User talk:MCE89

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

Question about copyvio Revdel and rewrite Content

[edit]

Hi @MCE89, I noticed that my edit in "Golden Square (Iraq)" was removed due to copyright concerns, and I completely understand the importance of avoiding direct copying. Would it be acceptable if I rewrote the same informations in my own words while keeping proper citations? I appreciate your time and any guidance you can provide on this. If you accept that, I will make sure that I will write everything in my own words. best regards!! R3YBOl (talk) 09:57, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @R3YBOl! Of course, you're very welcome to rewrite the information in your own words and add it back to the page. Just make sure to avoid copying or closely paraphrasing the source. Let me know if you have any other questions about copyright. MCE89 (talk) 10:03, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well I am a little to afraid to make a move myself because of warnings and account problems hahahhaa I was saying why I wouldn't type what Imm gonna say so you can read it. If you find it acceptable You can notify me to rewrite the content. Here check this sandbox User:R3YBOl/sandbox/R3YBOI User 3 R3YBOl (talk) 10:25, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@MCE89So is it acceptable? R3YBOl (talk) 10:55, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately I would say it's still too close to the source. You've reworded the text, but you're still presenting exactly the same information in the same structure and order. For instance, compare these sections:
Source text: The radical faction, mainly nationalists but also Islamists, was more powerful in Iraq than any other Arab state. Sati al-Husri, a leading architect of Arab radical nationalist ideology, was strongly pro-German and used that country as his model as director of Iraq’s education system
Your version: Iraq had one of the strongest radical factions in the Middle East, consisting primarily of nationalist and Islamist groups. Among them was Sati' al-Husri, a key thinker behind Arab radical nationalism, who openly admired Germany and modeled Iraq’s education system after it.
The wording is different, but it's still very closely mirroring the ideas and structure of the source. I'd suggest having a read of Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing#How to write acceptable content, which has some tips on avoiding close paraphrasing. Essentially you need to identify the main ideas from the source and then write your own original prose conveying those ideas, rather than starting from the source and then rewording it. MCE89 (talk) 11:10, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again @MCE89, Well I was saying, why don't you fix what I have edited before. Like you can find what's wanted in the sandbox, create a section branch and do the other, It would be really kind if you contribute in the page of Golden Square (Iraq), Because I still want to like include these informations. I would appreciate if you help. Best wishes! R3YBOl (talk) 16:17, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

[edit]

Welcome to the world of Australian Literature in Wikipedia. It's always pleasing to see someone new working in the field.

I see from your User page that you are working on THE HAND THAT SIGNED THE PAPER. Excellent. It was on my radar as something to fix but I am extremely glad that someone else has decided to take up the challenge. Perry Middlemiss (talk) 10:59, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thanks for the welcome and for all your work in the area! I'm having a lot of fun with it — my goal at the moment is to hopefully slowly work my way through all the Stella Prize shortlists.
And yep, I'm excited to have a crack at The Hand that Signed the Paper. It definitely looks like a challenge so might turn into a bit of a long project, but should be a super interesting page to work on. MCE89 (talk) 13:02, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations on completing the work on THE HAND THAT SIGNED THE PAPER. I've only skimmed it so far but it does look like an excellent and comprehensive coverage. Well done. Perry Middlemiss (talk) 23:57, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Original Barnstar
Excellent work creating pages like Homecoming (poetry collection), We Come With This Place, and Hydra (novel) (and many others!) BuySomeApples (talk) 20:55, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@BuySomeApples Thank you, I appreciate it! MCE89 (talk) 03:44, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Robert Brodribb Hammond

[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Robert Brodribb Hammond you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Dclemens1971 -- Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:29, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New page reviewer granted

[edit]

Hi MCE89, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the new page reviewer user right to your account. This means you now have access to the page curation tools and can start patrolling pages from the new pages feed. If you asked for this at requests for permissions, please check back there to see if your access is time-limited or if there are other comments.

This is a good time to re-acquaint yourself with the guidance at Wikipedia:New pages patrol. Before you get started, please take the time to:

You can find a list of other useful links and tools for patrollers at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Resources. If you are ever unsure what to do, ask your fellow patrollers or just leave the page for someone else to review – you're not alone! Sohom (talk) 22:28, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for helping out at CCI

[edit]

Hello. I saw your edits at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Colman2000. As you're interested in Australia and copyright per your userpage, I recommend looking at the Australian cases listed at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations There's currently 7 open cases about Australia if you would like to continue at CCI. Thank you for your help! . MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 03:25, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I'm definitely keen to start doing more at CCI — I've been helping out at Copypatrol for a couple of months and have really been wanting to dip my toes in at CCI. I'll definitely check out the Australia-related cases, thanks for the suggestion! And I'm sure I'll reach out with any questions once I get into it. MCE89 (talk) 11:28, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad you're working in Copypatrol as well! If you have any CCI questions, there's a designated channel at WP:DISCORD. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 23:22, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red May 2025

[edit]
Women in Red | May 2025, Vol 11, Issue 5, Nos. 326, 327, 337, 338


Online events:

Announcements (events facilitated by others):

Progress ("moving the needle"):

  • Statistics available via Humaniki tool. Thank you if you contributed one or more of the 1,269 articles during this period!
  • 21 Apr 2025: 20.090% of EN-WP biographies are about women (2,061,363; 414,126 women)
  • 24 Mar 2025: 20.070% (2,057,083 bios; 412,857 women)

Tip of the month:

  • Those of you who experience harassment while trying to create or improve articles about women
    are welcome to bring your problems to our attention on the Women in Red talk page.

Other ways to participate:

--Lajmmoore (talk 09:21, 29 April 2025 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Your GA nomination of Robert Brodribb Hammond

[edit]

The article Robert Brodribb Hammond you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Robert Brodribb Hammond for comments about the article, and Talk:Robert Brodribb Hammond/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! 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 Dclemens1971 -- Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:04, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AfC acceptance of Rinaldo Bellomo

[edit]

Hello, you recently accepted Rinaldo Bellomo at AfC. The article has little to no sources that are secondary/ independent of the subject which is a verifiablity and therefore should have been declined, even if the article meets WP:NACADEMIC. It isn't a big issue but I just wanted to let you know for the future. GMH Melbourne (talk) 00:16, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @GMH Melbourne. I strongly disagree. As you say, the subject clearly meets WP:NACADEMIC, as well as WP:ANYBIO. The article is adequately supported by independent sources such as citation records (see NACADEMIC, which specifies that these are considered independent), documentation of his awards, and obituaries. While the article could obviously use additional citations to verify some statements, there would have been absolutely no basis for an AfC decline, as the subject is clearly notable and the cited sources are sufficient to verify his claim to notability. You are welcome to nominate the article at AfD if you have remaining concerns about my AfC acceptance. Thanks. MCE89 (talk) 00:41, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Robert Brodribb Hammond

[edit]

On 23 May 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Robert Brodribb Hammond, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Robert Brodribb Hammond established the Sydney suburb of Hammondville to house families made homeless by the Great Depression? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Robert Brodribb Hammond. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Robert Brodribb Hammond), 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 suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

RoySmith (talk) 12:46, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

[edit]

Thank you for the solid GA review and your great efforts at AfD!

PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:42, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! MCE89 (talk) 14:49, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red June 2025

[edit]
Women in Red | June 2025, Vol 11, Issue 6, Nos. 326, 327, 339, 340


Online events:

Announcements:

  • Who are the most overlooked and interesting Women in Red? We've no idea,
    but we're putting together our list of the 100 most interesting ex-Women in Red.
    We are creating the list to celebrate 10 years of Women in Red and we hope to present it at Wikimania.
    We are ignoring the obvious, so do you have a name or subject we should consider?
    Can you suggest a DYK style hook?
    If you are shy about editing that page, you are welcome to add ideas and comments on the talk page.
  • The World Destubathon, 16 June - 13 July, 2025

Progress ("moving the needle"):

  • Statistics available via Humaniki tool. Thank you if you contributed one or more of the 1,492 articles during this period!
  • 19 May 2025: 20.114% of EN-WP biographies are about women (2,066,280; 415,618 women)
  • 21 Apr 2025: 20.090% (2,061,363 bios; 414,126 women)

Tip of the month:

  • Every language Wikipedia has its own policies regarding notability and reliable sources.
    Before translating an article from one language Wikipedia into English Wikipedia, research
    the subject and verify that the translated article will meet English Wikipedia's policy requirements.

Other ways to participate:

--Lajmmoore (talk 06:04, 29 May 2025 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

The World Destubathon

[edit]

Hello. You're invited to participate in The World Destubathon. We're aiming to destub a lot of articles and also improve longer stale articles. It will be held from Monday June 16 - Sunday July 13. There is $3338 going into it, with $500 the top prize. If you are interested in winning something to help you buy books for future content, or just see it as a good editathon opportunity to see a lot of articles improved for your country/region, sign up on the page in the participants section if interested.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:57, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

revert?

[edit]

Bro.....i used chat gpt for GRAMMAR... english isnt my first language...yet all info was accurate....why would you reverse it....?

It's getting annoying that wrong information is fine up there and none of you bother to change it.... so who will? who meets your standards? Xokoyo.98 (talk) 05:57, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Xokoyo.98. All information on Wikipedia is required to be verifiable, which means it must be supported by reliable sources. You are welcome to add that content back to the page Chichigalpa, but you need to make sure that you cite reliable sources to support it. This page contains some helpful information about how to cite sources.
Using ChatGPT to write content for Wikipedia is also very strongly discouraged, as large language models have a tendency to hallucinate information and write in a tone that is generally not appropriate for an encyclopedia. You can read WP:LLM for more about why using AI on Wikipedia is discouraged. I hope that helps, and let me know if you have any other questions about editing Wikipedia. MCE89 (talk) 06:10, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for participating in the May 2025 GAN backlog drive

[edit]
The Minor Barnstar
Your noteworthy contribution (6 points total) helped reduce the backlog by more than 190 articles! Here's a token of our appreciation. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 13:58, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edit on Professor Oladapo Ashiru

[edit]

Good day I see that you have edited a page I am trying to update as per the request of my boss professor Ashiru, the details added are information sent directly to me from the professor.

May I ask the reason for these changes OreFes (talk) 15:31, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @OreFes. Please have a read of the messages that I have been leaving on your talk page. The content that you are adding to that page is copied from his profile, which is a copyrighted source that cannot be used on Wikipedia.
Thank you for also disclosing that the article subject is your boss. This means that you are considered a paid editor, and will need to disclose this by following the instructions at WP:PAID in order to comply with the Terms of Use. You can do this by adding {{paid|employer=name of employer|client=name of client}} to your userpage. You are also strongly discouraged from editing the page Oladapo Ashiru directly — instead, since you have a conflict of interest, you should use edit requests on the article talk page.
If you would like to update the page, what you should do is start by doing is to write some new original text in your own words, while taking care to adhere to Wikipedia's content policies like maintaining a neutral point of view and including citations to reliable sources. You should then submit an edit request on the article's talk page by following the instructions at WP:COIREQUEST.
Please let me know if any of that is unclear, happy to answer any questions you have. MCE89 (talk) 15:45, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, thank you for your response, I will ensure to take the right steps OreFes (talk) 07:50, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question regarding rejection of Draft:Alex Mogilevsky page

[edit]

Hello! Thank you for reviewing my draft (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Alex_Mogilevsky) . The reason for the rejection - do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. This looks a bit generic, I have read through the guidelines on the notability of people, but it is still unclear to me what was the problem with the draft. Could you be a bit more specific about the rejection reasons.

Thank you 136.27.72.198 (talk) 21:40, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Wikipedia requires that article subjects be the subject of significant coverage in multiple sources that are reliable and independent of the article subject. At the moment your draft only has one secondary source — the book After the Software Wars — and that book only provides a brief passing mention of Mogilevsky. In order to demonstrate that Mogilevsky satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines for people, you would need to add multiple sources (e.g. newspaper articles, books etc.) that are independent of Mogilevsky and discuss him in detail. Hopefully that's a bit clearer, just let me know if you have any other questions. MCE89 (talk) 09:58, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request for deletion

[edit]

Hi could you please nominate this page for speedy deletion, i am the author and I don't know how to request one - Draft:Air India Flight 171 223.185.44.192 (talk) 09:42, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure! I'll tag it for speedy deletion per author request. In future you can do this by adding {{Db-g7}} to any page that you created and were the only substantial contributor to. MCE89 (talk) 09:45, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, thank you so much 223.185.44.192 (talk) 09:51, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rejection of draft article

[edit]

Hello,

Thanks for reviewing my draft article submission Draft:Thalif Deen.

I'd like to know a bit more about what I can do to improve this submitted draft in order for it to be accepted. I think the subject of the article is noteworthy enough (at the very least, in Sri Lanka, and in the context of reporting on the United Nations) to have a Wikipedia page.

I have tried to reference all claims as much as possible, though I am happy to hear how and why these can be improved. I can compare my draft with this existing article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roberto_Savio

about a related figure, and there seem to be far less independent references and indeed some personal quotes which don't seem to be well sourced.

I suspect it's difficult in general to find sources for subjects like journalists, who have a large output and whose work is cited by different outlets and organizations, but who don't tend to be written about themselves despite their importance and contribution.

Apologies for the slow response. I am a little new to Wikipedia editing and am working on this in my spare time. Thanks again. Pistachio89 (talk) 13:26, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I can definitely understand your frustration — you're right that it's often difficult to demonstrate notability for journalists because they tend not to often be written about themselves. But in order to show that Deen is notable as Wikipedia defines the term, you would need to find multiple examples of independent, reliable sources covering him in depth. Alternatively, if you are able to find multiple independent reviews of both of Deen's books in reliable sources, then you might be able to demonstrate that he is notable under the specific notability guideline for creative professionals, but I've had a look myself and it doesn't seem that there are enough reviews of his books to show that he is notable as an author.
Regarding the article about Roberto Savio, it's generally not particularly useful to look at all of the existing articles as a guide to what is acceptable on Wikipedia. Many older articles didn't go through any kind of review process, and I doubt the article about Savio would be accepted at AfC if it were to be submitted today. There's an essay that discusses this idea in more detail at WP:OTHERSTUFF.
My suggestion would be to avoid citing too many sources written by Deen himself, and instead look for examples of secondary sources discussing him and his work. You could also try asking for advice at WikiProject Journalism to see if any editors with experience writing about journalists have advice on finding evidence of notability, and you can always ask any general questions you have at the Teahouse. MCE89 (talk) 14:32, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply!
Regarding sources written by Deen himself, I have only cited his second book (which is a memoir) in certain parts (three places, I believe) in order to cover some biographical details (which I think follows the guidelines that Wikipedia has for biographies of living people), and have tried not to use it as the only source.
Of the 22 remaining references, 21 are not written by Deen, though some are websites for publications which provide evidence that he has written there and of the positions he has held - I don't have any reason to believe those were written by him, and I think there are reputational reasons to believe that those publications would not mischaracterize his position there.
Regarding reviews of his book, I have a couple here: https://lmd.lk/bookrack-23/, https://www.sundaytimes.lk/211226/columns/no-comment-not-from-our-loud-mouthed-466598.html. I had avoided reviews as I thought it would make this article more "promotional" (which was not my intention) rather than informative. In the process of writing of this draft I've found that people whose renown is largely in the developing world may face an unfair burden regarding what other parts of the world consider reliable sourcing.
On the notability as a creative professional, do the UN Correspondent's Association prizes that I referenced in the article not meet the requirements for someone sufficiently well-regarded by their peers, or provide evidence of "significant critical attention"? If I were to cite more secondary descriptions of those awards, would that help?
You may not be able to answer this, but as I understand, there are occasionally drives on Wikipedia to write articles about under-represented groups or people important to specific cultures. The subject in question is a significant figure from a minority community in Sri Lanka (which is a large part of my motivation for writing about him) which isn't that well represented in local society. As evidenced by his NY City Council citation, he has (I believe) also played an important role in the Sri Lankan-American immigrant community. I hadn't focused on this, but would more description and sourcing of this aspect of the subject's life help meet the notability category?
I appreciate the suggestion to go to the Journalism WikiProject and the Teahouse for more assistance, and I will do so shortly.
May I ask if you will continue to be the reviewer for this article if I submit a modified version, and if so, may I contact you regarding acceptable changes via this page, or is it custom to hold discussions on the "Talk Page" of the article itself? Thanks. Pistachio89 (talk) 17:08, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Pistachio89, apologies for the slightly slow reply. Those reviews of his books definitely help a bit, but two reviews of his books is a bit below the threshold for notability as an author. The awards that he has won similarly help a bit, but unless the awards are very notable ones like the Nobel Prize or Pulitzer Prize that have their own articles, winning an award is generally not sufficient to make someone notable by itself. If you can find independent news articles about him winning the awards that would definitely help, especially if they go into detail about him and his work.
You're very welcome to resubmit the article to go back into the queue, where a different reviewer will look over it again. MCE89 (talk) 11:21, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply @MCE89, that's quite useful. I will look for further independent reviews of the books and reporting on the awards, with an eye for those with more biographical details and descriptions of Deen's career. I'll see what the Journalism WikiProject has to say as well and hopefully the resulting changes will be enough for acceptance. Pistachio89 (talk) 14:08, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rejection of draft article of Abhishek Roy Choudhury

[edit]

Hi, thank you for reviewing the article of Abhishek Roy Choudhury, can you please guide me to identify the issues that are coming in the way to get this article published ? He is a notable columnist in various national newspaper in India like The Hindu ( Top Newspaper in India ), The Indian Express, Hindustan Times, The Telegraph. If you please can help me to give some advices to get the thing done that will be very helpful.


Draft : Abhishek_Roy_Choudhury JoidC (talk) 16:28, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @JoidC. Article subjects must be notable as Wikipedia defines the term, which generally means that they must be the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject themselves. That means that articles written by Choudhury can't be used to establish notability. You would instead need to find multiple examples of other people writing in detail in reliable publications about Choudhury or his work. MCE89 (talk) 17:28, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your generous reply, it means a lot. But i would like to mention that Abhishek Roy Choudhury is a significant part of German Chancellor Fellow program and was a part of ISD Germany prior, seeing his position and expertise over Geopolitical research and his contribution in defining the threats of digital disinformation, misinformation's role in communal violence News organization's have approached him to write on their newspapers. If you please can reconsider this ? Article can be shortened if you suggest. Thanks again for your prompt reply. JoidC (talk) 17:45, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately that is not likely to contribute to notability. A Wikipedia article needs to be a summary of what secondary sources have said about a person, so without significant independent coverage of Choudhury, it's unlikely that he is going to meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. You could have a read of Wikipedia's subject-specific notability guidelines for scholars and researchers and for creative professionals which provide slightly different pathways to demonstrating notability and might be relevant in this case, but I'm not seeing much indication that Choudhury is likely to pass either of those guidelines either. MCE89 (talk) 17:51, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again, its a great help. I'm trying to follow the path that you've suggested. JoidC (talk) 17:57, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question about notability on AfC

[edit]

Hi! Thank you for reviewing my recent AfC submission (Draft: Kevin Donahue). I made some updates, including the addition of two citations that I believe help meet the notability standards. Before I resubmit, I was wondering if you could provide your input on if you think this works/meet the expectations? I don't want to resubmit and risk deletion if it still does not work! Thank you again! Presleyconnor (talk) 17:49, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Presleyconnor! Well done for your work on the draft. Unfortunately I'm not convinced that you have quite demonstrated notability yet given your current sources. Your best source in the 2015 Washington Post article, which dedicates a few paragraphs to Donahue and potentially just about counts towards the general notability guideline. But you need at least two such sources, and I don't see another source that is both independent of Donahue and dedicates significant coverage (i.e. more than a quote or passing mention) to him. Do you have another source that you think contributes towards notability? MCE89 (talk) 14:44, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Dixon Jones (technologist)

[edit]

On the draft Draft:Dixon Jones (technologist) I note that feedback says "This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia."


I have looked at other live wikipedia pages for comparison, and am unclear on how to solve the issue. Other biographies of living people don't cite a source for birth date, or commonly use the individual's own website as the source of their birth date - this was one of the edits previously requested and the edit made is in line with most live pages that I have seen. Other sources added include the biggest publications the SEO industry has (Search Engine Journal, Search Engine Land) and citations from the biggest conferences the industry has (e.g Brighton SEO, SERP Conf) - if someone can think of any third-party sites better known than those already included I would be keen to know what those are so that I might be able to locate citations from them.

Most of the biography appears to have been removed and only the citations left, though these citations were from third parties not associated with the person the page is about - I'm unsure if that was an editing error or if someone did that on purpose but if reinstating would help I will edit back in TFGM20! (talk) 15:10, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @TFGM20!. Your draft does contain plenty of sources and that is great, but the main problem is that most of them are not independent of Jones himself. Sources like profiles and interviews can't contribute to establishing a subject's notability, and neither can awards listings or other sources that don't provide significant coverage of Jones. In order to establish that Jones is notable as Wikipedia defines the term, you need to find multiple examples of reliable sources that are entirely independent of Jones discussing him directly and in detail. If you are able to find independent reviews of his book that have been published in reliable sources (i.e. newspapers or journals, not Amazon reviews or similar) then that would definitely also help.
Regarding the material that was removed, it looks like this was removed for copyright reasons because it was copied from the subject's biography on another website. I am not an administrator so I can't see exactly what was removed, but please don't add it back in if you have copied it from elsewhere. MCE89 (talk) 14:30, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nami Kartal

[edit]

Thanks for helping a new editor! I am sending here some arguments: In this article (Nami Kartal), it seems that the subject has the required notability, i.e. absolute citations at GS exceed the no. of 4,300 citations (reasonable for this narrow field of specialization, wood science), with an h-index of 38; he additionally is an elected fellow of a recognised academy (named IAWS); also, he is a highly-ranked researcher, being included in the Stanford top 2% scientists list. Kindly please re-evaluate all these. G-Lignum (talk) 08:26, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly notice also at Google Scholar that Dr Kartal has nine (9) research papers, each being cited more than 100 times! G-Lignum (talk) 08:42, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @G-Lignum. It seems that you are asserting two claims to notability: a pass of WP:NPROF#C1 on the basis of his citation count and a pass of WP:NPROF#C3 on the basis of his membership in the International Academy of Wood Science. On the second point, I agree with the other participants in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics)#RfC on notability of International Academy of Wood Science Fellows that a fellowship of the IAWS is not sufficient to meet NPROF#C3 for the reasons that have been explained to you. You have also acknowledged at Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics)#RfC about Stanford/Elsevier top 2% that being included in the top 2% list is not sufficient to establish notability on its own.
Your case for WP:NPROF#C1 is stronger; his citation record is in the range where a pass of this criteria is at least plausible. But my assessment after looking at his publications was that he didn't quite meet this criteria at this point in time. An h-index of 38, nine papers with more than 100 citations and a top of 206 citations is strong, but not quite strong enough in my view to demonstrate on its own that his research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline. Based on my experience I think the consensus at an AfD discussion would likely be that he doesn't meet that criteria of NPROF.
I can see that you have resubmitted the draft, so another reviewer will eventually come along to take another look and may have a different assessment. Hopefully that helps, and let me know if you have any other questions. MCE89 (talk) 09:14, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for the points raised, and your kind help/support to me (as very new & inexperienced editor) G-Lignum (talk) 10:06, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please allow me. The only point (from your answer) that possibly is not fully correct is this; we are discussing here for a narrow and small scientific area (i.e. wood science); it is not by any means, biotechnology, medicine, computer science, physics, biochemistry, etc. etc. etc.! It is wood science! Do not forsee/expect >10,000 or 20,000 citations to see for a very recognised wood scientist (like Dr Nami Kartal). Even 3,000 or 4,000 citations at GS are a super number (!!!) in this small scientific area. (1) This the primary reason for which Prof. Ioannidis et al. created the c-score for; (2) Go here at GS and check "wood science citations" [1]. Thanks for your kind understanding. G-Lignum (talk) 10:19, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks much for the interaction. G-Lignum (talk) 10:20, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June Backlog Drive is almost over!

[edit]
Our pending drafts!

Hi! Thanks for participating in the Articles for Creation June Backlog Drive! We've done amazing work so far, dropping the backlog by more than 2000 drafts already. We have around 2900 drafts outstanding, and we need your help to get that down to zero in 5 days. We can do this, but we need all hands on deck to make this happen. A list of the pending drafts can be found at WP:AFCSORT, where you can select submissions in your area of interest. Thank you so much for your work so far, and happy reviewing! – DreamRimmer ■ 01:33, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please, Kindly help me on my article. Draft:Lawrence Oyor

[edit]

severe time, I've been working on this Articles and none of it was approved, and this is discouraging to me as an editor.

I want to request that you should please give me A Mentorship on article creation. and I will be glad if you can grant my request. Pet002 (talk) 06:56, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Pet002. I'm sorry that you're feeling discouraged. Creating new articles on Wikipedia can be one of the most challenging tasks for new editors — have you considered instead spending some time trying to improve existing articles to familiarise yourself with creating content on Wikipedia first? If you go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Nigeria, you'll find that there is a section with a list of articles that already exist and need improvement. You might find it more rewarding to work on improving and expanding some of these existing articles rather than jumping straight into trying to create new pages.
Regarding Draft:Lawrence Oyor, the reason I declined this draft that you haven't included references that are independent of the subject and appear in reliable sources. Several of the sources that you have included, such as this one [2], are promotional articles without a byline and appear to be paid profiles. You need to find secondary sources that are reliable and entirely independent of Oyor, and that discuss him in detail. You can refer to Wikipedia:WikiProject Nigeria/Nigerian sources and WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA for guidance on finding reliable sources.
Hopefully that helps, and let me know if you have any other questions. MCE89 (talk) 07:14, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ohhhhhh
Thank you very much.
But just that even at least I want it to be of history that i have one article created my-self, to contribute to the free knowledge society. it will be of great joy.
But nevertheless, Thank you very much I so much Appreciate it. May God bless you. I will try and work on it mor Pet002 (talk) 07:22, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

[edit]

Hi MCE89. Thank you for your work on Axiomatic (Tumarkin book). Another editor, TheLongTone, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Shock Horror! a new article that is not about a sportsperson or a beetle!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|TheLongTone}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

TheLongTone (talk) 15:36, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 2025 NPP backlog drive – Points award

[edit]
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
This award is given in recognition to MCE89 for accumulating at least 25 points during the May 2025 NPP backlog drive. Your contributions played a part in the 17,000+ articles reviewed during the drive. Thank you so much for taking part and contributing to help reduce the backlog! Hey man im josh (talk) 19:41, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

COI noticeboard

[edit]

Please be aware of this conversation at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Melis Aker.4meter4 (talk) 16:15, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Capella Regalis Choirs

[edit]

Hi there, I noticed you just accepted this article at AfC. I was wondering if you looked at the article history, or checked out the references before you did so? This article hasn't changed since I draftified it, and there were some serious COI concerns which culminated in the author of said article creating multiple socks and repeatedly blanking noticeboard reports. In my opinion this really should not have been accepted in its current state... I'll try to clean it up later but if I can't find the sources it'll be headed to AfD. Regards, MediaKyle (talk) 13:26, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @MediaKyle. Yes, I checked the references and history. I saw your draftification for a potential COI and that was clearly correct, since it's obvious that the creator has a COI and that the page should have gone through AfC. But the existence of a COI isn't really relevant to whether or not to accept it at AfC, since going through AfC is exactly what we require of COI editors. I wasn't aware of the creator socking or blanking noticeboard reports and that is obviously concerning, but again those conduct issues aren't really relevant to whether or not to accept it at AfC. In terms of notability, I thought there was just enough that it had a greater than 50% chance of surviving an AfD — while a lot of it is local, there seem to be multiple pieces of independent SIGCOV in reliable sources: [3] [4] [5]. I also did my own search on ProQuest and Newspapers.com and found that there were a handful of additional decent sources, which made me more comfortable accepting it on notability. It definitely has a few sentences that aren't quite NPOV and is overreliant on primary sources, so I have no issue at all with you adding the appropriate tags or taking it to AfD. But hopefully you understand why I felt that it just about cleared the bar for an AfC accept. MCE89 (talk) 14:02, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for getting back to me. Sorry if my prior message came across as combative - I realize now it was a bit rude to imply you didn't look at the references. You're right, those sources you highlighted seem to satisfy GNG, they're just unfortunately buried amidst a sea of primary sources, Apple Music, and the subject's own website. It's a shame really because I would've been happy to work with that editor if they had communicated... I'll see what I can do with it. I appreciate you going out of your way to explain. All the best, MediaKyle (talk) 14:09, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No worries at all! Thanks for following up and for adding those tags, really should have done that myself when I accepted it anyway. MCE89 (talk) 14:24, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question about declined draft: David Marc de Ferranti

[edit]

Hi MCE89,

I appreciate your time in reviewing my drafthttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:David_Marc_de_Ferranti. I understand the concerns about notability and the need for stronger independent sources. I’d be grateful for your guidance on how to improve it.

Are there any sources currently in the draft that you think come close to meeting Wikipedia’s reliability and independence standards? I’d like to identify which ones are helpful and build from there.

If you have suggestions on the kind of sources that would better support notability in this case, I’d really appreciate it.

I look forward to your support.

Kind regards.

—Glonnadiyedits (talk) 19:14, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Glonnadiyedits. Of course, happy to help. De Ferranti is a position where he might potentially be able to meet multiple notability guidelines: the general notability guideline, the notability guideline for academics, or the notability guideline for authors.
In order to establish that he meets the general notability guideline, you would need to cite multiple independent, reliable sources that discuss him in depth. This doesn't include sources that were written by him or by organisations that he is affiliated with, or sources where he is just mentioned or quoted. At the moment none of your sources count towards this guideline, because almost all of them are primary or non-independent sources, and the remainder don't provide detailed coverage of de Ferranti.
The second possibility is that he might meet the notability guideline for academics, or WP:NPROF, which sets out 8 potential criteria. I did a brief search and couldn't find clear evidence that he meets any of the eight criteria, but you might be able to make a case that he meets one of those.
The final possibility is that he might meet the notability guideline for authors, or WP:NAUTHOR. The easiest way to establish this is to cite multiple secondary reviews of his books in reliable sources (i.e. academic journals or newspapers). However, it's rare for someone who has only written one book to meet this criteria. If you can cite multiple reviews of his book and multiple reviews of his edited volumes you might be able to meet this standard. But you would need to find a sufficient number of detailed secondary sources where people comment on his published work.
Hopefully that helps — let me know if you have any questions! MCE89 (talk) 10:42, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much. Now doing more research, I hope you will help review the article when I share it here with you, before resubmitting. So that I can resubmit it with confidence. Thank you once again for responding. I appreciate! -Glonnadiyedits (talk) 11:00, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, MCE89. Thanks again for your earlier feedback on my draft, it was very helpful. I've revised it to address the notability concerns you mentioned. Specifically:
- I've added more independent, reliable secondary sources that provide in-depth coverage of the subject. I've removed most of the sources that were primary or affiliated with him.
If you have a moment, would you be willing to take another quick look before I resubmit the draft? I’d really appreciate your feedback to make sure I’m on the right track.
Thanks so much! --Glonnadiyedits (talk) 17:45, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for The Hand That Signed the Paper

[edit]

On 30 June 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article The Hand That Signed the Paper, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that despite winning Australia's top literary prize, The Hand That Signed the Paper has since been labelled a hoax? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Hand That Signed the Paper. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, The Hand That Signed the Paper), 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 suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Z1720 (talk) 00:02, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hook update
Your hook reached 9,889 views (824.1 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of July 2025 – nice work!

GalliumBot (talk • contribs) (he/it) 05:25, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red July 2025

[edit]
Women in Red | July 2025, Vol 11, Issue 7, Nos. 326, 327, 341, 342, 343


Online events:

Announcements:

Progress ("moving the needle"):

  • Statistics available via Humaniki tool. Thank you if you contributed one or more of the 1,514 articles during this period!
  • 19 May 2025: 20.114% of EN-WP biographies are about women (2,066,280 bios; 415,618 women)
  • 23 Jun 2025: 20.130% (2,072,236 bios; 417,132 women)

Tip of the month:

  • A nuanced article is more useful than a shiny pedestal. Readers can find hope in your subject's survival or achievements,
    but they can also learn from your subject's mistakes and limitations.

Other ways to participate:

--Lajmmoore (talk 09:21, 30 June 2025 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Anoma D Pieris

[edit]

Thanks for the quick feedback on the book reviews for Anoma D Pieris. I have added a few reviews throughout. There is a list of 13 publications that she has written - mostly books - but I was given feedback a while ago to exclude it from the draft. I'm new to producing/editing for wikipedia and appreciate your help. Architect632 (talk) 12:18, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, looks great! I added a section for her notable works and added some additional scholarly reviews to make her notability clearer, so I've now gone ahead and accepted the draft. Including reviews of an academic or author's work is always useful on Wikipedia, since those are secondary sources that provide evidence that the subject's work has been noted and commented on by their peers. There are still quite a few unsourced statements in the page, so it would also be great if you could add citations or remove any information that you can't find a reliable source for. Once you've done that, you can go ahead remove the tag about needing additional citations. But congratulations on your first article! MCE89 (talk) 12:54, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your review of Draft:Greg Hayes

[edit]

Hi MCE89 - thanks for looking over the draft. In your rationale for the decline, you cited the general notabltiy guidelines for people Wikipedia:Notability (people). But notablity for musicians differs from the general notablity guidelines. Per Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Criteria for musicians and ensembles, musicians may be notable if they meet one of a specialized set of criteria - one of which is having " won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy." Hayes has won both a Grammy and an Emmy, and all of the information in the draft is based on reliable independent sourcing. Do you want to take another look at the draft through the lens of notablity for musicians? Thanks! Brucemyboy1212 (talk) 15:40, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Brucemyboy1212. I did consider that, but it's not clear to me that audio engineers who are included as part of a large group collectively included on such awards qualify under that criteria of WP:NMUSICIAN. That criteria says that this requires the person or band to have been the direct recipient of a nomination in their own name, and it falls within a section that applies to Musicians or ensembles (this category includes bands, singers, rappers, orchestras, DJs, musical theatre groups, instrumentalists, etc.) — which I'm not convinced includes audio engineers. You are welcome to resubmit and see what another reviewer thinks, or if you can point me towards some precedents for audio engineers being found notable solely on a similar basis I'd be happy to reconsider. MCE89 (talk) 15:52, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. Thanks for explaining! I understand your point although I think audio engineers very much fall under the "etc." at the end of that list. It's a highly techinical role but engineers have artistic input and are ultimately a part of why a piece of music sounds the way that it does (which is why there's a Grammy award for that category). I just did some reasearch and found some similar articles: Dave Collins (audio engineer), Chris Lord-Alge, Bob Ludwig. Let me know what you think! Brucemyboy1212 (talk) 17:11, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to add one more thing to the conversation. Aside from the criteria for musicians, Hayes should qualify under Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Any biography which says "people are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards" - the first of which is "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times." Since Hayes has won both a Grammy and an Emmy, I believe this qualifies him. Please let me know what you think. Brucemyboy1212 (talk) 22:42, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Brucemyboy1212. Apologies for the slow reply. I've had a look at the similar articles you found, but since they've all been on Wikipedia for a long time and haven't been nominated for deletion, that's not really an indication that consensus today would be that they are notable. You might want to consider opening a discussion somewhere like WT:NMUSIC to see what the wider consensus is about the notability of audio engineers who have won major awards? I'm also not quite convinced that he meets ANYBIO#1 for the same reason, given that he won these awards as part of a large group of people who worked on these films rather than as an individual in his own name. MCE89 (talk) 12:48, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi MCE89 - He was awarded the Grammy in his own name [6] - where you'll notice he's also characterized by the awarding body as an artist. Brucemyboy1212 (talk) 16:55, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there - since we seemed to have reached a standstill, I've asked for a third opinion WP:3O. Brucemyboy1212 (talk) 19:46, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Brucemyboy1212 Apologies for the slow reply, I typically don't edit much on weekdays. Like I said, you're welcome to resubmit the draft for review by another AfC reviewer, or you can open a discussion on a relevant talk page to get a wider consensus about how WP:NMUSICIAN should be interpreted here. While I understand that Greg Hayes is named as a winner, the Grammy for "Best Score Soundtrack For Visual Media (Includes Film And Television)" was awarded to the film Encanto, with several people who worked on the score included on the citation. It's not clear to me that he meets the criteria of being a musician who was the direct recipient of a nomination in their own name. Rather than asking at WP:3O, you are probably better off just resubmitting the draft for review. MCE89 (talk) 08:48, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I saw this via WP:3O and I agree it's the wrong venue. I recommend resubmitting and I disagree with the decline here by MCE89. This draft seems well sourced and the subject as received enough coverage to be notable. Nemov (talk) 14:31, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for weighing in @Nemov. I agree that resubmitting is the best option here and am more than happy for another reviewer to reassess the draft. I'm curious about what you mean by the subject having received enough coverage to be notable though? The question here is whether the subject attains automatic notability through NMUSICIAN#8 — it seems to me to be very clear that none of the sources in the draft could possibly count as independent SIGCOV. Can I ask which sources you assessed as being coverage that contributes towards notability? MCE89 (talk) 22:13, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Honolulu Waldorf

[edit]

Trying to edit the information on the Honolulu Waldorf School page so that it is accurate using information from the school's website. Unfortunately, the edited information I added was undone. I need help. Hopefully by paraphrasing info from the website and then citing the school's website is the correct process. Any support is appreciated. Mahalo! 98.147.30.138 (talk) 01:30, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Teamwork Barnstar
I have to be honest that I was overwhelmed when I saw the AfC backlog just now! Your work at articles for creation is incredible. Thank you so much for being part of the June Backlog Drive eliminators. I miss reviewing drafts, and I hope I am able to get back more actively again. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:50, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cheong Yoke Choy Wikipage

[edit]

Hi MCE89,

Thank you for flagging the copyright issues on Cheong Yoke Choy. He was my great grandfather and there is a lot of public interest in Kuala Lumpur in his life and legacy. Unfortunately, as I have not had the chance to meet him, and many people that know of him personally have already passed away, I am trying to cobble together as much information as I can from the public domain. I appreciate that I may not have properly attributed a lot of the sources. I am more than happy to re-write the offending sections.

What is the best way for me to go about restoring the page as I understand that it has now been blocked?

Thanks and appreciate your assistance in advance. NaKaTaTuNa (talk) 01:23, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @NaKaTaTuNa. Thanks for reaching out and sorry for the slow reply. I'm sorry that I had to flag the page for copyright issues, and glad to hear that you are happy to work to resolve the issues.
My understanding is that you have two options: the first is that you can wait for an admin or copyright clerk at copyright problems to clean the page, at which point it should be made available again, or you can rewrite it yourself. If you would like to rewrite it yourself, you can go to Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2025 June 24 and click on "rewrite" against the page's entry, and then copy the page content with any copied material removed or rewritten. If you then note that you have rewritten the page, it should be able to be restored once someone has verified that the new version is free of any copyright issues.
You can find more detailed information about the process at WP:CP, and you might want to open a discussion at WT:CP or leave comments under your page's entry to get more detailed advice from the copyright admins and clerks who are regulars there. Hopefully that helps. MCE89 (talk) 04:41, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response @MCE89 and no worries about having to flag it - I completely understand. I have now rewritten the offending sections and (I think) have removed all of the copyright issues. How do I note that it has been rewritten? The page appears as Talk:Cheong Yoke Choy/Temp? Sorry for all the questions and thank you for your help again. NaKaTaTuNa (talk) 09:20, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Paraphrasing

[edit]

I can don't stand that what is Paraphrasing means.so next times this mistake I don't again. Please tell me what is Paraphrasing ? Than you. Can I know that which article I copy Paraphrasing so I change show this mistake and I correction this Article. Fiona Romeo (talk) 12:28, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Fiona Romeo. If you look at my edit here, you'll see that I removed text that is identical to what can be found in the "About Us" section on the college's website here, with exactly two words changed. While you've only copied a very small amount of text, it's important that you don't copy content from copyrighted websites onto Wikipedia in future. Instead you should read the source and then summarise those ideas in your own words. Hope that's clearer, and please let me know if you have any questions. MCE89 (talk) 12:42, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understood that Same Content not Rewriting own words. Thank you. Fiona Romeo (talk) 12:46, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Niceaunties moved to draftspace

[edit]

Thanks for your contributions to Niceaunties. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it consists of machine-generated text. 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. UtherSRG (talk) 14:21, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @UtherSRG. I didn't create this article, I just accepted it at AfC. What makes you think it was AI-generated? I can see some sentences that might have been written with the help of AI, but all of the sources work and appear to support the text they are used to cite. Could you explain further why you draftified this, especially when it had already gone through AfC? MCE89 (talk) 14:28, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
https://app.gptzero.me/ says 73% AI generated, 5% mixed, 22% human. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:37, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@UtherSRG Do you have any concerns about the page content? As I'm sure you know, AI detectors can give false positives, and there's no rule against text created with the help of AI or similar tools (e.g. grammar checkers, translation tools) — it's just that AI-generated text tends to have other serious issues like promotional tone and hallucinated references. I did a pretty thorough check of the references at AfC and didn't see any of those issues (apart from some unreferenced statements, which are appropriately tagged). Is there any reason why you don't think this should exist in mainspace? MCE89 (talk) 14:44, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While the checkers do give some false positives, 78% non-human is too high for my taste. I'd rather err on the side of caution. The author should be encouraged to revise the draft to get at least 50% human. As an AFC reviewer, I encourage you to check the draft via GPT Zero or another and decline the review until the result is likewise at least 50% human. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:55, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And remember, Wikipedia has no deadline. It's better to get the article right in draft space than to pollute the encyclopedia with the taint of AI. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:57, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@UtherSRG I'm definitely going to respectfully decline to do that. I don't think we should be aiming to make sure that articles fall below some arbitrary target for "humanness" from black box AI-checker tools. While I'll continue to carefully check that drafts meet standards like verifiability and neutral point of view and often use AI-checkers to identify problematic drafts, I'm not going to decline drafts that are otherwise acceptable based solely on GPTZero. I'll do a bit more clean up on this draft and then move it back to mainspace — you are welcome to nominate it at AfD. MCE89 (talk) 15:10, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nahla Abdo Draft Page ready

[edit]

Hi @MCE89! Thank you so much for your suggestion of including more review articles for Nahla Abdo. I have added three different ones, and as you mentioned, I think it is ready to be accepted for publication. Let me know if you need anything else! Nirhagigi (talk) 19:56, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Nirhagigi Thanks for that, looks great! I've accepted the draft. MCE89 (talk) 04:31, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Picnic Train

[edit]

Hi MCE89. I'm trying to start an article for The Picnic Train (my first attempt starting a new article) and it was declined to to referencing. Unfotunately I don't have many sources of information to reference other that what I've added already, which are the references for the information I've added, which is from the established articles on 5917 and R766, plus what is on The Picnic Train website. I'm not really sure where to go to from here, so any help is most appreciated! Cheers SpottoBotto (talk) 01:52, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @SpottoBotto! Wikipedia has specific criteria for what topics qualify for an article, which means that articles must generally contain multiple independent, reliable sources (e.g. newspaper articles and books) that cover the subject in detail before they can be eligible to have a Wikipedia page. At the moment your draft doesn't contain enough of these sources to establish that the subject is notable. However, it does look like there is a fair bit of local coverage of the Picnic Train out there - e.g. [7] [8] [9] [10]. Try adding as many sources like those ones as you can find to your draft and you might be able to establish that the Picnic Train meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline
Almost all of your draft is also unsourced. It looks like you may have made the common mistake of writing the page backwards, by writing the content first and then trying to find sources. Instead you need to start with the sources, and only include content that is already contained in a reliable source.
Hopefully that helps, let me know if you have any other questions! MCE89 (talk) 04:14, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh OK, thanks for that. I can see what you mean now. I'll find more original sources. I wasn't sure if I could add multiple sources or if there'd be too man. I'll give it another go! cheers SpottoBotto (talk) 04:49, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi MCE89. I was just wondering how The Picnic Train approval is coming along? I know you're probably busy, but I was wondering if I need to make any further changes? Cheers! SpottoBotto (talk) 12:58, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @SpottoBotto. Definitely much improved! The draft is in the queue for review, so myself or another reviewer should get to it soon, and it seems like it's got a good shot at being notable. To increase the chances of it being accepted, you could try filling in your citations to make it easier for the reviewer to understand what you are citing. You can refer to Help:Referencing for beginners or Help:Introduction to referencing with VisualEditor for guidance on filling citation parameters. For instance, it would be best to change this citation:
  • "Meet the steam train crew taking Wollongong back in time". 15 May 2021.
To instead read:
MCE89 (talk) 13:28, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

QWP Wikipedia Page

[edit]

Mr MCE89, I hope you are there? Can we talk about updating QWP Page? Drjavidiqbalkhan (talk) 11:05, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Drjavidiqbalkhan The reason I reverted your edit to Qaumi Watan Party is that you replaced the entire page with unsourced, AI-generated text. All information on Wikipedia must be verifiable, which means it must be supported by citations to reliable sources. You are welcome to update the page, but you need to include citations for every claim you make. I'd also suggest that you update the page more gradually rather than replacing its entire contents all at once. Please also do not use AI tools like ChatGPT on Wikipedia. If you have any further questions please let me know or try asking at the teahouse. MCE89 (talk) 11:13, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize. It was my first-time edit on Wikipedia. I have been tasked by the QWP party to update the page. Obviously I'm seeking help from AI (ChatGPT etc) to write the content of our page based on party's manifesto. And I would also add verifiable and reliable sources (citation: with external and internal links). And I would update one section at a time. Kindly review my next update and let me know if there's anything I need to change or update to adhere the rules of Wikipedia. I appreciate your assistance. Drjavidiqbalkhan (talk) 11:22, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Drjavidiqbalkhan Thank you for that information. Are you being paid or employed by the QWP? If so, you need to make a paid editing disclosure by following the instructions at WP:PAID in order to comply with Wikipedia's terms of use. You can do this by adding {{paid|employer=name of employer|client=name of client}} to your user page. In any case, since you have said that you have been tasked by QWP, you have a conflict of interest with the party and need to disclose this when making edits. You can refer to WP:COI for further information.
As you have a conflict of interest, you are strongly discouraged from editing the page directly. Instead, you can submit edit requests on the article's talk page so that volunteer editors can review your proposed changes. Please do not edit further until you have made the appropriate disclosures, and please do not use ChatGPT to generate content for Wikipedia in any case. MCE89 (talk) 11:28, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a paid employee. Dr Javid Iqbal Khan is my friend's uncle, and he is QWP party's member. I do not support any political party neither I'm interested in politics. I was tasked/asked by Dr. Javid Iqbal Khan to update the page and add more details. And exactly that's what I am doing, taking the information available in public domain and writing it in unbiased, balanced, professional, and encyclopedic tone. Drjavidiqbalkhan (talk) 11:36, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Drjavidiqbalkhan Ok, in that case you are not a paid editor, but you do have a COI. You can disclose this by adding {{UserboxCOI|1=Qaumi Watan Party}} to your userpage. Can you also clarify why your account is named after your friend's uncle? Are you the only person who has access to this account? MCE89 (talk) 11:41, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the only who has access to this/his account, even Dr. Javid Iqbal Khan doesn't have access to this account. If you want I can login with my personal account and make changes if that's what required. And I have updated my userpage User:Drjavidiqbalkhan - Wikipedia Kindly view it. Drjavidiqbalkhan (talk) 11:53, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you should use your personal account. Wikipedia has rules against impersonation, and while I'm sure that's not your intention here, you can't edit with a username and userpage that says you are Dr Javid Iqbal Khan when you are not. I'm going to need to let an administrator know and they may need to block this account. But you can continue editing with your personal account — just make sure you make the same COI disclosure on that account. MCE89 (talk) 11:56, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that using Dr. Javid Iqbal Khan's account to edit cause COI and it's also against impersonation rule. Kindly do not have it blocked. From now on I'll use my personal account to make further edits. This is my personal account User:ShuaybGanatra - Wikipedia Drjavidiqbalkhan (talk) 12:08, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That'll be up to an administrator — you could also request a rename of the account at WP:RENAME if you prefer to continue using it, but you can't have an account with the username Drjavidiqbalkhan where you claim to be Dr Khan if you are not actually him. Feel free to continue editing with the ShuaybGanatra account instead. MCE89 (talk) 12:19, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I really appreciate your assistance. You have been a great help. Drjavidiqbalkhan (talk) 12:21, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So now I can make changes and suggest edits through my personal account. ShuaybGanatra (talk) 12:16, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just one more clarification before we conclude this conversation. Dr Javid Iqbak Khan also has access to this/his account. As he used his email address to create this account then gave me access to make changes. As he is not tech savvy and not well versed with English. Drjavidiqbalkhan (talk) 12:32, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of The Hand That Signed the Paper

[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Hand That Signed the Paper you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of LEvalyn -- LEvalyn (talk) 04:23, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Follow up on a declined article.

[edit]
Hello, MCE89. Thanks again for your earlier feedback on my draft “David de Ferranti“, it was very helpful. I revised it to address the notability concerns you mentioned. Specifically:
I added more independent, reliable secondary sources that provide in-depth coverage of the subject. I removed most of the sources that were primary or affiliated with the subject.
If you have a moment, kindly take another quick look before I resubmit the draft? I’d really appreciate your feedback.
Thanks so much! Glonnadiyedits (talk) 05:25, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 2025 AfC backlog drive award

[edit]
The Order of the Superior Scribe of Wikipedia   
This is awarded to MCE89 for accumulating more than 500 points during the June 2025 AfC backlog drive. Your dedication and sustained efforts in reducing the backlog and contributions to Wikipedia's content review process are sincerely appreciated. Thank you for your participation! ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 13:18, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of The Hand That Signed the Paper

[edit]

The article The Hand That Signed the Paper you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The Hand That Signed the Paper for comments about the article, and Talk:The Hand That Signed the Paper/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! 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 LEvalyn -- LEvalyn (talk) 04:15, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Pine’s Entry

[edit]

Dear MC89, Per your suggestion, I included a research section and reviews for Pine’s books https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jason_Pine

I would appreciate if you can review it again. Kind Regards 88.230.63.239 (talk) 11:08, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding that section! I've gone ahead and accepted your draft, which you can find at Jason Pine. If you are able to, it would be helpful to add URLs for the book reviews to help readers more easily verify your sources. But I could track down enough of the reviews that I was comfortable accepting it. MCE89 (talk) 13:35, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Upcoming expiry of your patroller right

[edit]

Hi, this is an automated reminder as part of Global reminder bot to let you know that your permission "patroller" (New page reviewers) will expire on 00:00, 26 July 2025 (UTC). For most rights, you will need to renew at WP:PERM, unless you have been told otherwise when your right was approved. To opt out of user right expiry notifications, add yourself to m:Global reminder bot/Exclusion. Leaderbot (talk) 19:43, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for breaking the cycle

[edit]

That circular discussion is why I never want to be an admin. For some reason that mindset where someone is so incapable of just accepting fault to the point they argue both that it's everyone else's fault for not telling them something, but then isn't their fault for not listening when told something gets under my skin. Rambling Rambler (talk) 15:22, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dosojin

[edit]

Hello mr MCE89. I only want to add every informations about dosojin but with details and a lot of words. I just added a content about the Kofu festival. 2A02:1388:208F:1A12:0:0:BCB4:20D0 (talk) 18:53, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be on a dynamic IP so I'm not sure which of the edits to Dosojin are yours, but I'm assuming the many IPs that have been adding copyrighted content to that page belong to you. Please read the notices that I have been leaving on your talk pages, and understand that you cannot copy content from other websites onto Wikipedia. If you continue to add copyrighted content, the page may end up being protected from editing by IPs at some point. If you have questions about copyright on Wikipedia or are confused by this, I'm happy to try to help or you can ask your questions at the Teahouse. MCE89 (talk) 12:38, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bohr model

[edit]

Hi, in this edit you added a CC by 4 notice. Why? Our content does not copy the Pinke/ Ősz1 /Lente1 source AFAICT. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:22, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Johnjbarton! I added the notice because the previous edit added a paragraph that had been flagged by Copypatrol for being largely copied from that journal article. Given that the source was CC-BY-4.0, I added an attribution notice rather than removing it. Feel free to remove or rewrite that paragraph if you'd prefer — the editor who added it appears to have a COI and I definitely don't have the expertise to assess whether it was an appropriate addition to the article. MCE89 (talk) 12:33, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I found the report and realized I had already shortened the copied source. I completed the job. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:12, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft Rejection of Protection of Living Beings

[edit]

Hi MCE89, thank you for reviewing my page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Protection_for_Living_Beings.

I have edited my page according to your input, but I'm not sure whether there's anything else to improve. I am quite new to this and I worked on this on behalf of someone else because the article was linked to their organization. They only asked me to translate the chinese version, so I did. But there's not much in the Chinese page, and the other information in Feng Zikai's page (the painter of the illustrations) is already very clear. I also see other articles and studies about this, but mostly they refer to Feng Zikai style, and not specifically to this book although this one is one of his most famous project. Do you have any other input I can use?

Thank you so much for your help, and have a good day! Miss Curly Samoyed (talk) 04:19, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Miss Curly Samoyed Good job, much improved! I've now accepted the draft — congratulations on your first article!
To improve the page further, it would be great to add additional citations to support the unreferenced sections. Once you've done this, you can remove the tag about needing more references that I've placed at the top of the article.
I do need to ask — can you explain what you mean by I worked on this on behalf of someone else because the article was linked to their organization? If you were paid in any way for your contributions, or if you have a potential conflict of interest, please refer to WP:PAID and WP:COI for the relevant guidelines. MCE89 (talk) 12:49, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New page reviewer granted

[edit]

Hi MCE89, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the new page reviewer user right to your account. This means you now have access to the page curation tools and can start patrolling pages from the new pages feed. If you asked for this at requests for permissions, please check back there to see if your access is time-limited or if there are other comments.

This is a good time to re-acquaint yourself with the guidance at Wikipedia:New pages patrol. Before you get started, please take the time to:

You can find a list of other useful links and tools for patrollers at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Resources. If you are ever unsure what to do, ask your fellow patrollers or just leave the page for someone else to review – you're not alone! signed, Rosguill talk 19:18, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing draft

[edit]

Hi @MCE89! I finished my draft, Draft:Ngerekebesang (village). Can you please see it and give suggestions? Thank you! Palauan Wikipedian (talk) 03:29, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Palauan Wikipedian Great job on creating the draft! It's a good start, but the main thing that it still needs is a reliable source to verify the information about the village. Unfortunately https://www.geonames.org is not a reliable source. Is there an official government site or a local newspaper that might contain information about the village? Adding reliably sourced information like its population that would be even better. You could start by adding a reference to this government site, which verifies the existence of Ngerekebesang Hamlet. MCE89 (talk) 03:52, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@MCE89 I’ve actually ducked in to help ref. that one. It should be on the draft now. Fijimeddars (talk) 12:14, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

page

[edit]

corrected and improved the survivor page MissCheese0055 (talk) 12:17, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MissCheese0055 You "improved" Draft:Viswash Kumar Ramesh by removing the one paragraph that was actually sourced, leaving your draft entirely devoid of any references. All information on Wikipedia must be verifiable, which means it needs to be supported by citations to reliable sources. You can refer to Help:Introduction to referencing with VisualEditor for instructions on how to add citations.
In addition, as you have been told by multiple reviewers, the subject of your draft simply does not qualify for a Wikipedia article, as he is a living person who is only notable for one event. I'm sorry to disappoint you, but I strongly suggest that you give up on this particular draft and find a different page to work on instead. Let me know if you have any other questions that I could help with. MCE89 (talk) 12:23, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Query addressed and Draft resubmitted re: "Apartheid Studies"

[edit]

I have addressed the query re: additional independent references. See Endnote 2 - Heron (2024) (major interpretation of Apartheid Studies as a theoretical framework); Endnote 3 - Tagwirei (2025) (whole book is based on Apartheid Studies); Endnote 6 - Tufte (2024) (article refers to Mboti’s work); Footnote 9 - Koot et al (2022) (authors refer to Apartheid Studies). See also Endnote 38. Alfred Beit (talk) 08:51, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

[edit]

Hi MCE89. Thank you for your work on Hilda Bull. Another editor, Bakhtar40, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Nice Work

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Bakhtar40}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Bakhtar40 (talk) 13:06, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red August 2025

[edit]
Women in Red | August 2025, Vol 11, Issue 8, Nos. 326, 327, 344, 345, 346


Online events:

Announcements:

Tip of the month:

Other ways to participate:

--Rosiestep (talk) 14:50, 30 July 2025 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Temporary account IP viewer granted

[edit]
The temporary account IP viewer logo, composed of the Wikipedia globe with a user and an IP address

Hello, MCE89. Per your request, your account has been granted "checkuser-temporary-account". You are now able to reveal the IP addresses of individuals using temporary accounts that are not visible to the general public. This is very sensitive information that is only to be used to aid in anti-abuse workflows. Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Temporary account IP viewer for more information on this user right. It is important to remember:

  • You must not share IP address data with someone who does not have the same access permissions unless disclosure is permissible as per guidelines listed at Foundation:Policy:Wikimedia Access to Temporary Account IP Addresses Policy.
  • Access should not be used for political control, to apply pressure on editors, or as a threat against another editor in a content dispute. There must be a valid reason to investigate a temporary user. Note that using multiple temporary accounts is not forbidden, so long as they are not used in violation of policies (for example, block or ban evasion).

It is also important to note that the following actions are logged for others to see:

  • When a user accepts the preference that enables or disables IP reveal for their account.
  • Revealing an IP address of a temporary account.
  • Listing the temporary accounts that are associated with an IP address or CIDR range.

Remember, even if a user is violating policy, avoid revealing personal information if possible. Use temporary account usernames rather than disclosing IP addresses directly, or give information such as same network/not same network or similar. If you do not want the user right anymore then please ask me or another administrator and it will be removed for you. Happy editing! Sohom (talk) 02:20, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft rejection Brickken

[edit]

Hello MCE89, thanks for your review of my article about the company Brickken. I see that my article got rejected because of the references that i used. For the references i mainly used cointelegraph articles about brickken that contained anouncements about the project, these were rather detailed articles that, beside the anouncement, also contained information about brickken in general and the real world asset market. Besides that, i don't see why cointelegraph cannot be considered a reliable source, since it is a very well known media outlet in the crypto space, second of all not a single article where i referenced too has any sponsored content. I also referenced to brickken's own website, but this was only for information i couldn't find anywhere else, such as the date of the whitepaper release. I also believe that Brickken is notable enough for a wikipedia page. For example, the company has around 10.000 followers on linkedin. Another company with the same amount of followers (Nuro,Inc.) does also have a detailed wikipedia page. My question is; please could you reconsider your rejection, or else give me advice on my article to decrease the changes of rejection when i resubmit it. 77.169.42.82 (talk) 15:13, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. To demonstrate notability as Wikipedia defines the term, you would need to find multiple independent, reliable sources that discuss Brickken in depth. Wikipedia also has particular standards for articles about cryptocurrency-related topics, which means that crypto-centric news sources like Cointelegraph cannot generally contribute to notability. Unfortunately a company's number of LinkedIn followers is not usable as evidence of notability. You can read more about the relevant guidelines at Wikipedia:Notability (cryptocurrencies). MCE89 (talk) 09:50, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Spring Break Fiji

[edit]

Hello, could you please respond to the message in my talk page regarding Spring Break Fiji ? Here is the link Xmanxmanx (talk) 09:47, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up on Draft:LS AUTO – Request for Guidance

[edit]

Hi @MCE89, Thank you for reviewing my draft article on LS AUTO (Jiangxi Longsheng Automobile Co., Ltd.). I noticed that the submission was declined again, and I’d like to respectfully ask for clarification and guidance on what specific issues are still preventing the draft from being accepted. I've carefully revised the article to address previous feedback: I removed promotional language and added neutral, fact-based content. I cited independent, secondary sources where available. I made sure to align the content with WP:NPOV and WP:NCORP. I have no personal or professional connection to the company and am simply trying to create an article comparable to others on emerging Chinese EV manufacturers (like Leapmotor, NETA, or Zeekr). Could you please point out: Which part(s) of the draft still appear non-compliant? Are there any issues with the sources used that I may have missed? Would you recommend further edits, or that the article be submitted elsewhere for review? I’m very open to learning and improving — your feedback would be greatly appreciated so I can align the article with Wikipedia’s standards. Thanks again for your time and effort. Frederik Scheidgen (talk) 16:01, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Frederik Scheidgen. To demonstrate notability, you would need to find multiple independent, reliable sources that discuss the company in depth. None of your current sources meet these criteria to contribute towards notability. Going through the reasons why each of the sources does not meet the criteria:
MCE89 (talk) 10:00, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: Florent Chavouet

[edit]

Hi there - you declined a page of Florent Chavouet. Did you bother to properly look at the references, in-line citations and prices that he won, considering him not to be notable? Alternatively check out his French Wikipedia page. 2A02:C7C:9A9E:E800:CCD:EA1C:4B69:F4BC (talk) 09:09, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. If you are @Littleclown27, please remember to log into your account when editing. Yes, I did properly look at the references. As I said in my decline message, you need to add secondary, independent sources analysing his work in order to demonstrate that he meets the notability guideline for creative professionals (e.g. commentary on his artwork or reviews of his books). At the moment, your only references are five books that he wrote himself, an exhibition catalogue, and two permanently dead links. None of those references are sufficient to demonstrate notability. MCE89 (talk) 09:14, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@MCE89- apologies this is my fault - he won several prizes for his work but those links don't appear to work here. Again sorry! Will add the necessary secondary sources, including the extensive work he did with the Louvre and will send again. Thanks a lot! Littleclown27 (talk) 09:40, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Revising Article Submission for Bridgett Christian Lewis

[edit]

Dear MDE89,

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

I believe that the subject, Bridgett Christian Lewis, meets Wikipedia’s notability criteria due to her historic election as the first Black woman on the Torrance City Council, her leadership role at the Port of Long Beach, and recognition such as the 2024 Homeland Security Today Person of the Year (Local) award. These achievements have been documented in multiple reliable third-party sources, which I have cited thoroughly.

Additionally, I would like to clarify that there is no conflict of interest involved in the creation of this article. My intention is solely to provide accurate and verifiable information in line with Wikipedia’s guidelines.

If there are specific areas where additional independent sources or clarification are needed, I would be grateful for guidance so I can update the draft accordingly. I am eager to ensure the article fully complies with Wikipedia policies and provides readers with verifiable, encyclopedic information.

Thank you again for your time and assistance.

Best regards, Kourtni Latimer Bridgett Christian Lewis (talk) 07:30, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Bridgett Christian Lewis. Please have a read of Wikipedia's general notability guideline. As a local politician, Lewis does not meet the separate notability guideline for politicians. You therefore need to meet the general notability guideline by finding multiple independent, reliable secondary sources that discuss Lewis in depth. Being the first Black woman elected to the city council and winning a local award do not independently contribute towards notability. If you can find appropriate sources, you can then resubmit your draft for review.
Can you also clarify why your username is Bridgett Christian Lewis? If you are not her, you will need to change your username by following the instructions at WP:RENAME — you can't edit under Lewis' name. Please do not edit further until you've requested a change of username. MCE89 (talk) 07:38, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notability criteria query: Rhianna Spring

[edit]

Hi @MCE89 - thanks for your review of my draft article on Rhiana Spring; I was hoping someone from the Women in Red collective would find it. You rejected the first submitted draft based on notability of the subject; since this is my first full biography proposal on Wikipedia I wanted to check my interpretation of the notability criteria. On the secondary sources, my reading was that a couple of paragraphs on the subject constituted a substantial source Wikipedia:Common sourcing mistakes (notability), which I think the two Forbes articles have. However, I read additional notability criteria which I thought would be qualifying in this case, particularly receipt of major recognised awards Wikipedia:Notability (people) which I interpreted to include the subject’s recent UN AI for Good Award (which is when I became aware of her) among several other recent awards. Would it be possible to get some guidance here? Additionally I’ve been speaking with the subject’s volunteer team for sources (declared) and understand a biographical interview has already been recorded by the Swiss national broadcaster, and is airing soon, which I believe would strengthen the case for notability. Thanks, J. Jarmarshall (talk) 08:08, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, quick update as I've since had a number of newspaper articles (regional Swiss) highlighted to me that were in the original submission, which are substantial (2 pages on average). I have foregrounded these, raised with the AFC helpdesk, and resubmitted, as I feel the subject clearly does meet Wikipedia's Notability guidelines. Jarmarshall (talk) 21:36, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Jarmarshall, apologies for the slow reply! Unfortunately winning an award typically does not demonstrate notability on its own unless it is a notable award in its own right, such as a Nobel Prize or a Pulitzer Prize, so winning the "UN AI for Good Award" would not show notability on its own. It looks like there has been plenty of coverage of Spring's start-up, but I still don't see any sources that provide significant coverage of Spring herself. Can you point me towards what you think the three best sources that provide significant, independent coverage are? MCE89 (talk) 07:25, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @MCE89 apparently the Swiss national broadcaster is airing their interview with and article on her this week, so I'll see what looks like, although I'm aware that interviews can fall in a grey area between primary and secondary sources. I've also trimmed down the references and so think we have a few sources that should count as secondary, but I'll look at it again in the round once the interview airs. Thanks again Jarmarshall (talk) 14:41, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @MCE89 - the 8+ minute broadcast interview with the Swiss national broadcaster has now aired, along with an accompanying article in Blick. These have both been added to the sources, and I have rationalised the media coverage and awards to be more selective. I believe the sources now include sufficient and appropriate coverage of the subject to merit inclusion in Wikipedia - are you able to take a look? Thank you. Jarmarshall (talk) 19:58, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hi there, and thank you for your help with NPP! I noticed that you recently removed a copyrighted plot description from Se mi lasci non vale without requesting that the article history be revdeled. After removing copyrighted material from a page, it's important to request cv-revdel to remove copyrighted material from the history. I hope this makes sense! Let me know if you have any follow-up questions. :) Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 14:33, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Significa liberdade and thanks for the message! I'm pretty active at Copypatrol and CCI, so I'm familiar with cv-revdel and have requested several hundred RD1s. The general rule of thumb that I've been taught is that revdel should be requested whenever more than around 500 bytes of copyrighted content is removed from an article. In this case there was only 250 bytes or a couple of sentences of copyrighted text, which is well under the threshold where I would normally tag for revdel. MCE89 (talk) 14:45, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense! I hadn't heard (or remembered) that criteria. Thanks for sharing. :) Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 14:48, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Copyright Cleanup Barnstar
Thank you for helping out at CCI! I was impressed that you cleared out an entire CCI case by yourself. Keep up the great work :) MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 22:48, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New pages patrol September 2025 Backlog drive

[edit]
September 2025 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol
  • On 1 September 2025, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled.
  • Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive.
  • Each review will earn 1 point.
  • Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:31, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and request for reassessment: Vincenzo Galdi (academic)

[edit]

Hi MCE89,

Thank you very much for your time and input on the Vincenzo Galdi (academic) article — I appreciate your attention to detail and constructive suggestions.

I’ve introduced several additional references to address the concerns that were raised. If you have a moment, I would be grateful if you could take another look and consider whether the current sourcing supports the removal of the maintenance template.

Thanks again for your help! Vgaldi (talk) 10:48, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Vgaldi and thanks for adding those citations. The "Education and career" section and the first paragraph of the "Research" section are still unsourced — can you make sure that every claim in those sections is cited? Once you've done that I'm happy to remove the maintenance tag. MCE89 (talk) 10:50, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @MCE89,  
Thanks again for following up. I've now added citations to the "Education and career" and "Research" sections using a reliable institutional source (university website). While this is a primary source, the content it supports is non-controversial and factual (e.g., academic degrees, positions held, research topics), and it follows WP:PRIMARY guidance.
If you believe further clarification is needed or that any statement should be tagged for better sourcing, I’d be happy to address that. Otherwise, I’d appreciate it if you’d consider removing the maintenance tag.
Best regards,  
Vgaldi (talk) 12:18, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Vgaldi, I've removed that maintenance tag. The article could still ideally use some more secondary sources beyond the university profile, but the {{BLP sources}} issue has been resolved. MCE89 (talk) 12:24, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot @MCE89. I'll keep improving the sources. Best regards,
Vgaldi (talk) 12:27, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your nomination of Hilda Bull is under review

[edit]

Your good article nomination of the article Hilda Bull 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 Borsoka -- Borsoka (talk) 12:42, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

[edit]

Hi MCE89. Thank you for your work on Wild Australia Show. Another editor, Aszx5000, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Lovely work! Have you thought about being autopatrolled. Your standard of work is very high and I don't think there is any need for your articles to be patrolled. thanks.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Aszx5000}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Aszx5000 (talk) 20:23, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red September 2025

[edit]
Women in Red | September 2025, Vol 11, Issue 9, Nos. 326, 327, 347, 348, 349
Recognized as the most active, topic-based WikiProject by human changes.


Online events:

Announcements:

Tip of the Month:

  • Researching historical women writers who used pseudonyms requires careful investigation across multiple sources, as many women adopted pen names to avoid gender bias and judgment (e.g., being labeled a bluestocking) and, ultimately, to get published.

Progress ("moving the needle"):

Other ways to participate:

--Rosiestep (talk) 23:54, 31 August 2025 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Your nomination of Hilda Bull has passed

[edit]

Your good article nomination of the article Hilda Bull 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 Borsoka -- Borsoka (talk) 04:25, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi @MCE89, I see you have given warning to user TeenX808 for the draft Draft:Uposathaghara. But he has done copy right violation again in this draft Draft:Ancient Kurundi Viharaya, even after you have given him warning. I will list down all of the copy right violation he has done now , Draft:Osariya, Draft:Ancient Kurundi Viharaya, Draft:Uposathaghara Draft:Anuradhapura invasion of Chola Kingdom (114-136) , Invasion of Anuradhapura by Rastrakuta empire. Can you check those in his talk page and also in his many edits, he just simply added what is in the sources without considering Copy right violations ,so could you block or temporary block him from editing as he is doing violation in wikipedia even after you and others have given him warnings? 106.51.27.137 (talk) 14:18, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. It looks like you left the same message on @Diannaa's talk page and she has already given you an answer. I'm also not an admin, so I couldn't block this user even if I wanted to. If TeenX808 continues to add further copyright violations after the final warning that they have just been given, then I'm sure Diannaa or another admin will take action if needed. MCE89 (talk) 14:29, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Questions about copyright issues and data source issues in Xian (Taoism) - Zhongli Chuandao ji

[edit]

I previously posted a version I translated myself, but it was removed due to someone claiming the source was invalid (need a reliable and non-deprecated source for factual claims, not WP:BAIDUBAIKE): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Xian_(Taoism)&oldid=1303826568

So I posted a new version with the source, but it was removed due to copyright issues: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Xian_(Taoism)&oldid=1309491985

Should I include the version I translated myself and cite it as 《鍾呂傳道集·論真仙》? Mujitcent (talk) 03:14, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mujitcent Hi there! It's generally fine to add your own translation of a old source that is now in the public domain. But you are correct that you shouldn't cite Baidu as it's not considered a reliable source. You might also want to discuss your additions on the talk page to see whether other editors agree with your changes.
The reason I reverted your edit is that it was taken from another published translation with a translator's commentary. You copied some of the translator's own original commentary, which is definitely under copyright and can't be copied onto Wikipedia. Their translation of the older work is a little bit more complicated — translations of a public domain text can often result in a new copyright if it significantly modifies the original text (see WP:DERIVATIVE), so it's generally best practice not to use an existing recent published translation. Hopefully that helps, let me know if you have questions. MCE89 (talk) 12:58, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Should I include my own translation and refer to it as 《鍾呂傳道集·論真仙》 like: https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%A5%9E%E4%BB%99
Or should I just translate from the "Chinese (中文)" version at https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%A5%9E%E4%BB%99
Should I add the book's title but not the link, in case people want to search for more information? Mujitcent (talk) 02:09, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can I use this website as a cite? https://ctext.org/wiki.pl?if=gb&chapter=12263
Can I translate the text from this website into Xian (Taoism)? Mujitcent (talk) 03:10, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Mujitcent. My suggestion would be that you cite the original text directly as a WP:PRIMARY source if you would like to include a translated quote. It's not a good idea to cite any user-generated wikis like zhwiki or Baidu. I'm not familiar with the https://ctext.org site, but at a glance it seems like a potentially appropriate courtesy URL to provide as a digitised version of the text. You might want to start a discussion on the article talk page to get the views of those who are more familiar with the subject matter here though. MCE89 (talk) 03:42, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Cardoso

[edit]

I fixed the errors you listed on the Bill Cardoso GAN and renominated. You can re-review if you like. Roast (talk) 20:49, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Talk:Bashar al-Assad § Infobox image

[edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Bashar al-Assad § Infobox image. Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 22:46, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Katie Lynch (nursery manager)

[edit]

Hello. I have expanded the Draft:Katie Lynch (nursery manager) with depth and more references. Since this person is a nursery manager, there are many local, or nursery-specific, references about herself and her nursery. This profession is with quite limited visibility with limited references that makes it difficult to justify Wikipedia:Notability (people), but British Empire Medal recognition justifies significant notability, and I think now the article is much better. You can check it whenever you want to, thanks! Chiserc (talk) 09:55, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Chiserc! I'll leave this one for another reviewer to look at, but I'm personally not quite convinced of notability yet. The only two sources that provide even borderline significant coverage of Lynch herself are the Leicester Mercury and BBC articles. And the Leicester Mercury coverage almost entirely consists of the award citation and quotes from Lynch. I also don't think the British Empire Medal is sufficient for automatic notability under WP:ANYBIO criteria 1. I think you'll need to find another couple of sources at least as good as the BBC article to establish that she meets WP:GNG. MCE89 (talk) 10:08, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Chiserc (talk) 10:32, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft review needed

[edit]

Hello, I've created the draft article Draft: Jamtara railway station. Could you please review it ? Thanks! Flashthomsom (talk) 11:39, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Flashthomsom! You've submitted your draft for review, so it's now in the queue and an AfC reviewer will get to it eventually. Unfortunately there's a backlog of drafts at the moment and submissions are reviewed in no particular order, so it may take a few weeks. There's no need to reach out to AfC reviewers directly to ask for a review. MCE89 (talk) 11:43, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, thanks! Flashthomsom (talk) 12:11, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Mark Aldridge

[edit]

Hi @user:MCE89, thanks for reviewing the Draft:Mark Aldridge page and indicating that the subject is notable. I've reviewed the "other offences" section and removed it, as suggested, to comply Wikipedia:BLP. Andykusama (talk) 08:55, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Andykusama Thanks for that, I've now accepted the draft. I'd also suggest adding citations to the remaining unsourced sentences, and removing references to the Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph as they are not considered reliable sources. MCE89 (talk) 13:28, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft Review of Cavista Holdings

[edit]

Hello.

Please I noticed that you declined my draft of Cavista Holdings, and I want to respectfully request that you give it another look(and possibly ignore the two previous reviews).

I substantially revised the draft to address prior reviewer concerns about notability, sourcing, and promotional language. I removed or toned down promotional claims and tied each factual statement to independent, secondary sources. Key claims are now supported by inline citations to reputable Grade 1 national media outlets (examples: Nairametrics — Ekiti MOU; Punch and TheCable — Ikogosi redevelopment; The Guardian/Weekend Post — Botswana expansion; BusinessDay/Guardian/Vanguard — legislative recognition).

The article’s main sections (History, Agriculture, Hospitality, Technology, International expansion) each cite reliable sources. Archived copies of the cited pages can be provided on request. Thank you for re-reviewing — I welcome any further guidance. Chendii (talk) 12:31, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Chendii! I've looked at your draft again, and I stand by my original decline. None of the sources meet the criteria detailed at WP:NCORP, particularly WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. Going through my analysis of each of the sources:
  • 1 - Almost entirely quotes from the company's Executive Director, no independent analysis
  • 2 - Mostly quotes, no byline, promotional tone
  • 3 - 404 error
  • 4 - Promotional tone, mostly quotes, no independent analysis
  • 5 - Page not found error
  • 6 - Only a passing mention of Cavista Holdings
  • 7 - Dead link
  • 8 - No significant coverage of Cavista Holdings, just reports on the result of a sports game they sponsored
  • 9 - No significant coverage of Cavista Holdings, just reports on the result of a sports game they sponsored
  • 10 - No byline, no significant coverage of Cavista Holdings
  • 11 - Mostly quotes, doesn't mention Cavista Holdings
  • 12 - Routine report on an event they sponsored, no byline, mostly quotes
  • 13 - Dead link
After going through the sources again, the one thing I did miss during my original review is just how many of these are unexplained dead links/404 errors. Did you use AI to generate this draft? MCE89 (talk) 12:59, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the speedy response. I wrote the draft myself, but used AI to finesse it.
I am just as surprised at the dead links. At the time of my first submission, they were working fine. I archived the links in my resubmission to ensure that they remain valid. Will source for any other links that are in line with Wikipedia criteria. Or just move on and edit other articles/content from Nigeria.
Cheers! Chendii (talk) 13:12, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Green's 9th Edit-a-thon

[edit]

Hello MCE89:

WikiProject Women in Green is holding a month-long Good Article Editathon event in October 2025!

Running from October 1 to 31, 2025, WikiProject Women in Green (WiG) is hosting a Good Article (GA) editathon event with the theme What Women Do! All experience levels welcome. Never worked on a GA project before? We'll teach you how to get started. Or maybe you're an old hand at GAs – we'd love to have you involved! Participants are invited to work on nominating and/or reviewing GA submissions related to women and women's works (e.g., books, films) during the event period. We hope to collectively cover article subjects from at least 31 different occupations or professions (or broader roles in society) by month's end. GA resources and one-on-one support will be provided by experienced GA editors, and participants will have the opportunity to earn a special WiG barnstar for their efforts.

We hope to see you there!

Grnrchst (talk), Spookyaki (talk) & Alanna the Brave (talk)

You are receiving this message as a member of the WikiProject Women in Green. You can remove yourself from receiving notifications here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:38, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m pretty famous recently thanks to some IPs which are spreading my name

[edit]

@MCE89: I think you seem to have a good idea of the situation and I hope I can work with you and gain experience and can you check this article Pandukabhaya and let me know if I should remove the template plus I don’t want to disturb Diana since she has health issue and if I’m bothering you please let me know. Thanks TeenX808 (talk) 08:07, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @TeenX808! It's no problem at all, I'm happy to help. You shouldn't remove that tag just yet. There are still some unsourced paragraphs (most of the "Early life" section, the second paragraph of "Establishing a new kingdom", and the "Personal life" section). Once you've added citations to verify all of that uncited information you can feel free to remove the template. MCE89 (talk) 14:15, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@MCE89: let me solve it now. Thanks TeenX808 (talk) 14:19, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@MCE89: I have solved the issue could you confirm. ThanksTeenX808 (talk) 14:42, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Devanampiya Tissa

[edit]

@MCE89: hi could you check Works by the King subsection, I have included some info from the book and tried paraphrasing as much as I can and I’m not sure if it’s considered as a copy right violation. ThanksTeenX808 (talk) 13:54, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @TeenX808! That's looking much better, I wouldn't say there's a copyright issue in that particular section.
The trick to avoiding close paraphrasing is to read the source and then summarise its main ideas in your own words. One thing that you could try doing while you're writing is to switch windows away from the source or physically put it down to force yourself to summarise its main ideas from memory rather than copying the exact details and phrasing (and then check the source again to make sure you haven't made a mistake!). I think the issue that you've been having is that you're rewriting/replicating passages directly from the source, rather than writing an original summary of the main ideas. WP:FIXCLOSEPARA has some more tips for avoiding close paraphrasing that you might find helpful.
It's also great that you're working on improving at this and that you're reaching out to other editors for feedback. Try not to get discouraged by the discussion at ANI and keep up the good work! MCE89 (talk) 14:10, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@MCE89: thank you for the response and is it alright if I keep close contact with you and I will continue editing the wiki article and add more info to the table, also thank you so much for the tip. TeenX808 (talk) 14:17, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I'm always very happy to help. I don't edit much on weekdays though, so you might get quicker responses to any time-sensitive questions if you try asking at the Teahouse. I don't think the template on Pandukabhaya should be removed just yet, but if you add citations to the remaining unsourced sections you can go ahead and remove the tag. MCE89 (talk) 14:20, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Editor experience invitation

[edit]

Hi MCE89. I'm looking for experienced editors to interview here. Feel free to pass if you're not interested. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 08:10, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi can you review this article

[edit]

@MCE89:Can you check this Gothabhaya of Anuradhapura article, I added citations and info,. ThanksTeenX808 (talk) 22:58, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Wild Australia Show

[edit]

On 26 September 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Wild Australia Show, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that one anthropologist has described scenes in the 1893 Wild Australia Show as examples of "settler denialism" and "colonial fantasy"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Wild Australia Show. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Wild Australia Show), 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.

JuniperChill (talk) 00:03, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red | October 2025, Vol 11, Issue 10

[edit]
Women in Red | October 2025, Vol 11, Issue 10, Nos. 326, 327, 350, 351, 352
Recognized as the most active topic-based WikiProject by human changes.


Online events:

Announcements:

Tip of the Month:

  • Notable does not always mean admirable; you don't have to like an article's subject to make the article a useful contribution to Wikipedia.

Progress ("moving the needle"): Statistics available via various tools: previously, Humaniki tool; currently, QLever.
Thank you if you contributed one or more of the 6,283 articles during this period:

  • 19 May 2025: 20.114% of EN-WP biographies are about women (2,066,280; 415,618 women)
  • 24 September 2025: 20.20% of EN-WP biographies are about women (2,088,533 biographies; 421,901 women)

Other ways to participate:

--Rosiestep (talk) 18:31, 29 September 2025 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

October 2025 GAN Backlog Drive

[edit]

October 2025 GAN Backlog Drive

  • On 1 October 2025, a one-month backlog drive for good article nomination reviews will begin in hopes of addressing the growing backlog and to reduce old nominations.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number, length, and age of nominations reviewed.
  • Each article review will earn 1 point; for each 90 days an article has been in the backlog, an additional half-point is awarded; one extra point will be awarded for every 2500 total reviewed words.
  • Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:57, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

[edit]

Hi, could you please take a look at the articles Dosojin and Tennin? I suspect they were edited by the same contributor whose earlier edits you reverted for being essay-like and containing errors. Both entries may need cleanup or verification. 2402:800:6343:D269:C1A:E63C:491F:F515 (talk) 15:05, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, thanks for flagging this! I'm not able to look closely at the articles right now, but will try to have a look at them and see what I can do in the next few days. I reverted those previous edits on Dosojin primarily for being copyright violations. This time the tool I use didn't flag any obvious copyright violations in the current version, but I will try to have a more detailed look and see whether there are subtler copyright issues soon. It does look like there are definitely a whole bunch of other content issues on those two pages that should be resolved. MCE89 (talk) 15:29, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]