User talk:Codercat94

Happy editing! Peaceray (talk) 04:37, 3 January 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi Codercat94. Never mind what I wrote to you at the edit filter false positives noticeboard. I have confirmed your account, so you will now not be affected by the edit filter and can edit your draft freely. This permission expires in ten days, but if your account makes ten total edits by that time then you will be "autoconfirmed" anyway by Wikipedia's software, and that is permanent.

Welcome to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Ivanvector (^Talk /_Edits ) 15:04, 3 January 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Hey! Following some discussions with @Ivanvector, we concluded that I had mistakenly rejected this draft. As such it has been restored. To make up for my mistake, here's some advice:

• Find any other coverage of this from reliable secondary sources (Not Know Your Meme, they are not considered reliable)
• If you can, using the sources that you have, try to expand upon this article with a few sections to explain what this is in some detail.

When you think it is ready, submit it again, and good luck. I apologise again for my conduct earlier. _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 21:09, 3 January 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Sorry, I really quickly put the article together. I might work on it for a few days and make sure there are more citations, they will be more reliable, and there will be a lot more information regarding the subject. Codercat94 (talk) 21:41, 3 January 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

That's fine. Understand that if I'm being honest here, you didn't do anything wrong, I just made a dumb assumption, you're new here, and you need a lot of support, like all new users. Good luck, and I hope that maybe if I stumble across this next time, I'll approve it and we can move on from this. I also hope that you stick around, but that's up to you, nobody can force you to keep editing here. _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 21:44, 3 January 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

It seems the script didn't notify you properly, so here! Go and read the notes I wrote there. _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 23:36, 3 January 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Since the script seems to notify the person who created the draft rather than the one who's actually authoring it, I'll be leaving my next notes here so you can see them:

• Too many links. I think linking to skepticism and nostalgia might not be needed here, same with linking "2025" in "Early 2025", in general linking dates to their specific articles are not something that you should do.

That's pretty much it, at the moment this would easily pass the golden rule and is likely notable enough for inclusion. Nonetheless, since you did say "more edits may be coming soon", I highly recommend that you finish this up when you can and resubmit it for review. _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 00:23, 4 January 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

No, not from me, but not long after approving your draft, it got tagged for A7 by someone else. I'm not sure what I can do here. (Oh, and again it notified the wrong user instead of you). I'm a bit bummed out by this whole situation going as badly as it did, and I apologise (again), but yeah. _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 07:49, 4 January 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

The Great Meme Reset of 2026 has been restored for the THIRD time. @Ivanvector was really mad at the second deletion, and I wasn't too pleased about it either. I'd like to apologise again for all the trouble that I, @BusterD (who deleted it when I first tagged it), @Agnieszka653, and @CoconutOctopus caused. This is clearly not the best way for you to be introduced to how making articles on Wikipedia is like, and I'm sure the three other users I tagged wouldn't disagree. I hope that you'll continue to be a contributor on here, but I would not blame you if this discouraged you. _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 13:13, 4 January 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Oh. I just marked the re-created page for speedy deletion again. No indication of any importance, poor sourcing (the sources basically copy each other). Amazed it got approved in AfC, tbh. Bastun ^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:30, 4 January 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I don't think Ivanvector is going to be very happy about that, this is looking like a very annoying cycle. I hope that you saw the previous notices and his replies to them on his talk page for more information about that. This is a bit of a disaster of a situation with so many deletes and restorations, we might be better off just moving on at this point because I genuinely don't think any good can come out of repeating this. _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 16:35, 4 January 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

So then what you're saying here, Bastun, is that you knew that the article had already been speedied and restored several times, and then you tagged it again anyway? And can you please explain which of the criteria for speedy deletion covers pages with substandard sources? Ivanvector (^Talk /_Edits ) 19:20, 4 January 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 17:10, 4 January 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

• Wikipedians who have received a Teahouse invitation through AfC