User talk:HolyEgg

Hello, HolyEgg, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Below are some pages you might find helpful. For a user-friendly interactive help forum, see the Wikipedia Teahouse.

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Simplified Manual of Style
• Your first article
• Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
• Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox
• and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! tony 03:29, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Arceuthobium laricis, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as B-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a fantastic rating for a new article, and places it among the top 4% of accepted submissions — major kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You may also consider nominating a fact from the article within the next 7 days to appear on the Main Page's "Did you know" section.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 17:23, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

@Tarlby thanks for the review + assessment! I attempted to move the article from my sandbox to mainspace myself but accidentally ended up submitting to AfC. Hopefully the next time I try using the sandbox, things go more smoothly :)HolyEgg (talk) 18:43, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

On 18 November 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Arceuthobium laricis, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the larch dwarf mistletoe spreads through forests by ejecting its seeds explosively at a speed of almost 100 km/h? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Arceuthobium laricis. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Arceuthobium laricis), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to nominate it.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Hurricane Wind and Fire was:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

• in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
• reliable
• secondary
• independent of the subject
  

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

One of the three sources is written by the author of the draft who has a COI, and the general notability guideline requires at least three independent, reliable sources.

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 resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Narcissus ×briffae 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 and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

🌀Hurricane Wind and Fire (talk) (contribs)🔥 03:45, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

@Hurricane Wind and Fire Thanks for taking a look at the submission! I would like some advice on how to proceed because I am a little bit surprised by the feedback.

1. I do not have a COI and have also edited the page significantly. If you look at the edit history, I expanded the prose and added more details about the plant from Misfud's paper. I don't know the norms around COI here, but in this case the article does not aggrandize Misfud (I know that this is not a criterion for COI, but it is relevant IMO), and the Misfud paper is the only scientific publication that discusses the taxon.
2. My understanding of Wikipedia:SPECIES is that any plant species recognized by Plants of the World Online is presumed notable. If there are not three independent, reliable sources supporting the existence of this (very recently discovered) naturally-occurring hybrid species, isn't it nonetheless notable under these guidelines? The taxon is already mentioned with a redlink on the List of Narcissus species page, FWIW.

Can you recommend a path forward that helps this taxon have an article on Wikipedia? It's not clear to me what edits could be made at this point to address the AfC comments. I don't think it should be excluded simply because it's newly-discovered, and because the only botanist to have written about it happened to be the first contributor to the draft.

HolyEgg (talk) 16:38, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I saw a COI comment at the top of page. I apologize if I confused it with another draft, I was pretty tired at the time :P. Yes, I now see the draft is notable. You can move the draft to the article space. Thank you for letting me know, this is a mistake on my end. Tell me if you want help moving the draft. Again, thank you. 🌀Hurricane Wind and Fire (talk) (contribs)🔥 23:46, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate the reply! I just moved the article to mainspace; let me know if I did some part of the move incorrectly. HolyEgg (talk) 00:35, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

You moved it correctly, and I now know the issue; it is because the first submitter was Misfud who had a COI and I assumed they had submitted the draft again.

I rated the article Start-class; it is well-written, but on the short side. If you would like to improve the classification, you can look at the content assessment scale to see how you can improve the article. Nice job on the article! 🌀Hurricane Wind and Fire (talk) (contribs)🔥 00:59, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, HolyEgg! 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 the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! 🌀Hurricane Wind and Fire (talk) (contribs)🔥 03:45, 24 November 2025 (UTC)