McBerti
Joined 1 March 2026
Latest comment: 11 days ago by MSK in topic Your submission at Articles for creation: Laura Dre has been accepted
Welcome!
editHi McBerti! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.
As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:
Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.
If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:
If you are not sure where to help out, try the "Suggested edits" module top left on your homepage, or you can always find a task here:
Happy editing! CNMall41 (talk) 18:09, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: Grant Baldwin has been accepted
edit
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 Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
- See the quality assessment scheme to find out how to improve the article.
Future articles
- Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without submitting a draft for review. However, you may continue submitting drafts to Articles for creation if you prefer.
- 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.
Next steps
- Find other Wikipedia articles related to your topic and add links pointing to the new article. This helps readers find it.
- Group the article with similar subjects by adding relevant categories.
- You may consider nominating a fact from the article within the next 7 days to appear on the Main Page's Did you know section.
- Wikipedia is a work in progress. You can continue to expand and improve the new article.
- The new article will become eligible to be indexed on search engines once patrolled or after 90 days; search engines may take time to reflect this.
- For friendly peer support regarding editing, sourcing, or policies, visit the Teahouse, a question and answer hub for new editors.
Thanks again, and happy editing!
Bearcat (talk) 18:07, 12 May 2026 (UTC)- Hello @Bearcat! Thank you so much for accepting my draft. And especially for editing and improving it!!
- I just have a small but general question: Why are newspapers better sources than the person’s own official website? Or why isn’t the Leo Awards website a better source than some newspaper articles about someone who won an award? Doesn’t that mean the facts go through at least one more instance before they end up on Wikipedia? It reminds me a bit of the telephone game.
- Thanks again and best regards! McBerti (talk) 17:05, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
- The issue is that we need to see evidence that a person's work has been deemed significant by outside sources other than themselves. I'm certainly not accusing Grant Baldwin of this in particular, but we have absolutely had instances where people lied on their own self-published websites about distinctions that they hadn't actually achieved in reality, or misrepresented minor achievements as being much more "important" than they really were, in order to "prove" that they were notable enough to be on Wikipedia — so what we need to see is outside verification that the statements are true, outside verification that the person's work has been validated as significant by somebody other than the subject themselves, and on and so forth.
For example, a person does not become notable enough for a Wikipedia article just for winning a high school poetry contest, even if that fact can technically be sourced to the poetry contest's own website — an award has to be notable in its own right before it can make its winners notable for winning it, so an award has to be supported by evidence that the media consider the award presentation to be a news story worth reporting on.
Again, not that I'm accusing Grant Baldwin of misrepresenting his own career achievements — but lots of people have misrepresented their career achievements in an attempt to game Wikipedia's inclusion criteria, which is why we need to see third-party verification of those achievements rather than primary sourcing.
We're not looking for sources that come "straight from the horse's mouth", as it were — we require sources that represent third party experts (journalists, film critics, etc.) determining that the things the horse said were important enough to report and republish as news reportage, because notability isn't a question of the fact itself so much as it's a question of whether media considered the fact to be significant enough to treat as news or not. Bearcat (talk) 17:19, 20 May 2026 (UTC)- I see, thank you so much for your quick and detailed reply. I will observe that if I create more drafts in the future. And thanks that you did accept the draft anyway and it didn't have to go through another 2 or 3 months of review processes. McBerti (talk) 17:37, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
- The issue is that we need to see evidence that a person's work has been deemed significant by outside sources other than themselves. I'm certainly not accusing Grant Baldwin of this in particular, but we have absolutely had instances where people lied on their own self-published websites about distinctions that they hadn't actually achieved in reality, or misrepresented minor achievements as being much more "important" than they really were, in order to "prove" that they were notable enough to be on Wikipedia — so what we need to see is outside verification that the statements are true, outside verification that the person's work has been validated as significant by somebody other than the subject themselves, and on and so forth.
Your submission at Articles for creation: Laura Dre has been accepted
editCongratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
- See the quality assessment scheme to find out how to improve the article.
Future articles
- Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without submitting a draft for review. However, you may continue submitting drafts to Articles for creation if you prefer.
- 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.
Next steps
- Find other Wikipedia articles related to your topic and add links pointing to the new article. This helps readers find it.
- Group the article with similar subjects by adding relevant categories.
- You may consider nominating a fact from the article within the next 7 days to appear on the Main Page's Did you know section.
- Wikipedia is a work in progress. You can continue to expand and improve the new article.
- The new article will become eligible to be indexed on search engines once patrolled or after 90 days; search engines may take time to reflect this.
- For friendly peer support regarding editing, sourcing, or policies, visit the Teahouse, a question and answer hub for new editors.
Thanks again, and happy editing!
msk 17:26, 5 June 2026 (UTC)