I didn’t mean to publish it. It is fictional Catlover1519 (talk) 23:58, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, got it. I'll nominate it for a faster deletion then under G3.

Just know that Wikipedia isn't meant for fictional things, even if it isn't published (this includes drafts)

Have a good one EatingCarBatteries _{(contributions, talk)} 00:02, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

im didn’t try to do a hoax I said IT IS FICTIONAL Catlover1519 (talk) 00:19, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

you can find this article here:https://the-democratic-republic-of-saint-east.fandom.com/wiki/V%25C9%2591%25CA%2598rin_L%CC%87eoar_Q%25CA%2598vran#Legacy Catlover1519 (talk) 00:24, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://the-democratic-republic-of-saint-east.fandom.com/wiki/V%25C9%2591%25CA%2598rin_L%CC%87eoar_Q%25CA%2598vran Catlover1519 (talk) 00:25, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't say anywhere on the page that it's fictional. A reader wouldn't know that unless they click on page history, go to my user page, go to my talk page, scroll down to the bottom to see your message.

Look, maybe nominating it as a hoax was incorrect, but in the end of the day Wikipedia isn't for made-up things. This isn't personal, I don't mean to upset you. You could publish this on a Wordpress blog or something if you want, but this is not what this website is for.

Wikipedia and Fandom, while sharing a lot in common, are very very different websites and shouldn't share content with each other. EatingCarBatteries _{(contributions, talk)} 00:26, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://the-democratic-republic-of-saint-east.fandom.com/wiki/V%25C9%2591%25CA%2598rin_L%CC%87eoar_Q%25CA%2598vran Catlover1519 (talk) 00:27, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Their! Catlover1519 (talk) 00:29, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This page is available in Eidnic and English. Catlover1519 (talk) 00:33, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eidnic is a made up language, so is the topic of your article, and one of the core ideas behind Wikipedia is that everything has to be verifiable and true

This website isn't meant for this kind of stuff, but your content should belong on Fandom or some other forums that are kinda like the SCP ones EatingCarBatteries _{(contributions, talk)} 00:36, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can see it on fandom Catlover1519 (talk) 00:37, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah but why does it have to be here? EatingCarBatteries _{(contributions, talk)} 00:42, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Catlover1519, if you link it on Wikipedia again [1], I am going to report you, and ask that you be blocked from editing, as the time-waster you clearly are. Wikipedia is not a web-hosting service, and you are not permitted to abuse it to peddle your vacuous nonsense about fictional individuals. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:43, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t get it? I just showing people were you can find it “You could publish this on a Wordpress blog or something if you want” Catlover1519 (talk) 00:46, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you can publish it off-Wikipedia, on websites that permit such things. That is none of our concern. You cannot however use Wikipedia to encourage readers to look at it. My warning about linking stands. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:53, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Look, maybe he said it a bit harshly, but like I said before, Wikipedia isn't meant for this stuff.

You can't advertise other sites, and you certainly can't publish stuff that you created yourself that isn't based in facts.

It should stay on Fandom, not Wikipedia. Fandom is the perfect stuff for that content. EatingCarBatteries _{(contributions, talk)} 00:55, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

what about religion-based stuff? does they all base on facts? example article about jesus is pretty well written so it does not say he is a fact, also god is well written, but this article should be deleted or fixed a lot: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion_of_Jesus ~2025-42282-04 (talk) 07:01, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

When I said "based in facts," I oversimplified Wikipedia's sourcing guidelines. The key principle of Wikipedia is that everything should be "verifiable" by "reliable sources." I recommend reading this intro page. In the case of the "The Democratic Republic of Saint East," it isn't on any sources except for Fandom, so therefore it isn't able to be on Wikipedia EatingCarBatteries _{(contribs | talk)} 08:03, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

i understand. but that site of crucificion of jesus should stil be fixed as neutral as is jesus-article and god-article.. maybe first sentences of the article should tell clearly first that it is based on the written stories about jesus who is a character in a christian religion. (with links to jesus-article and so on..) or this should be in a footer note.. surely there might be other religion based articles which have the same issue, but somewhere we should start. ;) ~2025-42282-04 (talk) 09:40, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, Whte House Ballroom was in fact a typo. jlwoodwa (talk) 03:00, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh haha, my brain skipped over the missing I. EatingCarBatteries _{(contributions, talk)} 03:01, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That time when robust, error-resistant language processing became an issue rather than a feature. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk} 13:57, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mohammad Mousavi (table tennis), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Iranian.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:53, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a list of futurama episodes in broadcast order, not the same as List of Futurama episodes which is in production order. They differ a lot. ~2025-42282-04 (talk) 07:37, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As multiple editors (1, 2) have pointed out, there is no point having two lists for the same episodes, regardless of how much you think they are different. Rosaece ♡ talk ♡ contribs 11:43, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

yes, that conversation is going on. they are different beacause seasons does have different episodes, surely episodes itself are the same but a real question there is why we can't make two list for different names of lists because in real life they exists. like in infospehere, fandom and other sources show.. but yes, converastion is going on. let's see what happens, surely there is also some list formatting problems also which i noticed when looking the guides, but that is different case, i will not do a lot for those lists before there is some consensus what i am allowed to do. ~2026-30760 (talk) 15:22, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @EatingCarBatteries, It's not AI It's me i made that to make the article look good before i tried to separate all in sections but felt like that much information is not present then i thought of making list but not have enough time. So, Completed it with these dot type representation. Abdullah1099 (talk) 06:07, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, what page are you referring to? EatingCarBatteries _{(contribs | talk)} 06:13, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

VFTS Abdullah1099 (talk) 07:10, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ok! Humans doing those bolded lists that assert notability in each line isn't unheard of, but it is uncommon. I see it more often done by machines rather than people. It's just that we see so much AI content at Articles for Creation that people around here are naturally suspicious.

If you say you created it without AI, I believe you. EatingCarBatteries _{(contribs | talk)} 07:16, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I made it by myself and the writing is taken from the respective VFTS articles. Abdullah1099 (talk) 08:33, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I understand the concern about AI content. I did use AI to help with formatting and citation structure, but I personally verified every source, they’re all real, independent, reliable coverage (ABC7, Bloomberg/Core Memory, Futurism, etc.). Please go through the content of the article. If there is something that is factually wrong, I'm happy to rewrite. Thank you Ajayrwarrier (talk) 09:27, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Your article and citations looked decent, and that's actually one of the reasons why I left that message. That's great you reviewed the content and checked the citations - not everyone does that.

Someone else (LuniZunie) had nominated your draft for speedy deletion under criteria WP:G15, which is reserved for some of the most egregious examples of AI-generated articles (fake references and/or communication to the user). The problem is that their justification didn't meet the criteria, so I removed the deletion notice. I did however take their justification and transferred it over into a comment embedded into the article.

I hope this clears things up. EatingCarBatteries _{(contribs | talk)} 00:55, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I worked on this article for weeks, researching, analyzing, and searching for appropriate sources for citations. AI-generating tools often repeat misinformation present on the internet, so all content was developed from careful review of cited sources. Language tools were used only for proofreading after the text was written and all references were manually chosen. The edit history reflects this iterative development process. Best regards,~~~~ Olgamatveeva (talk) 17:00, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting know. Looking back at the article, I'm really not sure why I made that comment - I removed it. I'm sorry about that. Have a good day, EatingCarBatteries _{(contribs | talk)} 20:00, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reviewing and for removing the comment. I appreciate your time. Best regards Olgamatveeva (talk) 17:08, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Great to meet you Mateo! Thanks for asking about the Peeragogy handbook! Here is the wikibook version https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Peeragogy_Handbook Charles Jeffrey Danoff (talk) 21:57, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @EatingCarBatteries

Hope you are doing Great.

This is regarding my Article: Indrajaal, which i have recently submitted.

I understand the concern about AI content but I have used it to just rephrase my written content as I am not that good in writing Articles as I have just started. But now I have removed the content which I have rephrased through AI. Can you please go through the content of the article once again. If there is something that needs to be changed or I have to rewrite, I'm happy to rewrite it. Please let me know.

Thank You in advance. Invincible0024 (talk) 07:34, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.

Just checked the article out. We might need more citations to demonstrate the subjects' notability for inclusion in Wikipedia.

To be specific, it should receive somewhat significant report from independent perennial sources. Forbes lists and potentially sponsored articles are generally not considered so. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk} 07:47, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

can you be please be more specific as i am new to this wikipedia and still trying to learn. i have added more citations but not sure that will work now or not. can you please check.

Thank you Invincible0024 (talk) 09:39, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

can you share some link for my article from which i can take idea like what kind of citations can work. if that can be done ? Will be very thankful if you can help me in this. Invincible0024 (talk) 09:41, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Go read Wikipedia's notability guidelines and guide to reliable sources. You also should be familiar with Wikipedia's conflict-of-interest (COI) guidelines, specifically, that editors with financial and personal relationships to the subject have to declare such COIs. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk} 10:50, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be blunt here: the company is likely not notable enough to warrant a page on Wikipedia, at least for now.

This is because that Wikipedia is neither an all-encompassing category of everything in the world nor a means for promotion and advertising. The notability guideline is a rule of thumb when deciding whether a subject should have its own article. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk} 11:00, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

		The New Page Reviewer's Iron Award
		For over 360 article reviews during 2025. Thank you for patrolling new pages and helping us out with the backlog! -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:11, 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) 18:08, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Notconnor (talk · contribs)
  • Results of the 2026 Japanese general election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Results of the 2026 Japanese general election (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hiya, I replied on my talk page, then realised perhaps I should have posted on yours in the first instance. Apologies.

I'll post what I said there: thanks for the speedy review. I was under the impression it was common practice for results pages to be made prior to the election taking place, as it allows for the candidates to be shown on each constituency page/in one place (via using the excerpt function)? Hence why I pushed this for creation now versus later.

For example: Results page for the 2025 Australian Election in Victoria

and I know this one is definitely a stretch, but Japanese Wikipedia has also put the election result boxes up. An example here.

Just wondering if this is in fact not the case, or if it just happens to be something that is more common for Australian elections pages.

Thanks again!

--Notconnor (talk) 06:01, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thanks a lot for sending this message.

While election result pages are typically published before it starts, the main question is how long before the election. There isn't any real "rule" about it, and it's mostly up to the editor's discretion. But it's my opinion (which isn't binding) that "bare bones" pages should probably wait until during/after the election. Here's an example of some other people sharing the same sentiment.

But you bring up a good point in that there is stuff on your draft that isn't published elsewhere. It's good to have a centralized place for all of the elections. All things considered, the election isn't too far off. So honestly, if you want, I will publish it (it is 1am where I live, so unless you want to do it manually I can do it tomorrow). EatingCarBatteries _{(contribs | talk)} 07:03, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply!

Yes I do think there is an argument to how long before the election something should be published, and thank you for sharing the example of others sharing that sentiment. In an ideal world, there would simply just be a 'Candidates for the x election' page prior, and a results page later, I believe that this is the case for UK election pages on Wikipedia. I do not think (though I am not sure) that there are enough active editors in the Japanese politics/elections space to justify having multiple pages.

I am not fussed if you publish or do not publish, I think that you have justified your decision enough now, and I understand the why, but if you are happy to hit publish I won't complain!

Thanks again for the explanation, it is much appreciated and very helpful! Notconnor (talk) 07:54, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Notconnor (talk) 06:01, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You have rejected my page on Kellen Beck for it not being useful enough for Wiki or something along the line of that. But I'm here to ask you to reconsider. On your page I saw box that said "can't everyone be nice to each other for once", and so why shouldn't positive article like mine be among many others. So I ask you to help a newcomer out and approve my first page.

Thank you for your time, PizzaSauce2424. PizzaSauce2424 (talk) 02:22, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, while I'm really sorry for declining your draft, but Wikipedia articles have to go through a test which is called "notability".

It basically means that the topic of articles need to have been subjected to multiple sources that are:

significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

These requirements are primarily put in place so we can have a balanced and verifiable encyclopedia. While it's always good to have a more positive article in the seas of negative information nowadays, the page also has to abide by a neutral point of view (we don't want editors writing about their opinions on things).

For more information about why, you can check out this page. For a more broad overview of Wikipedia, you can see this page. EatingCarBatteries _{(contribs | talk)} 05:09, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thank you for the speedy review to the page on CoHNA. I see you nominated my Draft page that it was LLM generated. I did use Gemini assitance to make it sound professionsal but drafted a lot of it myself and can confirm that all the facts mentioned are verfied by me by going to more than one source

Please let me know how to edit to ensure it meets standard of not being LLM like. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-65942-9 (talk) 07:22, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

Using AI models to write articles isn't really a good idea, because while they are versed in the contents of Wikipedia's articles, they don't really know how they are written in the rules around it. Below are the main reasons why I declined your article (sorry for not including them earlier!):

• The lack of section headers (written in the code like this: ==Section 1==, see the wikitext cheatsheet), instead using bolded text to write it
• References declared at the end of the page, instead of "inline." You can learn how to do that here.
• Largely unsourced text: Wikipedia largely requires everything to be sourced, and AI models don't typically follow that guideline. They tend to sprinkle in reference here and there, not including enough in quantity or quality.
  • Also, what does the source to the Guardian relating to Kanye represent? It seems largely irrelevent.
  • The current references don't establish "notability, a test required for each article on whether it can/should have a Wikipedia article written about it.

You can see more about the problems AI can cause at WP:LLMSIGNS. Hope this helps! EatingCarBatteries _{(contribs | talk)} 01:43, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thank you for the response. I added more details and linked to cases where their work is connected to the org. :*About Kanye, his apology mentioned his previous use of Swastika and his regret on the same. CoHNAs advocacy holds that the German Nazi symbol is not a Swastika but rather a Hackencruez (ie a Hooked Cross) as what the Germans and Europeans refer to it as. It took me a while to find that their claim ie Hitler and Nazis never used the Swastika was indeed accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-65942-9 (talk) 07:52, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This draft has been revised to directly address concerns regarding notability and sourcing under WP:MUSICBIO. The article now foregrounds independent, in-depth secondary coverage, including a feature profile in Cleveland Scene (2004) and a career retrospective in the Akron Beacon Journal (2013), both of which provide substantial discussion of the subject’s recording career, radio broadcasting work, and role in the Northeast Ohio reggae scene. The draft has otherwise been kept concise, neutral in tone, and focused on verifiable information supported by reliable sources, in line with Articles for Creation guidance. Theenergyman (talk) 03:24, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I tried to submit a new page to Wiki about MIB Lee, but you rejected it.

What can be improved the page so that it could pass the muster?

Disclaimer: I am NOT MIB Lee :) and never actually met the guy. But in my (and every other fan of MIB Alien Attack and VillainCon rides fan - he deserves it, being a hero, an inspiration and a guide to the other Universal Studios goers who want to master these shooters.

Thanks a lot for any advice you can provide!

Best,

Truenau TrueNau (talk) 06:08, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, the page in question:

Draft:M.I.B. Lee TrueNau (talk) 06:09, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

IrisChronomia said it really well, which is that your article doesn't show the "reliable sources" which are required for Wikipedia's test of "notability". I'm not a huge fan of the word "notability," because of course he's notable in his own community, but Wikipedia's definition of notability is whether you've been significantly covered in reliable sources (strings attached).

All of your current references are user-generated (meaning they don't go through any review process). EatingCarBatteries _{(contribs | talk)} 06:53, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. It's because Wikipedia has a rather high criteria for inclusion, outlined in the notability guidelines.

While I think the subject is a great guy and respected in his community, he is not notable to the wider audience to the point of being reported in major media (see WP:RS).

Further reading: Existence != Notability (Essay) and Bad ideas of Articles for Creation

Reading way too far: WP:LORRRSAITYRRRSNC

iris 2:18p, edited 2:29p 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk} 06:18, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello EatingCarBatteries! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Quick question about fair use, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please . See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:04, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I became aware of the deletion of a post on 2-5-26. This is the post's reference URL: User:This Reason/sandbox/Lee Douglas: One Man's Life - Everyone's Journey

In defense of this article, I would like to draw your attention to Jonah: A VeggieTales Movie - Wikipedia , One Little Indian (film) - Wikipedia , The Andy Griffith Show - Wikipedia etc.

I tried my best to use this style as a template for User:This Reason/sandbox/Lee Douglas: One Man's Life - Everyone's Journey.

I don't mind making the changes you feel might be necessary to keep this from being advertising material.

Please let me know how this article differs from those I mentioned above, and I will do my best to align with your request.

Thanks,

Clay Riggs This Reason (talk) 19:17, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'm really sorry, but I don't remember your article. All I can really say about it is that I thought it was promotional, but again, I could be wrong.

You can request for it to be undeleted at WP:REFUND, which it then will be created as a draft for you to improve. EatingCarBatteries _{(contribs | talk)} 02:13, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It was a copyright violation from https://www.thisgeneration.net/ as well as clearly promotional so correctly tagged for deletion. KylieTastic (talk) 17:14, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Since I hold the copyright from https://www.thisgeneration.net/ it is not a copyright violation. As far as being promotional, how should I re-word this content to keep it as encyclopedic as Jonah: A VeggieTales Movie - Wikipedia One Little Indian (film) - Wikipedia or The Great Locomotive Chase - Wikipedia?

Thanks!

Clay This Reason (talk) 20:47, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@This Reason, yes it is a copyright violation as every edit made here is submitted under the stated 'free' use licences that cannot be done with work published as copyright protected without a suitable release declaration. When the material is suitable for use here (not promotion) it can be donated but the necessary processes need to be followed as you are just an anonymous account here and we don't just accept claims of ownership. Unfortunately false claims happen all the time, not that I have any reason to not believe you in this case, but legally we cannot just accept. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the details. Also since you declared you own it you need to read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest taking note of the requirements to disclose. As for how to write not promotional content see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view so terms like "We’re thrilled to announce", "inspiring", "It’s a score you’re sure to enjoy!" etc are completely inappropriate. If you have any questions I recommend asking at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, a place for new editors to seek help. Regards KylieTastic (talk) 22:48, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thank you for reviewing my article on Betenbough Homes. Based on your feedback, I revised the article in Drafts. How can I get help with it from people who know what they're doing? JenSaysHi (talk) 20:09, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! You can get a lot of good feedback at the Teahouse. EatingCarBatteries _{(contribs | talk)} 23:10, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello EatingCarBatteries, It's me, Christianhatley527. Do you have advice on what could I add to Draft:Pardon Integrity Act so it'll more likely become a true article? what I added since the rejection is the resolution name and its in 119th Congress. And if I can't think of anything, is there a way to contact other editors to help me expand the draft? Christianhatley527 (talk) 06:11, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Sorry for the late response.

I guess my main concern with the page is that it is about what can be considered a "run-of-the-mill" event. Much of the time, Congresspeople introduce bills only to make a statement towards leadership or their constituents. The vast majority of these fizzle out unnoticed, with little to no coverage in the press.

As a comparison, it's like writing an article on every one of Trump's controversial statements. While the media covers it, and it meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines, it's kind of ridiculous to have a bajillion articles on each one (of course with exceptions for the really big controversies). That's why we have the more centralized articles like "False or misleading statements by Donald Trump."

I think the article as it stands would be a great section in these articles:

• Don Bacon § Political positions
• Johnny Olszewski § Political positions
• Federal pardons in the United States (maybe a new section called "Reform"? you could write into different examples)

If you do believe that your draft warrants a separate page, you can get some good help over at the Teahouse. While I'm not sure how active page is, but you could also poke around the American politics WikiProject. EatingCarBatteries _{(contribs | talk)} 07:49, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello EatingCarBatteries. This is a reminder that your Articles for Creation review on Pteropterus is still marked as ongoing for over forty-eight hours. After seventy-two hours, Pteropterus will be returned to the review queue so that other reviewers may review the draft.

If you wish to continue reviewing the draft but need more time before the bot returns it to the review queue, you can place {{bots|deny=TenshiBot}} on the draft so you can continue your review. Also, if you do not want to receive these notifications, you can place the same template on your talk page. TenshiBot (talk) 09:39, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]