This is an archive of past discussions with User:Eddie891. 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.
Latest comment: 11 months ago18 comments2 people in discussion
Greetings: My wording was perhaps inartfully worded, but I would like to send you validated primary documents in which (1) Harald Malmgren himself signed and certified that he was at Harvard only from Sept. 1958 to January 1959 (one semester), then at Oxford until July 1961; and (2) his official vita provided to U.S. Senate in 1976, showing that his Wilson fellowship, whenever it may have initially been awarded, was effectuated many years later. Verbatim from his vita: "In the period March 1975 to April 1976 he was a Fellow of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars at the Smithsonian Institute." I am rusty on the mechanics here so I hope I am following correct procedures to communicate with you. The documents are PDF. I have many other validated government documents that recite Malmgren's educational history and academic credentials, and they are consistent both regarding his brief association with Harvard and on the Wilson matter, I think. FedDoc (talk) 11:57, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
Hi @FedDoc, Thanks for reaching out. We can primarily communicate here if that works. Here's my thoughts:
re himself signed and certified that he was at Harvard only from Sept. 1958 to January 1959 (one semester) - we can't use primary sources as reliable ones on Wikipedia. And I think we'd better not use anything Malmgren said about what he did - isn't that what got us into this mess in the first place? That being said, he may well have only been at Harvard for a semester (indeed, I suspect that he probably was), but can we find a published source which supports this? The article currently carefully avoids dating how long Malmgren was at Harvard, and only states the years in which he was awarded a Woodrow Wilson National Fellowship (also, see my point #3).
I'm quite confident that the cited Oxford University Gazette states he got his DPhil in Feb 1962, and can send you a screenshot confirming this if you want.
In the period March 1975 to April 1976 he was a Fellow of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars at the Smithsonian Institute - This is true, but is different from his Wilson Fellowship (which he held from 1957-9, and allowed him to go to Harvard (source). The fellowship he had in the 70s was from the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars; the one he had in the 50s was from the Woodrow Wilson National Fellowship Foundation. Two different orgs. Indeed, we mention the second fellowship in our article already (Malmgren was a fellow at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Spring 1975 and 1976)
There is an explanation where the oxford DPhil conferral date does not necessarily contradict what Malmgren says. He published at least four papers by August 1961, and may have been hired by Cornell on the strength of those papers. "Information, expectations, and the theory of the firm," which contained the main ideas he later wrote up as a thesis, was published in August 1961. This DPhil thesis, in part about Malmgren's own, states that Harald Malmgren submitted his D.Phil. Thesis in Trinity Term [April-June] 1961, and left Oxford for good soon after that (p. 226). So, even though he maybe didn't get his DPhil until 1962, it could have been submitted well before. Eddie891TalkWork15:12, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
OK, so I found another gazette entry that says he submitted his thesis by July 1961. Then in Michaelmas 1961 he was given leave to supplicate for his degree, basically meaning that he got permission to graduate. It's just that his DPhil wasn't actually conferred until Feb 1962. Eddie891TalkWork15:24, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
This is very helpful. Clearly, I was confusing the two Wilson organizations. But let me start with the question of documentation. I do believe that the documents the Malmgren signed and certified, under penalty of law, in the early 60s to early 70s, to which I will refer here, are reliable. For example, for starters: Last month I obtained declassification, by expedited procedures, of FBI security-clearance background check reports on Malmgren from 1970 and 1971. These include two SR86 "Security Investigation Data for Sensitive position," completed, signed, and certified under penalty warnings by Malmgren. The FBI uses these in its background-check process. It would have been imprudent in the extreme for Malmgren to lie on these, and I have found nothing on them that flatly conflicts with other verified information from various institutions, although there are a few small anomalies. So I'd like to send you the declassified FBI packet for starters. They are useful in clarifying both his education history and his employment history (although many of the erroneous statements that appears on the Malmgren page, based on his 21st century inventions, have already been cleared out. These are already technically in the public domain since they are embedded in the 20,000-word article published May 20 and linked in Footnote 57, but it takes a drill-down to get to them. FedDoc (talk) 22:20, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
The "Security Investigation Data" forms are actually designated SF86, as I said originally. The SF57 is the federal job application of that era, which I will get to later. But I think the SF86s, recently declassified, are the most authoritative, and I would like to send those first. FedDoc (talk) 23:14, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
Here is the entire portion of Harald Malmgren FBI files as declassified last month at my instigation, 33 pages, with only SSN and a small amount of family information redacted.
I think the most problematic statement that remains is in the first paragraph, "He was recruited into the federal government by the John F. Kennedy administration." No contemporary evidence has yet surfaced to support this claim. In July 1962 Malmgren went to work for the Institute for Defense Analyses (IDA), a defense contractor, headed by Richard Bissell, whom President Kennedy pushed out of the CIA not too long before. Malmgren worked full-time for IDA for 27 months. In the last month of the Kennedy Administration he got a paid-by-hour side gig as an economist-consultant for the State Dept., but he was still a full-time employee of the IDA. So Malmgren was part of the Executive Branch during the Kennedy Administration only for about four weeks and in a very minimal sense.
No evidence has yet surfaced linking Malmgren to Robert McNamara, McGeorge Bundy, or other high-level officials during the Kennedy years. His connection even to Bissell seems to have been pretty marginal. Not until Oct. 1964 did Malmgren become a regular federal employee, as a GS-16 in the trade office.
There is a 1990 monograph by the Center for Public Integrity that contains a short bio of Malmgren that refers to Malmgren in passing as a "whiz kid," but it's pretty clear they just took the bio Malmgren sent in-- the real reporting was the interview that Charles Lewis conducted with Malmgren, which was not about 1962-1963 but about the "revolving door" from the trade-representative office to lucrative lobbying practice.
So I would propose just saying that he came to Washington and soon went to work for IDA. There was a brief association with the RAND Corporation but I don't have any details; perhaps a resting place while an investigation was completed to get him a top-secret clearance for the IDA work. FedDoc (talk) 04:22, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
Yeah, fair enough. I removed the mention of JFK. Better?
Re: the documents, I should be clearer. They aren't suitable for Wikipedia, though I agree they are probably reliable sources for certain information. Wikipedia has a very clear policy that no original research is permissible ("Wikipedia does not publish original thought. All material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source.") The thought here is that if we can't find it in a published source, it probably isn't worth mentioning. But we could use it to help in a search for published sources.
I think all of those recent edits are improvements. On a quick scan, there are a couple little things. The education chronology is still not quite right. The most detailed chronology that I have seen of Malmgren's movements between Harvard and two components of Oxford appears on the second page of the declassified 1971 security-clearance questionnaire, and that document actually has been published in full, as visible images, in Appendix A of the article that is already linked as Footnote 55.
The Wikipedia article says "In 1983 he was director of the Atlantic Council of the United States." Many would read to mean that he was "the" director, i.e., the executive director or such. But I have a December 15, 1983 letter on The Atlantic Council of the United States letterhead: Harald Malmgren was listed on the left margin as one of the 103 "directors" listed (not counting 23 additional "honorary directors"). He was not among the 14 names denoting as having some form of executive authority within the organization. Therefore, I think "a director" would more accurately convey his 1983 status with that organization. FedDoc (talk) 13:29, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
As shown in the documents embedded in the article linked in Footnote 55, his actual trajectory was as follows: Rensselaer from 9/53 to 6/54. Yale, 9/54 to 6/57 (BA awarded). Harvard, 9/58 to 1/59 ("years completed: 1/2"). Oxford, 9/57 to 6/58 and 1/59 to 7/61. The Standard Form 86 certified by Malmgren under penalty of law on August 25, 1971 (displayed in total as images in the article linked as Footnote 55) further refines the Oxford involvements: Queen's College 1957-58; Harvard 1958-59; Queen's College 1959-1959 [that's what it says]; Nuffield College 1959-1961. Whatever the relationship with Harvard, it did not involve doing research at Harvard except perhaps during the period 9/58 to 1/59. FedDoc (talk) 12:05, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
For some reason, every time I look at the article the numbering of the footnotes is different. The material that I am citing about Malmgren's educational chronology is the footnote I currently see as no. 17, Douglas Dean Johnson's article titled "Harald Malmgren: real-world history vs. grandiose fantasy" (May 20, 2025). This is also the source for my most recent edit regarding Malmgren moving the prestigious Galen Stone chair in international trade from Harvard to Cornell and placing himself in it (in 2024 interview; this claim is also found in his local obituary). FedDoc (talk) 13:01, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
So, is there anything about his educational career in our wiki article that is wrong? It seems to me that nothing we say contradicts with this timeline. Maybe there's a few dates missing, to be fair.
I agree that he never held the (nonexistant) Galen Stone chair (I actually emailed Cornell's historian before you published the article to confirm this haha), but do we really need to take the space to disprove this claim? I feel like outside of the 'Claims of knowledge of UFOs, intervention in the Cuban Missile Crisis' section, we should not give any space to Malmgren's inventions. Eddie891TalkWork13:10, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
Why Galen Stone matters: There are hundreds of thousands of people out there who believe that Harald Malmgren became a JFK White House insider, and in 2024-2025 revealed the truth about a UFO knocked down by a U.S. nuclear test on Oct. 26, 1962. The Cuban Missile Crisis story falls within the same week and is essentially part of the same narrative. All attempts to challenge those fictional claims--for example by making the Malmgren article historically accurate--are viewed by this audience as the work of "censors" and "gatekeepers" who are trying to protect UFO secrets. In contrast, the Galen Stone Chair lie is important precisely because it implicates no purported UFO secrets or any other big conspiracy theory themes. It is a simple lie but a big lie that clearly reveals Malmgren's proclivity for glorifying fabrications on matters that pertain purely to his personal status, in this case in his actual field of economics. The Galen Stone chair at Harvard has existed for a century; it is prestigious in what turned out to be Malmgren's actual career specialty, trade economics. Malmgren's Galen Stone lie is like a third-tier competitive runner who didn't make the Olympic team, but later claimed to have made the team and also won the Silver Medal. Anybody can look it up. Anybody can understand it, and grasp its implications for Malmgren's overall credibility. It is difficult for even a creative conspiracy theorist to invent some elaborate fiction about how there were really two Galen Stone chairs but the all-powerful gatekeepers erased all evidence of the one at Cornell, etc.
The current Harald Malmgren article makes it sound like Malmgren started at Oxford in 1959 and was doing research at Harvard from 1957-59. In reality he started at Oxford in Sept. 1957, and was there continuously until July 1961, except for the period 9/58 to 1/59 (one semester). FedDoc (talk) 17:12, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
I will take a look at the Oxford University Gazette's when I get a chance, and see if we can get a secondary source confirming the dates. Eddie891TalkWork10:54, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
OK, I think I fixed the oxford dates, thanks. Not sure how to handle Harvard, since I can't find a secondary source beyond the Wilson Fellowship one (which states that he held the fellowship from 1957-9, which could be true even if he was only at Harvard for a semester). Eddie891TalkWork14:54, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
Young association footballers
Latest comment: 11 months ago5 comments4 people in discussion
Hi Eddie. Can I bother you for a guideline? You draftified Draft:Reiss-Alexander Russell-Denny but there are other articles where the young player has achieved even less, such as Luca Williams-Barnett and Han Willhoft-King. Indeed, I proposed the latter for deletion but the decision was to keep. I am now far from certain what makes a young footballer worthy of a wikipedia page if he/she has not made a first-team appearance, and the sport guidelines don't cover football. Help would be appreciated. Thanks. LenF54 (talk) 15:54, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
@LenF54: When we had the NFootball policy it was pretty clear a player had to actually play football to have an article. Regardless of that being gone, it's still evident that a player needs to play top level professional football for an article. The Notability football argument was suppose add strength to GNG on what can be created, but with that out of the way, editors feel its right to add youth and trial players who have never played onto the database? Luca Williams-Barnett and Han Willhoft-King should be in draft space, not in main space. Govvy (talk) 07:46, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
I agree entirely, Govvy, which is why it rankles me so much that the decision was to keep Willhoft-King. There is a particular problem with development squad players representing a club's U21 side in the EFL trophy and having an article created. This is an anomalous situation - the appearance is for the U21s but the competition is also for seniors from League One and Two and someone making their debut for the EFL side in the same match qualifies for an article. I guess I'm being naive in looking for all-encompassing guidelines. LenF54 (talk) 15:44, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
Actually, it was three-one delete (nominator counts as a !vote), and I think the delete !voters had a strong arguments that notability is not established here. You're welcome to take it to WP:DELREV if you disagree. Best, Eddie891TalkWork14:38, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
Latest comment: 11 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello, I believe the closure of Kindie Derseh Kassie was incorrect. The subject received significant coverage, but there were clear signs of bias both in the discussion and in the closure itself. For now, could it be userfied to my draft space? I would like to work on it further and add additional sources. Wieditor25 (talk) 15:44, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
Latest comment: 11 months ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, I'm the nominator of Silent Parade for FA. The input you provided there was so valuable, I thought I'd ask if you could spend a few minutes glancing at Atlanta Compromise. This is an article I created & got to GA status, and I'm going to nominate it for FA status soon. If you could scan it and let me know what you think, maybe I can address the issues before the FA nomination this time:-) If you want me to create a Peer Review page for it, I can. If you don't have time, no worries, you already did plenty for me on Silent Parade. Noleander (talk) 15:50, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
I would be happy to, yes! It might be a few days before I have the time to sit down and look, but I can have a read through for sure. I'd like to finish my review of Silent Parade first, and have some RL work to deal with as well. Thanks for your work on these important articles:) Eddie891TalkWork16:47, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
Thank you so much ... no worries about the delay, we are all volunteers, and any help is appreciated.
I got the Atlanta Compromise article to GA a couple of months ago, and was boldly thinking it was ready for FA. But after you suggested additional sources for the Silent Parade article, I realized that the Atlanta Compromise article might have a similar problem ... and so a week ago, I did a deep search for journal articles related to the Atlanta Compromise, and found several excellent sources, and incorporated them into the article (19 June to 22 June) ... all thanks to you. Noleander (talk) 16:42, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
June thanks
Latest comment: 11 months ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Sammi Brie(submissions) with 1,055 round points, mostly from television station articles, including 27 good articles and 9 good topic articles
Everyone who competed in round 3 will advance to round 4 unless they have withdrawn. This table shows all competitors who have received tournament points so far, while the full scores for round 3 can be seen here. During this round, contestants have claimed 4 featured articles, 16 featured lists, 1 featured picture, 9 featured-topic articles, 149 good articles, 27 good-topic articles, and more than 90 Did You Know articles. In addition, competitors have worked on 18 In the News articles, and they have conducted more than 200 reviews.
Remember that any content promoted after 28 June but before the start of Round 4 can be claimed in Round 4. 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 June 2025 (UTC)
DVDA (band)
Latest comment: 11 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello!
In 2020, there was a deletion discussion on DVDA (band) - here it is. I checked before writing the article in my sandbox, and i think the subject is quite notable. It also has wikipedia pages in 7 languages, i believe. I would be really glad if you could take a look at what i wrote here. Hoping for your fair criticism, it' my first time writing something like this, thank you in advance!
It’s fine by me to recreate, the other discussion was soft delete, not a strong consensus by any means. I haven’t really taken a close look at the sources but no strong opinion against it. Good luck! Eddie891TalkWork01:03, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
Women in Red July 2025
Latest comment: 11 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Women in Red | July 2025, Vol 11, Issue 7, Nos. 326, 327, 341, 342, 343
Statistics available via Humaniki tool. Thank you if you contributed one or more of the 1,514 articles during this period!
19 May 2025: 20.114% of EN-WP biographies are about women (2,066,280 bios; 415,618 women)
23 Jun 2025: 20.130% (2,072,236 bios; 417,132 women)
Tip of the month:
A nuanced article is more useful than a shiny pedestal. Readers can find hope in your subject's survival or achievements, but they can also learn from your subject's mistakes and limitations.
Administrator elections will take place this month. Administrator elections are an alternative to RFA that is a gentler process for candidates due to secret voting and multiple people running together. The call for candidates is July 9–15, the discussion phase is July 18–22, and the voting phase is July 23–29. Get ready to submit your candidacy, or (with their consent) to nominate a talented candidate!
Latest comment: 11 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Eddie, hope you're doing alright. Wondering if you've ever heard of the Arab English World Journal. Found a source that I want a single sentence from, but no idea if it's any use. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 15:09, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
Hi @ImaginesTigers, I'm pretty well, thanks, hope you are too. I haven't heard of it but am generally pretty skeptical of these new 'international' journals with seemingly no affiliation. They charge authors $400 to publish, which for me is a red flag. It also seems to be hardly cited by others, further indicative of a lack of quality. I would say this is not a HQRS. Eddie891TalkWork15:14, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
Latest comment: 10 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Eddie. Someone created a Wikipedia page about me years ago. Here it is: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Hurley_(author). It's full of wrong information, and doesn't include a lot of information I'd like to add. I also would like to include a photo. I began by changing my birthday and correcting information about my education. But when I tried to replace the information about my career, I couldn't figure out exactly how to use the brackets and parentheses. I also wasn't sure how to create footnotes in order to have supporting documentation. Help! :o) --Hurleydan13 (talk) 18:39, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
Hi @Hurleydan13! I fixed a link for you, and added a citation about the school you went to. Basically, to link to another article, you use two bracket characters (so the text: [[Earth]] would link to the article Earth). To make a reference, use < ref > tags: So <ref>text of the citation</ref> would be a citation: [1]. It is even easier to edit using the Visual Editor, which is just a 'what you see is what you get' interface. You should be able to navigate to that by clicking a button in the top right corner when you are editing.
If you want to upload a photo, it is important that you own the copyright (so a selfie, for instance), not someone else. To do this, click on the following link: commons:Special:UploadWizard.
Finally, while I think it's fine to make edits that fix factual errors, it might be better to propose them on the article talk page, as you have a conflict of interest. Editors are strongly discouraged from editing articles about themselves; see the conflict of interest guideline for more information.
Hopefully this helps, let me know if you need more clarification!
Thank you for improving article quality in July! - Three Ukrainian topics were on the main page today, at least at the beginning, RD and DYK, - see my talk. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:02, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
Latest comment: 10 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello everyone, and welcome to the 27th issue of the Wikipedia Scripts++ Newsletter, covering all our favorite new and updated user scripts since 2025! Boy, does it feel good to kick off the year with an issue. Yep, it's been a year since we cleared out the 2022-2024 backlog with issues 23 and 24! Good times. Though in this case "a year" just means... 6 months? 😯 The salience of whatever joke I was planning to make here has vanished speedily. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:00, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
Got anything good? Tell us about your new, improved, old, or messed-up script here!
Featured script
WikiTextExpander by Polygnotus, is this edition's featured script. At the click of a configurable hotkey, this script will find and replace or link a configurable list of phrases within the selected text in all source editors (even in the comment/reply field!). Besides allowing the quick insertion of templated messages, this script greatly mitigates the WP:WTF? problem by providing both the legibility of familiar words and the convenience of shortcuts. And to those asking, the capitalization of "Wikitext" as "WikiText" was a necessary sacrifice for far-more-memorable acronymy.
Updated scripts
CanonNi: AlertAssistant has been fixed and rewritten using OOUI instead of Twinkle's Morebits. Such modern, very tool. (Do note that the maintainer has since become inactive.)
NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh/AjaxLoader has been updated to use modern JS APIs that replace the browser's URL bar with the link you clicked on to load in place. The "back" (and "forward") buttons also work now. Cool, innit?
andrybak: Unsigned helper no longer shows an error when the message to sign was added in the earliest 50 revisions of a page's history. This is especially relevant to pages with short histories.
BilledMammal/Move+ needs updating to order list of pages handle lists of pages to move correctly regardless of the discussion's page, so that we may avoid repeating fiasco history.
Requested scripts
We need scripts that...
allow sorting lists of citations such as by URI or other identifier
automatically convert the capitalization of citations' titles
collect a list of discussion participants and generate a ping list
In breaking m:Tech/News, Gadgets can now include .vue files. This makes it easier to develop modern user interfaces using Vue.js, in particular using Codex, the official design system of Wikimedia. Codex icons are now also available. The documentation has examples.
New scripts
Appo/Globstory integrates OpenHistoryMap, updating the map whenever hovering/clicking on a location or year, the latter of which changes the map to be (hopefully) accurate to the year selected. It's pretty interesting.
linkinfo Somewhat similar to WP:NavPops, Awesome Aasim/linkinfo(pictured) provides a collection of links to replace the right-click context menu, presented beautifully.
PreviousDiscussions provides a link to search for your username on subpages of another user's userpage and talkpage conveniently.
Twineeea/noRedLinks brings you to the "read" instead of the "create" tab when you visit a red link. Contemplate life's mysteries as you stare into the blank! Deeply.
No, this is not going to be the enduring tradition of S++ for the future. This was meant to be a joke for the special occasion on the first day of the fourth month but was delayed by four months because I'm lazy.
Following a request for comment, there is a new policy outlining the granting of permissions to view the IP addresses of temporary accounts. Temporary account deployment on the English Wikipedia is currently scheduled for September 2025, and editors can request access to the permission ahead of time. Admins are encouraged to keep an eye on the request page; there will likely be a flood of editors requesting the permission when they realize they can no longer see IP addresses.
South Asia (WP:CT/SA) is designated a contentious topic. The topic area is specifically defined as All pages related to the region of South Asia (India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal), broadly construed, including but not limited to history, politics, ethnicity, and social groups.
Wikimania 2025 is happening in Nairobi, Kenya, and online from August 6 to August 9. This year marks 20 years of Wikimania. Interested users can join the online event. Registration for the virtual event is free and will remain open throughout Wikimania. You can register here now.
Hi @Kletland11! What are you interested in? I am sure I can find something in your wheelhouse:). But there are so many articles in need of work that it would help to get a sense of this so we can narrow the field a bit! Eddie891TalkWork12:11, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
Hi @ChueneB, you can follow the WP:ArticleWizard to create an article! To add a citation, use < ref > tags like this: <ref>text of the citation</ref> would be a citation: [1]. It is even easier to edit using the Visual Editor, which is just a 'what you see is what you get' interface. You should be able to navigate to that by clicking a button in the top right corner when you are editing.
Latest comment: 9 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
What is the status quo for statements in an article that are uncited? I found one example, and after some searching, couldn't find any supporting reference. Since it was already flagged as "citation needed," should we leave it? Or is it apt to be removed? --Icantthinkofaname12312 (talk) 16:21, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
Latest comment: 9 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
hello, I'm posting a question in regard to the recent edits to Harald Malmgren's Wikipedia Biography you made. The edits appear to be vindictive and defamatory in nature against the subject individual. The family has been IP blocked from editing the page as well as reporting the edits, I would ask you to please explain your actions in making the recent edits and rectify the changes before we bring it up to the Administrative incidents board. PDCB97 (talk) 00:27, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
I'd be happy to respond to specific concerns you have about changes that I made that you feel to be "vindictive and defamatory", if you could list them for me here. I'm not sure what specific content you have a problem with otherwise. Eddie891TalkWork01:18, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
Question about editing
Latest comment: 9 months ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Hello I just edited Caroline Kennedy's page. I'm new to Wikipedia and I don't want trouble here. After fixing some links and publishing my edit. On the tag next to the summary it say possible unreferenced addition to BLP, I have no idea what this means. I'm just trying to help that is all. Ienjoyroadtrips (talk) 23:46, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
Thanks very much for your help Eddie891. I really appreciate it, I did put fixed links for the summary/what I fixed. I can continue to do this. It's not a problem at all. I'm used to adding in the summaries section, what I fixed/updated. Ienjoyroadtrips (talk) 01:28, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
Latest comment: 9 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello Eddy,
Happy to join the club.
My interest is primarily aviation history and I have come across some citations and so on that need editing. I would like to begin with adding a picture to the DH89 Tiger Moth file and would like to get a few pointers how to do this.
Could you help me?
Alfred --AlfredAvio (talk) 09:42, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
Hey @AlfredAvio, great to meet you! You can definitely upload an image, but because of the copyright requirements of Wikimedia (that the images have to be freely usable), you can only upload an image that you hold the copyright to. Probably that means an image you took. If you have one of those that you want to upload here, it's pretty easy: I would follow the buttons at COMMONS:Special:UploadWizardEddie891TalkWork11:50, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
Latest comment: 9 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The fourth round of the 2025 WikiCup ended on 29 August. The penultimate round saw three contestants score more than 800 points:
BeanieFan11(submissions) with 1,175 round points, mainly from sports-related articles, including 17 good articles, 27 did you know articles, and 9 in the news articles
AirshipJungleman29(submissions) with 854 round points, mostly from a high-scoring featured article on the Indian leader Rani of Jhansi and two good articles, in addition to 13 featured and good article reviews
Everyone who competed in Round 4 will advance to Round 5 unless they have withdrawn. This table shows all competitors who have received tournament points so far, while the full scores for Round 4 can be seen here. During this round, contestants have claimed 9 featured articles, 12 featured lists, 98 good articles, 9 good topic articles, more than 150 reviews, nearly 100 did you know articles, and 18 in the news articles.
In advance of the fifth and final round, the judges would like to thank every contestant for their hard work. As a reminder, any content promoted after 29 August but before the start of Round 5 can be claimed in Round 5. In addition, note that Round 5 will end on 31 October at 23:59 UTC. Awards at the end of Round 5 will be distributed based on who has the most tournament points over all five rounds, and special awards will be distributed based on high performance in particular areas of content creation (e.g., most featured articles in a single round).
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 – Cwmhiraeth(talk·contribs), Epicgenius(talk·contribs), Frostly(talk·contribs), Guerillero(talk·contribs) and LeeVilenski(talk·contribs) – are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck!
Researching historical women writers who used pseudonyms requires careful investigation across multiple sources, as many women adopted pen names to avoid gender bias and judgment (e.g., being labeled a bluestocking) and, ultimately, to get published.
Nomination for WikiProject Military history coordinators is now open!
Latest comment: 9 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Nominations for the upcoming Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history coordinator election have opened. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting will commence on 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:02, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – September 2025
Latest comment: 9 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
An RfC is open on whether use of emojis with no encyclopedic value in mainspace and draftspace (e.g., at the start of paragraphs or in place of bullet points) should be added as a criterion under G15.
An RfC is in progress to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the Arbitration Committee election and resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.
Is this something you could do for me? I really have no idea what I’m doing and would rather someone with experience do it properly as I have no idea of requirements, processes, rules etc. (I got lost just adding the original talk and then couldn’t locate it)!!!! Hoping you may be able to assist. Thankyou Shazzam61 (talk) 06:46, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
Unfortunately I just don't have the time to do this right now, but I pasted the list on the article talk page. I would recommend not being afraid of making a mistake- the best way to learn is by trying yourself! Cheers, Eddie891TalkWork22:55, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
Question from Halluinium (21:47, 7 September 2025)
Latest comment: 9 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello, nice to meet you. I was interested in learning how to make edits.
I was taking the introduction module to learn this process with difficulty valued "Easy" & "Medium" edit tasks, & got edit banned from user XXBlackburnXx for 2 years.
Im unsure what promted this ban.
If usage of a VPN while making an edit promted this, it will be deactivated before making edits in the future.
I would like to be be able to practice make edits to topics i am informed about regarding nature & geography. Is there a way I can appeal? Thank you, -Hal-Halluinium (talk) 21:47, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
Latest comment: 8 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello! Thank you for using Cite Unseen. We are excited to share details about a big update we just deployed. With grant support from Wikimedia CH, we've added several new features, including a citation filtering dashboard, settings dialog, support for localization, and the ability to easily suggest domain categorizations. Cite Unseen now also lives on Meta Wiki, as part of our effort to serve all Wikimedia projects. Our source lists are now also on Meta-Wiki, where they can be collaboratively edited by the community.
Please see our newsletter on Meta-Wiki for full details. If you have feature ideas, notice any issues with our new updates, or have any questions, please get in touch via our project talk page. Thank you!
This message was sent via global message delivery. You received this message as you've been identified as a user of Cite Unseen. If you are not a Cite Unseen user, or otherwise don't want to receive updates in the future, you can remove yourself from our mailing list here.
Voting for WikiProject Military history coordinators is now open!
Latest comment: 8 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Running from October 1 to 31, 2025, WikiProject Women in Green (WiG) is hosting a Good Article (GA) editathon event with the theme What Women Do! All experience levels welcome. Never worked on a GA project before? We'll teach you how to get started. Or maybe you're an old hand at GAs – we'd love to have you involved! Participants are invited to work on nominating and/or reviewing GA submissions related to women and women's works (e.g., books, films) during the event period. We hope to collectively cover article subjects from at least 31 different occupations or professions (or broader roles in society) by month's end. GA resources and one-on-one support will be provided by experienced GA editors, and participants will have the opportunity to earn a special WiG barnstar for their efforts.
Hi! How do I change an image on a Wikipedia page? I believe my account has been up for more than 4 days and I've made more than 10 edits, but when I try to upload an image, it's saying I'm not a confirmed or autoconfirmed user, so don't have the correct permissions. --Xor19nemr16 (talk) 18:25, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
Hi @Xor19nemr16, I would suggest waiting several more hours, as the system may not have automatically updated it yet. You created your account four days ago, but the hour may not have struck yet. Eddie891TalkWork19:35, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
Latest comment: 8 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
On 28 September 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Muller Hill, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in 1808 a wealthy Frenchman bought 2,700 acres (1,100ha) of land in central New York and built a large estate, but abandoned it and returned to Europe less than a decade later? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Muller Hill. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Muller Hill), 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.
Sister wikiproject Women in Green October 2025 Good Article Edit-a-thon focuses on What Women Do
Tip of the Month:
Notable does not always mean admirable; you don't have to like an article's subject to make the article a useful contribution to Wikipedia.
Progress ("moving the needle"):
Statistics available via various tools: previously, Humaniki tool; currently, QLever. Thank you if you contributed one or more of the 6,283 articles during this period:
19 May 2025: 20.114% of EN-WP biographies are about women (2,066,280; 415,618 women)
24 September 2025: 20.20% of EN-WP biographies are about women (2,088,533 biographies; 421,901 women)
Hi, I tend not to review articles upon request. It will have to go through the normal review process. I am happy to answer any questions you may have about editing, however! Eddie891TalkWork14:07, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
After a motion, arbitration enforcement page protections no longer need to be logged in the AELOG. A bot now automatically posts protections at WP:AELOG/P. To facilitate this bot, protection summaries must include a link to the relevant CT page (e.g. [[WP:CT/BLP]]), and you will receive talk page reminders if you forget to specify the contentious topic but otherwise indicate it is an AE action.
Traffic report: One click after another Serial-killer miniseries, deceased scientist, government shutdowns and Sandalwood hit "Kantara" crowd the tubes.
Verifiability is increasingly important as AI evolves. You should ensure that every statement made is adequately sourced. There should be no less than three independent reliable sources for each biography, including at least one source for each paragraph.
Progress ("moving the needle"):
Statistics available via various tools: previously, Humaniki tool; currently, QLever. Thank you if you contributed one or more of the 20,473 articles created in the past year.
21 Oct 2024, 19.963% of biographies on EN-WP were about women (2,030,245 biographies; 405,305 women)
28 Oct 2025: 20.23% of biographies on EN-WP were about women (2,094,677 biographies; 423,778 women)
Help wanted! Want to apply your skills or learn new ones? Help us plan monthly events, design event logos, come up with a tip-of-the-month, and/or provide any general ideas on developing the project.
Latest comment: 7 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello, Eddie891. This message is being sent to remind you of significant upcoming changes regarding logged-out editing.
Starting 4 November, logged-out editors will no longer have their IP address publicly displayed. Instead, they will have a temporary account (TA) associated with their edits. Users with some extended rights like administrators and CheckUsers, as well as users with the temporary account IP viewer (TAIV) user right will still be able to reveal temporary users' IP addresses and all contributions made by temporary accounts from a specific IP address or range.
How do temporary accounts work?
Editing from a temporary account
When a logged-out user completes an edit or a logged action for the first time, a cookie will be set in this user's browser and a temporary account tied with this cookie will be automatically created for them. This account's name will follow the pattern: ~2025-12345-67 (a tilde, year of creation, a number split into units of 5).
All subsequent actions by the temporary account user will be attributed to this username. The cookie will expire 90 days after its creation. As long as it exists, all edits made from this device will be attributed to this temporary account. It will be the same account even if the IP address changes, unless the user clears their cookies or uses a different device or web browser.
A record of the IP address used at the time of each edit will be stored for 90 days after the edit. Users with the temporary account IP viewer (TAIV) user right will be able to see the underlying IP addresses.
As a measure against vandalism, there are two limitations on the creation of temporary accounts:
There has to be a minimum of 10 minutes between subsequent temporary account creations from the same IP (or /64 range in case of IPv6).
There can be a maximum of 6 temporary accounts created from an IP (or /64 range) within a period of 24 hours.
Temporary account IP viewer user right
How to enable IP Reveal
Administrators may grant the temporary account IP viewer (TAIV) user right to non-administrators who meet the criteria for granting. Importantly, an editor must make an explicit request for the permission (e.g. at WP:PERM/TAIV)—administrators are not permitted to assign the right without a request.
Administrators will automatically be able to see temporary account IP information once they have accepted the Access to Temporary Account IP Addresses Policy via Special:Preferences or via the onboarding dialog which comes up after temporary accounts are deployed.
Impact for administrators
It will be possible to block many abusers by just blocking their temporary accounts. A blocked person won't be able to create new temporary accounts quickly if the admin selects the autoblock option.
It will still be possible to block an IP address or IP range.
Temporary accounts will not be retroactively applied to contributions made before the deployment. On Special:Contributions, you will be able to see existing IP user contributions, but not new contributions made by temporary accounts on that IP address. Instead, you should use Special:IPContributions for this (see a video about IPContributions in a gallery below).
Rules about IP information disclosure
Publicizing an IP address gained through TAIV access is generally not allowed (e.g. ~2025-12345-67 previously edited as 192.0.2.1 or ~2025-12345-67's IP address is 192.0.2.1).
Publicly linking a TA to another TA is allowed if "reasonably believed to be necessary". (e.g. ~2025-12345-67 and ~2025-12345-68 are likely the same person, so I am counting their reverts together toward 3RR, but not Hey ~2025-12345-68, you did some good editing as ~2025-12345-67)
Latest comment: 7 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Starting on 1 November, the month-long 2025 Article Improvement Drive will target a number of content improvement areas and backlogs. Participating editors will be in line for barnstars and other awards; articles from all aspects of the project will be eligible so there will be something for everybody. Interested editors are encouraged to sign up now!MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:17, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
WikiCup 2025 November newsletter
Latest comment: 7 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The 2025 WikiCup has come to an end. Our top scorers, based on the tournament point rankings (which can be seen here), are:
BeanieFan11(submissions) with 1,604 tournament points, will receive the 1st place award.
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!
Summary: The official page for the short film Torn from the 2014 Cannes Directors' Fortnight (Quinzaine des Cinéastes). It explicitly lists the cast ("Avec") and includes "Mir Movsum Mirzazade".
Reliability: High. This is the official primary source from the festival organization, confirming the film's selection and his role in it.
{{cite web}}: Empty citation (help): "Torn". Quinzaine des Cinéastes (in French). 2014. Retrieved 28 October 2025.
2. International Film Festival Rotterdam (IFFR) 2019
Summary: The official IFFR 2019 page for the film End of Season, which won the FIPRESCI Prize at the festival. The page lists the "Principal cast" as "Rasim Jafarov, Zulfiyye Qurbanova, Mir-Mövsüm Mirzazade".
Reliability: High. This is the official primary source from a major international film festival, confirming his principal role in an award-winning feature.
{{cite web}}: Empty citation (help): "End of Season". International Film Festival Rotterdam (IFFR). 2019. Retrieved 28 October 2025.
3. Moscow Premiere International Film Festival (2019) - Best Actor Award
Hi @Movsum.Mirzazada, sorry for the delay in getting back to you! I would not recommend writing an article on yourself, but if you want to I would recommend using WP:SECONDARY sources with significant coverage. Things like social media profiles or IMDB credits would not count as these. Are there any more signficiant articles, such as reviews in newspapers? If you would like to continue, I would suggest having a read through of WP:AUTOBIO, our policy regarding writing an autobiography.
Hi @Amayah masud, anyone can edit articles! You should be able to do so simply by hitting the 'edit' tab in the corner of most articles. Some high visibility articles will be protected, but you can still suggest edits to be made! Eddie891TalkWork20:57, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
Hi @Rymiya, super sorry about the delay in responding! To submit a draft for review, simply hit the blue '(re)submit' button! Please let me know if you have any further questions. Eddie891TalkWork20:58, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – November 2025
Latest comment: 7 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 7 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello, Eddie891. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that User:Eddie891/Miss Paulyon, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it againor request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Latest comment: 7 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Eddie891, I am new to Wikipedia but have enjoyed learning how to create content, using wikitext. I have just attempted to publish a new page, which is now in review. Is it ok if I mention you in the talk section of the draft? --CJG247 (talk) 15:10, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
Hi @CJG247, I assume that your draft is Draft:Le Boat. It seems to me like you might want to make it read less like a travel brochure. Phrases like "a line designed to offer modern and spacious interiors, large sun decks, and easier handling via new control systems" don't really have encyclopedic relevance. If you think about it, of course a new line would be intended to have better things like this, so why do we need to mention it- what does it really tell us? Eddie891TalkWork16:04, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
Latest comment: 6 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Latest comment: 6 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I just looked up Talaiasi Labalaba and the piece ended with this paragraph:
"Sergeant Tommy Goodyear, was awarded the Distinguished Service Award for this battle, he was awarded this on his return to Hereford where he is a highly decorated soldier within 22 SAS Regiment."
This sounds like bad AI. Why are you using it? --Jkcraig51 (talk) 03:13, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Hi @Jkcraig51, I guess you are right that some of the wording on WIkipedia leaves something to be desired. But the good news is that you're always welcome to fix poor phrasing yourself! We're always working to improve. Eddie891TalkWork19:28, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
Latest comment: 6 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Eddie, nice to e-meet you! I am working for Merck KGaA in Darmstadt, and this is the reason for creating this account, because I see that some information about my company is outdated. I want to be very transparent about my background and I am also somewhat familiar with the game rules on Wikipedia (source citations, neutral language). I would be happy if you could support me with questions and guide me through the Wikipedia jungle. I am looking forward to it! --Heinrich-Emanuel (talk) 09:30, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
Hi @Heinrich-Emanuel, Thanks for reaching out. Happy to try and answer any questions you may have. Thanks for being upfront about your conflict of interest. I will leave a template message on your talk page with some advice. Eddie891TalkWork19:29, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
Latest comment: 6 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello Eddie, pleasure to meet you!
I would be very grateful if you could help me with the editing, it's my first Wikipedia article, so I am very enthusiastic to contribute, but also not really experienced.
I have some trouble in making evident the link between Art Events and the Venice Biennale. I have various photos of National pavilion stands and publications where they are mentioned as partners or cooperators.
Also, I need to underline that the Biennale rules are extremely strict so no-one can mention national pavilions or collateral events as partners, If there is no explicit approval of the national pavilions' committees and the collateral events' managers and curators. So all of the numerous Biennale projects mentioned on the company's website are a part of their real work portfolio (https://art-events.it/en/clients/). I don't how how to attach other materials, like photos, but I would be glad to learn, since after this first article, I would like to proceed with writing about other cultural realities of Italy, like the Glass week, so it would be helpful for me to obtain good publishing skills:)
Thank you very much in advance for your help and guidance.
Iara --Iara95 (talk) 12:51, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
Hi @Iara95, sorry about the delay in getting back to you. Could you be a bit more specific about what you would like help with? Adding images to an article? Writing an article? Researching? In general, to make a connection explicit, the best thing to do is to find a source that draws the connection for you. Happy to help answer any questions that I can. Best, Eddie891TalkWork19:32, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue 235, November 2025
Latest comment: 6 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Help wanted! Want to apply your skills or learn new ones? Help us plan monthly events, design event logos, come up with a tip-of-the-month, and/or provide any general ideas on developing the project.
Latest comment: 6 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hey @Eddie891. Your wiki edit anniversary was 1 day ago, marking 9 years of dedicated contributions to English Wikipedia. Your passion for sharing knowledge and your remarkable contributions have not only enriched the project, but also inspired countless others to contribute. Thank you for your amazing contributions. Wishing you many more wonderful years ahead in the Wiki journey.:) -❙❚❚❙❙ GnOeee ❚❙❚❙❙✉06:13, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – December 2025
Latest comment: 6 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Starting on November 4, the IP addresses of logged-out editors are no longer being publicly displayed. Instead, they will have a temporary account associated with their edits.
Administrators will now find that Special:MergeHistory is now significantly more flexible about what it can merge. It can now merge sections taken from the middle of the history of the source (rather than only the start) and insert revisions anywhere in the history of the destination page (rather than only the start). T382958
An Articles for Creation backlog drive is happening in December 2025, with over 1,000 drafts awaiting review from the past two months. In addition to AfC participants, all administrators and new page patrollers can help review using the Yet Another AFC Helper Script, which can be enabled in the Gadgets settings. Sign up here to participate!
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) 22:55, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
Women in Red - January 2026
Latest comment: 5 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Women in Red | January 2026, Vol 12, Issue 1, Nos 357, 358, 359, 360
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.
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.
Latest comment: 5 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
How do I change the spelling on the main title of a profile. I am having a hard time figuring this out. Please advise --Rabka49 (talk) 07:17, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
Hi, @Rabka49, You should be able tojust edit the article by hitting the 'edit' tab in the top right-hand corner. Maybe if you tell me the name you are trying to change I can offer somewhat more specific advice! Best, Eddie891TalkWork20:47, 4 January 2026 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – January 2026
Latest comment: 5 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Changes to the Access to Temporary Account IP Addresses Policy's disclosure rules include broadening the consecutive-blocks exception to cover all admin actions and removing the requirement to revision-delete permissible disclosures once they become unnecessary (instead requiring only their removal). See WP:TAIVDISCLOSE for more information.
Latest comment: 4 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I m writing true information of actress rashami desai with sources and that Ravensfire account keep deleting all my edits what should i do? Should I delete my account because all my hardwork going waste.. --Hidden9146 (talk) 12:56, 14 January 2026 (UTC)
Hi @Hidden9146, I’m sorry that can be frustrating! It seems like you might have a connection with the actress? If that’s the case, you probably should let other people update the article instead. To put it another way, if you are connected to the articles subject, how can you ensure that you are writing content in a neutral way? It’s the same reason we wouldn’t want an editor who really doesn’t like someone to write their article. Eddie891TalkWork16:14, 14 January 2026 (UTC)
The Signpost: 15 January 2026
Latest comment: 4 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Join Wikipedia:26 for '26 and create or substantially improve twenty-six Wikipedia articles during the year 2026, at least one for each letter of the English alphabet.
Tip of the month:
Our redlists are a great resource, but not every redlinked subject is notable. Be sure to research before starting a new article.
Latest comment: 4 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello Eddie891:
This month, February 2026, WikiProject Women in Green is participating in the February 2026 GAN Backlog Drive, in which we're aiming to review as many outstanding Good Article (GA) nominations about women and women's works as possible. If you want to help out, you can check out the project talk page for a list of nominations in need of review (including some WiG originals). If you haven't reviewed a GA nomination before, be sure to check out the reviewing instructions and guidelines and feel free to ask for a mentor to check your work.
We are also working together with a wikithon hosted on 5 February by Wikimedia UK, which will focus on writing and improving articles about women involved in sustainable development. If you want to join the event, feel free to sign up at the eventbrite page; or if you would be interested in providing a 20-minute assessment and/or a full GA review of the submitted articles in the weeks following, put your name down on the project talk page for updates as the event progresses.
Due to the result of a recent motion, a rough consensus of administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard may impose an expanded topic ban on Israel, Israelis, Jews, Judaism, Palestine, Palestinians, Islam, and/or Arabs, if an editor's Arab-Israeli conflict topic ban is determined to be insufficient to prevent disruption. At least one diff per area expanded into should be cited.
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)
Administrators' newsletter – March 2026
Latest comment: 3 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
A request for comment is open to discuss retiring CSD criterion R3 in favour of handling such redirects through RfD.
Arbitration
Following a motion, remedy 9.1 of the Conduct in deletion-related editing case has been amended to limit TenPoundHammer to one XfD nomination or PROD per 24-hour period.
Following a motion, the Iskandar323 further POV pushing motion has been rescinded.
The Arbitration Committee has passed a housekeeping motion rescinding a number of outdated remedies and enforcement provisions across multiple legacy cases. In most instances, existing sanctions remain in force and continue to be appealable through the usual processes, while some case-specific remedies were amended or clarified.
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?
Latest comment: 2 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The Core Contest—Wikipedia's most exciting contest—returns again this year from April 15 to May 31. The goal: to improve vital or other core articles, with a focus on those in the worst state of disrepair. Editing can be done individually, but in the past groups have also successfully competed. There is £300 of prize money divided among editors who provide the "best additive encyclopedic value". Signups are open now. Cheers from the judges, Femke, Casliber, Aza24.
If you wish to start or stop receiving news about The Core Contest, please add or remove yourself from the delivery list.
Following a motion, the GSCASTE extended-confirmed restriction in the Indian military history case has been narrowed. It now applies to caste-related topics in South Asia, and the preemptive protection remedy has been amended accordingly.
Latest comment: 2 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello! I believe that Draft:J. J. McCullough is ready to be moved to mainspace, but cannot move it at the moment as the relevant page was create-protected by you due to repeated recreation in 2020. It would be great to have that lifted so it can be moved to mainspace. Devonian Wombat (talk) 04:09, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
Hi @Devonian Wombat, that sounds good to me. Without commenting on the subjects notability, I agree that 6 years has been long enough to render repeated recreation concerns moot. I have gone ahead and unprotected. Best, Eddie891TalkWork10:56, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue 240, April 2026
Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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)
Women in Red – May 2026
Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Women in Red | May 2026, Vol 12, Issue 5, Nos 358, 359, 370, 371, 372
Struggling to find scientific works to write about? Start with review articles or textbooks, which may highlight influential studies, theories or methods by women.
Changes to user permissions made from Meta are now included in the local user permissions log (T6055).
The autoconfirmed user group will soon be modified such that the four-day account age requirement begins when an account makes its first edit (T418484).
Arbitration
The arbitration case SchroCat has been opened. Evidence submissions in this case closed on 15 April.
Per a recent motion, appeals of blocks from the conflict-of-interest VRT queue are, by default, appealed on-wiki through the normal unblock process. However, they may be heard by the Committee if COIVRTers disagree on the interpretation of the evidence or believe ArbCom would be better suited to hear the appeal. Administrators are also advised that loosening or lifting such blocks without the consent of someone with access to the queue or ArbCom can be grounds for desysopping.
Per a recent motion, restrictions issued directly by the Committee may now be enforced with blocks which work exactly like contentious topic blocks.