This is an archive of past discussions with User:Cremastra. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
The RFC phase of the July 2025 administrator elections has started. There are 10 RFCs for consideration. You can participate in the RFC phase at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/July 2025/RFCs.
Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.
You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Question from ScalyHawk (22:51, 18 September 2025)
Latest comment: 8 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hey I edited the Milky Chance article, to include their new album release. Will you look at it and let me know if it’s good? --ScalyHawk (talk) 22:51, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
Drafts that go unedited for six months are eligible for deletion, in accordance with our draftspace policy, and this one has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission, and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you read this, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the draft so you can continue to work on it.
Right, so, I get that this is a troll. Why rise? And why create a page, after the troll has already been blocked, to provoke them? This isn't helpful; you just helped spread their username/trolling behaviour further. TL;DR: WP:DNFTT. Thanks, GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋09:45, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
Okay, sure. (For the record, though, I created the page before the troll was blocked. There was a lag. Not sure the section header here accurately encapsulates what the actual problem with my edit was, but whatever.) Cremastra (talk·contribs) 19:38, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
The Signpost: 2 October 2025
Latest comment: 8 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 8 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Nwangbo Chinecherem peter known as Swargg Mili is a nigeria multi talented singer rapper songwriter enterprenuer etc,
He was born in Ebonyi state grow up in lagos nigeria --Swarggmili (talk) 11:49, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
RfC on pre-emptive disambiguation in constituency article titles
Latest comment: 7 months ago5 comments3 people in discussion
Would you be willing to change the close from "marking as historical" to "changing 'whether or not this is required for disambiguation' to 'when this is required for disambiguation'"? This preserves the advice on the uniform disambiguators, and is I think wholly in tune with the RfC. All the best: RichFarmbrough21:08, 17 October 2025 (UTC).
Hm, alright. Since the modified guideline is then in line with AT as opposed to contradicting it, I don't entirely see the difference, but it doesn't do any harm and would make it easier to change in the future. You're right that a change to the guideline rather than marking historical is more in tune with the RfC, although at least one !voter did call for it to be overturned. Overall, it's no big deal, so I've made the change to the guideline and will update my closing statement accordingly. Cheers, Cremastra (talk·contribs) 21:15, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
Okay, but now we're still left with the bit at the end: A redirect or disambiguation page entry/hatnote must always be made from the base name. But the base name will either host the constituency article, be (or redirect to) a disambiguation page, or host another primary topic. Under no circumstances will the base name redirect to the article about the constituency. I agree when disambiguation is required, a consistent qualifier of "UK Parliament constituency" should be used, but do we really need a separate two-line naming convention for that? It's basic WP:CONSISTENT that could instead just be given as an example at WP:TITLECON. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:56, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
I think the best way forward is to start a discussion on the NCUKPARL talk page explicitly asking whether it should be marked historical or not. Cremastra (talk·contribs) 20:12, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Congratulations, Cremastra! The article you nominated, Macrobdella decora, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, DavidFuchs(talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:05, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
Traffic report: One click after another Serial-killer miniseries, deceased scientist, government shutdowns and Sandalwood hit "Kantara" crowd the tubes.
BeanieFan11(submissions) with 1,035 round points, mostly from 19 good articles and 21 did you know articles about athletes
vigilantcosmicpenguin(submissions) with 819 round points, mostly from 13 good articles and 11 did you know articles about a wide range of topics from abortion topics to African cities
TheNuggeteer(submissions) with 508 round points from 9 good articles, 4 good topic articles and 6 did you know articles mainly about Philippines topics, along with 19 good article reviews
The final round was very productive, and contestants had 2 featured articles, 4 featured lists, 106 good articles, 5 good topic articles, 178 article reviews, 76 did you know articles, and 9 in the news articles. Altogether, Wikipedia has benefited greatly from the activities of WikiCup competitors all through the contest. Well done everyone!
The top eight scorers will receive awards shortly. The following special awards will be made, based on high performance in particular areas of content creation. These prizes are awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field during the competition.
Gog the Mild(submissions) wins the featured article prize, with 12 featured articles total, and the featured topic prize, with 9 featured topic articles in total
AirshipJungleman29(submissions) wins the featured picture prize, submitting the only featured picture in the entire contest during round 3
History6042(submissions) wins the featured content reviewer prize, with 127 featured content reviews. He will also share the ITN prize, with 20 in the news articles in total.
BeanieFan11(submissions) wins the good article prize, with 100 good articles total, and the DYK prize, with 147 did you know articles in total. He will also share the ITN prize, with 20 in the news articles in total.
Next year's competition will begin on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate. The WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors, and we hope to see you all in the 2026 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement!
If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.
Megistaspis GA Nomination
Latest comment: 7 months ago4 comments2 people in discussion
I am currently trying to correct the instances of WP:CLOP in the Megistaspis article. While I haven't checked for other examples yet, I have rewritten the ones presented in the GA nomination. Would you be willing to give your thoughts?
African Mud Turtle (talk) 14:47, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
I believe I have found and corrected all of the instances of WP:CLOP in the Megistaspis article, including translation copyvios, but I would appreciate a second opinion before I put it up for GA review again. African Mud Turtle (talk) 13:43, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
It's definitely an improvement, but I didn't have time to do a full review.
Paraphrasing is hard. My first GA nomination failed for the same reason as yours. What I'd suggest is spend a month away from the article and then return with fresh eyes to change things up more. Change the structure of paragraphs and the structure of sentences, too, rather than just synonyming as much as you can. Sometimes there's only so much you can change something though, so don't sweat it too much. Cremastra (talk·contribs) 23:31, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
Edit summary usage
Latest comment: 7 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 7 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Cremastra! Hope you are doing well. I wanted to let you know that after a 2023 TFD (which only took ~two years to implement), {{wikisource author}} no longer works out of the box and is now a redirect to {{wikisource}}. To denote what used to be handled by {{wikisource author}}, use the |works=<"by", "about", or "both"> parameter. This will include the Author: prefix, automatically translated to the appropriate language. (This message is about Special:Diff/1307295434 in particular.) Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they)00:18, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Cookies!
BumblB645 has given you some cookies! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else some cookies, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookies}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!
Question from ImSpiderman09 (14:06, 13 November 2025)
Latest comment: 6 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hey. I'm making an article on Madame Talvande's Ladies Boarding School. The title has an incorrect grammar mark in it, but I can't figure out how to edit the title since i selected the article and the title was pre-made. --ImSpiderman09 (talk) 14:06, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
Latest comment: 6 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi, thank you for the work that you do!! I mostly signed on to support the mission and edit if I felt like it. What is the easiest way to get started with editing something? --Fab299 (talk) 18:02, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
December 2025 administrator elections - schedule
Latest comment: 6 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 6 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello Cremastra:
WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive in December!
The goal of this drive is to reduce the backlog of unreviewed drafts to less than half a month of outstanding reviews from the current 2+ months. Bonus points will be given for reviewing drafts that have been waiting more than 30 days. The drive is running from 1 December 2025 through 31 December 2025.
@Freedoxm I will discuss when you can actually cite me a guideline or policy that at least could be interpreted to support your position. Until then, you're just making stuff up and I'm under no requirement to be forced to discuss with you. MOS:LEADIMAGE is the pertinent guideline. It does not mention official portraits. The official portrait is very low resolution compared to most other available images and at an odd angle that makes the subject less recognizeable. I have no idea why you mentioned WP:QUALITY in your edit summary, since it's irrelevant, but MOS:IMAGEQUALITY most certainly applies to all articles! Cremastra (talk·contribs) 00:09, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for being my new mentor
Latest comment: 6 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 6 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Cremastera,
The lead section for United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement is repetitive and disorganized. It starts off with a general introduction statement immediately followed by current events and criticisms explained in a choppy fashion. The subsequent paragraphs go right back to general information and administrative layout. Finally, the last paragraph jumps back to current events and criticism. The prose is unnatural and redundant.
My rewrite consolidated these topics in a logical flow. I don't appreciate nor understand your rollback comment about "POV-pushing," especially since 90% of my edit was syntactical. Additionally, as part of this edit, I moved the entire controversy paragraph upwards, and within in it added a redirect and corresponding citation regarding ICE's flimsy relationship with the judicial system. Judging by your edit statements and user page, these are two things you should've welcomed, which is why I'm confused about your reaction.
As for the paramilitary characterization: I do believe both media and academic dialogue regarding this topic must be included in the lead. I do not believe it should be the very first thing mentioned, let alone mentioned twice. The definition of what constitutes a paramilitary in the eyes of legal scholars lies at a higher threshold than what is currently being met. Personally, I believe that ICE is a dangerous arm of a growing authoritarian government. I find it entirely possible that as the situation deteriorates, opinions of legal experts will eventually converge on the description you're promoting. As it stands now, however, I believe its singular mention in the controversy paragraph gives it the appropriate amount of weight in the context of the current legal debate.
Sorry for such the delay. I'll post a response to this in full in an hour or so when I'm more available but my problem with your edit was removing "paramilitary" from the lead first sentence, which I believe is WP:DUE. Cremastra (talk·contribs) 19:26, 26 November 2025 (UTC)
Administrator Elections - Call for Candidates
Latest comment: 6 months ago8 comments5 people in discussion
The process will have a seven day call for candidates phase, a two day pause, a five day discussion phase, and a seven day private vote using SecurePoll. Discussion and questions are only allowed on the candidate pages during the discussion phase.
The outcome of this process is identical to making a request for adminship. There is no official difference between an administrator appointed through RFA versus administrator elections.
Ask any questions about the process at the talk page. Later, a user talk message will be sent to official candidates with additional information about the process.
If you are interested in the process, please make sure to watchlist the appropriate pages. A watchlist notice will be added when the discussion phase opens, and again when the voting phase opens.
You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.
Saw you threw your hat in the ring. I've been consistently impressed with your content work and hope to see you break threshold. Best of luck from this twice-failed candidate, ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:33, 26 November 2025 (UTC)
You pass all my basic checks, such as GA, activity, edit count, no blocks, etc. Unless I'm missing something, I think you'd do OK. Please feel free to email me if you'd like to discuss further. I was going to DM you on Discord but you don't look very active there. Oh, and you could always do a quick WP:ORCP to take the community's temperature. You've got about 34 hours if you change your mind about running:) P.S. Getting an admin nominator could also give you a boost. –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:07, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
@Novem Linguae Like I said above, I think my temperament is the main concern. I discussed nomination with Femke earlier this year and the main upshot was that while I was fairly competent I did not have the temperament suited for adminship. The fact that users are pointing out incidents of sarcasm and taking other quotes out of context as if they were tantamount to passing out slurs rather suggests that I am a long way away from the community standard on civility.
If I may be allowed to kvetch a little more:— I think the community standard of civility is far too high and assumes that all editors are extremely thin-skinned and unable to accept brusqueness, which is not the case. I always try to be courteous to good faith new editors but sometimes become annoyed at more experienced contributors; similarly, when I was a new editor I expected courtesy but now that I know what I'm doing for the most part I'm happy to be talked to brusquely and honestly. Like it says at the top of this page, I welcome your criticism. We're colleagues, and colleagues can and should disagree about things very openly without fear or favour. I recognize that this is not the community view.
I'm not saying we should spend our time swearing at each other. If I see a section of a discussion that has entirely derailed into tangential sniping, I often collapse it. I'm saying that civility police coming down on sarcasm and "direct communication style" is not useful. We're colleagues working towards a common goal: we'll sometimes disagree and get cranky with one another and talk to each other like humans. We'd all be better off if instead of dragging users to AN/I for relatively minor incivility and promoting more drama we spent more time forgiving transgressions, accepting we disagree, and getting work done. Cremastra (talk·contribs) 15:39, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Reading it, I realize the above comment makes me look like a total asshole.
Look – I'm not saying brusqueness in communication is a good thing per se. But I think it's hypocritical to say "focus on content, not contributors" (a sentiment I firmly agree with) and then obsess over contributors' communication style. If a user is actually systematically harassing/belittling other users, then we need sanctions. If a user is brusque and honest, I think that's fine.
I'm thinking of a user I've run across several times, Tim riley. I find their communication style sometimes condescending and rather rude. They can also be very nice sometimes. And I accept that. I'd rather get the job done and work with them than waste time criticizing them for being brusque. Cremastra (talk·contribs) 15:52, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Sounds good. Thanks for the explanation. Yeah, with the vibe of your two posts (a bit strong/pushy compared to what the community probably wants at RFA/AELECT), I have changed my mind, and I agree that waiting to run is probably the right move. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:16, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
LLMs
Latest comment: 6 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Looks useful, but I'd be very wary of encouraging new editors to use that as a tool to fix article errors, as it may mislead them. However, it could be valuable for more experienced editors looking for errors to fix. Cremastra (talk·contribs) 20:23, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
RfD closure of Noakhali Express
Latest comment: 6 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Cremastra, this closure looks overzealous. It's normal to propose such redirects be deleted to make room for an article (WP:REDLINK). I haven't looked into this specific one enough to form an opinion, but this doesn't look like the wrong venue, so such a quick closure is surprising. --BDD (talk) 20:45, 26 November 2025 (UTC)
Hi, @BDD sorry for the delayed response; I've been pretty stretched IRL the last few days.
Reading it the first time, I parsed it as asking permission to overwrite the redirect with an article, from an editor either misinformed or confused about what RfD is for.
However, reading it the second time, I can see it being interpreted as a request for deletion rather than to write an article. Thanks a lot for pointing that out. I'll undo my closure and ping the editor for clarification on what they want done with the redirect. Cremastra (talk·contribs) 20:19, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
If you want to save your changes to a page, press the "publish changes" button. If you want to exit the editing dialogue and discard your changes, you can just close the tab or hit the back button on your browser. Cremastra (talk·contribs) 17:10, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
The Signpost: 1 December 2025
Latest comment: 6 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
On December 9, we will start the voting phase. The candidate subpages will close to public questions and discussion, and everyone will have a week to use the SecurePoll software to vote, which uses a secret ballot. You can see who voted, but not who they voted for. Please note that the vote totals cannot be made public until after voting has ended and as such, it will not be possible for you to see an individual candidate's totals during the election. You must be extended confirmed to vote.
Once voting concludes, we will begin the scrutineering phase, which typically lasts between a couple days and a week. Once everything is certified, the results will be posted on the results page (you may want to watchlist this page) and transcluded to the main election page. In order to be granted adminship, a candidate who has not been recalled must have received at least 70.0% support, calculated as Support / (Support + Oppose), and must also have received a minimum of 20 support votes. A candidate that has been recalled must have at least 55.0% support. Because this is a vote and not a consensus, there are no bureaucrat discussions ("crat chats").
Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.
You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.
In the voting phase, the candidate subpages close to public questions and discussion, and everyone who qualifies to vote has a week to use the SecurePoll software to vote, which uses a secret ballot. You can see who voted, but not who they voted for. Please note that the vote totals cannot be made public until after voting has ended and as such, it will not be possible for you to see an individual candidate's vote total during the election. The suffrage requirements are similar to those at RFA.
Once voting concludes, we will begin the scrutineering phase, which will last for a few days, perhaps longer. Once everything is certified, the results will be posted on the results page (this is a good page to watchlist), and transcluded to the main election page. In order to be granted adminship, a non-recall candidate must have received at least 70.0% support, calculated as Support / (Support + Oppose), and a minimum of 20 support votes. Recall candidates must achieve 55.0% support. Because this is a vote and not a consensus, there are no bureaucrat discussions ("crat chats").
Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.
You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.
Thank you today for Macrobdella decora, "about a species of commonly encountered leech found in eastern North America. The leeches grow up to 8.5 cm long and have striking orange spots on their backs and a mottled, dull orange underbelly. Their saliva, like that of several leech species, is of scientific interest, and it contains a blood-thinner dubbed "decorsin" which may be unique to the species."! - Yesterday's story is still on the same page. - Enjoy your first TFA day! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:33, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Caught by autoblock
Latest comment: 6 months ago5 comments4 people in discussion
This user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.
Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Qwerhgfhytjmtutnrihnirnhtihnrtihurtnhrthotrhontrhnt". The reason given for Qwerhgfhytjmtutnrihnirnhtihnrtihurtnhrthotrhontrhnt's block is: "Vandalism-only account".
Thanks, I will have this in mind, though in this case CU was probably not necessary, just an admin better familiar with autoblocks than I am. Ymblanter (talk) 19:48, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
Latest comment: 6 months ago4 comments3 people in discussion
I have several issues with your close, but my main one is this statement: We already have site-wide consensus, achieved through an RfC, that the Gaza genocide should be identified as a genocide in the lead sentence in wikivoice. That RfC did not specify that it would apply site-wide, and neither did this one. But now, because of the wording you used in the close, that RfC apparently must cascade across every article. The wording you used implies that every single article that mentions Israel's actions in the Gaza war must now call Israel's actions genocide. There's likely going to be outrage over this. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 23:20, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
A well-attended RfC is not WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, and there is an expectation of consistency between articles. There was consensus at the Israel talk page that the Gaza genocide consensus should apply to the Israel article as well. However, you're right that the Gaza genocide consensus was not explicitly a global consensus, and that sentence you quote was poorly phrased. I will strike and clarify what I mean. Cremastra (talk·contribs) 23:23, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
Another thing: you say, Most oppose !votes failed to respond to these points and instead argued broadly against identifying the genocide as such in wikivoice at all. Yes, but the opposers had more arguments in general. Many support !votes provided little more than barebones "per previous RfC" statements. One of the longer ones appeals to Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED, which is a bad argument. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 23:35, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
I agree, there is not a site wide consensus. That is a local consensus. Yes, editors can point to it and say, we said yes there, but that doesn't mean it applies everywhere. Consider that the mix of editors who show up to a given article may impact the outcome. When I looked at the other article it seemed like it was just a bit over what I would consider the no-consensus line. If that exact same RfC were repeated today (and I'm only stating this as a hypothetical), it's quite possible it wouldn't reach consensus level given some new sources as well as perhaps more interest from editors who weren't involved in the previous topic. Also, while the other RfC was well attended, so was this one. Honestly, this come across as a supervote. Looking at both the number and weight of argument, I can't see how one could objectively claim this was anything other than a NOCON. I would suggest reverting the close and, ideally having a panel close of this RfC. Springee (talk) 23:43, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
Closure review
Latest comment: 6 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hello @Cremastra. I wanted to let you know that I will be requesting a closure review of your non-admin closure of the discussion at Talk:Israel#RfC: Whether to state that Israel has committed genocide against Palestinians. I appreciate the time you took to write it up, but this isn't an area where a non-administrator should be making the closing decision. That is according to WP:BADNAC situation 1 (which says "The discussion is contentious (especially if it falls within a Contentious Topic), and your close is likely to be controversial".) Some of the language used in the closure was also argumentative, which I'm not sure is helpful. Coining (talk) 23:38, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
I agree; this part reads like an argument to discount the opposers and not as a neutral summary of the discussion:
If you think the best argument the opposers can come up with is "well, uh, the preceding RfC was flawed, because I disagree with its outcome" or "we shouldn't be putting that in wikivoice because x", then I'm rather disappointed. They could have far better arguments than that.
Latest comment: 5 months ago7 comments5 people in discussion
Thank you for closing that Israel genocide RFC. Given the topic, it's pretty much guaranteed that whoever closed it would get complaints that they were biased against one side or the other and had used an improper procedure. Our consensus- and policy-based editing process depends on volunteers like you who are willing to think deeply about the outcome of a discussion. I'm sorry that sometimes comes with a bit of drama. Just wanted to let you know that your work makes a difference and is quietly appreciated by lots of people. -- Beland (talk) 22:23, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for this. I was really just counting down to when someone protested the outcome, though I didn't expect it to come to close review. That said, I'm not really sweating about this one: I'm pretty sure I made the right call. Happy editing, Cremastra (talk·contribs) 22:27, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
You don’t need to sweat. If you closed it other way - then yeah - because it directly goes against the previous RFC. I opened the rfc because editors argued that rfc at Gaza genocide should not apply there. That does not make any sense to me. I don't think consensus on Gaza genocide can be reversed in the future. But i'm sure there will be plenty of attempts Cinaroot (talk) 03:51, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
I don't know. For the sake of consistency, it had to be one way or the other, and I guess we picked straight marks, probably because they're easier to type on most keyboards. Cremastra (talk·contribs) 21:59, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)probably because they're easier to type on most keyboards
That's exactly why: a footnote in MOS says As per MOS:CURLY, curly quotation marks and apostrophes are deprecated on the English Wikipedia because straight quotation marks and apostrophes are easier to type reliably on most platforms.SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 14:27, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
Latest comment: 5 months ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Can I block a temporary account from editing if most of its edits on shopping mall articles is inaccurate ownership and claims without a source to prove otherwise? This is probably a WP:Verifiability violation. --Aspifi (talk) 02:43, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
@Aspifi Only administrators have the capability to block accounts. I suggest leaving a warning message on the temp's talk page. If the disruption continues, report it at WP:AN/I or WP:AIV. If you link to the temp's contributions, I can assess the severity of what it's doing help you monitor and report it. Cremastra (talk·contribs) 03:05, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
I think I found the user – I see you've already warned them. Yep, that kind of editing is really frustrating to deal with.
Non-free use of File:Wait! I want to be Napoleon.png
Latest comment: 5 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Thank you for uploading File:Wait! I want to be Napoleon.png. However, there is a concern that the use of the image on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. Details of this problem, and which specific criteria that the image may not meet, can be obtained by going to the image description page. If you feel that this image does meet those criteria, please place a note on the image description or talk page explaining why. Do not remove the {{di-fails NFCC}} tag itself.
Latest comment: 5 months ago2 comments1 person in discussion
{{unblock-auto|Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Linguisticlassesandeducaionresouces". The reason given for Linguisticlassesandeducaionresouces's block is: "Persistent addition of unsourced content".|Lofty abyss|25296381}}
Might I also request WP:IPBE, since I've been hit twice in one week now? Thanks. Cremastra (talk·contribs) 17:11, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
Latest comment: 5 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I have granted your account an IP block exemption. This will allow you to edit the English Wikipedia through full blocks affecting your IP address when you are logged in.
Latest comment: 5 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
When Wikipedia started, was every article created by one person instead of the site autogenerating them or a staff member making them? --Aspifi (talk) 23:35, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
Aspifisite autogenerating them or a staff member making them I think you're confused. That's the way it works now and has always worked. There is no way for a website to write articles, and WMF staff members (of which there are very few) have no special powers and, in fact, don't really do any real work. You and I are both editors, so we are both "staff members". You should be able to directly create an article yourself, if it takes your fancy, (bearing in mind all relevant guidelines and so on). Cremastra (talk·contribs) 01:06, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
A Very Merry Christmas to you!
Latest comment: 5 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello there. 'Tis the season again, believe it or not, the years pass so quickly now! Your contributions to Wikipedia in 2025 are greatly appreciated! Wishing you a Very Merry Christmas, and here's to a happy and productive 2026! ♦ Dr. Blofeld17:48, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
01813353384
Latest comment: 5 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thank you for improving article quality in December! - Today's 1715 Advent Bach cantata translates to "Prepare the ways", - listen to quite stunning music if you haven't;) - "places" take you to Copenhagen. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:09, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
Question from Nepali SEO (06:47, 23 December 2025)
Latest comment: 5 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
If I have a new article about the thing which is not posted yet so can I post such article and what are the main things to consider to not violate any rules. --Nepali SEO (talk) 06:47, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
Drafts that go unedited for six months are eligible for deletion, in accordance with our draftspace policy, and this one has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission, and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you read this, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the draft so you can continue to work on it.
New Pages Patrol is hosting a one-time, two-month experimental backlog drive aimed at reducing the backlog. This will be a combo drive: both articles and redirects will earn points.
The drive will run from 1 January to 28 February 2026.
The drive is divided into two phases. Participants may take part in either phase or across both phases, depending on availability.
Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled during the drive.
Two-month drive-exclusive barnstars will be awarded to eligible participants.
Each article review earns 1 point, while each redirect review earns 0.2 points.
Streak awards will be granted based on consistently meeting weekly point thresholds.
Barnstars will also be awarded for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive.
Question from WareWolf665 (16:32, 31 December 2025)
Latest comment: 5 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi! Hope you are doing fine. There is an IP on my talk page that has violated several policies despite warning. I am still new to Wiki and this will be my first report. How exactly should I proceed? Thank you --WareWolf665 (talk) 16:32, 31 December 2025 (UTC)
Welcome to the 2026 WikiCup!
Latest comment: 5 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The 2026 competition has just begun and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. Even if you are a novice editor, we hope the WikiCup will give you a chance to improve your editing skills as you go. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here, and a bot will set up your submissions page within one day, ready for you to take part. Any questions on the scoring, rules or anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page.
For the 2026 WikiCup, the highest-ranking contestants will receive tournament points at the end of each round, and final rankings are decided by the number of tournament points each contestant has. This is the same scoring system that we had last year. If you're busy and can't sign up in January, don't worry: Signups are open throughout the year. To make things fairer for latecomers, the lowest-scoring contestants are no longer eliminated at the end of each round.
@EricaHopkins:Hi! Please tell your boss that you're sorry, but Wikipedia policy does not permit this kind of editing. See this page for the reasons why. In short, this is an encyclopedia, not a vehicle for corporate promotion. It'd be odd if our articles on cities were written by the city's tourism bureaus – and for the same reason, you are most strongly discouraged from writing about your company, even if you're not getting paid for it. Cremastra (talk·contribs) 21:47, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
Columella request
Latest comment: 4 months ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Hi! You've used your alt account to change over 100 links to Columella following the undiscussed move of that page, but in many cases you seem not to have piped the link, and thus to have (unnecessarily) changed the text the reader sees to a name infrequently used for him (when not called by the single name he's usually known as Lucius Junius Moderatus Columella). Could you perhaps go back and restore the previous wording in all those where there's no real possibility of confusion for the reader with other things called Columella? Thank you, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:52, 11 January 2026 (UTC)
Thank you so much, I appreciate the extra trouble. As you've probably seen, I'm far from convinced that the page move itself was right, but at least the text of the many articles that mention him again use the name he's usually known by. Thanks again, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:57, 14 January 2026 (UTC)
The Signpost: 15 January 2026
Latest comment: 4 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 4 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
While you state no harm done, it would be further remiss of me to not provide an apology for this action, so I apologise for pinging you as a did. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 16:17, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
Nah, no worries. I wasn't annoyed, I just didn't want to get involved in P-I discussions further. Seeing as I have in the past, you were perfectly justified in pinging me. Thanks. Cremastra (talk·contribs) 18:15, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
Four Award
Latest comment: 4 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 4 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for your nomination of the Killing of Alex Pretti. You asked for feedback so here's some pointers:
An image adds visual interest and so I've added one (right) to the nomination
You omitted several other parameters which are usually used: nominator, creator, updaters and updated. I usually cut/paste the full template which is linked in the Nomination steps – {{ITN candidate}} – and then fill in all relevant parameters, using the template as a checklist.
The template {{ITN note}} should be added to the article's talk page to attract interested editors
Don't be too discouraged by opposition as this is common at ITN. ITN has very little influence on what the public reads and so, even though it hasn't been posted yet, the article was still the top read on Wikipedia yesterday with over 600K views. ITN only drives about 20K views and is mainly a way of engaging Wikipedians rather than the general public.
Per Woody Allen, "80% of success is just showing up", so do please continue to make more nominations.
Question from St Kinko 0606 (11:59, 31 January 2026)
Latest comment: 4 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
If I found a link (to a person, a feature/producer) on a page about an album, and this link just links to the page about the album itself, simply bringing you to the top, should I get rid of the link? --St Kinko 0606 (talk) 11:59, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
Latest comment: 4 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello, thank you for reviewing my article (Hypanis plicata) and letting it get to GA status! When I'll be creating or improving more articles I'll keep in mind the stylistic changes you've made and suggested. I'll try to write better and hopefully not miss so many commas :3
Also, I'm not sure if you noticed but I did add script titles to all Russian sources. You could look them up, though I wouldn't blame you if you don't want to at this point.
Sn 173 (talk) 09:12, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
You're welcome. My apologies about the script titles; I thought I saw a reference that was missing one but I just misread it. Thanks! I'm always happy to review articles; it's just that I'm notoriously slow about it due to a mix of IRL business and my own procrastination.:) Cremastra (talk·contribs) 17:01, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
DYK for Abra aequalis
Latest comment: 4 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
On 12 February 2026, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Abra aequalis, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the tiny Abra aequalis (pictured) is a major food source for a species of large starfish? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Abra aequalis. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Abra aequalis), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to nominate it.
Latest comment: 3 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I am reading Satish Kumar’s book Pilgrimage for Peace republished by Green books in 2021 where he talks about his marriage to Lata and the birth of their child. He also describes how difficult it was for her to give him her blessing as she realised that he would be away for a long time - 2 years in fact. Yet none of this is recorded in Wikipedia?
I love and admire Satish Kumar for all he is and the role modelling he continues. I have recently met him and his wife June and love her too. --Whitman44 (talk) 09:34, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
The Signpost: 17 February 2026
Latest comment: 3 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 3 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The first round of the 2026 WikiCup ended on 26 February. As some of you may have noticed, good article nomination reviews now receive 10 points, an increase from 5 points in the previous year, as per a consensus at WT:CUP. This point increase has been retroactively applied to all good article reviews for which competitors have claimed points in this round. Peer reviews, which continue to be worth 5 points, are now listed in the same section as featured article candidate reviews, rather than with good article reviews. Everyone who competed in round 1 will advance to round 2 unless they have withdrawn or been banned. No other changes to the round-point system have been made for this year.
Round 1 was competitive. Three contestants scored more than 1,000 round points, and the top 16 contestants all scored more than 300 round points. The following competitors scored more than 800 round points:
Generalissima(submissions) with 1,095 round points, largely from 3 featured articles, 6 good articles, and 5 did you know articles;
MCE89(submissions) with 848 round points, largely from 1 featured article, 8 good articles, 1 did you know article, and 32 FAC and GAN reviews; and
Rollinginhisgrave(submissions) with 838 round points, largely from 1 featured article, 8 good articles, 1 did you know article, and 14 FAC, GAN, and peer reviews.
The full scores for round 1 can be seen here. During this round, contestants have claimed 7 featured articles, 16 featured lists, 2 featured-topic articles, 168 good articles, 13 good-topic articles and more than 50 Did You Know articles. In addition, competitors have worked on 14 In the News articles, and they have conducted nearly 700 reviews. The tournament points table will be updated within the next few days.
Remember that any content promoted after 26 February but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, feel free to review one of the nominations listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:56, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
Question from OakTrail64 (22:52, 27 February 2026)
Latest comment: 3 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 3 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion
"Nom was not aware of the pertinent guideline." Please don't cast asperiations. The only I AFDed Strebelia is because the article is missing key details. GiftedIceCream20:46, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
I was not casting aspersions. I was noting for the record that you made an honest mistake, rather than deliberately give a bad deletion rationale. Cremastra (talk·contribs) 20:53, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) @GiftedIceCream Hi there, I do not consider that an aspersion. It is totally fine to not be aware of a certain notability guideline, the article def needs improvements, but good thing is that you now know why the article shouldn’t be deleted. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:57, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
The Signpost: 10 March 2026
Latest comment: 3 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Special report: What actually happened during the Wikimedia security incident? A horrifying exploit took place, which could have had catastrophic and far-reaching consequences if used maliciously; instead, it seems to have happened by accident and was used for childish vandalism. How did this happen, and what did the script actually do?
Since I'm generally anti-LLM—apparently "rabidly" so, according to one administrator—I'm obviously in favour of further restrictions on their use. I think this is a very well-thought-out proposal, and I especially like the last paragraph, which should deflect some criticism from that argument line. I'll check out the discussion—thanks for telling me about this! Cremastra (talk·contribs) 18:26, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Latest comment: 2 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
There is plenty of time remaining to meet the goal of 26 new articles representing each letter of the alphabet, to be made in the year 2026. Let me know if you're looking for ideas. Cheers! BD2412T00:35, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
Latest comment: 2 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Good day sir/ma,
Thank you for being assigned as my mentor, I really appreciate the opportunity to learn from you.
I would like to ask for your guidance on how to properly write and publish a Wikipedia article, particularly about a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) I work with. I want to make sure I follow all the guidelines, especially regarding notability, sourcing, and conflict of interest.
Could you please advise me on the best approach to take, and any key things I should avoid while working on this?
Thanks for your interest in contributing. Writing a Wikipedia article about someone you work with comes with a lot of extra red tape, because, as you say, you have a large conflict of interest. This page covers our guideline with editing with a conflict of interest (COI): please remember that editing with a COI is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. We'd really, really rather you don't. But if you really want to go ahead, I've left some links on your user talk page for how to get started writing an article with a COI, as well as some more general introduction links. Feel free to ask more questions here about specific sources, notability, prose style, etc. It is particularly important the article avoid sounding promotional in tone: this isn't an opportunity to make the gentleman or lady in question look good, but an opportunity to write about their life in a neutral, encyclopedic context. Cremastra (talk·contribs) 15:57, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Drafts that go unedited for six months are eligible for deletion, in accordance with our draftspace policy, and this one has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission, and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you read this, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the draft so you can continue to work on it.
Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi, I'm preparing an edit in my sandbox. I'm writing in Spanish for Spanish wikipedia and have problems with the dates in the references which I write in Spanish. The error message in the reference is "Check date values in | access-date=(help)CS1 main| unrecognised language (link). That is the problem. My question is: is it possible to change my language when editing to Spanish for some Spanish Wikipedia pages and English for English Wikipedia pages? --ChristoRobin (talk) 19:02, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi, I submitted this draft about two months ago and it is still waiting for review. Could you please take a look or advise if it is ready to be moved to the mainspace?
Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion
You are invited to participate in the Destubathon of the Americas, a contest/editathon which will run from May 1 to May 31. The goal is to destub as many of our 475,000+ stubs for the Americas (from Alaska down to Chile) as possible. A good chance to have fun in expanding many of our old stale stubs and win up to £2000 ($2680) in Amazon vouchers for expanding stub articles. Sign up in the Contestants/participants section on the contest page if interested. Even if not interested in prizes you are still warmly welcome to participate in it as an editathon! Hopefully we can achieve something significant in the month of May together! ♦ Dr. Blofeld16:49, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 month ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Good morning, I’m a judge with the King County Superior Court. I sit on the Court’s History Committee. We decided we would like to update our Wikipedia page, and I have been tasked with the job. There is a partial block in place on the page, preventing me from editing it. Any advice on how to get the block lifted? --KingCountyCourt (talk) 18:25, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
@KingCountyCourt: Good evening. The short answer is, unfortunately, that we'd really prefer you don't do this kind of editing.
As a judge, you'll understand all about conflict of interest, and I can assume you can see why it would be poor practice for us to allow every person to edit pages they have a COI with. At best, all our articles would end up full of—not to put too fine a point on it—promotional crap. At worst, we'd lose the public trust.
Now, we can't ban editing pages you have a conflict of interest with, but we really strongly discourage it. Wikipedia editors usually recuse themselves from editing topics they have a COI with. I linked our guideline on COI editing above, and you can find it at WP:COI.
There also might a second problem with the editing you're proposing. If you're being paid (or otherwise incentivized) for your edits, that's another kind of editing we really want to avoid dealing with. You can find our guidelines on that at WP:PAID, but the bottom line there is that you must disclose any compensation you receive for your edits on your userpage. We take transparency very seriously.
There's also the more minor problem that your username is "KingCountyCourt", and our guidelines on usernames ask that you represent yourself as a person: don't use the name of your organization or any other formulation that implies shared use. See WP:ORGNAME for examples and details on this. I'll post some links to your talk page explaining what you can do to fix this.
Wikipedia loves guidelines and rules, and I'm sorry you've ran into so many of them on your first day here! Don't panic about falling afoul of them—we're not going to ban you from editing because you're new and aren't sure about the huge number of rules. But the long story short is that we'd really, really prefer you don't edit like you're suggesting. I recommend you read this essay, which gives guidance for people in your position. (The general guideline there is: tell your boss it can't be done. Really.)
In response to the question you actually asked—sorry it took so long to get here—I presume you're asking about the article King County Superior Court. That page currently has no protection on it, and according to the logs never has, so you may be tripping an edit filter or something else more complicated. If possible, can you link to a screenshot of what it looks like when you try and edit the page and I can help troubleshoot? Thanks! Cremastra (talk·contribs) 22:40, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
The Signpost: 21 April 2026
Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello, I have never edited on Wikipedia before and have just set up this page so I hope you can provide assistance. Firstly, I'd like to disclose a conflict of interest. I work for University College Cork in Ireland. We underwent a brand refresh and our logo has now changed colour to a yellow background and leads with the Irish translation of the college name first. I would like the university wikipedia page to display the new logo if possible. I'd appreciate some information on how to potentially get this done and what files etc would i need to get started. I have read some info online and know that it's not good practice do edit directly on the page so I'm not going to do anything but would merely like to potentially change the logo, If you think it would be too much hassle to interfere with this, just let me know and I will do nothing. The website is www.ucc.ie so you can see the logo is now different to what currently sits on the wikipedia page. If it is possible, you might provide some information on what I need to do as there's loads of informtion online and it's confusing. Thanks, Duffer2001 --Duffer2001 (talk) 14:53, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks a lot for disclosing your conflict of interest here. To upload a new logo, you'd probably have to upload the file to Wikipedia at Special:Upload, fill out a detailed form explaining why you want to upload a copyrighted image, make sure the resolution is low enough, and then place a formal request on the talk page to add the file to the right place in the article. This is one of those areas of editing that are very complicated for new editors and governed by a web of pedantic rules, so it's frankly easier if I just do it for you than try to explain everything you need to jeep in mind.:) It'll take about five to ten minutes for me to make the changes. Cheers, Cremastra (talk·contribs) 15:49, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
Yep, it's all handled. You don't have to arrange anything.
If you do choose to continue editing Wikipedia on your own basis on topics your interested in, you'd probably have to disclose your COI on your userpage. Cheers, Cremastra (talk·contribs) 15:46, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
May 2026 Administrator Election – Call for Candidates
Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The administrator elections process has officially started! Interested editors are encouraged to self-nominate or arrange to be nominated by reviewing the instructions at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/May 2026/Candidates.
Here is the schedule:
April 29 – May 5: Call for candidates
May 8–12: Discussion phase
May 13–19: SecurePoll voting phase
Please note the following:
The requirements to run are identical to RFA—a prospective candidate must be extended confirmed.
The process will have a seven day call for candidates phase, a two day pause, a five day discussion phase, and a seven day private vote using SecurePoll. Discussion and questions are only allowed on the candidate pages during the discussion phase.
The outcome of this process is identical to making a request for adminship. There is no official difference between an administrator appointed through RFA versus administrator elections.
Ask any questions about the process at the talk page. Later, a user talk message will be sent to official candidates with additional information about the process.
If you are interested in the process, please make sure to watchlist the appropriate pages. A watchlist notice will be added when the discussion phase opens, and again when the voting phase opens.
You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.
Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The second round of the 2026 WikiCup ended on 28 April. As a reminder for contestants who just joined or are unaware of recent changes to our round-points system, good article nomination reviews now receive 10 points, an increase from 5 points in the previous year, as per a consensus at WT:CUP. Peer reviews, which continue to be worth 5 points, are now listed in the same section as featured article candidate reviews, rather than with good article reviews. Everyone who competed in round 2 will advance to round 3 unless they have withdrawn or been banned. No other changes to the round-point system have been made for this year.
Round 2 was competitive. Three contestants scored more than 1,000 round points; nine scored over 500; and fourteen scored over 300. The top seven contestants had at least one featured article (two of them with two apiece). The following competitors scored more than 800 round points:
MCE89(submissions) with 1,333 points, mainly from good and featured articles about Australian people and geography
Bgsu98(submissions) with 1,149 points, mainly from good articles, featured articles, and featured lists about figure skating, along with many article reviews and two good topics
Olliefant(submissions) with 830 points, mainly from good and featured articles about television shows, episodes and media, along with nearly four dozen good and featured article reviews
The full scores for round 2 can be seen here. During this round, contestants have claimed 12 featured articles, 13 featured lists, 2 featured-topic articles, 106 good articles, 22 good-topic articles and more than 40 Did You Know articles. In addition, competitors have worked on 3 In the News articles, and they have conducted over 200 reviews. The tournament points table has been updated.
Remember that any content promoted after 28 April but before the start of Round 3 can be claimed in Round 3. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, feel free to review one of the nominations listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:49, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
April thanks
Latest comment: 1 month ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi, I want to write an article on Online Leak Sealing , this is a subject in Mechanical Maintenance in Industrial plants. I found its quiet interesting and worth sharing an article on the topic. Can you please help? --Hunnymillionaire9 (talk) 10:52, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
On 13 May, we will start the voting phase. The candidate subpages will close to public questions and discussion, and everyone will have a week to use the SecurePoll software to vote, which uses a secret ballot. You can see who voted, but not who they voted for.
Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.
You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.
Latest comment: 1 month ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Subject: Request for Review of Sandbox Article on Kanthi Johnpillai
Message:
Hello Wikipedia Editors,
I recently created a sandbox article about Kanthi Johnpillai and submitted it for review. However, it has not yet been approved or moved to the live space. I would appreciate it if you could kindly review the draft and provide feedback on any improvements needed to meet Wikipedia’s notability and sourcing guidelines.
I am committed to making the necessary edits to ensure the article aligns with Wikipedia’s standards. Please let me know if additional references, formatting, or content adjustments are required.
In the voting phase, the candidate subpages close to public questions and discussion, and everyone who qualifies to vote has a week to use the SecurePoll software to vote, which uses a secret ballot. You can see who voted, but not who they voted for. Please note that the vote totals cannot be made public until after voting has ended and as such, it will not be possible for you to see an individual candidate's vote total during the election. The suffrage requirements are similar to those at RFA.
Once voting concludes, we will begin the scrutineering phase, which will last for a few days, perhaps longer. Once everything is certified, the results will be posted on the results page (this is a good page to watchlist), and transcluded to the main election page. In order to be granted adminship, a non-recall candidate must have received at least 70.0% support, calculated as Support / (Support + Oppose), and a minimum of 20 support votes. Recall candidates must achieve 55.0% support. Because this is a vote and not a consensus, there are no bureaucrat discussions ("crat chats").
Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.
You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.
Latest comment: 29 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello Cremastra,
New Page Review queue November 2025 - May 2026
Backlog update
At the time of this message, there are 15,282 articles and 32,951 redirects awaiting review.
After the January–February drive the article backlog was reduced to 15,179 articles and the redirect backlog to 19,053 respectively. Great job! However, both queues are growing rapidly and any additional reviews are highly appreciated.
2024 and 2025 NPP Awards
JTtheOG was selected as the NPP reviewer of the year for both 2024 and 2025, for reviewing the most articles amongst all reviewers.
Hey man im josh and MPGuy2824 won the Redirect Ninja Master Award for 2024 and 2025 respectively, for reviewing the most redirects.
Overall in 2024, one Platinum, two Gold, eight Silver, 12 Bronze and 45 Iron Barnstars were awarded. Additionally, 66 reviewers got the NPP barnstar for doing more than 100 reviews through the year. In 2025, one Platinum, ten Silver, 13 Bronze and 38 Iron Barnstars were awarded. Additionally, 38 reviewers got the NPP barnstar for doing more than 100 reviews through the year.
The experimental two-month long backlog drive concluded with 183 reviewers patrolling over 27,761 articles and 35,309 redirects, earning over 36,836 points. Congratulations to JTtheOG, who achieved first place with 6,484.6 points in this drive.
An attempt was made to get the New Pages Feed to sort by date marked as reviewed instead of date created. However we had to revert it due to bugs. We may try again in the future. You can subscribe to the Phabricator ticket if you're interested in following along.
Latest comment: 25 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion
On 19 May 2026, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Alan J. Southward, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that marine ecologist Alan J. Southward almost never got sea-sick—because he was deaf? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Alan J. Southward. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Alan J. Southward), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to nominate it.
Thank you for improving article quality in May, such as this one! - Today: Felicity Lott. If you have little time, just give me a click;) - If you have more, see her story. If you have more, listen to her singing Friendly Vision. If you have more, listen until she sings the word "peace" (Frieden), floating up high, serenely. --
You may be eligible to vote in the U4C election
Latest comment: 23 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I am contacting you because you previously voted in elections related to the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C). You may be eligible to vote in the current U4C election, which is open now and closes on 2 June 2026. You can find out more about the candidates and the election on the election page on Meta, and from there you can access the vote itself. Your participation in these elections is important to the governance of Wikimedia communities, and your time spent learning about the candidates and voting is appreciated.
Latest comment: 21 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion
News and notes: Offline: Osama Khalid still in prison He has been imprisoned since 2020 for his Wikipedia edits. A fresh campaign is calling for his release.
Recent research: WikiLambda the Ultimate Does Abstract Wikipedia help fight "One ring to rule them all" solutions for knowledge access - or does it implement one itself?
Oh, Lord. No, I haven't seen it until now, having been taking a break of sorts from Wikipedia. I'll add it to the ever-growing index. Cremastra (talk·contribs) 15:31, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
Latest comment: 18 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Sorry if I'm a bit annoying, but expect that from a doofus like me. I like to edit hard rock/heavy metal music articles, and there are two articles that I would like to start working on. Hybrid Theory (EP) by Linkin Park (not the full-length, but the rare EP that came before), and Recoded by Fear Factory. --Helomoeto (talk) 23:20, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
Hi! If you want to get started, this page has some general guidance and you can start a draft article here.
It's very important to make sure the topic you want to write about is "notable". Notability in wiki-speak doesn't exactly mean "famous": it means that there is enough coverage of the topic in multiple, independent, and reliable sources that the topic merits inclusion in the encyclopedia. For example, granite has an article because a lot of research has been done and a lot of papers have been written about granite. My cat, on the other hand, doesn't have an article because she's never even been in the news. There are of course shades of subtlety to this, and you can learn about how to apply our notability guidelines here.
We also have some subject-specific notability guidelines that have slightly different criteria. What sort of article were you planning to write? Cremastra (talk·contribs) 01:05, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
Latest comment: 15 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello Cremastra,
I'm sorry to hear that you were frustrated when reading the distribution section of Physella acuta. Could you provide a more detail on what you thought was lacking so that I can do a focused search through the literature?
I also agree that adding a distribution map will not endanger my life. I'll see to it but it will take a while since I've never made one (or rather asked for one, as I don't think my skills would yield in a high quality image).
Please feel free to add any more comments on the article to your reply. I'll be happy to make P. acuta as good of an article as it can get.
_by_Ron.jpg)
.JPG)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
