User talk:Revolving Doormat

A belated welcome!

The welcome may be belated, but the cookies are still warm!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Revolving Doormat! I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

• Introductory tutorial
• Your first article
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• Five pillars of Wikipedia
• Article development
• Help desk

If you have questions, ; a volunteer will visit you here shortly!

Need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! Kj cheetham (talk) 10:54, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Abigail Polin moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Abigail Polin. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability and it is way too soon. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit the draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:37, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

I am moving it back to mainspace. Please see Talk:Abigail Polin for justification. Revolving Doormat (talk) 23:19, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Abigail Polin has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Abigail Polin. Thanks! Ldm1954 (talk) 19:39, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Nomination of Abigail Polin for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Abigail Polin is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abigail Polin 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.

Ldm1954 (talk) 23:36, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Women in Red

Hi there, Revolving Doormat, and welcome to Women in Red. I see you have already been writing women's biographies and hope there will be many more. In this connection, you might find it useful to look through the tips in our Ten Simple Rules. Please let me know if you run into any difficulties or need assistance. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 15:27, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Brian Alters, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sir William Dawson. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 07:58, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Women in Red - December 2025

Women in Red | November 2025, Vol 11, Issue 12, Nos. 326, 327, 355, 356, 357 Recognized as the most active topic-based WikiProject by human changes. Online events: New: Alphabet run X, Y, Z | Food and drink | Women who died in 2025 Continuing, year-long initiatives: #1day1woman | Music Announcements: Global Translat-a-thon 2025 06 December 2025 Tip of the Month: Lists of deaths by year is a good resource for the December / January meet-up Women who died in 2025 Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help wanted! Want to apply your skills or learn new ones? Help us plan monthly events, design event logos, come up with a tip-of-the-month, and/or provide any general ideas on developing the project. Follow us on social media: Instagram | Pinterest

--Rosiestep (talk) 22:19, 28 November 2025 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Disambiguation link notification for December 4

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited David Yevick, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Queen’s University.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:57, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Why was Scientific American 30 under 30 removed?

OK, let's play nice... I will make suggestions...

UPDATE: Suggested edit: From the videos online she clearly solo-ed and was NOT with a flight instructor, no doubt a flight instructor signed her off. Why remove or maybe someone did before, she flew FAA1 at age 12 with the FAA administrator in the back seat: the link was dead but I found it on the way back machine: https://web.archive.org/web/20231006093640/http://www.tc.faa.gov/oshkosh/2005/Sabrina_album/Sabrina/index.html

So too, why delete the job offer from Jeff Bezos, it is signed and the Steve Job's Foundation's Ozy claim they talked to Bezos and he re-affirmed the job offer, again the link was dead, but I found it on the wayback machine: https://web.archive.org/web/20220817041346/https://www.ozy.com/rising-stars/this-millennial-might-be-the-new-einstein/65094/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Relativity77 (talk • contribs) 21:19, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

UPDATE 2: You should be able to find it on WHOIS, but as to notability issue, Dianna Cowern was not the first physics girl, she was physics woman online and on youtube for years before her team changed to physicsgirl.org and PhysicsGirl on YouTube. The change occurred, according the wayback machine around the time the first Forbes 30 under 30. Look at the history of the clicks on the Sabrina Gonzalez Pasterski wikipedia page you deleted, it was around that peak that Dianna's team switched to Physics Girl from Physics Woman. (As you can tell, we have been fans for a while, ever since the FAA1 flight at Oshkosh, it is the highest honor a pilot can be awarded, maybe include that under honors as well when you have the time.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Relativity77 (talk • contribs) 21:29, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/lindau-sabrina-pasterski/

(this is so much more important in science that forbes)

How was an $8,000,000 award as deputy director of the Simons Foundation Collaboration on Celestial Holography removed from awards?

Please consider putting this back in, you will not only impact funding for her but you could hurt Terence Tao as well:

Sabrina Gonzalez Pasterski (born June 3, 1993) is an American theoretical physicist from Chicago who studies high energy physics. She describes herself as "a proud first-generation Cuban-American and Chicago Public Schools alumna". Relativity77 (talk) 21:10, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Please see WP:LEAD, MOS:ETHNICITY, and WP:Notability. The Scientific American reference is cited in the article. The article being written itself is not notable. Forbes 30 under 30 is itself a notable list. Revolving Doormat (talk) 21:21, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Understood, now there are about 4000 30 under 30s over the years in all categories, but there are only 60 "Forbes 30 under 30 All Stars", have you included that? Maybe point that out--the names are really well known, including Bieber, Swift and others... Relativity77 (talk) 21:32, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

The Forbes recognition in both categories is included in the list of honors and awards. The celebrities you are pointing out have nothing to do with the Pasterski and should not be in the article about her. Please see WP:OR. Revolving Doormat (talk) 21:39, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Why the elimination of the citation to the May 2028 gravitational lensing event? According a Harvard article no longer online, the Einstein comparison was because Einstein had to wait 14 years from 1905 to 1919 for a perfect alignment of the planets, and in 2014, it was known that the first and only perfect alignment in anyone's lifetime of two stars to prove or disprove the Harvard spin memory effect theory would be in early May of 2028, 14 years later. Relativity77 (talk) 21:46, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Please read the material I have pointed you to already. Revolving Doormat (talk) 21:56, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

The notability attack by your friend might look real foolish in 30 months time if all goes as Harvard hopes...

I noticed a couple people are changing your edits, as far as I know, they are NOT Harvard people. Just sayin... Relativity77 (talk) 22:03, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

No one is attacking the subject of the article. And it is normal for others to make edits. I'm relatively new to editing on Wikipedia, so sometimes what I recognize as conventions even from reading essays and policies aren't really what is done in practice. Revolving Doormat (talk) 22:08, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

'm relatively new to editing on Wikipedia,

no kidding, you have no idea of your impact

that was meant in a respectful way, but it is hard to find other words Relativity77 (talk) 22:15, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

See what I mean, you think the airplane is important, and others cut it out, that has happened to editors like you in the past a dozen times... I am going to put the first few months back in, see if they change it or like it, OK? Nothing against you... Relativity77 (talk) 22:06, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Relativity77, if you cannot communicate respectfully with other editors, you are going to end up blocked. I don't know what this "your friend" is supposed to mean, but it's not collegial. Same with "editors like you". Drmies (talk) 22:07, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

we just assumed you complained about us to him (LDM1954)and you two ganged up... no insult intended, now you have opened a can of worms that we have no control over Relativity77 (talk) 22:13, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

done as to the most important discovery (May 2028) in history (aka finding wells of dark energy via the spin memory effect)

please, would you consider adding this: (google and AI have already picked up your wording and that will bring a lot a grief)

Sabrina Gonzalez Pasterski (born June 3, 1993) is an American theoretical physicist from Chicago who studies high energy physics. She describes herself as "a proud first-generation Cuban-American and Chicago Public Schools alumna". Relativity77 (talk) 22:11, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

As I said, you need to please read WP:Lead, WP:First sentence, and MOS:Ethnicity. I will not be making these changes. Nor is she notable for being from Chicago or where she attended primary and secondary school. Revolving Doormat (talk) 22:17, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

References

Quick 2nd opinion please

@Revolving Doormat, I would appreciate a quick second opinion on Draft:K. Sujata. I intend to ask for reviews at WP:Women in Red both because I have never written or edited articles on social activists, plus the rather obvious COI. Feel free to edit or tag. Ldm1954 (talk) 16:30, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Added a few cn tags and made an adjustment. The lead shouldn't need any citations, it should just summarize the key points in the rest of the bio per WP:LEAD. Style-wise, I think you could reduce the number of headings, particularly where only 1-2 sentences follow. Revolving Doormat (talk) 19:05, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks.

I reinstated the burned-alive issue as she is mentioned in the Harvard report, and also added a Chicago Tribune page. I am doing this very carefully as that incident had many consequences, NPOV.

N.B., I will add back the AfC stuff, that cane from the wizard. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:30, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Sorry about that, one of my cn tags went astray and must have eaten it. Revolving Doormat (talk) 19:34, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

🥸 Ldm1954 (talk) 19:55, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 14

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Eric Gilbertson (climber), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Army Corps of Engineers.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:56, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Sources being listed as unreliable without consensus

I'm baffled by this revert[1] I hope you agree that sources shouldn't be listed as unreliable if the one discussion about them found the opposite, but that's exactly the case here—search the RSN archives to see it has never been discussed before this week. (t · c) buIdhe 16:34, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

It's quite simple. It was listed there as an unreliable source, which was then used in an active AfD as consensus that the source is unreliable. You claim consensus either never existed, or has changed in another discussion, and revert. I challenge that change and ask you to demonstrate the consensus exists, or to build consensus, before making the change because that is what we are supposed to do. There is no emergency in which ExplorersWeb must be deemed reliable immediately.

It was added to that page for a reason, so consensus existed at some point that it wasn't a reliable source. If it was deemed reliable at RSN, then put it on the talk page. I'm happy to participate in the conversation and share my perspective as to why, at least as of now, it is reliable. I am not willing to subvert the process altogether, though. Especially when there is currently an issue in AfD surrounding the source. Revolving Doormat (talk) 16:42, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

By default a source is neither reliable or unreliable. We cannot know that it was added for a good reason, since it could be one editor's uninformed opinion. There is no evidence that there was ever a consensus that it was unreliable, so I'm asking you to self-revert; your revert misleads readers by implying the existence of such consensus. You are also misguided to assume that BRD is part of a "process" that must be followed; it is actually an essay. (t · c) buIdhe 17:07, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm also confused why you think I didn't provide evidence? I have told you multiple times to check the RSN discussion where multiple editors opined that it is probably reliable. (t · c) buIdhe 17:08, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

You told me to search the archives for an RSN discussion. That isn't providing evidence. That is asking me to go find it. Revolving Doormat (talk) 17:11, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

I'd call the matter of source reliability an enforced BRD situation. I am not self-reverting. I am asking you to produce the RSN that states that there is a different consensus. The evidence that there was consensus is that it is on the Wikiproject's list of unreliable sources due to a lack of editorial oversight. I have been spending quite a lot of time trying to locate their editorial process and not finding it, so that RSN you mentioned would be very useful. Revolving Doormat (talk) 17:15, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Pasterski–Strominger–Zhiboedov triangle

Hello Revolving Doormat. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Pasterski–Strominger–Zhiboedov triangle, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: This was just redirected as the result of an AfD. If you disagree with the outcome of the AFD, speedy is not the answer. Thank you. asilvering (talk) 19:15, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

I was just following the process listed in WP:RFD under deletion reason 4. Thanks for letting me know that is incorrect. Revolving Doormat (talk) 19:28, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

The process listed in RFD is correct. But you can't overrule the outcome of an AFD like that. (Also, as an fyi, WP:A7 can't apply to redirects - only articles.) -- asilvering (talk) 20:05, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Got, thank you! Revolving Doormat (talk) 20:11, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for this comment and the link to the discussion about citation volume. I was curious about that in an AfC draft I was reviewing and your note gave me a starting place. Star Mississippi 19:20, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

You're welcome! I'm glad I found it, too! I was also wondering where the figure came from other than the fact that we kind of view that as a threshold in the field for something that has been impactful. Revolving Doormat (talk) 20:13, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Further Gilbertson side convo

I figured it would be more appropriate to bring side convo here instead of on the article talk space. Yes, there seems to be a lot of anxiety and paranoia about COI and other issues related to Gilbertson. I engage in this when I see fit but in general I'm not keen on every person being labeled as COI when other arguments aren't being brought up.

I agree that it's pretty natural that his media attention is leading to headaches throughout Wikipedia as well-meaning people try to put his findings into places where it remains undue. I have even expressed this in other discussions (can't remember where off the top of my head, maybe Talk:Mount Rainier). In general I think your observations as a newcomer are accurate and I think a lot of these discussions have devolved into unnecessary side commentary.

Keep up the good work. My unsolicitied advice based on what I've seen lately is don't be afraid to disengage in discussions when they've gone beyond the intended topic. You make good arguments that will stand on their own when they are read by others. I'm sure you've seen that discussions aren't a vote (see: WP:NOTDEMOCRACY) and participants don't need to convince absolutely everyone to be on their side. DJ Cane _(he/him) (Talk) 22:10, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the unsolicited advice (it's always welcome) and the comments. I have seen that some discussions change the weights of various arguments (and votes, for that matter), but hadn't yet seen this. Thank you for the link. This will help my mental health, surely. Revolving Doormat (talk) 22:20, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Edit wars

Stop edit warring if you have concerns take them to the talk page per Wikipedia:NEGOTIATE. Docmoates (talk) 22:33, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Reverting your reversions is not a WP:EDITWAR. I gave rationale about the policies implicated in your edits and per WP:BRD, you should open a discussion to build a consensus for their inclusion. Strongsville City School District is not a WP:KITCHENSINK for every single mention of any school within the district simply because they have given a statement about some incident at the school. Strongsville High School exists, and is the proper place to put content about that high school. Revolving Doormat (talk) 22:41, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Also I meant to link WP:CRIME in the edit summary, and WP:NCRIME is also relevant. Revolving Doormat (talk) 23:51, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Edit war checker disagrees with you 'Edit war checker Approximately 4 reversions by 2 users in the last 24 hours." Docmoates (talk) 01:19, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Also -- I am going to ask you once to please not engage in WP:Harass#Hounding. Reverting my edits across pages, Afd's, nominating my redirects, etc has turned into harassment. It needs to stop. Docmoates (talk) 01:21, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

I don't know what to tell you. I reverted your changes because they don't belong there and policy backs that up. The WP:ONUS is on you to argue why it belongs there.

Second, you need to WP:AGF. I am not the first editor you have cast WP:ASPERSIONS at. I am not WP:HOUNDING you. I was clearly doing a WP:CLEANUP at Strongsville City School District after I voted WP:SNOW keep on your AfD of the article. I did not revert all of your additions, I kept two of them and made them more WP:ENCYCLOPEDIC and added better sources to support them. The removals I gave you the rationale and relevant policies for. You linked me the redirect you made in Special:Diff/1328601839. I have recently read these policies due to a different redirect issue so I am familiar with the policies around cross-wiki space redirects. You can participate in the RfD and read the relevant policies there, or at the redirect.

I ask you to please stop accusing me (and other editors) of things we are not doing. Revolving Doormat (talk) 01:32, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

WP:AGF does not apply when you are acting in bad faith. You redirect request is irrelevant as I have moved it to Wikipedia space (so your entire argument is void) but you should read the policies you cite. If you had, you would have seen what I did is very common; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere?target=Template%3AR+to+user+namespace&namespace=4&hidelinks=1&limit=1500. You also seem to be citing a lot of essays that are not policy. Docmoates (talk) 01:39, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

I am going to ask that you willingly comply with WP:IBAN which states "Users can generally request that another user not contact them, and if the circumstances are reasonable and typical, then the users should cease contact with each other." This includes:

For example, if Bar is banned from interacting with Foo, Bar would not be allowed to:

• edit Foo's user and talk pages;
• reply to Foo in discussions;
• mention @Foo by linking to their user page;
• make reference to or comment on Foo anywhere on Wikipedia, directly or indirectly;
• undo Foo's edits to any page, whether by use of the revert function or by other means;
• Send thanks for an edit or action Foo made.

I will not be interacting with you further. Should you choose to continue, I will see the ban. Docmoates (talk) 01:43, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

No one is acting in bad faith. You need to stop. Revolving Doormat (talk) 01:44, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

So you are not going to agree to follow WP:IBAN? Docmoates (talk) 01:48, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is 2 Way WP:IBAN. IsCat (talk) 02:20, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Question

(Redacted) ~2025-42218-94 (talk) 16:57, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

@Bradv I suspect this is Michael Moates Revolving Doormat (talk) 16:59, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Attacks on you

I know you are a good person, the attacks on you are unacceptable. I hope they didn't get to you. I have been here for nearly a decade and I haven't seen a fellow editor be attacked that badly. They are very vile, what they did to you was unacceptable. Felicia (talk) 19:14, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. I don't even know how to process it. Glad I am going away for the holiday and will have some space from it. I hope none of us see it again in the next decade Revolving Doormat (talk) 19:23, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Glad you're getting a break, but I'm so sorry you had to deal with even more of their nonsense. I think you'll find the good outweigh the bad editors, but it's very much a challenge to deal with the rotten ones. Star Mississippi 02:34, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Women in Red - January 2026

Women in Red | January 2026, Vol 12, Issue 1, Nos 357, 358, 359, 360 Online events: New: Sports (year-long initiative) | Alphabet run - countries starting with A Continuing: #1day1woman ( year-long initiative) | Women who died in 2025 Announcements from other communities Wikipedia turns 25! Celebrate Wikipedia Day on Jan 15, 2026. Tip of the month: Consider becoming a new page reviewer to help reduce the huge backlog of women's biographies. Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events and add any general ideas on developing the project. Follow us on social media: Instagram | Pinterest

--Rosiestep (talk) 23:33, 26 December 2025 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Happy New Year, Revolving Doormat!

Happy New Year!

Revolving Doormat,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Agnieszka653 (talk) 01:33, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Agnieszka653 (talk) 01:33, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you @Agnieszka653. I hope you have a nice new year, too. Revolving Doormat (talk) 01:55, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi Revolving Doormat. Thank you for your work on George Yevick. Another editor, Ldm1954, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

I do not understand why he is under the "Judaism" project. There is nothing here that (from a straight read) refers to his faith. We do not classify C. N. R. Rao under WP:HINDUISM, We have Religious and philosophical views of Albert Einstein appropriately under WP:Judaism but Erwin Schrödinger is not under WP:ATHEISM; there are many other examples, present company included.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Ldm1954}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Ldm1954 (talk) 10:39, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Jewish-Americans is defunct and has been absorbed by this WP—you will find many other biographies of notable Jewish people in the project, which is why I added it. I leave it to the project maintainers, who say they cover Jewish people, to decide if they are important to the project. You asked about this on their talk page and did not get a response, instead a maintainer updated David Yevick. Revolving Doormat (talk) 11:25, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi Revolving Doormat. Thank you for your work on David Yevick. Another editor, Ldm1954, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Similar to his father, there is nothing here that indicates that his religion was important, or discusses his beliefs as notable.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Ldm1954}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Ldm1954 (talk) 11:07, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

See above. Revolving Doormat (talk) 11:26, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Your nomination of Grete Hermann is under review

Your good article nomination of the article Grete Hermann is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of MCE89 -- MCE89 (talk) 04:06, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Your nomination of Grete Hermann has passed

Your good article nomination of the article Grete Hermann has passed; congratulations! See the review page for more information. If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of MCE89 -- MCE89 (talk) 23:44, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Wonderful news! Thanks @MCE89. Revolving Doormat (talk) 23:49, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for participation in AfD

I learned from you about WP:CRYSTALBALL. Thanks, I am very excited when finding out how wide wikipedia's policies knowledge base is. In return I'd like to help you with your Drafts today. Belle Femme Emmo (talk) 08:45, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

May I recommend one I just started that is definitely notable: Draft:Charlotte Bacon (author) as part of WikiProject Women in Red? Try looking at other well-rated authors as a guide. Avoid WP:UGC and make sure all sources are WP:RS. For extraordinary claims, only use WP:SECONDARY, such as for awards or what others say about her in terms of her WP:NOTABILITY or evaluations of her ask a professor, author, or her works. If you need any help, feel free to ping me or as questions at the WP:Teahouse.

My other drafts are stale because I found it difficult to find more material on them. Revolving Doormat (talk) 11:29, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

You may also add the draft to WP:AFC for additional help. Revolving Doormat (talk) 11:31, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Sounds good! how about Draft:List of cryptocurrency exchanges? I made it in the mainspace, then someone moved it to the draft coz some sources is needed. Which one is required to add? Like sources on Date of establish or what? I used CMC ranking when created. Could u take a look please and advice me? Belle Femme Emmo (talk) 11:32, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

I haven't worked on any lists, so I am going to add it to AFC, and I would recommend using the Teahouse for that. Revolving Doormat (talk) 11:34, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Also check out WP:NLIST. Revolving Doormat (talk) 14:38, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Sozialistische Warte moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Sozialistische Warte. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing as a live article at this time because it has no sources. I have converted it to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit the draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. QEnigma 论 16:59, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

This was a translation from Germany Wikipedia using the tool, so it was published automatically. I didn't realize it had no sources until afterward, and had to step away. I am moving it back as it is indeed notable. Revolving Doormat (talk) 17:00, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

FYI everything is properly sourced now. Revolving Doormat (talk) 19:02, 4 January 2026 (UTC)