User talk:MCE89

DYK for Mark Aldridge

On 8 November 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Mark Aldridge, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that, in a civil case between Mark Aldridge and a shop owner, South Australia's district court found that a person can be liable for the defamatory comments of others on their social media posts? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Mark Aldridge. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Mark Aldridge), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to nominate it.

—Ganesha811 (talk) 00:03, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Autopatrol?

Hi MCE89, hope you're doing well! I recently reviewed some of your redirects and wanted to ask- have you considered applying for autopatrolled? I've always found your work to be of consistently very high quality, and in my opinion it doesn't require attention from patrollers. Best, Zzz plant (talk) 22:54, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks so much Zzz plant! I had been thinking about applying for autopatrolled, but this was the nudge that I needed to finally submit a request. Hopefully you won't see anything more from me in the NPP queue :) MCE89 (talk) 10:24, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Women in Green - October 2025 Barnstar

		Women in Green Editathon October '25
		This barnstar is given in recognition of your contributions to Women in Green's October 2025 "What Women Do" Good Article Editathon! Together, we nominated 27 Good Articles and conducted 19 GA reviews. We exceeded our goal, addressing 34 different occupations. Thank you for improving the quality of Wikipedia's coverage of women! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 23:21, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Autopatrolled granted

Hi MCE89, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the autopatrolled user right to your account. This means that pages you create will automatically be marked as 'reviewed', and no longer appear in the new pages feed. Autopatrolled is assigned to prolific creators of articles, where those articles do not require further review, and may have been requested on your behalf by someone else. It doesn't affect how you edit; it is used only to manage the workload of new page patrollers.

Since the articles you create will no longer be systematically reviewed by other editors, it is important that you maintain the high standard you have achieved so far in all your future creations. Please also try to remember to add relevant WikiProject templates, stub tags, categories, and incoming links to them, if you aren't already in the habit; user scripts such as Rater and StubSorter can help with this. As you have already shown that you have a strong grasp of Wikipedia's core content policies, you might also consider volunteering to become a new page patroller yourself, helping to uphold the project's standards and encourage other good faith article writers.

Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! Sennecaster (Chat) 21:38, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2025 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:53, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Potential copyright help needed

Hi MCE89, while monitoring the 1325 (LLM) edit filter I came across a strange situation. As documented at Talk:Risala Ahlus Sunnat wal Jamaat § LLM-generated content (and I have many more diffs ready to go), this is a user with a non-native English level who has been using LLMs to create and expand articles for years, despite denying this. The LLM use is an issue, but one I can manage. What I could use your help with is this: Owais Al Qarni user space. The user has a ton of pages in user space: several of these User:Owais_Al_Qarni/40, User:Owais_Al_Qarni/42, User:Owais_Al_Qarni/AlmaZ seem to be either copies of or machine translations of (mostly non-English) sources. Per Special:Diff/1322830871 they say they are keeping these in their user space to "study". The user does not typically identify what the source is and as evidenced by their claims about not using LLMs, is not very collaborative. So I don't know how to find the source and then check to see whether it is copyrighted. I assume there are multiple copyvios in their user space but I don't know what to do about it - open a CCI case? Start tagging relevant user space pages for G12? Do nothing because all of these sources are public domain? I figured you would know. NicheSports (talk) 12:56, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

@NicheSports ...yeah, yikes. It looks like they have had at least 5 prior copyright warnings [1] [2] [3] [4] [5], although they are all from quite a while ago. I had a look at the userspace pages and User:Owais Al Qarni/AlmaZ is definitely a machine translation of this book, which is under copyright as far as I can tell. User:Owais Al Qarni/40 just contains a copy-paste of this copyrighted website. User:Owais Al Qarni/35 is obviously an LLM translation of something given that it includes things like If you want, I can **continue translating the remaining sections**, including his full literary achievements, awards, and the broader impact of his work on Urdu literature, and then **compile everything into a complete English biography**. Do you want me to do that?, but there's no real way for me to find the original source. User:Owais Al Qarni/42 also seems to clearly be a translation of something, but again I didn’t have any luck tracking down the source. I'm also finding quite a lot of translation copyright issues in their recent mainspace pages too, e.g. Safarnama Rum-o-Misr-o-Sham seems to have some loose transvio of [6]. Al-Aqaid al-Nasafiyya contains transvio of this Russian-language source [7] and this Turkish-language source. [8]. Al-Itqan contains transvio of the same Turkish-language source [9]. Abu Taher Nadwi is a pretty close translation of [10]. Lumat al-Itiqad contains some pretty close translation of this Urdu source.

Anyway, apologies for all of that detail. Given what I was finding, this reply unfortunately basically turned into a draft of my CCI request halfway through writing it. It's getting late for me, but I'll probably make that CCI request tomorrow. Thank you for flagging this. MCE89 (talk) 14:24, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks so much. I'll watch for the CCI filing to see if I can help once it is open. One request: I was already aware of User:Owais Al Qarni/35 - can you hold off on SD-nominating that specific page for now? It unambiguously qualifies for G15, but the chances this situation leads to a sanctioning conversation are high, and that page is relevant. NicheSports (talk) 14:36, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for that. And yep, will hold off on removing or tagging anything for the moment. MCE89 (talk) 14:39, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Please leave the quotes in at the n8n article

That is, please let my reversion stand. The matter at hand is that a new editor, User:Mustakim-masum is writing this, and misusing sources. The quotes can be removed once the issues are resolved. It is not easy, going to the first-party, primary, technical sources, and discerning what is and is not usable there to support the content appearing. Moreover, in removing the inline tags, you remove the careful parsing, in each section, that differentiates between content that is, and is not, supported by the sources appearing. I ask, even though you might perceive it as unsightly, you leave the inline tags, and the long quotes until the earlier editor using the sources as they have, can return, and understand and begin to rectify their mistakes. The inline tags, in particular, are accurate as to what is, and is not properly sourced. [signed, a professor and former registered editor] ~2025-31110-75 (talk) 08:12, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Specificaly, as you review that article again—every inline appearance of a tag flags a text element that is unsupported by the citation appearing. (These cases are clear; each term/phrase/concept presented does not appear in the cited source.) With regard to the improper synthesis claim, this again is clear. One simply cannot derive the summary paragraph from the cited source, without addition of significant interpretive expertise (that is prohibited under WP:OR). What are needed are good third-party and secondary sources, per WP:VERIFY, so that the product / technology can be described, apart from reliance on relatively opaque first-party primary source documents. (Per WP:OR, a published party needs to be doing the extensive fill-in-the-blank interpreting that is currently being done by the new editor, who may also not be fully independent of this business concern, as we are.) ~2025-31110-75 (talk) 08:25, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi there @~2025-31110-75! The reason I removed the quotes is that we try not to include excessive quotes from non-free sources unless necessary. It's okay to use a WP:FOOTQUOTE to help readers to verify a source, e.g. a book that's not available online, or a long and dense scientific paper. But for a short and easily accessible web source, there is no need to include quotes from the source that do not assist in verifying the contents of the article. This is a type of WP:OVERQUOTE and presents potential copyright issues.

Regarding the inline tags, at the moment there are simply too many tags to be helpful. For instance, including the tag in the reference, the final sentence of the article currently has two tags, one tag, one tag, one tag, and two tags. An article level tag, a section level tag, and seven inline tags is far too much for a single sentence. I think your concerns about the article would be far better addressed by making a post on the talk page detailing your specific line-by-line concerns and potentially bringing this to a Wikiproject talk page or similar. Alternatively, you could WP:BEBOLD and remove the problematic content yourself. MCE89 (talk) 08:32, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Draft:Christoph Rass – revised after your AfC review

Hello, and thanks for reviewing Draft:Christoph Rass. I have now revised the draft to add independent secondary sources (book reviews etc.), a Reception section, and full citations for all biographical statements, as you suggested. If you have time to take another look, I would appreciate any further comments. Notnorthbynorthwest (talk) 18:47, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Notnorthbynorthwest! That looks good, thank you for making those improvements. I'll go ahead and accept the draft. MCE89 (talk) 02:18, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Revised draft for re-review – Seda Rass-Turgut

thank you very much for taking the time to review this draft and for your helpful feedback. I have thoroughly revised the article in response to your comments: several independent secondary sources have been added, including in-depth media coverage, recognised academic awards and major funded research projects. I have also restructured the article, standardised and corrected the references, and added proper metadata (infobox, categories, authority control) to meet Wikipedia’s standards. I sincerely appreciate your time and consideration and would be very grateful if you could take another look at the revised draft. Notnorthbynorthwest (talk) 18:50, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Notnorthbynorthwest! Unfortunately I'm still not really seeing evidence that she meets the criteria for a standalone Wikipedia page. You could demonstrate this by showing that there are either multiple pieces of independent, reliable coverage that describes her and her work in detail, or by showing that she meets one of the eight academic-specific criteria. This source is a good start for the former, but we need multiple pieces of coverage like that one. Could you have a look at those links and tell me which sources you think meet all of the criteria (or alternatively, which of the academic-specific criteria you think she meets)? MCE89 (talk) 02:26, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Further Updates Rass-Turgut Article

Thank you for the thorough review and constructive feedback on the article about Seda Rass-Turgut and Christoph Rass. Your comments have been invaluable in improving the articles' quality, accuracy, and compliance with Wikipedia standards. I have learned a lot about how to compose articles.

Following your suggestions and also the 2nd review of the Christoph Rass article, I have made several significant and well sourced updates to the Rass-Turgut article after the last update I submitted:

The article now presents a more accurate, well-referenced, and balanced view of Rass-Turgut's contributions to migration policy and research. Thank you for your patience and guidance throughout this review process. I would appreciate if you could take another look at the draft. Notnorthbynorthwest (talk) 09:14, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Notnorthbynorthwest. First, can I ask whether you are using AI to write these messages? If you're using a translation tool or similar then this is fine, but please do be aware that using AI to write talk page messages or article content is generally discouraged on Wikipedia.

Regarding the draft about Rass-Turgut, I'm still not seeing any clear evidence that she passes either the general criteria for inclusion or the academic-specific criteria for inclusion, and the changes you've made don't appear to contribute towards meeting either. I'll refer you back to my previous ask — can you point out which specific sources, or which of the eight academic-specific criteria, you think establish that she meets the inclusion criteria that I linked to? MCE89 (talk) 09:23, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi, as a non-native English speaker, I use DeepL and Paperal sometimes to meet the tone in environments unfamiliar to me like this one.

I've reworked the article substantially based on publicly available sources. Most importantly, I want to clarify that after doing my research on Wikipedia criteria, I'm not arguing for notability solely as an academic (WP:PROF), but under the criteria for local government officials (WP:POLITICIAN, specifically the provisions for officials in cities over 100,000). I think there was a misunderstanding on my part. I had assumed that when a subject's career spans multiple fields – public service and academia – this would automatically be considered together. I now understand it helps to be explicit.

I have done my research and hope, the revised draft reflects this and communicates the basis for notability now clearer.

WP:POLITICIAN / Local government officials: Rass-Turgut was Fachbereichsleiterin (department head) of Social Services and Commissioner for Integration in Osnabrück from 2012 to 2024. In German municipal administration, a Fachbereichsleiter/in runs an entire department and reports directly to the mayor or city executive. The Fachbereich Soziales is one of the largest in personnel and budget in German municipal administration. Osnabrück has 166,000 inhabitants, so the population threshold is met as well, I think. Twelve years in that role plus a senior management position on federal level (Programmbereichsleitung KAUSA) before that.

Beyond routine coverage of activities: German administrative culture almost never attributes policy work to individuals – everything gets credited to "the city" or "the department". So when epd (via MiGAZIN, 15 October 2014) explicitly names Rass-Turgut as Autorin des Flüchtlingskonzepts, that is unusual. The Flüchtlingsrat Niedersachsen called the Osnabrück model "vorbildlich" – an independent advocacy organisation, not the city praising itself. Rass-Turgut also held well documented state-level positions: appointed by the President of the Lower Saxony State Parliament to the Commission on Migration and Participation (2014), and board member of the Niedersächsische Lotto-Sport-Stiftung.

The academic career since 2024 adds to this but is not the primary basis. The revised draft has more sources and I have checked them carefully. I am happy to discuss or clarify further. Thank you. Notnorthbynorthwest (talk) 01:03, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Notnorthbynorthwest. Understood, that's not a problem at all then. Unfortunately Rass-Turgut would not meet the notability criterion for politicians either. WP:NPOLITICIAN does not have a population threshold of 100,000 for local officials, so I'm not quite sure where you've gotten that from — it just says that Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage can be considered notable. In practice, this means that you still need to find multiple sources that are independent, reliable, and devote significant coverage to her personally. MCE89 (talk) 01:20, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

John II Komnenos

Just delete the added passage, if it is plagiarising other work, it also has no supporting citation another reason to just delete it. I have a horror of huge ugly banners at the top of articles, particularly ones that I have very extensively edited. Surely deleting unsupported additions that appear to plagiarise, and that also duplicate material already in the text, is in the purview of any editor in good standing, Why the need for oversight? Urselius (talk) 11:54, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Totally understandable @Urselius — the passage has already been removed, and the tag is just there to flag to an administrator that the revision needs to be revision deleted from the article's history. That should usually happen within a few hours, and as soon as an administrator has actioned it they'll remove the tag. Can promise the banner won't be there for much longer. MCE89 (talk) 11:59, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, banners really wind me up! Urselius (talk) 12:00, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

October 2025 GAN Backlog Drive

		The Premium Reviewer Barnstar
		This award is given to MCE89 for accumulating at least 20 points in the October 2025 GAN Backlog Drive. Your dedicated reviews contributed to the successful reduction of the backlog and helped improve the quality of articles. Here's our token of appreciation. Thank you for your time and efforts, and hopefully we'll see you soon again! Fade258 (talk) 13:38, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Draft:Danny Lauter

Hi there, and thank you for your help with NPP! I wanted to let you know that I've declined your G4 speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Danny Lauter. In this case, the AfD took place in March 2023, and the draft article has at least one article published since then. As such, it is ineligible for G4. Let me know if you have any questions. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 15:06, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know @Significa liberdade, my bad for not clicking on all the references! The reason I thought this was likely to be substantially identical is that the text is essentially the same as wikitia.com/wiki/Danny_Lauter (see [11]), which takes most of its pages from Wikipedia. Would you be able to check whether the text of the current version is the same as the text of any of the previously deleted versions on Wikipedia? I suspect that the text likely originated on Wikipedia (in which case I believe it should strictly speaking be histmerged to maintain attribution), but if the text did originate on Wikitia I'll need to add the CC-BY-SA attribution. MCE89 (talk) 05:29, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing the Wikitia article. This provided an earlier date than when the article was deleted (January 2023 versus August 2023), showing significant similarities between the two articles. I will go ahead and deleted via G4. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 14:51, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Thank you for filing excellent SPIs. Your clear and concise reports made my day! Toadspike [Talk] 16:17, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

(Also, please consider setting up talk page archives...instructions are at Help:Archiving (plain and simple).) Toadspike [Talk] 16:19, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Aw thank you so much! Glad to hear my SPIs aren’t too unhelpful, I always worry that my reports are going to wind up making no sense at all lol. And yeah, good call… I do have archives set up, but not sure what I was thinking with that 6 month archiving delay MCE89 (talk) 16:48, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

About my edits on Everett Peck

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)

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)

@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)

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

Women in Red - December 2025

Women in Red | November 2025, Vol 11, Issue 12, Nos. 326, 327, 355, 356, 357 Recognized as the most active topic-based WikiProject by human changes. Online events: New: Alphabet run X, Y, Z | Food and drink | Women who died in 2025 Continuing, year-long initiatives: #1day1woman | Music Announcements: Global Translat-a-thon 2025 06 December 2025 Tip of the Month: Lists of deaths by year is a good resource for the December / January meet-up Women who died in 2025 Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help wanted! Want to apply your skills or learn new ones? Help us plan monthly events, design event logos, come up with a tip-of-the-month, and/or provide any general ideas on developing the project. Follow us on social media: Instagram | Pinterest

--Rosiestep (talk) 22:18, 28 November 2025 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Thirty Years' War

Hi, Sr L has added more text to Thirty Years' War that may be fairly similar to their earlier rev-deleted copyvio contribution. Could you take a look whether the new version is acceptable or still too close? Gawaon (talk) 03:14, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

@Gawaon Sure, happy to. I've taken a look at their latest edits:

• This edit is still too closely paraphrased from [12], but is a bit less serious than the previous edit. It needs to be rewritten at a minimum, but doesn't look like something I'd request revdel over
• This edit seems to almost entirely fail verification — I wasn't able to find most of this in the cited sources at all
• This edit also seems to fail verification

I'd personally probably remove all of it on the grounds of either close paraphrasing or failed verification. If the contents of the first edit are kept, it needs to be rewritten (e.g. who later reconstructed the events in narratives with predominantly national frameworks is too close to the source's who later reconstructed and narrated its events in predominantly national frameworks, and developing a vision of a World War in which Germany's fate was decided not only in Central Europe but also in the Atlantic Ocean and the Indo-Pacific is too close to the source's created a vision of a global war in which the fate of Germany was decided not only in Central Europe but also in the Atlantic Ocean and, more specifically, the Americas etc.) MCE89 (talk) 03:48, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Sigh, but thanks for checking! They recently made more edits to the same article. From what you say, the best solution may be to summarily revert them all... Gawaon (talk) 04:18, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Done now. Gawaon (talk) 04:24, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Your nomination of Truganini is under review

Your good article nomination of the article Truganini 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 Jens Lallensack -- Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:22, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Request to reconsider Draft:Ila Maria Corrêa

Hello MCE89,

I'm writing to respectfully request that you reconsider your decline of Draft:Ila Maria Corrêa. I believe the draft meets WP:BASIC notability criteria through multiple independent reliable sources.

The article cites multiple independent, reliable secondary sources that collectively establish notability:

1. CREA-PR (Regional Engineering Council) - independent professional organization that specifically recognizes her as a pioneer "who paved the way for generations"
2. FAPESP (São Paulo Research Foundation) - independent state research foundation documenting her credentials and research
3. UFPel (Federal University of Pelotas) - independent source (her alma mater, not employer) confirming historical significance of the first Agricultural Engineering class in Brazil

Per WP:BASIC: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability."

Historical significance:

• First and only woman in Brazil's first Agricultural Engineering graduating class (1977)
• The Agricultural Engineering program at UFPel was the first in Brazil, with the first graduating class in 1977
• Her presence as the sole woman in this pioneering class represents a significant milestone in Brazilian engineering history

Professional achievement:

• Level VI Scientific Researcher (highest grade in Brazil's research system)
• Technical Director of the Agricultural Engineering Center at IAC (2012-2014)
• Significant research contributions in agricultural safety and biofuels

The subject may also meet WP:ACADEMIC criterion #7 ("substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity") through her pioneering role breaking gender barriers and her safety research that directly impacts agricultural workers.

The sources provided are reliable, independent, and when combined, provide substantial coverage demonstrating that the subject is a person of note in Brazilian engineering history. I believe this meets the threshold for notability and would appreciate if you could take another look.

Thank you for your time and consideration. Shady contributor (talk) 07:43, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Shady contributor and thank you for your work on the draft! While I agree that the subject seems very accomplished, Wikipedia has specific criteria to decide which subjects are eligible for an article and I unfortunately don't see sources in your draft that suggest that Ila Maria Corrêa meets those criteria at this time. Going through each of your sources:

• [13] - This gives only two sentences of coverage, which is not enough to meet the requirement of significant coverage
• [14] - This is her CV, so not an independent or secondary source
• [15] - This is a profile/entry on a reference database, so also not secondary coverage
• [16] - This discusses the history of her course, but it does not mention her directly at all. Since it's from her alma mater and it's discussing the history of the institution itself, it's also not an independent source

To establish notability you need multiple sources that are reliable, independent, and dedicate significant coverage to Corrêa. I don't currently see any sources that meet all three of those criteria. You're correct that the eight criteria of WP:NACADEMIC give an alternate path to notability, but being the first woman in Brazil to obtain a degree in Agricultural Engineering does not satisfy any of the NPROF criteria. If you think there are any other criteria of NACADEMIC that Corrêa might meet, I'm happy to take another look.

If there are any other sources that you think might help to establish notability, or if you have any questions about my assessment of the sources above, please just let me know. MCE89 (talk) 09:18, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the detailed explanation, @MCE89. I understand Wikipedia's sourcing requirements, though I find it frustrating that institutional recognition from independent bodies (CREA-PR, FAPESP, UFPel) combined isn't sufficient to establish notability for a verified historical "first."

You're correct that journalistic coverage is limited - the subject has lived a quiet life focused on research rather than publicity. This appears to be a common challenge for pioneering women in STEM from earlier eras, whose achievements were often under-documented by media at the time.

I'm reaching out to Brazilian media outlets to see if they'll cover her story now, which would provide the secondary coverage Wikipedia requires. If that's successful, I'll resubmit with additional sources.

In the meantime, I'll leave it be.

Thank you for your time reviewing this. Shady contributor (talk) 06:42, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Ermolao Donà moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Ermolao Donà. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has no sources. 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. Boleyn (talk) 10:11, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

(tpw) Hi @Boleyn, could you clarify how you've decided that article "has no sources"? GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 10:16, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Boleyn, I'm not sure I understand why you draftified this article? It's currently blanked and listed and Copyright problems after I flagged it for containing copyvio. It does also include a source (and it is in fact a translation of that source, which is why it's listed at copyright problems), so the "no sources" draftification reason is incorrect. MCE89 (talk) 10:17, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Your nomination of Truganini is on hold

Your good article nomination of the article Truganini 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 Jens Lallensack -- Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:22, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Secondary Source Request

Hello you just declined approving the Wikipedia page about Eric Hacker though a Ohio State Bill is very notable and credible including the worlds biggest running magazine. Here is another source that covers Hacker and his upbringing, diagnosis, running background, etc. Hopefully this can be added to the Wikipedia page so that it may be approved. https://www.chillicothegazette.com/story/news/2019/04/29/eric-hackers-cerebral-palsy-not-limiting-his-goals-talented-runner-unioto-high-school-shermans/3614399002/ Ericnhacker (talk) 14:44, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

@Ericnhacker Thanks for the link, that new source definitely helps! The fact that it's a local news piece from when the subject was in high school means that it would likely get weighed a little less heavily in assessing notability, but with one good source and one okay source you're not far off showing notability. If there are any other secondary sources you can find, even if they're a little less substantial, that would help as well. I'd suggest adding that new source to your draft and leaving a comment at the top of the page pointing the next reviewer to your two best sources, and then resubmitting the draft. MCE89 (talk) 14:54, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

I added in more sources and information to help beef up and support the page as a whole. I hope it meets your expectations. Ericnhacker (talk) 16:50, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Questions about review for page

Hello! Thank you so much for taking the time to review the page I recently submitted on criminologist, Alex del Carmen. I was hoping for more clarity as to why the page wasn't accepted, so that I can improve my chances of it being approved when I resubmit. I looked through the notability guidelines for academics, and believe Del Carmen qualifies for the majority of that list, including: number 1 with his contributions to the field of police work and racial bias; number 2 with the consent degree appointments; number 5, as he was a named chair, and number 6 in the public discourse he facilitates as an expert criminologist on news outlets. Going through my sources, I see that a few are not independent, so I'll remove those and trim the section on public commentary so as not to be redundant--but any other feedback or suggestions would be incredibly helpful. Thank you again. MissLizy1223 (talk) 21:15, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi @MissLizy1223. Sure, happy to. Going through each of the WP:NPROF criteria that you've mentioned:

• WP:NPROF#C1 requires evidence of significant scholarly impact, typically well beyond that of the average professor/researcher. Usually we're looking for things like very highly cited research, or major academic honours. Del Carmen's citation record doesn't meet the threshold that's generally applied for this criteria, and while it looks like he's made solid contributions to his field, I don't see anything that would meet this criteria.
• WP:NPROF#C2 requires major academic awards. His consent decree appointments might help with notability slightly, but I wouldn't consider them academic awards for these purposes.
• WP:NPROF#C5 requires a named chair, e.g. being named "the John Doe Professor of Such-and-Such". I can't see any mention of del Carmen holding such a named chair either within your draft or on his faculty pages?
• WP:NPROF#C7 requires evidence of substantial public impact. It's assumed that most professors will sometimes gives quotes and expert opinions to the media, so this is not enough on its own to satisfy this criteria.

Hopefully that helps — unfortunately it doesn't seem to me that he passes the specific notability criteria for academics at this time. It's still possible that he might pass the general notability guideline, but to establish that you will need to add more independent, secondary sourcing that discusses del Carmen in detail. MCE89 (talk) 23:12, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Rosemary Hopcroft

Hello! I noticed that you approved the draft Draft:Rosemary Hopcroft, but i don't think it was quite ready for the mainspace. The main issuse I saw was that most of the sources weren't secondary; many were from either her places of employment, or were articles (or commentaries thereupon]] that Rosemary wrote. Additionally, it seems to be a WP:AUTOBIO based on the riginal authors names. Anyway, I appreciate your AfC work, but I have dratified the article again. Also, I don't know if I would have gone as far as to rate the article as C-class, see the grading scale

I appreciate your efforts! -Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 16:02, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Commandant Quacks-a-lot. I disagree with your draftification. You'll see that I added multiple reviews of her books, which are secondary, in-depth sources discussing her work, and based on those I think she very clearly passes WP:NAUTHOR criteria 3. I'm not sure sure why you say that most of the sources aren't secondary — exactly 2 of the 14 sources are primary, as well as 1 interview published in an academic journal. The remaining 11 are all secondary sources. I agree that it's obviously an autobiography, but that is entirely permitted (although discouraged), and the creator did everything right by going through AfC. I don't see any grounds for draftification here and am going to move it back to mainspace — you are welcome to nominate it at AfD if you would like. MCE89 (talk) 16:12, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Ah, I was focusing more on the WP:NPROF aspect of the article. And some of the sources, if secondary, are very trivial mentions of her. Anyways, thanks for pointing out the WP:NAUTHOR to me. Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 17:57, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Question regarding Draft:David Aragão decline

Hi MCE89,

Thanks for the review. I accept the decline—I know BLP standards are strict.

I saw you tagged the decline as `prof` (academic notability). I wanted to ask a quick question to make sure I fix the draft correctly for next time.

While the subject is a scientist, the draft has two major sources from Portuguese national media that I think might meet the General Notability Guideline (GNG) rather than just the academic criteria:

• A 2-page feature interview in Público (regarding the COVID Moonshot work).
• A detailed profile in Diário de Notícias (regarding the Nobel work).

I suspect the depth of these wasn't clear because of the language barrier. I've just updated the citations to include **translated quotes** so you can see they are detailed profiles, not just routine mentions.

Do you think these translated details help demonstrate the "significant coverage" needed for GNG?

Thanks for your help.

Aragaod David Aragao (talk) 22:17, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

@Aragaod The piece in Diário de Notícias helps, although its level of significant coverage of Aragāo is somewhat limited as it's mostly about the work that he did with Kobilka. Similarly, the piece in Público provides fairly limited coverage of Aragāo and is largely about recounting the work that his lab was doing. I don't see quite enough there to pass WP:GNG, which would require slightly more direct coverage of Aragāo as a subject in my view, although you are welcome to resubmit and get another reviewer's opinion.

I'd also really encourage you not to use LLMs to communicate or write content on Wikipedia in future, see WP:LLM for more on why. MCE89 (talk) 02:04, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks @MCE89. I will digest the input and, from there, see if I will continue further, wait a few months, ask for help or give up. By the way congratz on the featured status article, spend sometime reading it and now am interested in reading one of her stories :). Thanks for the effort for the community. ~~~~ David Aragao (talk) 02:23, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Promotion of Mary Fortune

Congratulations, MCE89! The article you nominated, Mary Fortune, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, FrB.TG (talk) via FACBot (talk) 23:06, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	I really appreciate you taking the time to review drafts and commenting on my reviews in the backlog drive. As a new reviewer, they have definitely helped. HwyNerd Mike (t | c) 06:27, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you so much @HwyNerd Mike, and thank you for all your reviewing! MCE89 (talk) 06:32, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Draft Kadriann Kibus

Hello MCE89!,

Thank you for reviewing my submission. I understand that the draft was not accepted due to concerns about whether the references demonstrate significant coverage.

I would greatly appreciate it if you could provide more detailed feedback. I am unsure which references are considered insufficient, as all of them are from official and reliable sources. Any clarification would help me improve the draft and ensure it meets Wikipedia’s notability and sourcing guidelines.

Thank you very much for your time and assistance. KKibus (talk) 14:21, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi @KKibus! To establish notability, you need multiple sources that are independent of the subject, reliable, and that provide significant coverage. Usually for this kind of subject, that would look something like a profile written by a journalist and published in an established newspaper. Database listings and similar websites do not contribute to notability.

Hopefully that helps — let me know if you have any questions. MCE89 (talk) 14:25, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Question

Can I ask why you accepted Draft:Hesham Rakha in such a state? I moved it to draft without realizing it was previously accepted, because I didn't imagine that an autobiography this promotional could have made it through AfC. I'd like to understand what you saw in it. Thanks, MediaKyle (talk) 20:37, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi @MediaKyle. He passes WP:NPROF#C1 multiple times over, has multiple separate fellowships that all satisfy WP:NPROF#C3, and has a named professorship that is an automatic pass of WP:NPROF#C5. Feel free to slap {{promotional}} and an {{autobiography}} tags on it, but the role of AfC is to determine whether a draft has a >50% chance of surviving AfD, which this very clearly does. You'll also see that I removed a bunch of promotional content before accepting it — the creator just added a lot of it back in after I moved it to mainspace. Honestly, I don't think draftification was appropriate here. I would have just tagged the issues and given the creator a firm warning that they needed to stop editing it directly and start using edit requests due to their COI. MCE89 (talk) 04:00, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Please see WP:AFCR... Whether an article has a 50% shot at surviving an AfD is not the only metric we apply at AfC. Part of an AfC assessment is also determining if an article meets WP:NPOV, which this autobiography certainly did not, even prior to the author adding a bunch of material back. This is why we have decline messages for "resume" and "npov". While I wouldn't have draftified it again if I noticed it already went through AfC once, I stand by the decision, and I would ask that you leave it for another reviewer. Thanks, MediaKyle (talk) 04:06, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

@MediaKyle An article does not need to fully satisfy WP:NPOV to be accepted, please see WP:AFCPURPOSE. It's completely fine to accept an article despite issues with tone if those issues could be fixed in mainspace through normal editing. I'll leave this for another reviewer as you request, but I see draftifying an article that has already gone through AfC as against the spirit of WP:DRAFTOBJECT, given that I have implicitly already objected to the move by moving it into mainspace. It's also confusing for the submitter, who I think could probably still use a clearer explanation from you than just telling them that they need to go through AfC. MCE89 (talk) 04:16, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

If an article has WP:NPOV don't promote it to mainspace. It needs to fixed in draft. scope_creep^Talk 10:01, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

@Scope creep NPOV issues obviously exist on a spectrum. I've declined plenty of drafts for NPOV failures, but it is absolutely fine to accept a draft that could use some mild trimming of resume-like content or puffery. AfC is supposed to screen primarily for notability and for serious failures to adhere to our content guidelines, not to ensure that all pages entering mainspace are perfect. MCE89 (talk) 10:21, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

I think you need to read the good article reviewing instructions fully and make sure they say what you think they say. Under "Reviewing workflow, step 3: Suitability", it says point blank that if a submission "is not written from a neutral point of view" then you decline it. There's no "spectrum", and even if there was, this was on the far end of it. I'm disappointed and concerned to see you doubling down on this. MediaKyle (talk) 11:34, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

@MediaKyle I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Of course there is a spectrum — there are otherwise acceptable drafts that contain one of two pieces of mild peacock language, and there are drafts that are G11 levels of spam. In this case I agree that the listing of awards was excessive (which is why I cut it down before I accepted the draft), and that the list of research achievements could have been written more neutrally. But I disagree that this was so overwhelmingly promotional that the only acceptable response was an NPOV decline. MCE89 (talk) 11:42, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Another dodgy draft

I've moved this Draft:Christoph Rass back to draft. Why did you promote to mainspace? The references for a BLP are a mess. There is no page numbers in the book references and uses a ton of primary and spammy sourcing, some of them to shops. Lots of the content aren't sourced failing WP:V, some of it same profile web page that doesn't have the info. It appears to be sourced but isn't. It is completely unsuitable for mainspace. There is no doubt the guy is notable but the article needs a significant amount of work, before it goes back. scope_creep^Talk 10:05, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

@Scope creep. A lack of page numbers in book references is absolutely not a reason to decline a draft at AfC, see WP:AFCSTANDARDS. I'm not sure I understand any of your reasons for draftifying this page. There are sufficient secondary, in-depth reviews of his books cited in the draft to establish that he meets WP:NAUTHOR criteria 3, and his named professorship at the University of Oregon is also an automatic pass of WP:NPROF#C5. Given that you yourself have just admitted that he is notable, I'm not sure why you used the draftification reason it needs more sources to establish notability. Your COI draftification reason is also not applicable to an article that has already gone through AfC, since going through AfC is exactly what we require of editors who have a COI. I agree that it could use some clean up of the sourcing, but I did a spot check of the primary biographical claims before accepting it and I don't see the major issues that you are referring to. MCE89 (talk) 10:18, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

It is the absolute reason as its a failure of WP:V. That was the first thing I spotted. Page number are criticial for the reader to find and read the content. Is the reader supposed to search through reams of books pages, archives, journal articles to find the information? A manual search everytime. Come on. That is really poor reviewing. The sourcing has been done really quickly and is really sloppy and there is insufficient secondary coverage for the BLP. It is mostly based on primary coverage which is unacceptable for a BLP. The fact he is notable doesn't give the subject an automatic right to be in mainspace when the article references are such a mess. That is the whole point of draft. On the coi editing, it be slim but there is something going on. I was originally going to take it to Afd as a TNT case and then rewrite it myself but thought better of it. I intend to check all the other articles you've reviewed in the last couple of months. I wasn't planning to do until I saw that message above. scope_creep^Talk 10:39, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

@Scope creep You're absolutely welcome to check my other reviews and send any pages that you would like to AfD. Page numbers for book and journal sources are definitely not a requirement at AfC, and in fact they're not even a requirement for GAs. But I also don't see where the lack of page numbers would hamper verification in this particular draft. Almost the entire thing is sourced to his university profiles and to secondary reviews of his books that are a few pages long at most. I don't see anywhere where the lack of page numbers is a serious failure of WP:V. I also disagree that the page is mostly based on primary coverage and that there is insufficient secondary coverage — the page cites plenty of in-depth secondary reviews of his work. If you disagree, feel free to send it to AfD. MCE89 (talk) 10:49, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Red Lotus Sea

One can be pretty sure that something like Red Lotus Sea already has an article on Wikipedia. Abductive (reasoning) 13:05, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

@Abductive Ah, thanks for spotting that! I had exactly the same thought and searched by its Thai name, checked Kumphawapi district as well as checking whether the images appeared on any other pages before accepting it, but didn't find anything. I missed that link at the start of the Geography section though, appreciate you catching the mistake. MCE89 (talk) 13:14, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Acadian borders

I've finished reviewing Draft:Acadian borders, which I approved. Thanks for checking in! Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 16:06, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks @Commandant Quacks-a-lot, and sorry for following up on it! Just wanted to double check that you were still reviewing it :) MCE89 (talk) 16:17, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Your nomination of Truganini has passed

Your good article nomination of the article Truganini has passed; congratulations! See the review page for more information. If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Jens Lallensack -- Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:05, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Article: Albin Czernichowski

Hi @MCE89! Thank you for your time for rewiev of Draft:Albin Czernichowski. I am asking you for help because I do not understand what I am doing wrong. The article has been not accepted again. In my opinion the person meets criteria 1 and 7 what is confirmed by independent sources. Please advice me - what I am missing? AdamWilanowski1980 (talk) 20:32, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi @AdamWilanowski1980! Typically to meet criteria 1 of WP:NPROF you would need to show a substantial impact on the subject's field of research, as demonstrated by something like a very strong citation record, or by some other kind of independent recognition of their research impact. In this case it looks like Czernichowski has had a solid impact on his scientific discipline, but I don't see any sign of the kind of recognition that would typically satisfy criteria 1. While citation count is definitely not the only metric that's applied here, his h-index of 10 is a fair way off the usual thresholds for meeting this criteria. On criteria 7, this requires evidence of substantial impact outside academia. Having a number of patents is not sufficient to demonstrate this — we would need evidence that independent, reliable sources have recognised his work as impactful. MCE89 (talk) 06:44, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your review and the helpful feedback. I appreciate your guidance. Best regards, ~~~~ Free Horizon 54 (talk) 21:57, 7 December 2025 (UTC)