This is anarchive of past discussions withUser:Timtrent.Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on thecurrent talk page.
You wrote:Please confirm that you have read and understood the information given to you already by Robert McClenon. I have given that exact same information on hundreds (probably thousands) of submissions over a decade, as{{compsays}}, which stands for "Company says". That template now has siblings,{{perssays}} for "Person says}} for draft BLPs, and{{vendsays}} for "Vendor says" if the draft is not about the company but about their product. I didn't tell them to remove anything promotional, because I didn't need to do that. I first looked for any reference to third-party coverage. So in this case it wasn't a matter of what they needed to remove but what wasn't there. But you knew that anyway, because we belong to the same guild.Robert McClenon (talk)18:56, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
What I am observing is, first, most of the questions at AFCHD are lazy or stupid. "Why was my draft rejected?" when there is a statement by the reviewer. They aren't even of the form "How can I find better references?" or "What would be third-party discussion?" As a result, second, the answers by the reviewers are no longer than the questions deserve. If the submitter comes to theTeahouse, the submitter may at least ask an intelligent question, so the experienced editors can try to give an intelligent answer. You are unlikely to see thoughtful answers to stupid questions. The reviewers are at least too polite to say, "That's a stupid question."Robert McClenon (talk)20:25, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
WikiProject Articles for creation is holding amonth longBacklog Drive in December! The goal of this drive is toreduce the backlog of unreviewed drafts to less than half a month of outstanding reviews from the current 2+ months. Bonus points will be given for reviewing drafts that have been waiting more than 30 days. The drive is running from 1 December 2025 through 31 December 2025.
Thanks for endlessly contributing to making Wikipedia the world's best encyclopaedia. I well believe that you absolutely deserve this one. 🇳🇿R. F. K. T. N. G.talk to me.02:28, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
Draft on Thomas Kuzhinapurath: Kindly have a look at the references of the following article with an objective mind Dr. Madhubala Sinha (ed.) Encyclopedia of South Indian Literature, Vol.3, pp. 269 -272, Anmol Publications Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, ISBN 978-81-261-3740-4 with an open mind.Thank You— Precedingunsigned comment added byVimala English Vidyalaya (talk •contribs)12:22, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
@Vimala English Vidyalaya I have. You have only one which goes anywhere at alll and that is to a book selling website, so is an advert. I am not at all interested in a google search. You have work to do. I feel you will enjoy the research and putting good references into the draft. I wish you success. 🇵🇸🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸19:15, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Dear Timtrent,
could you please help us to review and restore the company page called "Grahaa Space"Grahaa Space. I have provided necessary and required information including declaration for creating this article page. Kindly do the needful.
@Malaya Kumar Biswal M Phrses like "Kindly do the needful" do not endear you to me. They show a lack of respect and professionalism; they are patronising; they express the sentiment that you are better than I am; they are borderline plain rude. While I recognise that your use of English may differ form mine, I am still offended.
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Tim, I have rewritten the Mark Tregellas article to prove WP:BIO using independent reliable sources only. This is my first ever article and your help is truly appreciated. Sincerely, JoanJoan O'Callaghan (talk)01:22, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
Note about AFCHD response, posting here because you closed the discussion
Hi Timtrent, the editorhere left out important context from their help desk post.Sleepyfuecoco is a COI editor who therefore cannot edit the existing article. They got (possibly flawed) advice onTalk:Mermaid (software) to bring their rewrite to AfC with a note that they want the existing article to be replaced, but they only made a practically invisible note in an edit summary when editing their draft. (Even if the reviewer understood their intent, it would still be an annoying out-of-process use of AfC.)Helpful Raccoon (talk)10:32, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
You have received a virtual cookie fromRfqii! Thanks for your continuous contributions to Wikipedia. This is my token of appreciation on behalf of the Wikipedia Community. rfqii talk This is a template that I would use as a personal thanks for just the recipient to enjoy!
I took a lot of inspiration from your work, (especially your userpage) which gave me an idea to create this barnstar, and for you to be the first to receive it.r f q i italk!07:58, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
Hello, Timtrent. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know thatDraft:Patrick Chalhoub (Chalhoub Group), a page you created, has not been edited in at least five months. Drafts that have not been edited for six monthsmay be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, pleaseedit it again orrequest that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you canrequest it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
I saw your comments on this draft. I understand your reasoning, but it iswrong to deny this article its proper review, and I say that as a reviewer who came in to improve the article recently with additional, and strong reliable sources. Sadly, sockpuppets like the one ofJaredryandloneria tend to make drafts, at times from my experience. Even so, I urge you to *not* delete this draft. Furthermore, I found your comment that the "references are awful and it is assuredly unacceptable" to be a weird comment. Which sources? Can you name any? I'd gladly remove any, within reason. Why such a vague comment?
Furthermore, I can understand the push to add this to the mainspace, considering the release ofKPop Demon Hunters, which Sechrist's wife directed. To say that pushing to add something to the mainspace is a "signal that something is not right" seems to be a weird comment as well. How is that a warning flag?Historyday01 (talk)14:41, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
@Historyday01 IT is not deletable under G5, and I have no power to delete it anyway.
I apologise that you find my comment to be vague. I have referred by name to several sources and a class of source. There is a welter of referencing rather than depth and breadth. All I ask is that whoever follows through with this, you, if you wish, examines the sources with care.
Pushing to add something to mainspace... to me is very different fromwishing to add something. I have wished to add many things, and been successful with many of them, but pushing hard is another matter entirely. Off Wikipedia I volunteer in a skills based environment, where advanced skills are required to keep participants safe. A desire to learn those skills is good. Pushing hard to get them is a sign that the pusher is by no means ready to deploy them, even if acquired. 🇵🇸🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸14:50, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
That's fine. I just wanted to clarify. Sechrist has got a lot more attention because the aforementioned film, so there have been been more articles about him than before, since his last show ended a couple years ago.Historyday01 (talk)14:55, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
@Historyday01 My attention has been to the draft as it stands and the referencing as it stands. I'm sure you recognise that I am not a specialist in film makers. I review based on seeing whether, in my opinion, a draft has a better than 50% chance of surviving an immediate deletion process. If I believe it does, I accept it. When I push it back I do it to allow it to be given that >50% chance.
Almost alwaysWP:BOMBARD is trying too hard to show that something that is not notable, is notable.
Thsi drat has probably been writtenWP:BACKWARDS, with references shoe-horned in wherever possible, and everything possible said about the subject, whereas all that is required is to prove in the simplest possible way that the subject is notable. That usually means that the truism "Less is more" applies. 🇵🇸🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸15:05, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
I don't how it was written, but if I'd written it from the beginning, I'd probably go on a longer process to verify sources and go through each section one by one. I've written some relatively long articles on my time on here, likeLGBTQ themes in Western animation, and they sometimes took months to put together.Historyday01 (talk)15:15, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for doing that. There's many good sources about him out there. I have a few articles of my own which are in drafts, but not as many, as I have been a bit frustrated with the draft process in the past.Historyday01 (talk)14:54, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
Season's Greetings
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2026!
Hello Timtrent, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on thisseasonal occasion. Spread theWikiLove by wishing another user aMerry Christmas and aHappy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2026. Happy editing, Abishe (talk)11:11, 25 December 2025 (UTC)
A tag has been placed onGanda language) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done undersection R3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a recently created redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer, or other unlikely search term.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you maycontest the nomination byvisiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line withWikipedia's policies and guidelines. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos)05:23, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
Noticed a possible typo in a redirect creation that might break a wiki-tool
Hello.
Just noticed that you had recently (22:28, 27 December 2025) created a redirect "Ganda language)" that only contains a right paren ")" while not including an expect left paren "(". Since parenthesis are usually used in pairs (in the English language), I would like to point out that a single paren could potentially break some wiki-bots that might expect a pair of parens. Most spell-checkers in most text processing programs would flag the lone right paren ")" as a typo. Would "Ganda (language)" be a better choice for a potential redirect since the redirect "Ganda language" already exists? (Or an outright denial of the request for containing an obvious typo?)~2025-33014-16 (talk)04:38, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
Hello Timtrent, thank you for your time reviewingmy draft. I would be happy to replace any sources that you think is unreliable if you point them to me amongst the 19 sources I put out. Also if you think a source is unreliable, I imagine you have good reasons I'd like to hear. Thank you for your time and feedback.Houdini78 (talk)22:21, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
Thank you again for your quick feedback, Timtrent. OK, I understand Youtube is not considered a reliable source by Wikipedia in general (although I do see links here and there among Wikipedia references). So let's consider the case of the first one of the UFO whistleblowers in my preliminary list (Jake Barber), which is representative of the problem I now face. Barber's original (and only) interview came from NewsNation. Do you consider this media as a reliable source ? Even if you considered NewsNation as a reliable source, the NewsNation website does not offer Barber's full interview any more. The only other location where I could find it is in a Spotify podcast named "The Best UFO Videos" edited by Bardi Media. Could that be a reliable source according to Wikipedia ? If you refuse Youtube channels, I guess you will also refuse that other channel. In other words, by denying Youtube as a reliable source in general, my whistleblower list will shrink by more than 90%, defeating its purpose. This is equivalent to censorship, isn't it? Do you see any solution for my problem, or should I give up trying to widen people's awareness on the UFO topic, simply because this is still not considered a serious topic by Wikipedia editors ? In that case, that could only reinforce the rumour in the UFO community that Wikipedia, just like mainstream media, is under control of the "deep state" and their secret gatekeepers... I hope you can help me and not let dogma and close-mindedness win the battle. Thanks for reading me and for any new feedback.Houdini78 (talk)22:34, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
@Houdini78 You can't equate Wikipedia's needing your list and its members to pass notability criteria with censorship.
The list contains living people. Every statement about a living perosn that might be subject to challengemust be referenced in a source that passesWP:42
What pekoe say is generally not a reference for them. We need what is said about them boy others in reliable sources.
Thank you for your response. I have replaced all links to Youtube videos except the 2 ones in the introduction, as I haven't found other sources that you may deem reliable (I checked with ChatGPT which proposes e.g.https://ghostarchive.org/varchive/4DrcG7VGgQU for the 2001 National Press Club conference organised by Steven Greer: is that considered a reliable source? probably not).
A tag has been placed onDes moines flag requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done undersection R3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a recently created redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer, or other unlikely search term.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you maycontest the nomination byvisiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line withWikipedia's policies and guidelines.I am bad at usernames (talk·contribs)03:38, 1 January 2026 (UTC)
A tag has been placed onDes moines iowa flag requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done undersection R3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a recently created redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer, or other unlikely search term.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you maycontest the nomination byvisiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line withWikipedia's policies and guidelines.I am bad at usernames (talk·contribs)03:38, 1 January 2026 (UTC)
A tag has been placed onDes moines, iowa flag requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done undersection R3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a recently created redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer, or other unlikely search term.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you maycontest the nomination byvisiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line withWikipedia's policies and guidelines.I am bad at usernames (talk·contribs)03:38, 1 January 2026 (UTC)
WestwoodHights
I may be mistaken, but I don't think that the editor was a paid editor. Your inquiry was in order, but I think that the editor was a quarrelsome editor. I think that I had already cautioned them to stop acting like a paid editor, but I think that they simply were a quarrelsome editor. In any case, thefirst law of holes was illustrated, because they continued digging, and the hole fell in.Robert McClenon (talk)18:07, 8 January 2026 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
AFC/R abusers
Hi Tim! I just pinged you an SPI but wanted to make you aware of a couple other lta's that abuse AFC/R. A recently active one isWP:Sockpuppet investigations/LeandroTelesRocha1983 whose main topic area areas sociopolitical ideologies (communism, etc) and things like narco terrorism, antifa, among various others. That first one at AFC/R right now that you commented on is very likely them. Another is one who requests redirects and categories related to children's TV shows and the like. That one consistently geolocates to Chile but I have not seen them lately. I don't who the master is or an associated SPI but Ponyo is familiar with them so if I see them, I report them directly to her.
TAIV is quite useful as it allows you to see the IP info behind TAs. What I have found is TAs are a bit of mess and I often see the same IP assigned multiple TAs who is clearly the same person along with many other issues. I think the WMF are working on making it better (maybe?) but right now it is an abusers dream and much more work for editors. The IP panel does give some really good info though. No need to use WHOIS anymore and it often tells you if it's a proxy.
I only did a quick scan of what's on the AFCR page right now and the two I mention above are the only ones that were obvious to me. Don't worry about it though; they can be G5'd and how would you know? You did exactly what you are suppose to do, AGF. I have accepted some too that ended up being a sock. I didn't know about TTT24 until like a month ago and also discovered Leandro but that one took some time to figure out. I have also accepted a couple or so that were back-doors to article creation from randos who are likely other unknown socks. Once I saw the articles created from the redirect, I moved them back to draft as ABF requests. What I dislike about the process is they are in your name as the creator but there's no getting around that.S0091 (talk)19:12, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
@S0091 I try not to have any 'pseudo-admin' rights, so I will consider TAIV carefully.
I think I have one clue. A new editor with no talk page suddenly seems to smell of fish when they seek to create redirects. Or do they?
For registered accounts, the ones I question more are the ones who are AC confirmed (outside of lta/sock stinky). I get AC editors submitting drafts for an extra eye but not redirects because they are easy to create. And again, the redirects are under you name, not theirs, so not the same transparency like drafts. As far as if you should continue, I see it just like any other new area an editor explores - give it whirl, learn and re-calibrate if needed. If you enjoy it, keep going. I have been fussed at a couple time by requestors for declining their requests and after consideration, agreed I was being too conservative. Mostly though, they are pretty easy and you do see AGF non-registered regulars so that's nice.S0091 (talk)20:10, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
Good to see you have continued reviewing and that you are also trying out categories which is a neglected area. I've tried cats but I just don't have the knowledge. Happy Friday!S0091 (talk)19:42, 16 January 2026 (UTC)
This is awarded to Timtrent for accumulating more than 395 points during theDecember 2025 AfC backlog drive. Your dedication and contributions to Wikipedia's content review process were crucial in reviewing over 9,000 drafts during the drive. Thank you for your participation and helping to reduce the backlog!~/Bunnypranav:<ping>15:29, 11 January 2026 (UTC)
external references in publication list
Hi Tim, you kindly moderated my draft articleSajida Haider Vandal. I have removed the external links listed as 'Awards' and moved them to references in the main body as suggested, but am at a loss as to what to do about external links to publications. Looking at other articles it seems to be common to have external links in a Publications section before the Reference section. I could move the whole Publications section to after References, which would technically comply but seems to me to be against the spirit of what you are asking for. Could you point me to any example of a page which lists publications in the way now expected in new articles? Thanks for your help and your time.Marinheiro (talk)21:04, 11 January 2026 (UTC)
Many people review drafts.You review the reviewers. You peer-reviewed the peer reviewers and supported your fellow Wikipedians. :) This is awarded to Timtrent for completing more than 50 re-reviews during theDecember 2025 AfC backlog drive. Thank you for your efforts and teamwork!~/Bunnypranav:<ping>08:22, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
The article will be discussed atWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roy (Pokémon horizons) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
Hello Timtrent,Hope you are doing well.Many thanks for the fast comment and feedback.This is my first time trying to add something to Wikipedia, so apologies for breaking the rules.You've raised several points:1) Notability criteria -- I believe I pass given the extensive coverage in tier-1 global media outlets both on myself and the business we're building in Uzbekistan.2) I have mentioned the Conflict of Interest in the description of my account (CentralAsiaEdits), so I thought I'd be in the clear.3) I have indeed used AI to help me with editing and proofreading of the material / article. One of the comments you've added says "rejected and cannot be resubmitted". Can I rewrite / redraft it with zero AI help and resubmit or am I banned with this article from the encyclopedia?CentralAsiaEdits (talk)16:35, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
Thank you for the input. I'm more than happy to redraft. I collected all the links in a separate doc file and seems like failed to attach those properly. What would be the best course of action?CentralAsiaEdits (talk)16:58, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
@CentralAsiaEdits Why on earth do you want an article about you in Wikipedia? Almost no-one is capable of writing their ownWikipedia autobiography. I doubt, but hope, you are one of the very few. Your use of AI means I doubt it very much.
Regarding restarting, the origiinal AI slop has been deleted. There is nothing to stop you from starting again. I counsel against it, but am certain you will do it.
I think you have probably written what you wish to say about the subject, and then sought references after writing in order to cite what you say. This isWP:BACKWARDS. Instead, please readthis essay, one of several which outline a process which will succeedassuming the subject to be notable. If it isn't notable then no amount of editing can help. We use the references in the process described in the essay to determine and verify notability. No suitable references means the subject is not notable, and it is time to stop.
For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that isabout them, and isindependent of them, inmultiplesecondary sources which areWP:RS, and issignificant coverage. Please also seeWP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources andWP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact cited, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make this draft a clear acceptance (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the person is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today.
I know. Sorry if I sounded disrespectful. It's because some of my drafts were reviewed even more quickly than others. That's why I felt so anxious to think this draft was ready to be published.Fico Puricelli (talk)16:29, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
Drafts that go unedited for six months are eligible for deletion, in accordance with ourdraftspace policy, and this one has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simplyedit the submission, and remove the{{db-afc}},{{db-draft}}, or{{db-g13}} code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you read this, you canrequest its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the draft so you can continue to work on it.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Although it may seem obscure the terminology and thematic content has become somewhat revived within the accelerationist and internet art scenes, with WP notables such as Vitalik Buterin and Elon Musk as well as Beeple referencing Network Sprirituality Philosophically and in their own works.— Precedingunsigned comment added by~2026-43607-4 (talk)21:53, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
@~2026-43607-4 You may propose it again,n or reopen the declined request. I do not consider Musk to be an authority on anything except Musk and his self glorification and have never heard of the other two.
more frequently than not niche terms such as effective altruism or network spirituality exist in the circles that participate in their discussion or practice and to make wikipedia more complete there should at least be a reference to the ideological circle they originate from to help point people in the correct direction
@~2026-43607-4 Two reviewers disagree that this should be created. We do not generally accede to requests to redirect from a term not covered in an article. You might ask atWP:TEAHOUSE for a broader opinion. You have not presented anything here to change my mind. 🇵🇸🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸10:04, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
on the applicability or relevancy the term may not have much utility to you, but there is established evidence of its use on various discussion forms and of its relevancy by use by people who WP policy would consider notable on their own merits such as Vitalik Buterin as the lead developer of ETH or Elon Musk, even citing an academic and older source to establish a longstanding use of the term shows that it is considered to be valid in a wider scope than may appear to cursory observers.
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Top AfC Editor
The Articles for Creation Barnstar 2025 Top Editor
@Tspooncl65 I see you have, and I thank you for listening, but "I do not review drafts on request, nor, normally, do I review a draft more than once, so please do not ask" as it says at the head of this page and in a prominent notice when a message is left here.
Hey tim, I saw you rejected my article on gingival hirsutism. Is the only reason because you couldn't see the original article? I can totally get you a copy of the original peer reviewed publication if that is all you need. Thank you!Jacobthenerd (talk)15:37, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
@Jacobthenerd Please do not send me anything. "Rejection" has a very specific meaning. I pushed this back to you,declined it, for further work. I am not at all sure you have read what I said. Perhaps you will confirm that you have done so and return to this thread with further questions. 🇵🇸🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸15:42, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
I see, I thought rejection and declining were synonymous, thank you for the correction. I see on the 'sources' part of Wikipedia that secondary sources are preferred, would adding secondary sources referencing the primary sources i used be adequate?Jacobthenerd (talk)15:54, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
We require references fromsignificant coverageabout the topic of the article, andindependent of it, inmultiplesecondary sources which areWP:RS please. SeeWP:42. Please also seeWP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources andWP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact referred to, that meet these tough criteria is likely to allow this article to remain. Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the topic is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today.
Secondary sources are best, but primary are allowed as you can see. What you have to prove by dint of excellence of sourcing is that the topic is notable. Peer reviewed scientific papers do that, the peer review rendering it to be secondary. Beware Researchgate and Arxiv, both of which operate a 'pay to play' model which makes them useless.
I really appreciate your help, I added a handful of secondary sources, and made sure to cite them all properly. I believe i am in accordance with all the guidelines about sources. I do have a question about images, in the original study they took some pictures, and every secondary source i looked at used those same pictures; is there a way I can add those images to this article without running into copyright trouble?Jacobthenerd (talk)02:06, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
Oh I see. Looks like they want me to pay like 200 bucks to get the licensing for it. I did gr the article updated with secondary sources and more citations, so hopefully it should be perfect now. thank you for helping me through thisJacobthenerd (talk)11:01, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
Hi. Is there anything new (since the 13th or 14th of this month) about the way you've been closing sections atWP:AFCHD? All of a sudden the bot is having trouble deciding which day various sections belong to; it's getting confused by the datestamps in your template invocations.
(Not trying to blame you, just trying to figure out why the bot is having problems.)
@Scs As you will see/have seen, I created a text topic. I used→10:07, 21 January 2026 review of submission by Timtrent: Closing discussion (DiscussionCloser v.1.7.3-8) to close it.
Thanks. But, no tests like this needed; my investigations will be delving into the past.
The bot looks for the first date in a section to decide when that section was posted. So it will tend to find the date in an{{atop}} template above the OP's date. For example, in theJanuary 14 section on the current page, it's finding six sections which it wrongly thinks are dated January 15 (based on{{atop}} templates), followed by a mixture of January 14 and January 15.
But the mystery is, how did itever work? It seems it would have had this problem all the time. That's why I'm going to have to go back in the history and see what happened on days in the past when it worked. (I have the ability to re-invoke the bot on previous revisions of the page, with debugging enabled, to see exactly what it did, but it's somewhat of a nuisance, so it may take me a little while.) —scs (talk)13:46, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
Fixed. It turns out — I am again not blaming you! — that the problem was, in part, that you had been too energetic. When archiving, say, a raft of questions all dated January 14, the bot was willing to accept one or two differently-dated entries sprinkled in, buthere, there happened to be six entries in a row that were all perturbed by{{atop}} templates giving them dates of January 15th, and that was too much for the bot's heuristic.
I've now added a little filter to strip out the{{atop}} template invocations and their potentially-perturbing dates, and this seems to be working. —scs (talk)11:20, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
@Gregory Khachatrian However, when you type in the search box in UPPER CASE you end up with the correct location. Thus the requests are generally not acceded to.
As you are an autoconfirmed user, if you feel sufficiently strongly about this, you have the rights to create these yourself, something I was about to remind you about on your talk page anyway. 🇵🇸🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸22:53, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you maycontest the nomination byvisiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line withWikipedia's policies and guidelines.ArcticSeeress (talk)12:04, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
I trust AfC reviewers to check for notability. I saw that it had been accepted through AfC, so didn't feel it necessary to do further checks. AfC acceptance usually confirms an article will survive an AfD nomination.11WB (talk)13:47, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
Having checked the archived sources there are at least two which I would consider to beWP:SIGCOV. That is one short ofWP:THREE. I am not going to nominate this to AfD, as there might be a few more modern articles that discuss the game, however you are welcome to nominate it should you feel notability isn't met.11WB (talk)13:51, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
@11WB redirects are subject to abuse, and redirects do not have the same notability criteria as articles. Getting a redirect created is often a UPE gang's route to creating an article using a TA. Redirects accepted at AFC/R are always in the accepting reviewer's name. I have notified a particular admin who hunts these down, and they will make a determination. I note your comment that I edit conflicted with. I have read it 🇵🇸🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸13:53, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
The redirect is now an article, as the page was moved. I understand that there is potential abuse that may have taken place, that is not an area of Wikipedia I am knowledgeable with (I am primarily within the NPP sphere only). Regardless, the redirect is now an article and meets notability.11WB (talk)13:56, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
@11WB I am not about to send it to AfD. I think NPP may need to be brought up to speed on the abuse of redirects for the future, but I think that is down to the hunters rather than me.
I am not understanding the issue here.This diff shows that a logged out editor decided to turn the redirect into an article. AnWP:ARTHI would require an article to become about something else entirely, this was a redirect for the video gameScary Monsters, which has now been turned into a stub. I am not seeing the problem here.11WB (talk)14:20, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
No problem at all! I wasn't referring to this discussion as annoying, rather that TA's behaviour. I note that you reported this to an administrator, which is the correct procedure. They will be able to take the correct measures to prevent that individual from causing any further disruption.11WB (talk)14:44, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Can you please take a look and see if this is ready for launch? or do i need to finish the reference part etc first?
Hi can you take a look and give me advice as to how to make this ready to publish? I orginally used a photo he personally gave me but it was rejected...
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article Editing
Thanks for welcoming me , I'll try my best to read and understand wikipedia rules and policies on matters editing. Still, If you dont mind, I was requesting if you could be my Mentor by helping me overcome challenges I might experience or things I might miss along the way.Pippiberyl (talk)08:15, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
@Pippiberyl there are people with more time than I will have over the next few weeks, though I am flattered to be asked. I can't dedicate the time you might hope for at the moment, and I don't want to let you down.WP:MENTOR will get you someone with the time you will need. I'll be happy to answer casual questions, of course I will, but just can't do the full job right nw. 🇵🇸🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸08:30, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
I am very happy if that redirect gets nuked, how do we do it?
How would I determine the region? Do I need the IP Viewer thing? If so I need to request it. I would need a brief 'idiots guide' to what I need to know. And to be told where to request it and what the rues are.
I'm less interested in nuking today's specific redirect and more just interested in drawing attention at a source of creation. If you think the redirect is merited, I'm not going to tell you to tag it (you could tag this one asWP:G7 if you wanted).
To get access to IP addressing and related script support (such as in the IP infobox, which can be enabled in your preferences), you do needWP:TAIV (read that page before requesting). You show up at SPI often enough that you should request it atWP:PERM/TAIV. All it does is provide you access to the same information that everyone used to have, but with the added caveat that you can't talk about that information onwiki except in vague terms.
Hello, Timtrent. Per your request, your account has beengrantedtemporary-account-viewer rights. You are now able to reveal the IP addresses of individuals usingtemporary accounts that are not visible to the general public. This is very sensitive information that isonly to be used to aid in anti-abuse workflows. Please take a moment to reviewWikipedia:Temporary account IP viewer for more information on this user right. It is important to remember:
Accessmust not be used for political control, to apply pressure on editors, or as a threat against another editor in a content dispute. There must be a valid reason to investigate a temporary user. Note that using multiple temporary accounts is not forbidden, so long as they are not used in violation of policies (for example, block or ban evasion).
It is also important to note that the following actions are logged for others to see:
When a user accepts the preference that enables or disables IP reveal for their account.
Revealing an IP address of a temporary account.
Listing the temporary accounts that are associated with one or moreIP addresses (using theCIDR notation format).
Remember, even if a user is violating policy, avoid revealing personal information if possible. Use temporary account usernames rather than disclosing IP addresses directly, or give information such as same network/not same network or similar. If you do not want the user right anymore then please ask me or another administrator and it will be removed for you. You may also voluntarily give up access at any time by visitingSpecial:Preferences. Happy editing! — rsjaffe🗣️17:49, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
Hello, Timtrent. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know thatDraft:Patrick Chalhoub (Chalhoub Group), a page you created, has not been edited in at least five months. Drafts that have not been edited for six monthsmay be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, pleaseedit it again orrequest that it be moved to your userspace.
Done. 🇵🇸🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸19:15, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
