User talk:CopyleftEverything

Hi @CopyleftEverything,

I've been working on a Wiki for Dr. Vasile Stanescu ^[1]. I've reviewed the changes recommended on June 18th and made appropriate changes. I removed the repeated references to the curriculum vitae and the university website and replaced them with independent, reliable sources that provide more in-depth coverage. For example, articles from Current Affairs, Vox, PETA, The Gaurdian and The New York Times reporting on Dr. Stanescu’s research. Non-independent sources, including institutional profiles and affiliated pages, are used only for routine biographical details. Let me know if more needs to be done, thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MU2026 (talk • contribs) 15:20, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

• Kwessel1 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Alexia Leclercq (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi! I think you helped review my article on climate activist Alexia Leclercq. I believe that I made all necessary changes based on your feedback by removing the one link to her personal website and adding more articles from Forbes, The Guardian, Washington Post, etc. Please let me know if I need to make additional edits or changes. Thank you very much for your help!

Thanks, Kirsten W

Kwessel1 (talk) 13:19, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi: I have added a new review. CopyleftEverything (talk) 14:20, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

About this aticle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Kairos_Futura am currently making corrections you mentioned and i neede help determining how independent and reliable the references are? I checked them and I feel like theyre okay, what do you think? Pippiberyl (talk) 09:27, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi: Your submission was decline for clear LLM patterns. CopyleftEverything (talk) 14:10, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello, SocDoneLeft. This message concerns the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "List of political assassination attempts in the United States".

Drafts that go unedited for six months are eligible for deletion, in accordance with our draftspace 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, simply edit 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 can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the draft so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! DreamRimmer bot II (talk) 01:26, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Socialist Workers Party (United States), may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A dates error. References show this error when one of the date-containing parameters is incorrectly formatted. Please edit the article to correct the date and ensure it is formatted to follow the Wikipedia Manual of Style's guidance on dates. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 01:39, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Hey, I have been topic banned on the Communist Party USA. Am I able to talk with you about my topic ban here? CuckooCorey (talk) 17:59, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

You cannot. You should go through the AE process. I do think the logic of "consensus" on something that doesn't have consensus is silly. CopyleftEverything (talk) 14:07, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

This probably isn't the most appropriate place to ask, but this is the only place I know where you are still active. I was somewhat of a fan so it was a little sad to see you disappear. ~2026-33687-33 (talk) 22:14, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

You have recently made edits related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. This is a standard message to inform you that post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:34, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

You said that I need more sources, could you help tell me what kinds I should add? RLCplacidlakeview (talk) 14:08, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi @RLCplacidlakeview: You want to find significant coverage in a reliable, secondary source. See WP:SIGCOV, WP:RS, WP:SECONDARY. All of your sources are primary (from the school system) or not substantial (US News ratings). Thanks! :) CopyleftEverything (talk) 14:18, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

FYI @CopyleftEverything I had the draft author come into the IRC help channel asking about this draft. I think you should have declined as non-notable, as the references show zero evidence of notability. Declining for NPOV just confused them. qcne (talk) 10:33, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

You are correct, that would've been a better overall fit. The article is short, but I did not like "develops ... landscape transformation, and human capital management (HCM) solutions" (WP:SOLUTIONS). CopyleftEverything (talk) 12:31, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Agreed on that point :) qcne (talk) 12:32, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi @CopyleftEverything,

This article about Christa Brown was completely re-written by me, a human, and I also tried to not over attribute, and said so quite specifically in the comment or talk area for what was changed about the draft: Draft:Christa Brown. While I originally had help with an LLM, I totally re-wrote it. Very little of that original article is intact, and it's a pretty straightforward article. I'm confused and could use more specific examples. I realize you're probably a volunteer or have a lot of things to review, and appreciate any help. - David

Davidrmorris65 (talk) 13:45, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Davidrmorris65: I apologize if I misread your contributions as LLM output. This sentence in particular raised my hackles: "Additional reporting by national outlets, including the New York Times,[6] feature articles on Brown in Vice,[7] Ms. Magazine,[8] and again in the Houston Chronicle,[9] as well as a timeline of the SBC abuse crisis by Religion News Service[10] has identified Brown as a survivor advocate whose public testimony contributed to scrutiny of the SBC." LLMs love to say "X has been reported on by Y" rather than describing the substance of the reporting. The next sentence, from RNS, is much better (though the quote might be too long), because it says why she deserved so much reporting. In general: Report what the sources say, not that the source said it. CopyleftEverything (talk) 13:54, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the feedback! My intent in mentioning all those sources was to establish the validity and worthiness of her story in an environment or against critics that are dismissive about clergy sex abuse. The articles are are simply reporting on how she was the most prominent critic of the Southern Baptist Convention's inaction and lack of accountability--though some of those articles are solely about her. Such as Vice. I will see about offering what unique detail there is from each article and perhaps delete one or two. The Houston Chronicle only said so much about her, for example, but it was a newsmaking or landmark story and seemed something worth including. Will try again. Thanks again. -David Davidrmorris65 (talk) 14:07, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

No need to delete any source! If multiple sources support the same claim, they can all be cited together. :) CopyleftEverything (talk) 14:37, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

No. There is no that article on the Russian Wikipedia. PeacockSociety (talk) 05:19, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! Wanted to know if we needed to give attribution for a translation. CopyleftEverything (talk) 05:24, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello @CopyleftEverything I am writing about a submitted draft of mine about the Battle of Nahavand (1730). You have informed me that I am able to resubmit the article as it fits WP:Notability, I have left the note in the talk page that I would make changes for the draft to better fit WP:Notability. I have made the necessary changes and have resubmitted, I am requesting you to review it when you are available. Appreciate it! Shahanshah Kiryu (talk) 18:07, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

@Shahanshah Kiryu: Replied! CopyleftEverything (talk) 01:52, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello @CopyleftEverything! Both requested changes have been added. Shahanshah Kiryu (talk) 13:07, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

@CopyleftEverything for your information, the Category section for the Draft:Battle of Nahavand (1730)has been disabled per WP:DRAFTNOCAT/WP:USERNOCAT Shahanshah Kiryu (talk) 20:14, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Michael Signorelli, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Signorelli until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the input! Yes, the original abandoned article seemed very biased and advocating. I tried to tone it down a lot....but I guess I have more to do. I am new at this, and was trying to find a balance between demonstrating that Gilding is notable enough in his advocacy and his case, so that he warrants a wiki page, and not overly advocating. I guess I failed...doh! Back to the drawing board! Thank you so much for your insights though; I'm learning! - Nikki :-) ~2026-34066-75 (talk) 01:45, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi Nikki / @~2026-34066-75: The article is much better than before, thank you for your edits! For an example of the problem: Statements like this are IMO not acceptable in WP:WIKIVOICE: "They pointed out that since Stafford's original confession, each subsequent statement changed to make him look more innocent and Gilding more guilty". It's fine to say that the laywers made this argument -- but Wikipedia cannot say it, only that the lawyers argued it, unless it's so incontrovertible that secondary sources all agree. Happy editing and welcome to Wikipedia! :) CopyleftEverything (talk) 01:51, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! I'm on it! I gotta say...it's amazing how much actually goes into a wiki page...all these years I've been reading wiki, and never realized all the machinery moving in the background. You guys are awesome! ~2026-34066-75 (talk) 01:56, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Phew! I think I covered everything you mentioned... I completely agree with your point about the facts speaking for themselves. I've scrubbed the puffery, removed the overattribution from the lead, and ensured the arguments regarding Stafford's testimony are strictly attributed to the defense attorneys rather than stated in WikiVoice. Makin' progress! When you get a few minutes, see what you think. And thanks again for your time ;-D ~2026-34066-75 (talk) 02:29, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Commented, cut, and added some source needed tags! CopyleftEverything (talk) 05:01, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Alrighty then! I think, hope, I covered everything you mentioned. Thank you so much for helping with the editing...you saved me hours! I couldn't pin down a particular town or college, so i quoted the exact sentence; I hope that works. And I'm pretty sure I got everything else you marked off; but any chance you can go take a peek at it before I re-submit it? Thank you again, you're awesome! - Nikki :-))) ~2026-34066-75 (talk) 00:45, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

I re-submitted it, if you wanna give me your opinion on how it came out...Thanks! ~2026-34066-75 (talk) 17:00, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi, i just updated the draft. Thanks for your input. I included that Ahmed is a recipient of an official federal grant from Australian Government's Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade for his international work. I also added multiple reputable sources (Gulf News, The National newspaper, and Arab News) which are all major, mainstream articles. Ahmed is also previously been recognised on wikipedia in "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papercutting" as a notable papercut artist. Surely, this satisfies the requirements for WP:ANYBIO, WP:SIGCOV and WP:CREATIVE. Apologies in advance if i made a mistake, as I'm only starting out. Would appreciate any advice! ~2026-34143-84 (talk) 05:49, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your draft! Your edit makes it stronger. I've replied. :) CopyleftEverything (talk) 15:54, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi, thank you so much! I just added a MOS:SEEALSO and categories section, but wasn't sure if I did it completely right. Would love it if you could check now that its been updated :) Really appreciate the work you're doing here!! ~2026-34143-84 (talk) 03:53, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Reviewed! CopyleftEverything (talk) 06:51, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello there!

I noticed you took the time to edit and review my draft, thank you!

There is a small problem, there is no websites that are strictly about her. Most of what we do know comes from primary records but I can't use them.

All the books and websites about her either end up being not accurate or focus on when she maried snd then go into her husband's life, neglecting her. Is there a way I can solve this problem or any alternatives?

From, Lily Weed Lily Weed (talk) 09:43, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

It's fine to use primary sources for uncontroversial claims, but secondary should be used wherever possible. So long as she has WP:SIGCOV in reliable secondary sources, such as Stocking 1897 and Dayton 1995, the article can be published IMO. Thanks for your edits! :) CopyleftEverything (talk) 15:50, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your comment on Draft:Upzoning in Auckland. I think I've addressed all feedback if you are interested to re-review. Sydney-2k (talk) 08:17, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Replied! CopyleftEverything (talk) 08:26, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Good day,

The draft has been resubmitted with a formal, impersonal, and dispassionate way required based on your explanation. Hope to hear a response from you soon. Thank You. Taufiq91 (talk) 08:58, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. I see other reviewers have highlighted other issues, please resolve those. CopyleftEverything (talk) 16:47, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

All of them resolved. Thanks. Taufiq91 (talk) 09:10, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Hia @CopyleftEverything. Had the draft author come into the IRC. FYI, the See Also section and Categories aren't mandatory on drafts - as a reviewer it's generally you're responsibility to add Categories when Accepting. qcne (talk) 10:19, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Qcne: Thanks for the alert! :) I agree, categories and see also aren't mandatory. (I often add categories when accepting!) I find them very helpful as a reader & as a reviewer: The authors often know better than I which existing articles are related, and those provide comparisons on typical sources, categories, wikiprojects, etc. If you advise against, I'll stop suggesting they be added. CopyleftEverything (talk) 16:20, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

Per WP:CATDRAFT, categories do not belong on drafts. Please do not advise draft authors to add categories. Not quite sure how See Alsos help either, not every article needs one. - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 10:22, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Rich Smith: I agree, drafts should not have categories. May I direct drafters to WP:CATDRAFT to add colon-separated or {{draft categories}} enabled categories? CopyleftEverything (talk) 16:04, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Sure, why not - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 16:59, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your recent edits to Clover Hogan when you modified the page, you introduced unknown parameters. Just because you specify |some_param=some_variable does not always mean that variable will display. The |some_param= must be defined in the template. You can look at the documentation for the template you are using but it is also helpful to use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made and ensure that the values you have added are displaying correctly. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the page will look like without actually saving it. It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. Note I have likely fixed the error by now so check the history of the page to see how it was fixed. If you have any questions, contact the help desk for assistance. Thank you. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 23:34, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the broken parameters from the AFC draft! CopyleftEverything (talk) 23:36, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for reviewing my draft submission. Are you able to provide a ballpark number of notable secondary sources? I believed I had 3 secondary sources, and 2 primary (1 being an interview). Am I correct, and what should I look to increase this too? If I cannot find much more does that mean it will never be accepted? For the moment, I believe I have found one more notable secondary article I could add. What if an article is published in a different location, but speaks of a similar subject to one already mentioned, can I cite it also?

Thanks for your help! Saffronesther (talk) 08:06, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi: The number of secondary sources does not matter. The number of secondary sources with significant coverage matters: At least two are needed. See WP:GOLDENRULE. :) CopyleftEverything (talk) 18:39, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Hey! I have added another significant coverage source (citation 6). as well as a couple others which could be considered of significant coverage. To my understanding there should be at least. secondary sources with significant coverage about ICO. Please let me know what you think when you are available! Thanks so much :) Saffronesther (talk) 10:05, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

I wish to put into the article language that will communicate to the reader that the candidate goes significantly further than basically anyone else in the Democratic party and will associate herself with those who glorify the murder of Israeli civilians. Will you allow me to do so.

It appears that you are someone who works to promote socialism and communism through your editing of wikipedia. Please allow me to do something that will inform readers and does not simply promote a viewpoint that you approve of. Parrot in search of knowledge (talk) 21:25, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

I switched to City & State NY, a bit more reliable source. You are always free to edit the page. :) CopyleftEverything (talk) 21:39, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

You also made it seem like the Oct.7 rally is something only seen as antisemitic by "Zionists" Parrot in search of knowledge (talk) 21:47, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

You again made it appear as if that Oct. 8 rally was not antisemitic I have corrected the record with evidence Parrot in search of knowledge (talk) 23:22, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Please use the article's talk page. :) CopyleftEverything (talk) 00:03, 24 June 2026 (UTC)