User talk:Timtrent#declined article

Hi. I have been looking everywhere on the Internet for reliable and independent sources covering the demogroup Spaceballs and not just State of the Art and 9 Fingers. I have deleted references to the group from databases like Demozoo, Pouett and Amiga Music Preservation, and social media sites like Reddit, YouTube, LinkedIn, Facebook and Twitter, as well as mentions of IT'S ART Magazine since there is no formal publication of that to be found. Some now-removed Demozoo references for the list of Spaceballs members have been replaced with new references, such as for Useless/Egil Thomas Hansen, Travolta/Rune Svendsen, Magnar/Lizard, and Facet/Martijn van Meel. Alas, I could not find references solely for the other members and the group's demos in the "Selected productions" heading that are not databases. I included references to Spaceballs from books like Kunst, Code und Maschine: Die Ästhetik der Computer-Demoszene (2014) and Demoscene: The Amiga Years (2021) and a "Further reading" heading, and there is an Obligement.free article which seems to cover the group in full, rather than giving a passing mention. If the Demoscene: The Amiga Years references are allowed, would I have to use quotes in the references?

I am not sure if Spaceballs will ever have an article if I keep doing citation overkill and/or bombardment. I am finding this very difficult if there isn't enough sources for Spaceballs or significant coverage on it online. If this is not eligible for an article, would it work best as a heading for the article for the Spaceballs movie? Bladerunner09 (talk) 08:22, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

:@Bladerunner09 Non-internet sources, well cited, are acceptable. WP:CITEKILL never is. The rule, an absolute rule, is no references passing WP:42 no article. Is it related to the movie? 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 08:27, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

::The group named themselves after the movie. Bladerunner09 (talk) 09:31, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

:::@Bladerunner09 I suspect you will find the connection to be tenuous. WP:TEAHOUSE may give you a better answer, though 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 09:39, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

::::I asked the Teahouse about this, and GarethBaloney answered, "Non-internet sources (including the books) are much harder to verify, although they can still be used. The amount of references in general is pretty excessive, and that big list of current or former members could become a timeline. List of Whitesnake members#Timeline is one such example of a (music) group with many members. I do have to say that most of the ex-Spaceballs members are really not worth mentioning given how obscure the group already is." I am not sure how to create a "timeline" table for the members, though. Could you ask someone else to make it please? Bladerunner09 (talk) 20:54, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::@Bladerunner09 Honestly not sure whom to ask. I think it is only worth doing more work if you can prove notability. That should be your first task. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 20:57, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Why did you move this to a disambiguated title? There are no other articles with this name, so no disambiguation is needed at this time. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:14, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

:@UtherSRG It has a shedload of irrelevant articles linking to it, and I could not figure out how to solve that 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 17:30, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

::Resolved the remaining incoming links: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_2005_World_Games_medal_winners&diff=prev&oldid=1296552905][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_2001_World_Games_medal_winners&diff=prev&oldid=1296552934][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Flying_disc_at_the_2001_World_Games&diff=prev&oldid=1296552962]. Can likely occupy the basename now. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 17:53, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

::Ah! Roger that. I hadn't checked there. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:16, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

{{anchor|18:44:06, 20 June 2025 review of submission by John Desmond}}

{{Lafc|username=John Desmond|ts=18:44:06, 20 June 2025|declinedtalk=Draft:George_Woodcock_bibliography}}

I should be grateful to learn if it would be allowable for me to copy the additional information that I located about Woodcock's publications which I documented in my draft, and paste it into the article for him, to improve it.John Desmond (talk) 18:44, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

John Desmond (talk) 18:44, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

:@John Desmond I believe it would be fine. However, don't overload it. Be abstemious. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 20:13, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

::I hope that I haven't been the unwitting source of confusion and that the following information is helpful.

::Admittedly I did not say so (mea culpa) but it was not my intention that my submission would duplicate the listing of Woodcock's books in the article but instead would be a substitute for it. (A cursory comparison of my submission with the listing identifies that, with one exception and a correction of one of the titles, it is based upon a copy of it.) I didn't delete the listing because I considered that doing so might have been regarded as being drastic. If my submission had been accepted, which naturally I hoped would happen, I would then have considered that deleting it would be justifiable.

::To borrow your felicitous term 'overload' (thank you), I hoped that creating a list/bibliography would yield two benefits and might yield two additional ones. First, it would obviate the current overloading of the article with the listing of his books. Second, it would enable the documentation of additional information about his books: the names of the publishers, the locations of the publishers, the ISBNs and, if they exist (which they do in many cases), the ISBNs. Third, it might afford a useful location for insertions of Woodcock's articles, of which I suspect there are many. Fourth, as I intimated yesterday in my response to User:Bobby Cohn, the list/bibliography might benefit by being elaborated. John Desmond (talk) 08:06, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:::@John Desmond I understand. Even so, please have a detailed look at wikidata:Q954360 which is designed to link to indices of his work. It is likely to be fuller than you expect. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 08:57, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

::::As you requested, I've had a detailed look at the entry in wikidata for George Woodcock. However, I didn't have any expectation about its fullness. Consequently it wasn't fuller than I expected. That said, I acknowledge the huge amount of work that was undertaken to create the template. Also, I was interested to learn two things from the entry about his book The Crystal Spirit. First, that there is an article for it, for which I would looked forward to creating a link in the bibliography. Second, that it won the Governor General's Literary Award, which is just the type of information I would have looked forward to adding as a note in the bibliography, a facility which I hoped would be most easily accessible for enquirers.

::::Of course, I don't know where that leaves the issue about the utility of my submission. Given that it seems acceptable for me to do so, I could paste the the additional information that I have ascertained about Woodcock's books (the names of the publishers, their locations, etc.) into the article. However, doing so would exacerbate my perception of the problem that I wanted to solve. On reflection I think that I'll try to learn more about what criteria need to be fulfilled to create a bibliography, which I don't seem to have currently fulfilled. John Desmond (talk) 15:03, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::@John Desmond Wikidata is weird resource. It is intended to be a cross WMF data repository, data to be 'called in' to articles by the use of templates like {{Tl|Authority control}}. The mechanism for entering data there is somewhat arcane, however. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 17:46, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::Thank you for your frankness. When I accessed the Wikidata entry for Woodcock I couldn't help noticing that many of the data fields were blank; but I was too polite to say so. However, you did invoke Wikidata in support of your rejection of my submission. You stated in your rejection: 'Generally Woodcock's entry in Wikidata is expected to encompass this.' And you began your response to my reply of 08:06, 21 June 2025 by stating 'I understand'. So unfortunately your reason for rejecting my submission remains unclear to me. If you could possibly bring yourself to identify the reason then perhaps I could try to remedy my submission in the hope of improving the chance of it being accepted. Already some basic ideas have occurred to me about embellishing the design of the bibliography, which could enable me to improve my editing skills. However, there wouldn't seem to be any point in me applying any of the ideas if doing so omits to address the fundamental reason for its unacceptability. John Desmond (talk) 19:03, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::@John Desmond I think the main issue is that an article must, in and of itself, be notable.

:::::::That leads directly to the question "Is George Woodcock's bibliography notable without George Woodcock?" which leads to intellectual gymnastics, and the simple answer, "No, it cannot be notable without Woodcock, for it is Woodcock's bibliography."

:::::::Where I am headed with this is that every article must be notable.

:::::::* A list of Specialists in Foo (a notable but unspecified topic) may be inherently notable.

:::::::* A list of books about Foo might be notable

:::::::* A List of books by Bar (an otherwise notable author) is only notable in my mind when directly inside an article about Bar, otherwise it is an appendix. We do not do appendices.

:::::::Forgive me if I lack clarity. I have had an exhausting day. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 21:36, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Naturally I hope that you have recovered from your exhaustion! And, no, you didn't lack clarity: I understand and concur with your reasoning. In fact I did find myself reflecting upon the justification upon which I relied for my submission, not solely the points that I have previously communicated but, for want of a better term, the atonomy of a putative article.

::::::::Frustratingly I located a help page about the criterion that Wikipedia invokes but which I have been unable to re-locate which I would like to revisit because the issue interests me. Regardless, I would like to ask whether the onus is upon me to defend my submission in the above context or whether you consider that any defence by me is unlikely to succeed. Thank you. John Desmond (talk) 13:36, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::@John Desmond Defending things here is difficult. If one wished to start a defence of appendices as a general concept, I cannot fathom the place to start. I don't know whether it is a policy, a happenstance or an informal consensus.

:::::::::For any change to the status quo a consensus must be built, but that always depends on how the status quo came about. Thus we are in a true communist state's administration!

:::::::::I am musing as I write. My initial is that of should be framed first as a question, probably at WP:TEAHOUSE along the lines of "I understand that for various reasons Wikipedia does not do [something]. How may I find the history of why we do not do it?" This will start a few folk thinking, some of who may know with precision how to find out about it and how to alter it.

:::::::::Thus you avoid immediate defence (combative) and ask questions (collegial) which will move you to seeking to influence change (consensus). 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 14:09, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::@John Desmond I found WP:Appendices which seems to confirm that they are only useful as sections in a full article.

::::::::::Do keep in the forefront of your mind that I may be wrong, too! 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 14:12, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::That you very much for your prompt reply. I agree with your suggestion, which implies that I might be wrong. However, before I implement it I'll look up the page your mentioned and I should like to look up the help page that I mentioned which I have now located, about notability. Thank you very much for your patience. John Desmond (talk) 16:24, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Hey @John Desmond, I'll jump back in here a little late as I forgot I was pinged. I think Timtrent has offered some great advice and pulled the curtain back a little on the inner workings of Wikipedia. Your question as to "the onus is upon me to defend my submission in the above context" is a little tricky to answer because the AfC project and its reviewers sit at a slight crossroads on the project. Are we to accept articles that are not in a ready state despite a subject that would otherwise be notable? Hard to say. If one were arguing at a different avenue for deletion (the reverse of the AfC project), it is never okay to say that because it isn't "ready" it needs to be deleted. But in the context of AfC, if the sourcing isn't readily present in the article, it makes the job of the reviewer more difficult to assess if the subject warrants an article. Some reviewers will go to greater lengths than others to rescue promising drafts, but I would note that the pre-filled declination reasoning specifically says "This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article" (emphasis mine). In addition, I will admit that I suggested something that we reviewers often warn against when asked about: I have suggested you compare your draft article to another. Reviewers will often say WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS immedietly in response to an editor saying "I wrote my draft based on this article" but I myself was the one to point you to Stephen King bibliography. I did that because I think there is value in looking there for {{em|some}} guidance and I'd be happy to explain further, as it relates both to Notability and indices and lists. Working against us would be the policy laid out at WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:NOTDIRECTORY, which is why we have the associated project Wikidata as Timtrent has explained to support the work here and collect the information.

:::::::::One long-winded musing aside, I did do a quick search when I did the move and cleanup of the draft article. I mentioned in the comment, I—to my surprise—{{em|think}} there {{em|may be}} enough sourcing to have an article on the subject, but the controlling policy is WP:NLIST.

:::::::::What you'll need to find to demonstrate notability of stand alone lists is sources (at the expense of repeating Timtrent) that discuss or analyze the work as a whole or group, and preferably separate from the discussion of Woodcock himself. It may benefit you to search according to topic or theme as well, as some minor assistance in search keyword formatting.

:::::::::So to answer your question, is it up to you to defend the raison d'etre of the draft article? No—the policy has already been decided about what other editors feel is appropriate to have on the encyclopedia and what isn't. The argument you rather need to make is that, within those confines, this draft article is appropriate. That is done by finding the sources. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 16:34, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Thank you very much for your extremely detailed response. I have printed it off and when I've sufficiently collected my thoughts, I shall do my best to honour it. As I told Timtrent, I don't reject the possibility that I am wrong. And I don't harbour an ambition to be a trailblazer. Thank you again; I appreciate it. John Desmond (talk) 19:20, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::I have read carefully your reply and hope that this reply will do it justice. The possibility of a submission occurred to me when I first opened the article on Woodcock in the hope of supplementing it with information about his early life in England which is mostly available from 'Letter to the Past', his autobiography, a copy of which I fortunately own. When I opened the article, I was shocked to encounter his extremely large and wide-ranging oeuvre of books, which in my opinion and as I relayed to Timtrent overloads it.

::::::::::I was aware of, and very impressed by Woodcock's travels in Wales (not least in Wales!, my home country), and to Scotland and France. And I am familiar with his literary achievements, starting the magazine Now etc.. However, there isn't a hint in his autobiography that he had a book in him, let alone that he would write so many of them and on so many wide-ranging subjects, for example the histories - and the biographies(!).

::::::::::I don't know if anyone in the outside world has taken notice of this topic, although perhaps someone in Canada has done so, which is a thought. And, in contrast to Stephen King, I doubt that Woodcock's books have sold copies in their milions. Yet I feel that his oeuvre, not confined to his books, is notable, which I could try to justify in an introduction. But, at the same time, I acknowledge that my subjectivity could be an issue. If this is not the case, I should be extremely happy to delete the online access dates to the books that I included in my submission and I am very grateful to you for pointing out their inappropriateness to me. Thank you. John Desmond (talk) 15:58, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::@Bobby Cohn You may not see this ^^^^^ without a ping 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 16:51, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::Thanks! Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 13:50, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

{{outdent|::::::::::::}} @John Desmond so breaking the idea then into multiple problems:

1. Discussing the actual life and events of Woodcock would belong in the biography article at George Woodcock. By all means, if you feel there are things not said in that article, please be bold and add them with referencing! Small changes like that are how we continually improve the project in big ways over time.
2. As it relates to formatting: 've removed the inline external links to archived editions of the books in lieu of an § External links section to the collection of works on the Internet Archive (can be seen with [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:George_Woodcock_bibliography&diff=prev&oldid=1297631304 this edit]). This has the added benefit of allowing for inter-Wiki links (like the King bibliography), as can be seen [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:George_Woodcock_bibliography&diff=prev&oldid=1297631872 here], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:George_Woodcock_bibliography&diff=prev&oldid=1297632080 here], and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:George_Woodcock_bibliography&diff=prev&oldid=1297632207 here].
3. As it relates to writing an article on this list: I've gone ahead and added some content with sources that focus {{em|on Woodcock's work}} to the article, you can inspect them in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:George_Woodcock_bibliography&diff=prev&oldid=1297633937 this change]. I've tried to pull from sources that discuss the effects of or analyze {{em|his work}} separate from Woodcock himself. This is difficult because any source will naturally want to discuss both, so you need to be mindful to only focus on the bibliography itself. One of these sources is a thesis, and there is discussion on whether some topics are primary research or if these count towards notability at all, see WP:THESIS. But nevertheless it is a start and lays the groundwork for how this article {{em|could}} eventually be accepted.

Whichever direction you pursue, I'm glad to see another person become an enthusiastic editor to the project. By all means, please ask if you have any further questions. Thank you for your contributions and happy editing! Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 13:50, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi Tim, just wanted to reach out about the Earl of Errol article that you approved via AfC today {{diff|User talk:Daniel Plumber|prev|1296520735}}

The article appears to have a few BLP issues which I will remove and post on the talk page (ie references Burke's Peerage and Debrett's as sources for the current holder, but it is just a link to the Wikipedia page, there is no way to independently verify this. Another reference went to a classified ad)

I wanted to bring this up to you as you might not be aware, there have been a number of issues around BLPs and sourcing with Baronage of Scotland and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Daniel_Plumber#Conflict_of_Interest_editing contributors to the project]. {{diff|User talk:Daniel Plumber|prev|1250428923}} These issues are ongoing ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Kellycrak88,_again current ANI]) ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1166#h-User:Kellycrak88-20240905094900 previous ANI]) with respect to questions about off-wiki coordination, etc.. {{diff|User talk:Daniel Plumber/sandbox/WikiProject Baronage of Scotland||1241222822}} and User:Daniel_Plumber/sandbox/WikiProject_Baronage_of_Scotland

Nayyn (talk) 18:58, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

:@Nayyn Good point well made. Thank you. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 20:12, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing the draft Wikipedia article on Matthew Lani. I appreciate the time and care you dedicate to upholding Wikipedia’s standards.

I respectfully request that you reconsider the decision to decline the article, as I believe the subject meets Wikipedia’s notability guidelines, particularly for biographies of living persons.

While the article touches on a widely publicised arrest, Matthew Lani is not only known for that incident. His case was covered extensively by national and international media, and it has sparked significant public discourse around digital identity fraud, the role of social media in public health misinformation, and government accountability. The impact of this case has gone beyond headlines—it has set a legal and social precedent in South Africa, particularly in relation to how state departments and regulatory bodies handle professional misrepresentation in the digital age.

Furthermore, the matter is still ongoing, with a civil case currently before the courts. This continued legal relevance, combined with the enduring media coverage and public debate, reflects a level of sustained notability and public interest beyond a one-time event.

Given the scale of online misinformation and the polarised commentary surrounding Matthew Lani, a centralised, neutral, and well-sourced Wikipedia article would serve the public interest by offering clarity and context based on verifiable sources. Ashleyashville (talk) 09:50, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:Draft:Matthew Lani Ashleyashville (talk) 10:27, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:@Ashleyashville Since Wikipedia may only record faithfully what is said in multiple, independent, reliable sources, we cannot allow a sort of 'beacon of truth' as a tool to offset the information. Were we to do so we would become a soapbox. In some ways the draft is a soapbox.

:I suggest you may have written it WP:BACKWARDS, saying what oyu wish to say and then seeking references to fit. What is required is the seeking of references first, and then writing the draft from a storyboard based on what is said on the references. I think you will achieve a better draft that way.

:Immediate resubmission is not prohibited but it biases the next reviewer against the resubmitting editor. That it ought not to is unimportant - reviewers are human beings, and react to actions. You might wish to revert that resubmission to seek to avoid prejudice against the draft. That's your business, not mine 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 10:34, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

::Hi there, thank you for the earlier feedback. I’ve completely revised the draft based on your suggestions:

::• Rewrote the article to follow a neutral tone

::• Removed WP:SOAPBOX elements and avoided WP:BACKWARDS

::• Structured the content around what is covered in reliable, independent sources

::• Added more citations from major national media (News24, TimesLIVE, IOL, Sowetan, etc.)

::• Clarified the notability based on national and international coverage, public debate, and ongoing legal action

::I’d appreciate it if you could take another look when you have time. Thank you again for the guidance it helped a lot. Ashleyashville (talk) 11:35, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:::@Ashleyashville too tired to give any meaningful input today. Sounds like you worked well and hard 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 16:58, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Thank you. I’ll await and hopefully the draft gets approved. I’ll try till I get it right. Thank you again Ashleyashville (talk) 17:25, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::@Ashleyashville Assuming always that he passes WP:BIO you have almost certainly given it a great chance. You might find this essay helpful. It's one of many essays here on article creation 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 17:37, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::Thank you 197.184.89.193 (talk) 18:01, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. I’ll take your advice 197.184.89.193 (talk) 10:35, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

{{anchor|18:29:26, 23 June 2025 review of submission by Apriltools}}

{{Lafc|username=Apriltools|ts=18:29:26, 23 June 2025|declinedtalk=Draft:Yehuda_Duenyas}}

::: Made changes and responded to your concerns, resubmitting.

Apriltools (talk) 18:29, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:@Apriltools Excellent. Thank you. I almost never review a draft twice. Your paid editing declaration on the draft talk page is sufficient as is your user page declaration.

:We have a review drive on until the end of June, so any delay will be minimal, I hope. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 18:45, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello. Many thanks for taking the time to review this league (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MaxPower2017#c-Timtrent-20250624081500-Your_submission_at_Articles_for_creation:_Dorset_&_Wilts_2_Central_(June_24))

I note your comments about "notability" in the sense that it is going to have a widespread audience, but it is notable to the teams involved and their local communities. The challenge I am struggling with is how this league is different from the 105 other community rugby leagues below the level of National 2 (level 4 of the pyramid)? This is the only league in the rugby league pyramid currently without its own page. I have worked tirelessly in the last few weeks to populate the English Rugby Union System page and this remains the only missing piece of the jigsaw. If you are able to show some discretion to allow the pyramid to be complete it would be very much appreciated.

Thank you in advance for your understanding MaxPower2017 (talk) 11:03, 24 June 2025 (UTC)MaxPower201711:03, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:@MaxPower2017 I may, of course, be wrong. However, I am but one editor failing to spot notability of these lower leagues. I am notable to those who love me, but I do not warrant an article. There are other reviewers, and I suggest a request for an opinion at WP:AFCHD might be useful.

:That you have worked tirelessly is not in doubt. Thank you for doing so. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 15:44, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

File:AFC unreviewed draft statistics.svg

Hi! Thanks for participating in the Articles for Creation June Backlog Drive! We've done amazing work so far, dropping the backlog by more than 2000 drafts already. We have around {{Rounddown|{{formatnum:{{PAGESINCATEGORY:Pending AfC submissions}}|R}}|-2}} drafts outstanding, and we need your help to get that down to zero in 5 days. We can do this, but we need all hands on deck to make this happen. A list of the pending drafts can be found at WP:AFCSORT, where you can select submissions in your area of interest. Thank you so much for your work so far, and happy reviewing! – DreamRimmer ■ 01:35, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello! I removed unnecessary links and added links to other articles so that it would not be an orphan. Could you check and, if possible, remove the remark. Thank you for your work!!! Kotikboh (talk) 13:21, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

:@Kotikboh We are self policing. If you have done it then please remove the relevant tag(s) 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 13:54, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you for your work!!! Kotikboh (talk) 14:05, 27 June 2025 (UTC)