Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

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

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

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

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

@MCE89, like this instead?

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

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

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

Hi MCE,

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

Looking forward to hearing from you.

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

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

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

Hi MCE89,

Thanks for checking.

User:Gregorvalentan is my previous account.

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

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

Yes, I work for Comtrade Gaming.

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

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

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

Thanks for the clarification.:)

I have now added the disclosure to my user page and also noted my previous account (User:Gregorvalentan) for transparency.

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

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

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

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

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

Hey @Mitchsavl, thank you for your help; I added your template under the "Talk" section of the article. Before I resubmit it, there is also one thing: I received the following message when my draft was denied a few days ago:

"This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

in-depth (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements)

reliable

secondary

strictly independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet all four of these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia."

The thing is, these are basically the only sources we have about our company. So, I'm not sure if I resubmit the article that it will be approved. Do you know how I should tackle this? Thanks in advance! :) GregorWiki2025 (talk) 08:11, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, @GregorWiki2025, if those are the only sources, the page won’t meet WP:NOTABLE guidelines. Notability doesn’t strictly prevent the subject from any mention on Wikipedia, but rather what can exist as a standalone article. If you can find a broader topic, where information about the company would fit in, such as one on “small game studios with games in X genre”, you may be able to have Comtrade Gaming as a subsection, with a redirect linking to it.

I would highly recommend asking about this at WikiProject Video Games about this heading forwards, as the people there would have far more knowledge on the consensus around game studio articles. Mitchsavl (talk) 11:31, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

PS: you would have to disclose your conflict of interest for any article you work on related to game studios, not just the Comtrade one.

When you have more independent, reliable sources about the company, it can then receive an article later on. Mitchsavl (talk) 11:35, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2026!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi,

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

Sincerely,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

These are:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi @Phifty! Are the sources you're referring to these ones [1] [2]? If so, the reason they don't help to establish notability is that they are interviews with Gass-Pooré, and unless I've misunderstood something, her podcast is produced in collaboration with a PBS affiliate. Both of those facts would disqualify an interview with her on PBS from being an independent source. What we need are sources where someone else, from an unconnected media organisation, writes about her and/or her work. Unfortunately this can often be quite hard to find for journalists, since it's not super common for journalists to write about each others' work. But if there are any reviews or other coverage of her podcasts, that's probably the best place to start. Best of luck with the draft, and just let me know if any of that's not clear! MCE89 (talk) 05:50, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi @45dogs! Yep, that's all fine. As you say the text is PD and is presented as a quote, and that edit had also been marked as a false positive on Copypatrol a while back: [3]. MCE89 (talk) 04:30, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for February 26, 2026. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 2026, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/February 2026. Please keep an eye on that page, as notifications of copy edits to or queries about the draft blurb may be left there by user:JennyOz, who assists the coordinators by reviewing the blurbs, or by others. I also suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from two days before it appears on the Main Page. Thanks, and congratulations on your work! Gog the Mild (talk) 17:30, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Epicgenius (talk) 00:02, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think I did what you asked for - want to take a look? Anything else needed for {{subst:DYKtick}}? GRuban (talk) 18:05, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @GRuban, sorry for the delay! I've been travelling this week but am planning to take a look later today. MCE89 (talk) 23:35, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your good article nomination of the article Chinese Australian Herald has been placed on hold, as the article needs some changes. See the review page for more information. If these are addressed within 7 days, the nomination will pass; otherwise, it may fail. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of DannyRogers800 -- DannyRogers800 (talk) 22:27, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Content Review Medal

This is awarded to MCE89 for accumulating more than 1524 points and being the user with the highest score during the December 2025 AfC backlog drive. Thank you for generously sharing your time, knowledge, and effort. Your contributions not only helped clear the backlog but also welcomed countless new editors and ideas into the encyclopedia. You’ve absolutely earned this top spot. :) ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 15:28, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Gold Wiki Award

This is awarded to MCE89 for accumulating more than 1524 points and being the user with the highest score during the December 2025 AfC backlog drive. Thank you for generously sharing your time, knowledge, and effort. Your contributions not only helped clear the backlog but also welcomed countless new editors and ideas into the encyclopedia. You’ve absolutely earned this top spot. :) ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 15:28, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Bunnypranav, and thank you for all your work coordinating the drive! MCE89 (talk) 19:28, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

		The Teamwork Barnstar
		Many people review drafts. You review the reviewers. You peer-reviewed the peer reviewers and supported your fellow Wikipedians. :) This is awarded to MCE89 for completing more than 50 re-reviews during the December 2025 AfC backlog drive. Thank you for your efforts and teamwork! ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 08:21, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]