Jump to content

User talk:MCE89

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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]

Women in Red April 2025

[edit]
Women in Red | April 2025, Vol 11, Issue 4, Nos. 326, 327, 335, 336


Online events:

Announcements (Events facilitated by others):

Tip of the month:

  • When creating biographies, don't forget to use Template:DEFAULTSORT.
    Accessible from "Wiki markup" at the foot of the page being edited,
    it allows categories to be listed under the subject's family name rather than their first or given name.

Moving the needle: (statistics available via Humaniki tool)

  • 24 Mar 2025: 20.070% of biographies on EN-WP are about women (2,057,083, 412,857 women)
  • 27 Jan 2025: 20.031% (2,047,793 bios, 410,200 women)

Thank you if you contributed one or more of the 2,657 articles during this period!

Other ways to participate:

Instagram | Pinterest

--Rosiestep (talk) 13:19, 30 March 2025 (UTC) via MassMessaging[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 400 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]

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]

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. [6] [7] [8] [9]. 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]

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]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MCE89&oldid=1299255113"