User talk:Politicdude

Click here to view my talk page archive.

Feel free to message me if you have any questions.

It is approximately 4:07 AM where this user lives.

Message me!

Hello, Politicdude. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:2026 United States federal budget, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 01:08, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Politicdude. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "2026 United States federal budget".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:29, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

I see that you are in the process of accepting Adam Daniel, and that you tagged the redirect at that title for deletion as G6. That redirect provided navigation by that name to Aminé, and its deletion would have eliminated the ability for users seeking information about the rapper using that name to find the article. In this situation, a hatnote needs to be added to the article that will take the place of the redirect. I have added the redirect for you so as not to slow down the acceptance. Please do not request deletion of redirects that provide navigation to another article without providing some navigation alternative, such as a hatnote. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:38, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Got it, thank you! ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 05:40, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

@Politicdude I've deleted this, you can accept the draft now. Toadspike [Talk] 16:34, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi,

I'm rather concerned that you accepted 2023 Bloomington, Minnesota Municipal Elections in the state that it was in. I've just spent a long while cleaning it up -- the first major issues being that "municipal election(s)" should be in lowercase and it should've read "election" not "elections".

Many references use bare URLs, the sections were an absolute mess and were backwards for some reason, with sub-sections appearing larger than the sections they were intended to be under.

Large swathes of the article, including almost every single endorsement, were unsourced. I removed at least 2 dozen endorsements that had zero citations. All of the wording for ballot questions was unsourced. Almost all candidate names were unsourced.

I don't mean to question your reviewing abilities, but can I ask what motivated you to accept a page that was, undoubtedly, not ready for mainspace? aesurias (talk) 10:06, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi,

Thanks for your help. I accepted this page because it was comprehensive and demonstrated notability through secondary sources and was similar in content and quality to accepted pages like 2025–2026 New Hampshire state legislative special elections and 2022 California State Board of Equalization elections, as well as being the first election to use ranked choice voting. My understanding of WP:Bare URLs is that while they should be cleaned up when possible, this should not be a reason to delete an article or decline an AfC submission; correct me if I'm wrong. I did not notice any issues with subsections, and going back through the old revision the only issue I see was making a single "Results" bigger than it should be. Additionally, I'm pretty certain that 2023 Bloomington, Minnesota municipal elections should be the correct title as the article covers elections to multiple positions, similar to 2025 Quebec municipal elections or 2026 Los Angeles elections. I agree that I should have performed additional diligence on endorsement sourcing, and appreciate this and any additional feedback! ~Politicdude (talk, contribs) 18:20, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

The LA ones are for citywide positions whereas these are individual district by district seats & a mayoral election that, in turn, create a city council. Just 1 election.

I would not say that either of those 2 exemplar pages are remotely similar to the Bloomington one, but the California one is also concerning due to a lack of sources for endorsements.

That being said, you're correct about the sections. I was fixing the 2021 article at the same time (also created by the same user) and that one had at least a dozen incorrect sections, so I had confused them in my mind. aesurias (talk) 21:21, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Hey, do you want to review this article Draft:Agasthya lake? It should be moved to Agastya lake though, it was a typo. As I see that you are a relatively new reviewer, I wanted to give you this opportunity! Earth605^talk 15:08, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

@Politicdude: Hi, wondering if you'd have time to look at Draft:FBI Section 702 query violations and offer feedback. It's been declined three times, with reviewers consistently flagging primary source reliance/OR concerns. I've since added significantly more secondary sourcing (Reuters, WaPo, NBC, CBS, The Hill, Roll Call, Lawfare) and trimmed some of the granular detail from court documents and IG reports.

It's been a bit frustrating as it's a notable subject that should have an article and I have been doing a lot of work on it to try and get it over the top. Still not sure if I've addressed the "reads like an undergrad research paper" critique adequately. Would appreciate a second set of eyes, especially on whether the FBI reforms section is still too detailed. No pressure if you're busy. Bladerunner24 (talk) 18:17, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Hey, yesterday you reviewed a draft of an article I submited (Draft:Manos), and you declined it because it relies exclusively on primary sources and that it needs additional coverage in sources which are independent of the subject. The thing is I cant find much of them. The person I made the article about is a YouTuber in Greece, and there aren't much independent sources that talk about him, especially for some information I have included in the article. Instead, almost everything I included there is said and confirmed in the same videos he published, and these aren't stuff that he can just exaggerate himself or lie about. It's just some of his own interests, personal opinions, or release dates of said videos.

I have found a few articles that confirm some information I have included, a few news articles and one interview in a site, but I dont know if they count.

It would be cool if you helped me on how to edit it so it can be approved and tell me what I could change. Thanks a lot and hope you got time to help me! Zisimox32 (talk) 22:32, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello! The main problem with using YouTube links is not that they are unreliable (more here on when YouTube is reliable on Wikipedia) but that they don't establish that Manos is notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article in the first place. We can't make a Wikipedia article for everyone, so Wikipedia has guidelines for who is notable enough. In general, subjects have to meet the general notability guideline:

A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

Anyone can create a YouTube channel, so having one is not an indication of notability. However, if a third party, such as a news site, writes substantially about Manos, then this indicates that he is somewhat well known and therefore worthy of a Wikipedia article. In addition, topics can also qualify as notable based on subject-specific guidelines. YouTubers fall under the category of entertainers, and the guideline states that a person may be considered notable if:

The person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, notable television shows, stage performances, or other notable productions; or

The person has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.

Reading your article, there was no clear indication that either of these criteria were met. In past discussions, Wikipedians as a community have agreed in the past that a high subscriber count does not on its own demonstrate notability, and many articles about YouTubers have been nominated for deletion (See more here).

A secondary concern with using only primary sources is Wikipedia's policy against original research. Wikipedia is not a place for publishing individual editor's interpretations of information, but for cataloging information in published sources. While primary sources can be used on Wikipedia, they can only be used to state a fact, such as the contents of a video or the date it was published. Most of your article followed this, but a couple sections didn't:

His attitude against Manos was most of the time rude and satirical, something which made those videos hilairious

This is your own interpretation of the video, which is not verifiable, and also does not keep a neutral point of view. If you find an article on the internet which calls his video hillarious, this would be appropriate to include. One problem with writing an article containing solely primary sources is that you may be forced to make conclusions not specifically stated in the sources in order for the article to be readable.

Adding secondary sources and articles is helpful, but its unlikely your article will make it through AfC in its current state. I would recommend rewriting the article using only secondary sources, and then if there is additional information that you need to verify using primary sources, going back and adding that in. If you aren't able to do that, he probably doesn't qualify for a Wikipedia article. You could also look to improve his pages on sites such as Wikitubia, which have less strict rules. Either way, good luck and happy editing! ~Politicdude (talk, contribs) 23:43, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for replying! Yeah I see why in this context using YouTube links isn't enough, and also you're right ,in some parts I just shared my own opinion without providing evidence for it to be verifiable, which doesnt keep a neutral point of view. Also yeah I will consider editing his page on Wikitubia

just another question, can you explain to me what are secondary sources exactly? Thanks Zisimox32 (talk) 00:05, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

see here ~Politicdude (talk, contribs) 00:07, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

ok thanks Zisimox32 (talk) 17:31, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

I see that you are the second person to join the December 2025 AfC backlog drive after me. Why did you join the drive so late, and did waiting until near the end of the month have any effect on your reviews? GTrang (talk) 00:03, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm relatively new to AfC and didn't see that it existed until the end of the month, but I joined because I wanted to help and figured that it might be cool to get some numbers on it. I continued reviewing as normal; not sure if it counts reviews I made before joining. I just enjoy stats about myself and editing, not much else to it lol ~Politicdude (talk, contribs) 00:07, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes#Requirements to accept an edit, when to accept an edit
  

HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:12, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, Politicdude. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:2025 California Proposition 50, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 22:07, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello Politicdude, thank you for reviewing my AfC submission for the page ProcurePro.

I've added 3 new sources from The University of Queensland, The Sydney Morning Herald, and another business news site, Smart Company. The coverage is largely concerned with the capital raised by the company and construction industry impact.

Which of the original sources did you think were potentially unsuitable? I will look at replacing/removing them.

Hope you're having a good morning! BR Billy PPBilly (talk) 18:40, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello Politicdude

Hope you're well. After adding more reputable sources as above, and removed the most suspect looking one - I went ahead and resubmitted if you'd like to take a look.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:ProcurePro

BR,

Billy PPBilly (talk) 12:11, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, Politicdude. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "California High School Democrats".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:02, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, Politicdude. This message concerns the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "2025 California Proposition 50".

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) 20:26, 17 February 2026 (UTC)