I'm here to build an encyclopedia (ie write, research, improve). I've got very little interest in policing it - so if that's your deal, be mindful that we've got very different interests.

Also, note I've been contributing since December 2003, with a lot of my earlier edits as an IP user because I preferred that interface. So please don't welcome me to wikipedia, and no mansplaining.

Hi Mmemaigret. Thank you for your work on Thaddeus William Henry Leavitt. Another editor, Scope creep, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Great wee historical, packed full of goodness.

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

scope_creepTalk 08:40, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[]

Hi Mmemaigret. Thank you for your work on Wilton Love. Another editor, Mariamnei, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Nice work!

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

Mariamnei (talk) 14:29, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[]

👁 Information icon
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:48, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[]

👁 Information icon
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Wolfdog (talk) 00:22, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[]

👁 Information icon
Hello, Mmemaigret. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Tony Reddy (architect), 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) 09:08, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[]

Welcome, welcome, welcome Mmemaigret! I'm glad that you are joining the March 2026 drive! Please, have a cup of WikiTea, and go cite some articles.

Cielquiparle (talk) 04:38, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[]

I hope this is a proper place to reach you for a question about your wanting url's rather than the basic citation format I used for nearly all my references because I do not have access to the Wiki newspaper library. First, thank you for your help improving wiki. Second, I haven't been able to get help with converting the basic citations to url's, except one for the Los Angeles Times even though there were 2 different articles. I have done much investigation to see if there is any way I can access url's without a paywall but none of my efforts have worked. So, I need to ask you whether you want me to insert the very, very long paywall url's that I get when I go to the Newsbank website for the articles cited and whether this approach will actually solve the burden of your citation checking, since I have no idea whether you or wiki will be able to get through the paywall when you click on the same paywall url. It would be a costly and time-consuming effort, but I am willing to do it if it solves the url issue for you. Once I know which citations I can actually get for you through the paywall, I planned to eliminate others that are duplicative in part to address your concern about too many references. Emanresu0 (talk) 20:23, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[]

Hi @Emanresu0, great to see you trying to find the urls for Draft:C.W. Kim. Articles without links are some of the last to get reviewed because a reviewer needs to check that the source says what you cited it for and that the source is reliable. If they don't know or have access to the source and they can't do that, they might skip and review another article. Inserting urls helps the reviewer and other users if the page is accepted. Also if a page is nominated for deletion, it helps people defend the page.

The LA Times is a well-known reliable source, the best option is a url that is fully accessible. However, a link to the restricted page is still helpful. In the first instance, I would insert the ordinary url, eg https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1987-08-16-re-1468-story.html.

Wikipedia citations have an optional field for "access level" and you can indicate there that the access level is registration, limited, or subscription. If you use source editor the field is url-access, eg url-access=subscription.

Most, if not all, AfC reviewers will have access to the Wikipedia Library suite of resources, which includes newspapers.com. The newspapers.com link for the Emerald article is, if you want to insert it: https://www.newspapers.com/image/404474375

Finally, I have access to newsbank through my local library. I wouldn't suggest you pay for it just to insert the url for this article. But if you have a subscription and can provide a newsbank url, many of us will be able to access the database. Again, you would indicate the "access level" is subscription. Hope that helps. MmeMaigret (talk) 00:19, 6 April 2026 (UTC)[]

I do not have a subscription to Newsbank, so I would need to pay for a subscription that allows me to access all of the articles again to get their lengthy url's with the paywall. Most of the news articles I cited are subject to this paywall. Your reply seems to say that I should NOT go to the expense and effort to provide those urls, although you said they would be helpful. Please clarify. Another reviewer said he could not access these articles with a google title search also.

While working on this issue, would you let me know what you prefer for the Time Line of Works section that you said was too much like a resume? I took the format and content approach from the wiki article on Louis Kahn.

Thanks Emanresu0 (talk) 16:36, 6 April 2026 (UTC)[]

@Emanresu0

Refbombing

• Please reduce the refbombing by selecting the best sources in terms of SIG COV.

URLs

Please look for accessible links at google, google news archive, newspapers.com, the websites for the individual papers, the library of congress' chronicling america. If the link is behind a paywall, add access level.

Please also check that the titles are in fact correct.

Timeline of works section

Almost every work in Louis Kahn's list is itself notable, as evidenced by the fact that the works are the subject of their own articles. MmeMaigret (talk) 18:36, 6 April 2026 (UTC)[]

Thanks for what I think are your efforts but am messaging you here because your messages don't have a way for me to reply to you directly unlike others I have received. Bear with me since I am unfamiliar with this process. It appears that I am to continue working on the draft to address your comments, and meanwhile you or someone else has made edits to both the stub article and the draft. I saw something that is a very nice writing style, which I assume is yours from the cryptic wiki code and your userpage. You are definitely a writer.

I also saw new statements I think in in the stub article (my short term memory is shot) that are incorrect, but one would not know without reading many of the articles over many years to learn as much as I have come to learn about this architect in my research. For example, as much attention as the Spinakker Building got in reputable newspapers, and apparently many over a long period of time, believed it's construction was a certainty, ultimately it never got built! That is why my draft showed it as unbuilt with an asterisk in the Timeline, but I mentioned it in the article because the design was very unique in that era. Am I supposed to do anything about the mistaken facts in my draft or the stub article when someone else causes them? I am petrified to touch the stub article after having my original expansion reverted because someone thought it was LLM and the style was too promotional.

As for the Timeline of Works, I am still uncertain what you recommend. No books have been written on each Work listed of course. I cited references to newspaper articles, magazines, and a topic in one book. Do you want the entire section excluded? It was a lot of work putting it together but if you feel it does not benefit the article, I would rather swallow the medicine now than continue working on it.

I am working on the paywall references in the meantime since I don't think the rest of the citations are available with a google search, or anything I can navigate.

I continue to work on this article now because I have spent so much time and effort on it, and learned so much about this architect in the process, beyond his hexagonal towers. When I think about what he accomplished as an architect, particularly in that era and with all the politics and economics that go into the construction of any major building or project, I am pretty sure it is worthy of an decent article in wiki.

I intend my future messages to be brief!

Emanresu0 (talk) 18:36, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[]

I've checked the edit history for the article. The Spinnaker reference was in the lead before you edited it. As for the draft, I think the only changes I have made are to improve your citations. But you can use edit history to look at compares. Mme Maigret (talk) 23:24, 8 April 2026 (UTC) Mme Maigret (talk) 23:24, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[]

Emanresu0

Replying to my messages: I'm not sure why you're having trouble replying except that my username is slightly different from my display name. Mme Maigret (talk) 22:06, 8 April 2026 (UTC) Kim article: I added information to the article in mainspace from the sources that I could access (ie the NYT, the LA Times, Goldsea. I added material from your article, but I also added additional information I found in the sources. Spinnakker Building I don't actually know which one you're referring to as the Spinnaker building, I assume you mean the Hotel Intercontinental, the Columbia Center and Loews Coronado Bay Resort. But because we work from secondary sources, this will happen sometime. Editing the main article I don't think you should be put off entirely from editing the main article. You have to be mindful that if people disagree or think you're wrong, they will change what you wrote or amend it. That's the nature of Wikipedia. But nothing really happened as a result of the previous revert except that your material was moved to draft space. I think you always have to remember that you're working on a shared document that lots of people have an interest in. While you're interested in the subject, other people may have different interests, for example some may only be interested in the grammar, some in the reliability of your sources. If you think one of the buildings is wrong, just delete it. In the edit summary, I suggest you clearly state that you're deleting it because it was never built. But your edit summary can get buried over time so I suggest you add a topic to the article's talk page and explain why you don't think it was ever built. Mme Maigret (talk) 22:22, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[]

You spent much time on this stub now that I better understand the "history" tab. Please let me know if what you have written is all that you feel is merited from what I have written in my draft article. Your writing style flows nicely. However, many of the facts mentioned are either incorrect or not nearly as significant as many of the fact included in my draft. For example, the long ago and relatively brief positions with The NewSchool of Architecture and the nonprofit boards are insignificant compared to the subject's Works as an architect. I also didn't think it was important to mention every job the subject had since none of his notable works occurred then.

Or instead, do you recommend that I ignore your changes to the stub article and instead work only on my draft article, perhaps incorporating your correct facts in the stub, with the idea of replacing the stub once my draft is approved? This process seems a bit messy, so clarification is appreciated. Emanresu0 (talk) 18:58, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[]

No, what I added isn't all I feel is merited but it was all I could "verify" from the sources. Because the Kim article was a stub (it might now be a start class article) with few if any "reliable" sources, I expanded it to reduce the chances of it getting proposed for deletion etc but also so that people get the benefit of more information now. But you also need to be prepared that the whole of your draft be copied and pasted into the article. Mme Maigret (talk) 22:58, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[]

Many thanks for your replies. I understand a bit more. I will work on the references. Still need to know what you think I should do with the timeline of works in the meantime. Emanresu0 (talk) 02:49, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[]

After re-reading what you wrote to better understand this whole process, it appears that you have changed this page from a stub article to an article, and your content is all you feel is merited from my draft. I will wait until you reply with clarification about what you want me to do to improve the article, if anything, before undertaking more effort and expense on the references in my draft since it would be worthless if little from my draft is going to make it into the article. I see the missing footnote and I can provide that as well as move some of the images into the article, but I will hold off until I hear back from you. Apologies for all the questions. Many thanks. Emanresu0 (talk) 20:20, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[]

Hi Mmemaigret, as I mentioned when I pinged you over at Resource Request I took a look at this article in the physical collection. The article is titled 'The Remarkable Robins' by Alan Bramson (pp. 79–82 in the April 1977 edition of Aircraft, Vol. 56). The bit missing from that screengrab is "...plane which was to provide the cheapest possible solo flying." The entire article is much more substantial and about Joly's creation of the D9 Bebe light plane. I copied the full text and I'm happy to send it to you. It seems I can't email you, so if you send me an email via Wikipedia with your best contact I'll get that across to you. Please let me know if you have any queries. Jack Frost (talk) 08:06, 6 April 2026 (UTC)[]

Thanks Jack Frost. I've sent you an email. Cheers, MmeMaigret (talk) 09:12, 6 April 2026 (UTC)[]

👁 Image
Hello! Your submission of Akilagpa Sawyerr (lawyer) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Dahn (talk) 16:08, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[]

Aliceinthealice (talk) 23:35, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[]

Hi! I’m following up on our Teahouse conversation regarding the Dirty Pictures draft [Draft:Dirty Pictures].You've been so generous with your time and expertise on this — editing the draft, connecting us with the right people. Would you be willing to shepherd the resubmission yourself? I completely understand if that's not something you're able to take on, but given your understanding of the case at this point, I feel you might be the ideal person 🙏 Griffinbunny (talk) 15:28, 20 April 2026 (UTC)[]

@Griffinbunny:

• Your draft suffers now from what is known as ref bombing. There's no point have 32 weak sources when what you need is 2 quality sources.
• What are your 5 best sources? (ie Discusses about the group for 200 more words. Isn't related to the group? Is from a reputable source?)
• Did you create the article on Czech Wikipedia?

Mme Maigret (talk) 11:21, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[]

@Mmemaigret thank you so much, as always, for your thoughtful and specific guidance. It is very helpful.

On ref bombing — new concept for me & point well taken. I'll go through the draft and cut out redundant citations while retaining sources that cover distinct events across the narrative. The story spans several years with multiple independent notable moments, but I will make sure each remaining citation is doing unique work rather than piling onto the same fact.

On your question about the five best sources: none of the cited sources are related to the group and 28 or so of the 32 meet the other two criteria you list. The problem this draft is running into, I believe, is that “reputable” seems like it might mean “English language-only” here on Wikipedia. With that in mind, here are the five I would put forth:

NME — international, independent

Marcus Gray, The Last Gang in Town (Fourth Estate/Harper Collins, 1995) — independent published book from a major publisher

Rock & Pop — major Czech music publication, long feature/title story

Lidové Noviny — major Czech national newspaper, multi-page feature

Prague Post — English language, editorially independent

Re: Czech Wikipedia, not yet. I'm still weighing whether it's the right path given the two wikis operate independently. I'd love your perspective on whether a Czech Wikipedia article would meaningfully help the English Wikipedia case, or whether it's a separate endeavor.

Please let me know if you have further thoughts or questions. Thank you! Griffinbunny (talk) 18:23, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[]

@Mmemaigret, if one was an animator that got his cartoon greenlit and he wish to have his page here. Can you give me what sources is acceptable and which one is not?

~2026-81618-8 (talk) 07:38, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[]

@~2026-81618-8 Refer WP:42 Mme Maigret (talk) 11:10, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[]

~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:03, 3 May 2026 (UTC)[]

Nice work cleaning up that draft. The neutrality concerns and questionable sourcing seem to have been fixed, and the writing seems much improved. I'm on the fence about WP:GNG, specifically whether the sources will enable it to survive a second AfD (it was closed as "redirect" once, despite one of the replying editors now being blocked as a possible sockpuppet). Elle is a strong source, and The New Yorker is close, but may be regarded as primary. If you still want to try and publish it, I will, but will leave it for somebody else to review for notability. (I also don't see a problem with using RM/TR to publish drafts if they seem to have potential, for the record, but it tends only to work out in obvious cases, and re-publishing an AfD article is controversial). ASUKITE 12:34, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[]

Hi Mme Maigret, you kindly offered to look at Draft:Mike Rowe (musician) when we spoke on the Teahouse a couple of weeks ago (archived here). I've since trimmed the article significantly based on your feedback...removed the discography tables and most Discogs citations, and let the Hewitt, Keyboard, and NME sources carry the article. No rush at all, just wanted to let you know the draft has been updated whenever you have a chance. Thank you again. Fax&Figures (talk) 15:21, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[]

@Fax&Figures I hadn't just offered to look at the draft. I edited it. And you have since reintroduced the same errors into the draft. Your article will never be accepted in its current state because it has tone issues and suffers from puffery and is promotional. I would suggest that you revert your most recent changes. Mme Maigret (talk) 20:15, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[]

I'm sorry about that...I didn't get the notification on the subscription that you had already edited the draft directly. I've reverted to your version. Thank you for taking the time to work on it. I won't make further changes without discussing first. Fax&Figures (talk) 11:18, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[]

@Fax&Figures The Keyboard article with its 400 words and focus on Rowe looks like a sig cov source. But not the Hewitt source, which is a series of passing mentions and trivial coverage. You can try to rely on him being a member of 2 or more notable ensembles. But put the draft in the best position to be accepted, you need one more source like the Keyboard one. Mme Maigret (talk) 11:57, 14 May 2026 (UTC)[]

👁 Information icon
Hello, Mmemaigret. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Anne Tyskling, 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) 23:07, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[]

P.S. I'm a huge fan of Madame Maigret, too! Oona Wikiwalker (talk) 03:55, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[]

Hello, Mmemaigret,

I work a lot on deleting stale drafts, CSD G13s, after they have been neglected for at least six months and have been abandoned by human editors. Lately, you have devoted some time to improving some of these drafts and I was just wondering how you chose which drafts to work on. Are you planning on improving them enough to submit them to AFC? Ordinarily, I wouldn't have questions but I've run into your edits a lot over the past week. Thanks for your editing help. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:49, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[]

Sure thing @Liz. Of late, I've mainly been rescuing PRODs and promising drafts of women. Of the expiring drafts, I've recently rescued Ana Kirova, Barbara Feinman Todd, Alicia Odewale, and Lorna Lloyd. I've also improved Draft:Claire Elyse Brosseau and Draft:Sisse Marie Welling but there are already articles in mainspace so I copied the improvements there. I'm an AfC reviewer so I generally move them to mainspace when I think they meet notability reqs so they can be NPP'd. Mme Maigret (talk) 02:44, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:59, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[]

Your good article nomination of the article C. W. Kim has been placed 👁 Image
on hold, as the article needs some changes. See the review page for more information. If these are addressed within 7 days, the nomination will pass; otherwise, it may fail. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Yelps -- Yelps (talk) 12:21, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[]

Good morning, and thank you for helping clean up the draft article for Matt Post! I wanted to let you know that I agree that Post still isn't notable enough to have his own Wikipedia page yet, and I doubt we'll be able to get any more news articles about Post specifically (aside from regular coverage about Maryland's legislative elections where he's a passing mention), which is why I was waiting until he wins his election in November to move the draft back to mainspace. By then, he should meet the qualifications needed to have his own article. Thanks again! Y2hyaXM (talk) 12:27, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[]

👁 Information icon
Hello, Mmemaigret. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Ivo Richard Vesey, 5th Viscount de Vesci, 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) 07:07, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[]

Just thought I'd mention that the AfC help desk is generally for draft creators to ask for advice about their drafts. WT:AFC is a better place for AfC reviewers to ask other reviewers about process. —In solidarity with Wiki Workers United · ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email) 06:15, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[]

Svartner (talk) 10:15, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[]

A tag has been placed on Draft:Theophilus McKinney requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://obituaries.bowdoin.edu/theophilus-ellis-mckinney-jr-54/. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. S Philbrick(Talk) 11:59, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[]

@Sphilbrick The text came from Draft:Marie Poncé. I noticed the copyvio issue as soon as I went to verify the reference and was in the middle of fixing it. Mme Maigret (talk) 12:13, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[]

The copyvio score of:

• the first draft was 78.6%
• the second draft was 44.8%
• the third draft, ie immediately before you tagged it, was 27.5%.

Mme Maigret (talk) 12:53, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[]

Your good article nomination of the article C. W. Kim has 👁 Image
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. Please also consider reviewing somebody else's nomination to help keep the backlog down. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Yelps -- Yelps (talk) 15:21, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[]

👁 Information icon
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your recent edits to Protus Akujah 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}) 16:30, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[]

@Zackmann It looks like the changes you made were in the infobox. But I didn't add or edit the infobox. Did Wikiblame attribute those edits to me? Mme Maigret (talk) 17:22, 7 June 2026 (UTC) Mme Maigret (talk) 17:22, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[]

👁 Facepalm
Facepalm sorry!!! No you moved the draft to mainspace which triggered the error. Technically your action resulted in the error, but it was not you who edited the Infobox and therefore the above message was misplaced and I appologize! --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:27, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[]

Hello @Mmemaigret: good to see you again. I was thinking if your newly promoted article (C.W. Kim) could be promoted for a DYK if you want. If you're not familiar with the process, it's basically presenting a relatively complete and new article in the main page with an Inticing hook, both of which are reviewed during the process (WP:DYKCRIT) I can nominate the article myself for a DYK while its still considered "new" for DYK standards. If you don't want that, that's fine. Was just asking if you were okay with that — Yelps ᘛ⁠⁐̤⁠ᕐ⁠ᐷ critique me 17:35, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[]

Yelps: More than happy for you to put it forward for DYK and, if I remember correctly, there may already be some proposed hooks on the article's talk page. Mme Maigret (talk) 01:24, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[]

The summaries here [4] and here [5] indicate that there may be a misunderstanding of what LLM prods are. They're not normal prods and are entirely separate from any notability assessments, they may only be removed by following the objection process (which was satisfied in these instances by stubification). Apologies if this was understood and I'm reading too much into things. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 23:33, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[]