User talk:11WB/Archive 2026/02 (February)

Your nomination of Pokémon Showdown has passed

Your good article nomination of the article Pokémon Showdown 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 Pokelego999 -- Pokelego999 (talk) 05:06, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

January–February 2026 NPP drive - Phase 2

NPP unreviewed article statistics as of February 02, 2026

Welcome to Phase 2 of the January–February 2026 NPP drive. During Phase 1, we reviewed 16,658 articles and 4,416 redirects, and there is currently a backlog of 16,475 articles and 23,782 redirects in the queue. Fantastic job! Completing 22,502 patrols in the first phase made a significant dent in the backlog. Let's keep our foot on the gas for Phase 2, and I hope we can achieve even more reviews than Phase 1. Best of luck!

Start patrolling!

You are receiving this message because you added your name to the participants list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:21, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Smogon logo smaller.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Smogon logo smaller.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:56, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Pokemon showdown battle.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Pokemon showdown battle.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:44, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Care and feeding of admins

I do wish you'd stop talking at WT:V about whether any admin agrees with you. Admins have no special rights in discussions like these, and some of them feel uncomfortable to have someone posting about how an admin agreed with them. Most of them would rather be talking to editors on an equal basis.

I don't know if you noticed, but both of the admins you cite for supporting your view disappeared soon after you started emphasizing that they're admins. I don't recommend changing your old comments (that can just draw more attention to it), but please stop. Feel free to blank this comment after you've read it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:45, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

I think we've both let things boil a bit too far at that discussion, I would also prefer for you to keep comments about NPP to yourself. I've no interest in continuing to discuss this with you and believe, on this rare occasion, that it would be better for us to not interact on the project. Thank you. 11WB (talk) 13:54, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Civility Barnstar

We may not always agree on everything, but we don't need to. What matters is that you have the right attitude most of the time when dealing with differing opinions. I know that I did not get AP even after your original seeming vouch of support, which I appreciate, but I'll try again one day and I just wanted to let you know that I appreciate you. Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 23:59, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

I appreciate this. You're contributions to Wikipedia are excellent. The resulting discussions were honestly not really about your AP request at all, but rather about whether all content should be cited at the moment it's published. On reflection, I should have exited that discussion sooner. That discussion has caused me to rethink how I approach patrolling though, and whether I should be requesting editors to cite every source. All the best! 11WB (talk) 00:03, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

You clearly care a lot about building Wikipedia, that is important, but in the interest of not rehashing any arguments already stated elsewhere, I will not further comment on the patrolling mention. Keep up the great work overall though. Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 00:14, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Deletion review for Ang Pag-ibig Kong Ito

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Ang Pag-ibig Kong Ito. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. ROY is WAR Talk! 01:12, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Please note that this is not your fault that you concluded as NC, there's a misunderstood on the WP:MUSICOUTCOMES. :) ROY is WAR Talk! 01:13, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

That close is just over a month old. Please forgive me, but I genuinely can't remember the details of that specific AfD without reading it all again. I probably shouldn't have taken on an NC close as a non-admin in all honesty. Thanks for letting me know about the DRV anyhow! 11WB (talk) 01:17, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Teahouse close

Hi 11WB. I just wanted to note that closures should go inside a thread (below the title), instead of outside. Happy editing :) 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 05:21, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

facepalm Thank you for letting me know about that. There are multiple types of discussion close templates, I usually use Template:Discussion top, which is different to Template:Archive top. I'll try to do it correctly next time! Apologies! 11WB (talk) 05:25, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia Library access

Hi! I saw your ping at Talk:Butterfree/GA1. Are you not able to access the library at the moment due to an issue with your edit count? Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 13:33, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Ref 29 of Butterfree (this) does not direct me to the actual reference on The Wikipedia Library. I can confirm that I do have access to The Wikipedia Library however, including the complimentary publisher extra subscription from Newspapers.com. 11WB (talk) 13:54, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

@11WB Where are you seeing that link? For me Ref 29 only has a DOI link, and a templated TWL link which sends me via the DOI to https://journals-sagepub-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/doi/10.1177/1367549404047146, which seems to work correctly. I'm not seeing the link you shared here. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 14:28, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

It was fixed by @SunloungerFrog. They may be able to explain what they did and what the issue was. Here is a revision with the link I was referring to. 11WB (talk) 14:30, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

The original URL was one with the ezproxy gubbins in: it worked once for me, then not. It wouldn't have worked for regular non-TWL readers in any case. So I replaced it with a fresh journal citation using the DOI, and then the courtesy {{twlac}} link for TWL members. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 14:44, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Ah, got it. The URL you linked didn't work for me either it was probably a temporary EZProxy one - glad everything's resolved! Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 14:56, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

All looks good now! Thank you both! 11WB (talk) 15:44, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

nadia latif draft

Hi there. thanks for the review. I just wanted to let you know the use case of nat'l biographies for a person's significance is not applicable for BLPs. This is because they do not update with living persons as far as I can tell. For e.g. search for Keir Starmer and you'll see that he doesn't come up, despite being the current PM. I hope you can think about this before you use it as a threshold again. Thanks! Abs145 (talk) 04:02, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

I've completed quite a few reviews recently as there is a backlog drive in progress. I don't know specifically which article you are referring to. If you could provide some links, that would be appreciated. Thank you! 11WB (talk) 04:23, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Draft:Nadia Latif you can check the post on the Talk Page - you'll be able to see the corrections / changes I've made and a mention of how to use the Oxford Dictionary of National Biographies, note the source on the DNB states: " According to DNB’s editorial standards, no living persons are included; only deceased persons are included." see here or here. Using that as a tool to judge to if someone is significant is not applicable to BLPs. Abs145 (talk) 04:29, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

That is a review I completed almost four months ago. That draft has also been declined since then. I suggest you seek assistance from WP:AFCHELP. Whilst you are welcome to leave messages on editor talk pages, in this case it needs to be understood that as a significant period of time has passed, this could be considered inappropriate. Please use the relevant noticeboard in future. All the best! 11WB (talk) 04:32, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Alright, well next time you do reviews - you cannot apply the rule that a person is only significant (while living) by checking if they are in a dictionary of deceased individuals. You should know this for future reviews as it sounds like you've likely been conducting reviews improperly. Best of luck! Abs145 (talk) 04:36, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Your draft does not include the individual's DOB. This would be a good thing to include. The reader isn't to know due to this. I also didn't apply the ODNB as a criteria for inclusion. I quoted WP:ANYBIO in my comment. This individual has not won any awards, and as a result is not notable. I appreciate your guidance, however my review was correct on this occasion. If you disagree and would like other opinions, the correct venue is AFCHELP. Thanks. 11WB (talk) 04:41, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

look, just admit that a person who directed a 2025 debut film with an article written in present tense (not past tense, as required for deceased individuals) is very clearly a person who is alive. You knew that, and you should just admit that you made a mistake and did not know the rule on the dictionary. It's not a challenge, but I find it a bit rude that you cannot accept my feedback to improve the review process and provide fair scrutiny across new articles. I've resubmitted for review I know what AFCHELP can do but I'm giving fair warning that you should not go around using that in reviews. Abs145 (talk) 04:46, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Your allegation that I used that as a reason for not accepting the draft is unfounded. I recall you were quite hostile at AFCHELP several months ago. Please seek help elsewhere. 11WB (talk) 12:32, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Your tone has been accusatory and unpleasant, and violates WP:TALK#POSITIVE. I am now invoking WP:USERTALKSTOP and requesting that you do not continue replying on my talk page now or in the future. Thank you. 11WB (talk) 12:42, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

• Archival edit: This was resolved at the Teahouse. 11WB (talk) 08:51, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

our conversation

I did not for a moment think other than the TA generic behaviour was annoying. Please do not be concerned. Now, under WP:BEANS I am going to archive this. I am happy to continue a conversion, in a generic manner if you wish. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 14:48, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

I appreciate the information you gave me. I will be on the lookout for this when reviewing from now on. It should be fairly straightforward to detect. One can hope these behaviours can be curbed, but I have a feeling these individuals will continue to find new ways to abuse the system. 11WB (talk) 14:54, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

I appreciate this. Thank you. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 14:58, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Question

Hi! I paraphrased the Kidz World review at Bakugan Battle Brawlers: Battle Trainer. Can I remove the tag? Timur9008 (talk) 10:19, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes, this is now acceptable. Please be careful and have a read of WP:CLOP and WP:COPYVIO. Thanks! 11WB (talk) 10:49, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Michael Swaim

Hi - I'm in the process of responding to you at the AfD. So that we don't get into an unnecessary edit war, I am suggesting that we leave the article as it originally was before any recent edits and then allow discussion to take place first before deciding how to proceed - per WP:BRD. Jpcase (talk) 15:07, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

I am allowed to attempt WP:HEY. The article as it was violated WP:BLP and WP:PROMO. I am simply responding to the article banner that was placed by another editor. 11WB (talk) 15:12, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

If if it is your prerogative to keep the article in a state that violates Wikipedia guidelines, that is on you. I can only remind you of WP:OWN. The article in the state you have reverted it back to is far more likely to be deleted outright than kept. Please keep this in mind. 11WB (talk) 15:15, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

All I'm asking is that a discussion be allowed to occur before making any mass changes to the article. I do feel protective of the article, as I put a ton of work into it, but simply asking that we talk things through before deciding how to proceed is not WP:OWN.

Also, while I can understand editors having a preference for fewer primary sources, I'm not seeing anything at all in WP:BLP putting a limit on the number of primary sources that are allowed, so I'm not following the argument that the article was in violation of that policy. Also, I am not in any way affiliated with the article subject, so I'm not sure how WP:PROMO would apply either. Jpcase (talk) 15:40, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

I've responded at the AfD. Your behaviour constitutes OWN. I cannot engage with you on this if all edits made to the article end up reverted. 11WB (talk) 15:41, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Hey...I really am genuinely trying to engage in a civil, good faith conversation. We clearly have strong, opposing opinions on this, and I respect that, but I really do want to emphasize that I'm not trying to give you a hard time. I'm pretty stressed out in my personal life right now and so if at any point I come across as frustrated, please know that it's not directed at you personally. Hope that we can proceed with this conversation civilly. --Jpcase (talk) 17:30, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

This conversation is civil. I am being blunt as I take sourcing very seriously, especially as my work as an WP:NPR means I have to review poorly sourced articles on a daily basis. This is not an attack on you and actually isn't an attack at all. My goal, as I am sure yours is also, is to have well sourced articles on the project. At the moment, Swaim's article doesn't have that.

I also want to add here, just because a policy or guideline says something is okay, that does not mean a loophole should be abused, which has clearly happened in this article's case. I came across the article through this screenshot on Discord. For those of us that use the cite plugins, this is what we see. That screenshot shows visibly how many unreliable sources are present in the article currently. 11WB (talk) 17:35, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Per your latest comment at the AfD, it sounds like we're both stressed out about matters unrelated to each other right now. Even though we clearly have strongly held opposing views on the article, I'm not wanting conflict between us, and I believe that you aren't wanting that either.

I spent an enormous amount of time and effort working on the article, and so I hope you can appreciate why it's frustrating for me to see repeated suggestions of WP:TNT or mass content deletion as the only option before I've been given any chance to try and address your concerns with the version of the article I initially created. I maintain that there's a difference between violating WP:OWN and simply requesting a slower, more deliberate approach to making changes.

Like I said, I'm planning on making my own trims to the article over the next few days. Any edits I make shouldn't be contentious, since we both agree on cutting down the number of primary sources used in the article, we just disagree on the extent. I'm sure you will still have issues with the article when I'm done, but I'd like to see how just how close I can get the article to a version that could at least feel like an acceptable compromise. Hope its okay with you if I start working on that process. Jpcase (talk) 22:02, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

I have no objection to that. I'm not going to be working on the article, per your request, for the remainder of the AfD. It is important to keep in mind that the article could end up being deleted. I believe Swaim is notable. My advice would be to make the secondary sources that demonstrate his notability as front and centre as possible, so that other editors who come across the AfD are able to make that same assessment. 11WB (talk) 22:09, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Relists

• Wasn't aware this was still open. 'Bad relists include all comment-free relists.' - I have no issue with saying this is not correct. 11WB (talk) 00:42, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

What do you think is the purpose and benefits of relisting?

I’m interested in your perspective, you being an good and energetic new closer. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:37, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

WP:RELIST instructs closers to include a comment on the third relist or 'when relisting a discussion with a substantial number of commenters'. Your DRV comment was a personal preference, and is in reality not correct. Labelling all relists that lack a comment as bad is inaccurate and unfair. 11WB (talk) 09:41, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

What do you think of the sources I have provided in Arik Air AFD especially this one?

The crash is still getting coverage today with this source just recently released. This source goes in-depth and is significant coverage. Does this change your mind?

https://www.thecable.ng/inside-story-how-pilot-cabin-crew-saved-80-passengers-in-arik-air-mishap/ Zaptain United (talk) 15:17, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello? Zaptain United (talk) 02:49, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

This coverage is pretty routine. There would need to be something much more substantial for me to consider !voting otherwise. Thanks. 11WB (talk) 02:52, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

The source goes in-depth about how the crew landed the aircraft and the safety issues. It also talks about passenger experiences on the flight, which is mor than just routine. The main problem you brought up in your nominator's message is that you couldn't find evidence of a lot of coverage and WP:SIGCOV and I think this source addresses this. Also, uncontained engine failures are not WP:ROUTINE, this source talks about that: https://leehamnews.com/2018/04/23/pontifications-uncontained-engine-failures-are-rare-but-not-unknown/.

Also, what your thoughts on this source talking about lessons learned from the accident?

https://newsbulletinng.com/when-a-nation-responds-with-sense-the-arik-air-engine-failure-and-the-case-for-fairness-to-air-peace/# Zaptain United (talk) 03:01, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

I personally think I have addressed all your concerns from your nomination message. I know that non-fatal accidents have to have extra sustain coverage compared to fatal crashes.  Zaptain United (talk) 03:04, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

I believe @AWF addressed this at the AfD. These sources don't appear to be very reliable. Happy to take a look at more sources when I am active again tomorrow, as I'm about to sign off for the night. The AfD discussion would be the preferable place to discuss this, as this discussion risks isolating other participants. 11WB (talk) 03:05, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Alright, right before you go to sleep, I jsut want to say that I will link this at the AFD and that @Aviationwikiflight never reviewed these 2 sources in the AFD. They have yet to respond to my reply on these 2 sources yet. Zaptain United (talk) 03:06, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Also, here is the link to the TheCable article. They are a reliable source with professional editors. Zaptain United (talk) 03:14, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

may i remove current event tag ?

regarding the Murder of Natalie McNally article, please be informed i intend to update twice a day as the trial proceeds, it has been adjourned for today and will officially start tomorrow according to media reports, i envision quite a few stop/starts due to the complexity of the case entailing multiple delays in proceedings therefore can i please remove the 'current event' tag to avoid multiple poor quality entries instead of a succinct summary being added if & when appropriate ? WorldTravleerAndPhotoTaker (talk) 13:06, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

That banner needs to remain in place to inform other editors it's an ongoing event. Please be mindful that Wikipedia is not a news site. Thanks. 11WB (talk) 13:17, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Well done!

		The Article Rescue Barnstar
		Thank you for taming the unruly mess that was Music of Genshin Impact!! WidgetKid converse 15:19, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

No worries... I felt bad for the mobile editors! 11WB (talk) 17:04, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar

Hi hi! I know things have been a lot lately, so I figured I'd award you with a barnstar for your work so far. I appreciate greatly your desire to learn and improve on this site, and your good naturedness and quality edits while doing so (Especially with your good patience with Pokémon Showdown, you made an excellent article out of something I nominated for deletion initially). Congratulations on what you've accomplished so far and I wish you the best for the future! Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:29, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you @Pokelego999! I appreciate this a lot. I think the drive has given me fatigue, and a recent situation has forced me to step back from NPP for the time being. I've moved my focus to GANs and article improvement (such as Music of Genshin Impact), I feel this is an area I can probably contribute to without too much issue. I've switched off Discord so my head isn't deep in Wikipedia-related activities. I've self-diagnosed media fatigue and the cure for that is digital detox! 11WB (talk) 02:36, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Take care of yourself! You've done so much recently and you definitely deserve some time to kick back and relax. Wishing you all the best! Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 03:33, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Music of Genshin Impact

Thanks for your hard work on that article. I saw you recently nominated it for GA but it was reverted. Now that the AFD is over, I'd be more than happy to review it, if you want to nominate it again (since the previous review rightly concluded I didn't have enough edits to it to nominate it myself). Just thought I'd let you know. Gommeh ^{(talk! sign!)} 02:54, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

I noticed that reversion... Having read the GA pages, I found no clause that specifically prohibits articles from being nominated whilst also at AfD... Not to worry! There are still a few CCP owned sources I am looking to replace. It would be satisfying to actually get it to GA for sure! According to this, I don't think you would be eligible to actually review it now (probably due to the amount of content that's been removed pushing other authors contribution stats up in turn). There are a few criticisms @PresN made, such as the sections thinning out towards the end, that have me a bit concerned. The musicology section in particular is painfully short and may actually end up being merged into the rest of the article. 11WB (talk) 03:04, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'd not expected my percentage to have gone up as much as it actually did, haha! Gommeh ^{(talk! sign!)} 12:09, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Barnstar for You

		The Excellent New Editor's Barnstar A new editor on the right path
		This is for your hard work on reviews, improving articles, and learning the ropes. Especially for such a new account, you've managed to make a lot of progress. I hope to see more of your work from here on out Cukie Gherkin (talk) 11:30, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for this. I hit the one year mark for actively editing on February 2. If the path is right, I'll try to follow it as best as I can! 11WB (talk) 18:54, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Editor who doesn't allow changes or edits to their page

Hi there. I saw that you were speaking with the editor Worldtravelerandphototaker about WP:OWN. I’m having the same issue with them. Any edits I make to their page about Lisa Dorrian are either reverted or changed, and they don’t seem willing to have any real discussion about improving the article — they just want to keep it exactly as they originally wrote it. I’ve already taken this to the Help Desk because I wasn’t sure where else to go. Do you have any suggestions about where else this could be raised? They said they had taken your points on board, but I don’t think that’s the case at all, as the same thing has happened again today with small edits I made being reverted. Thank you ItsShandog (talk) 19:15, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello. The talk page discussion you're referring to is dated from 21 January, so this is outdated now. I did include that discussion as part of a notice I left on their talk page. They took this on board and the article name was changed as a result. I don't think this requires any further action at this time. The usual venue would be WP:AN/I, which is for severe cases of intractable and ongoing problematic behaviour. A few cases of OWN, whilst in violation of the policy, are in my view not severe enough for further action. @WorldTravleerAndPhotoTaker is not a bad faith editor in my opinion. I will note however, that they should provide a reason for their reversions, which they didn't do here. 11WB (talk) 19:32, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

I appreciate you adding the discussion to their talk page and for your reply at the Help Desk. I agree — this isn't a severe enough case to take to administrators, and I'm not suggesting they're a bad‑faith editor. They've produced good articles, and I respect that. The difficulty is that they seem unwilling to reach consensus unless they are essentially forced to change something that clearly needs to be changed. When it comes to smaller edits or improvements, they tend to revert things back to how they want them.

I originally thought the issue might have been that they didn't realise I had made a small mistake and then corrected it by adding a missing word, but I don't think that's the case. As you can see from their responses and their actions, they just don't seem to like any changes being made to the article.

I thought there were limits on how often you can revert within a certain period, although I'm not completely sure how that applies here as they only reverted twice today.

Fair enough, they did change the title of the other page, which was positive, but they clearly haven't taken the other points on board. They're still doing the same thing with my edits now, and they're still not giving any reason for reverting them. From what I can see, they simply want the article to remain exactly as they wrote it.

I've done quite a lot of edits to the Natalie McNally page today which haven't been reverted so far, but I suspect that's only because the page had a template on it indicating that it needed improvement, as it was worded like a news article. Thank you for noting that they should provide a reason for their reversions. ItsShandog (talk) 19:59, 25 February 2026 (UTC)