independent of the organisation itself. Parts of your draft, including the "Music In Africa Portal" and "Grant Programs" sections, are also currently unsourced and should ideally be cited or removed. Hopefully that's helpful — if you have any questions just let me know, and best of luck with the draft. MCE89 (talk) 06:32, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I’ve added more sources that independently covers the subject, please check and see if they’re enough. I really appreciate! 07:47, 30 December 2025 (UTC) ~2025-43471-23 (talk) 07:47, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I unfortunately don't see any new sources that would contribute towards notability. Could you have a read of WP:42 and let me know what you think the three best sources that meet all of the criteria are? MCE89 (talk) 07:57, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These are:

https://www.goethe.de/en/m/uun/pub/akt/g18/21430400.html

https://hypemagazine.co.za/2022/05/25/revenue-streams-for-musicians-report-rsfam/

https://guardian.ng/saturday-magazine/music-in-africa-foundation-marks-fifth-anniversary/ ~2025-43471-23 (talk) 08:47, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The first of these is not an independent source, because it was published by an organisation that was working with the Music in Africa Foundation to report on their own event (The Music in Africa Foundation launched the ACCES conference in cooperation with the Goethe-Institut). The second mentions that the foundation carried out some research, but does not provide significant coverage of the organisation itself. The third has the problems I mentioned previously — it's unbylined, written quite promotionally, and largely consists of quotes from people affiliated with the organisation — which means it is unlikely to be regarded as an independent source. Unfortunately if those are the three best sources, I don't think it's likely that this organisation meets Wikipedia's inclusion criteria just yet. MCE89 (talk) 08:54, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

According to Media Bias Fact Check (here), Guardian (Nigeria) is politically neutral, but has "questionable reasoning" (Lack of Transparency, Poor Sourcing, Failed Fact Checks), and is "low credibility".

According to Reporters without Borders (here), the Nigerian constitution theoretically protects freedom of speech, but the nation has limited press freedom, and is dangerous for journalists, including harassment and arbitrary arrest. It ranks 122 out of 180 countries globally on their index.

Because of this, I would question the reliability of Guardian, as well as other Nigerian sources, all of which may not treated as an independent source. Make sure you don't confuse this source with The Guardian. Mitchsavl (talk) 09:05, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some potential sources I found (to varying degrees of reliability):

African Union: https://au.int/en/pressreleases/20250129/african-union-signs-partnership-agreement-music-africa-foundation

NTHA Foundation (no idea what it is, check if reliable and independent before use): https://nthafoundation.org/mia/

The Associated Board of the Royal Schools of Music (global music education charity): https://www.abrsm.org/en-gb/blog/supporting-the-music-in-africa-foundation

International Federation of Arts Councils and Culture Agencies (also no idea what it is): https://ifacca.org/news/2025/01/29/african-union-signs-partnership-agreement-music-af/

African Business Communities (also no idea what it is): https://africabusinesscommunities.com/news/music-in-africa-foundation-and-goethe-institut-for-the-development-of-african-creative-industry/

I didn't manage to find sources which I have previously heard of (except for African Union), and have not done checks on if they are reliable and independent. Mitchsavl (talk) 09:19, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you for the feedback in terms of what is needed on the Draft:Jordan Gass-Pooré page! I appreciate the specifics and detail in your suggestion. I wanted to ask a question because I didn't understand one thing (not arguing, just was looking for some clarification). There is a number of PBS and PBS affiliate citations discussing the work of the subject that seems like it would qualify for your suggestions. Is the main issue that the subject's work on PBS-affiliated makes those PBS and PBS-affiliated citations not "entirely independent of her"? I had assumed they were generally the useful citations. Or is there something else wrong with those sources that I should avoid in finding other sources? I'm just trying to improve my work on Wikipedia and would appreciate detail on this if you've got the time to give it.

Phifty (talk) Phifty (talk) 05:40, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Phifty! Are the sources you're referring to these ones [12] [13]? If so, the reason they don't help to establish notability is that they are interviews with Gass-Pooré, and unless I've misunderstood something, her podcast is produced in collaboration with a PBS affiliate. Both of those facts would disqualify an interview with her on PBS from being an independent source. What we need are sources where someone else, from an unconnected media organisation, writes about her and/or her work. Unfortunately this can often be quite hard to find for journalists, since it's not super common for journalists to write about each others' work. But if there are any reviews or other coverage of her podcasts, that's probably the best place to start. Best of luck with the draft, and just let me know if any of that's not clear! MCE89 (talk) 05:50, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Great, that is very helpful information, thank you! Phifty (talk) 05:52, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year!

MCE89,Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Jibblesnark86 (talk) 22:35, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Jibblesnark86 (talk) 22:35, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Jibblesnark86, happy new year to you too! MCE89 (talk) 23:04, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The 2026 competition has just begun and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. Even if you are a novice editor, we hope the WikiCup will give you a chance to improve your editing skills as you go. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here, and a bot will set up your submissions page within one day, ready for you to take part. Any questions on the scoring, rules or anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page.

For the 2026 WikiCup, the highest-ranking contestants will receive tournament points at the end of each round, and final rankings are decided by the number of tournament points each contestant has. This is the same scoring system that we had last year. If you're busy and can't sign up in January, don't worry: Signups are open throughout the year. To make things fairer for latecomers, the lowest-scoring contestants are no longer eliminated at the end of each round.

The first round will end on 26 February. The judges for the WikiCup this year are: Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email), Epicgenius (talk · contribs · email), Frostly (talk · contribs · email), Guerillero (talk · contribs · email) and Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs · email). Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:38, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MCE89. This is related to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/incidents#Creating attack page. I reverted I use Nookipedia's copyvio template to the page Syrian Declaration of Independence (1941), since it wasn't filed correctly and checking the copyright information of state.gov led me to believe it was in the public domain. However, should I have done something differently, instead of just reverting it? Thanks, 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 03:33, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @45dogs! Yep, that's all fine. As you say the text is PD and is presented as a quote, and that edit had also been marked as a false positive on Copypatrol a while back: [14]. MCE89 (talk) 04:30, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Dear MCE89, This is my wikipedia page which I am updating. I am the source of this information. I have written all the text.I am not sure of what else I need to do to verify who I am.. Mileshudball (talk) 05:38, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Mileshudball! The first thing to bear in mind is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that is written by volunteers based on what has been published about a subject in secondary, reliable sources. It's not an appropriate place to host the kind of material that you would have on your own website. The text that you are adding to the page is not suitable for Wikipedia, as it is not written from a neutral, encyclopedic point of view and does not contain citations to sources that verify its claims. As the subject of the article, we'd also prefer that you don't edit the page directly yourself, as it can be tough to write neutrally about a subject that you are connected to — I'll leave a message on your talk page with some helpful links about Wikipedia's advice for editors who have a conflict of interest.

If you do still want to make the text on your website available for use on Wikipedia, it needs to be released under a compatible free license to comply with Wikipedia's copyright policies. If you are the copyright holder, you can release this content by following the instructions at WP:DONATETEXT. It's important to bear in mind that this would mean that the text is available for anyone—not just Wikipedia—to use for any purpose, including for commercial use. If you don't wish to release the text on your website under a free license, it can't be used on Wikipedia.

If any of that is unclear or if you have any other questions, just let me know. MCE89 (talk) 05:53, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]