Dear editor,

I saw you declined my submission of the song. Please note that Croatian music is something that is still in the process of flourishing so it is difficult to apply these WP songs rules to something that might seem "less notable" but is nevertheless a song that can be written about. Could you please reconsider your option and give the song more time to grow? As in, with time, it might become more significant if more journalists decide to write about it? I mean, even as it is, it has 9 sources already. Zagrebite (talk) 17:33, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Zagrebite: Hi. The relevant guideline here is WP:NSONG, which states that a song is notable if it has received significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Please note that Wikipedia is a lagging indicator of notability, so Wikipedia articles can only be written about subjects that have already been noticed by sources, which unfortunately creates a systematic bias, as subjects that are underrepresented in reliable sources cannot have Wikipedia articles. Simply having multiple sources is not in and of itself enough to demonstrate notability; sources 1 and 3 of your draft are not independent of the artist, and the chart sources are not in-depth. If reliable sources do appear in the future, then you are welcome by all means to resubmit the draft with those, but until then, the best thing you can do is include relevant things in other, existing articles, e.g. the artist's. Thank you for your work, and if you have any question, feel free to let me know. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 18:03, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

		Brownie
		This is awarded to Kovcszaln6 for accumulating more than 19 points during the December 2025 AfC backlog drive. Your dedication and contributions to Wikipedia's content review process were crucial in reviewing over 9,000 drafts during the drive. Thank you for your participation and helping to reduce the backlog! ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 15:42, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:The Old Bar on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 03:30, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Greenland crisis on a "Wikipedia style and naming" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 16:31, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kovcszaln6. Thank you for your work on Israel S. Bird. Another editor, MPGuy2824, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

please mention the middle name/initial in the target page

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|MPGuy2824}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

-MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:49, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kovcszaln6. Thank you for your work on Israel R. Bird. Another editor, MPGuy2824, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

please mention the middle name/initial in the target page

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|MPGuy2824}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

-MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:50, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

		The Articles for Creation Barnstar 2025 Top Editor
		In 2025 you were one of the top AfC editors, thank you! --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:36, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Israel R. Bird has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 January 23 § Israel R. Bird until a consensus is reached. KyleSirTalksAlot (talk) 14:43, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello editor! Can you suggest if BBC and Wales.com is a secondary source, suitable to add to the article? Thank you! Sarahweh (talk) 09:41, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Sarahweh: The BBC source is fine, the Wales.com one is not independent, as it was written by the subject. Try to find sources that discuss him and are independent from him, i.e. someone else wrote it about him. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 09:54, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ah that makes sense! Thank you for your assistance. I appreciate it so much. Sarahweh (talk) 10:44, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Sarahweh: Make sure the cited sources are also in-depth. Mentions like "X said ..." are not independent and probably not in-depth. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 10:21, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:2025–2026 Iranian protests on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk|contribs) 19:30, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Kovcszaln6! Per WP:PRIMARY, "a primary source is generally the best source for its own contents, even over a summary of the primary source". The primary sources cited refer to statements directly from the cited organisations themselves, and, as such, are the best sources for each organisation. Justthefacts (talk) 16:21, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Justthefacts: The policy also says that undue weight shouldn't be put on content cited to primary sources, instead they should be covered in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in [reliable] sources. So, if you can find secondary sources stating that this and that organization condemned it, then it's okay to include, otherwise are we going to include every single organization that ever spoke up about it?

Also, for future reference, please use the article's talk page for discussions about the article's content. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 16:50, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @Kovcszaln6: It would be WP:UNDUE if it were in the lead or covered in excess in a section, but a single mention each for each single organisation with a cited WP:PRIMARY source each for each organisation directly from each organisation is perfectly WP:DUE. I left a message on your user talk page directly to bring it to your attention as it involved only you, but in future I will use the article talk page. Regards, --Justthefacts (talk) 17:16, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, but it's truly not that big of a deal, so it's fine like this. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 17:23, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:2026 Iran war on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk|contribs) 19:31, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]