Hello. I am "I use Nookipedia." Welcome to my talk page.I use Nookipedia (talk)00:33, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello I use Nookipedia! Your additions toThe Blackthorn Key (series) have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have addedcopyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in thepublic domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under asuitably free and compatible copyright license—to request such a release, seeWikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, it's important to understand and adhere to guidelines about using information from sources to preventcopyright andplagiarism issues. Here are the key points:

• Limited quotation: You may only copy or translate asmall portion of a source. Anydirect quotations must be enclosed in doublequotation marks (") and properly cited using aninline citation. More information is available on thenon-free content page. To learn how to cite a source, seeHelp:Referencing for beginners.
• Paraphrasing: Beyond limited quotations, you are required to put all informationin your own words. Following the source's wording too closely can lead tocopyright issues and is not permitted; seeWikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when paraphrasing, you must stillcite your sources as appropriate.
• Image use guidelines: In most scenarios, onlyfreely licensed orpublic domain images may be used and these should be uploaded to oursister project, Wikimedia Commons. In some scenarios, non-freely copyrighted content can be used if they meet all ten of ournon-free content criteria;Wikipedia:Plain and simple non-free content guide may help with determining a file's eligibility.
• Copyrighted material donation: Ifyou hold the copyright to the content you want to copy, or are a legally designated agent, youmay be able to license the text for publication here. Please seeWikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• Copying and translation within Wikipedia: Wikipedia articles can be copied or translated, however they must have proper attribution in accordance withWikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. For translation, seeHelp:Translation § Licensing.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices. Persistent failure to comply may result in beingblocked from editing. If you have any questions or need further clarification, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you.MCE89 (talk)04:01, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting me know.I use Nookipedia (talk)04:02, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see you went ahead without waiting for me to answer your questions, but the answer would have been "Yes, that's absolutely fine". (Feel free to remove this too, if you like.)JBW (talk)19:50, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JBW Question: Is the requirement for extended confirmed 500 edits and 30 days? Once you become extended confirmed, are there any additional tools you gain beside editing extended confirmed pages? 🍃I use Nookipedia 😊 (talk page) ✈️19:53, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, 500 edits & 30 days are the normal requirements. Your account has, of course long since passed the 30 day limit, but not the 500 edits. However, don't make the mistake of trying to get extended confirmed quickly by making hundreds of trivial edits, as some people do. Editors who do that find that administrators can and do block them from getting extended confirmed, or remove extended confirmation if they've already got there. Much better is to wait until you have built up experience in normal editing.

• Yes, being extended confirmed does give a few other benefits too. You can read about them atWikipedia:User groups#Extended confirmed accounts if you like.JBW (talk)20:15, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JBW Sorry to ping you so much, but I just wanted to ask you if my edits are good now. 🍃I use Nookipedia 😊 (talk page) ✈️20:05, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since the unblock you've made 66 edits, and I'm not going to check them all, but I've had a fairly quick look at about a dozen of them, and I didn't notice any problems, so it looks as though you're doing OK. 👍JBW (talk)20:34, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission toArticles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by HurricaneZeta were:

This submission's references do not show that the subjectqualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not showsignificant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject inpublished,reliable,secondary sources that areindependent of the subject (see theguidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (seetechnical help and learn aboutmistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

This submission does not appear to be written inthe formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from aneutral point of view, and should refer to a range ofindependent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoidpeacock terms that promote the subject.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

There is less than neutral and promotional wording here - it could be fixed. Also, four of the sources are primary sources, we'd like to see more secondary sources instead of papers or books published by him.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmitafter they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go toDraft:Georg F. Weber and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned andmay be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced anyuntoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at theArticles for creation help desk, on thereviewer's talk page or useWikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Z ET A^C17:29, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,I use Nookipedia!Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at theArticles for creation help desk. If you have anyother questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at theTeahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there!Z ET AC17:29, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I use Nookipedia, thank you for fighting vandalism immediately after being unblocked (and even for notifying vandalism stopped by the edit filter). I would've thought you would edit existing articles. After at least one month and 200 edits to articles, and no recent edit warring, you may consider applying forrollback for undoing vandalism (but not for good faith edits in which case, seewhen to use rollback for more). I would say to apply from Jan 2026. I love to also point out that I also play ACNH with almost 1k hours, and have made many edits to that article.JuniperChill (talk)17:48, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Will the admins still let me be rollbacker even if I was blocked previously? 🍃I use Nookipedia 😊 (talk page) ✈️17:53, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an admin, butWikipedia:Rollback#Requesting rollback rights makes no mention the word "block(ed)" anywhere. I guess it depends on the admin, but I think its worth a try applying from 2026 with your extensive experience fighting vandalism.JuniperChill (talk)18:02, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

... but not for good faith edits. This isn't entirely true; using rollback without any edit summary for good faith contributions isn't something that should be done, but using it withredwarn/ultraviolet/any other tool that uses rollback and providing a reason why you are reverting the contributions is perfectly fine. I don't particularly think rollback is so special that you need to get it as soon as you can, but it is nice to have. Honestly its most convenient use ismassRollback, imo.45dogs (they/them)(talk page)21:10, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @I use Nookipedia, I removed your comment at the sockpuppet investigations page; please note any comment there reopens the case which is obviously not what you wanted to do. Rest assured any admin looking would see you were unblocked, so there's no need to mention it over at the SPI. Best,CoconutOctopustalk07:27, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello I use Nookipedia. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion ofDraft:2000 Roanoke shooting, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Looks like the start of a draft page with collection of sources and no explicit attack/BLP. Thank you.Barkeep49 (talk)02:14, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi@I use Nookipedia:. Thanks for you interest in keeping even the back corners of Wikipedia tidy. In view of your multiple draftspace MFD nominations today, I wanted to make sure you're aware ofWP:LUDA. In particular, at MFD we generally don't delete drafts just for being nonnotable, poorly written, incomplete, or generally "worthless", active more specific actual disruption. Not trying to pressure you if you feel strongly about it, but if you were unaware of draft deletion policy and its typical interpretation, wanted to give you the opportunity to reconsider whether all of the nominations are necessary.Martinp (talk)02:42, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Martinp, But some are just pure nonsense pages. Are they still allowed on Wikipedia? 🍃I use Nookipedia 😊 (talk page) ✈️02:44, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@I use Nookipedia. Something that is "pure nonsense" enough that any admin will recognize it as such can be speedily-deleted using criterion G1, "Patent nonsense", described atWikipedia:Speedy_deletion#General. Or another one of those criteria, like G2 and G3 (I think one of your entries at MfD qualifies as G2). The important thing is that doesn't require an MFD nomination or discussion, so doesn't use up any real volunteer time, just a few seconds of a single admin's time who says "Yep, that's patent nonsense" and zaps it. Otherwise, worthless even nonsense drafts aren'tdesired on Wikipedia, but standards are a bit relaxed in draftspace in case someone is just finding their way and might improve things with a few subsequent edits. And it just isn't worth anyone's time to figure out how likely that is by evaluating and discussing a specific draft. That's if there isn't more direct, active disruption being caused by the page.Martinp (talk)15:26, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, and the many talk page notifications about declined speedy deletions tell me that you should slow down with tagging pages for G1. But anyway, drafts are only nominated under MFD if a draft has been declined multiple times to the point it leads to a rejection and it has been disruptive. Note that for the purposes of AFC, rejected and declined have different meanings. A decline allows the user to resubmit the article again while a rejection stops that because a reviewer finds that the article has no hope of being accepted. In general, drafts are only deleted under speedy deletion or if a draft has been sitting for 6 months no edits (G13).JuniperChill (talk)15:36, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you knew that draft space is self-clearing. A draft that is not edited in six months is semi-automatically deleted asG13. It takes less community time to let useless drafts be ignored for six months and then deleted than to nominate them for deletion, because nominating them for deletion atMiscellany for Deletion involves review by the editors who review nominations at MFD, the ones who are advising you that you don't need to nominate drafts for deletion. Please read the essayLeave Useless Drafts Alone, which explains this, and explains that more time is spent in reviewing nonsense drafts than in letting them go away in six months.

You wrote:But some are just pure nonsense pages. Are they still allowed on Wikipedia? The answer is that it depends on what you mean by "allowed on Wikipedia". They are not allowed in article space, or in project space, and we ignore them in draft space because it would be more work to review and delete them than to let them expire.

There is a review process for drafts inArticles for Creation, which reviews whether they should be accepted into article space. The criteria for acceptance of drafts arenotability andverifiability, which are the sane criteria as for retention of articles atArticles for Deletion. Drafts are only reviewed when they are submitted for review by their author (or by another editor). Declined drafts can be reworked and resubmitted.

Drafts can be nominated forspeedy deletion, which requires less community time thanmiscellany for deletion does, because one administrator looks at the nomination. In particular, drafts are deleted asG3 for vandalism and [[WP:G11|G11] for spam. However, admins are "less intolerant" of bad stuff in draft space than in article space, because draft space is not seen by readers (only by editors) and is self-clearing after six months.

I hope that this explanation is clear, that more work would be done reviewing useless drafts to delete them than in letting them be deleted by a self-cleaning process.Robert McClenon (talk)19:39, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

okay thank you for letting me know 🍃I use Nookipedia 😊 (talk page) ✈️19:41, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello I use Nookipedia, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion ofDraft:I Am Pibble, Wash My Belly (meme), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not nonsense - there is meaningful content. You may wish to review theCriteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you.Whpq (talk)03:09, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello I use Nookipedia, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion ofDraft:Democratic United Front (Bangladesh), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not nonsense - there is meaningful content. You may wish to review theCriteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you.Whpq (talk)03:09, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello I use Nookipedia, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion ofDraft:Please publish this Article Because Bharath madhugadh is my favourite Singar or nothing, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not nonsense - there is meaningful content. You may wish to review theCriteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you.Whpq (talk)03:10, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I use Nookipedia! I noticed that you blankedDraft:Ryan Douglas (inventor) due to a copyright violation. When using the{{copyvio}} template to blank an article, please make sure that you follow all of the instructions on the template and list the article atCopyright problems so that we see it — I happened to stumble on this one, but otherwise no one would have known that you had flagged it for copyvio.

In this case your tag was also not correct. As you would have seen when you linked to the Copypatrol report[1], the report had already been marked as resolved a few days ago. This is because the source is amirror of Wikipedia (you can tell because it has "This article "Ryan Douglas (executive)" is from Wikipedia" at the bottom of the page). It also has a note saying "Content is available under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike", which means that even if it wasn't taken from Wikipedia, the content would have beencompatibly licensed and would have just neededattribution. I know that copyright issues can be complicated, so I just wanted to give you a heads up so that you know what to look out for next time — let me know if you have questions about any of that!MCE89 (talk)17:29, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through your contributions further it looks like you've just been adding copyvio tags to any article where there is a Copypatrol report or a high Earwig match. For instance, onDraft:Akbar Tabari the copyright issues had already been resolved two months ago, and onDraft:Grigoriy Hansburg the copyright issues had been identified as a false positive and the attribution repaired. Please don't do this —WP:CV101 has some good instructions on how to deal with copyright violations, but if the Copypatrol report has already been marked as reviewed, you can assume that someone has already looked at the article and fixed any issues. If you find copyright issues that you're not sure how to deal with, just let me know and I'm happy to help.MCE89 (talk)17:36, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedians who have received a Teahouse invitation through AfC