Fermiboson

Archives

• 23 November 2022 - 15 April 2023
• 18 October 2023 - 29 December 2023

New page reviewer granted

Hi Fermiboson, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the new page reviewer user right to your account. This means you now have access to the page curation tools and can start patrolling pages from the new pages feed. If you asked for this at requests for permissions, please check back there to see if your access is time-limited or if there are other comments.

This is a good time to re-acquaint yourself with the guidance at Wikipedia:New pages patrol. Before you get started, please take the time to:

• Add Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers to your watchlist to follow NPP-related discussions
• If you use Twinkle, configure it to log your CSDs and PRODs
• If you can read any languages other than English, add yourself to the list of reviewers with language proficiencies

You can find a list of other useful links and tools for patrollers at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Resources. If you are ever unsure what to do, ask your fellow patrollers or just leave the page for someone else to review – you're not alone! Sohom (talk) 17:33, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Fermiboson (talk) 17:34, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Lukas Lennon

Hi Fermiboson,

Thank you for getting back to me. This is my first time setting up a wikipedia. I was planning on doing a few on public figures but thought I'd start with my own. I appreciate your comments. I did want some clarification. What do i need to do in order to get this accepted? I understand i have to declare a COI but how do i do it the correct way? Also, were there specific blogs that you didn't like? Lastly, does that mean I have to remove them? What about links to youtube of the music videos uploaded on the artist's page with my name in the description? If you're able to, please let me know what I need to do to get this approved.

Thanks again! Lukaslennon (talk) 01:05, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for reaching out. Blogs, in general, are self-published content and therefore not reliable sources. Neither is Youtube of any sort. Unreliable sources cannot be used to cite facts on Wikipedia because they're, well, unreliable. You must declare a COI if you decide to resubmit your draft, which you can do by adding a comment using the AfC submission tool (or if you don't know how to you can put it on the talk page). In general, you want to meet WP:GNG to demonstrate the notability of the article subject, which requires at least two independent, primary and reliable sources with significant coverage. See WP:YFA for some more detailed and specific advice on making an article that is more suitable for Wikipedia. Fermiboson (talk) 01:13, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Hey, thank you so much for this! I believed I cleaned it up. Let me know what you think. Lukaslennon (talk) 01:24, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2025

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2025).

Administrator changes

• Chaotic Enby
• Rjjiii

Valereee

• Fathoms Below
• Tamzin

CheckUser changes

Spicy

Technical news

• 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

Miscellaneous

• The December 2025 administrator elections are scheduled from Nov 25 – Dec 15.
• 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!

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent byMediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:44, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Panties. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Meters (talk) 09:39, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Comments on AFC submissions

Hi, at Draft:Guyviaud Joseph, you commented " GNG fail. In order: churnalism, non-RS, routine coverage, primary source". For a newcomer such comments are word salad: meanings of acronyms GNG and RS, especially when unlinked, are wiki-jargon not understandable for AfC users who are usually newcomers. The relation of "routine coverage, primary source" towards notability guidelines is also unclear for newcomers—consider linking them to relevant help pages or better yet, explain them. Ca ^{talk to me!} 14:00, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi, yeah, agree entirely and thank you for the reminder - I'm usually better at comments than that but I was on a flight... Fermiboson (talk) 15:23, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Declined for Notability

Hello Fermiboson,

Thank you very much for your feedback on my article. I thought I understood Wikipedia's notability standards, but I guess I do not. Could you provide more information for me on why my article was not a notable subject? His work has been covered in detail, so I am just a little lost. I truly appreciate any information or feedback you have, and thank you! Chelsea GriffinWink (talk) 19:37, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, am away from computer at the moment - mind linking me to the draft in question? Fermiboson (talk) 21:08, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

No worries, thanks for getting back to me! Here is the draft: Draft:Ronald J. Kendall Chelsea GriffinWink (talk) 21:42, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Short answer is that notability is not inherited - research he’s involved in may well have been covered extensively but the person himself has not. You can distinguish this by looking at to what degree the secondary sources cover his life instead of his work (which is very little). Fermiboson (talk) 08:45, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Draft:Neuro-electric therapy declined afc

Hi User:Fermiboson,

I sincerely appreciate the detailed feedback. You clarifying the WP:MEDRS is helpful, and I totally get that without the secondary reviews, a standalone medical article cannot get a pass under Wikipedia's current guidelines.

Regarding the WP:FRINGE concern... While I understand the perspective given the current sourcing landscape, the device's recent FDA clearance suggests the science is moving into the mainstream. The lack of secondary sourcing is often less about "fringe" science and more about the economic reality of non-pharmacological research.

Given your username, I suspect you might appreciate the analogy here: We feel a bit like Peter Higgs in 1964. His initial paper on the boson was rejected as "of no relevance to physics," and it took 48 years (and the Large Hadron Collider) for the Standard Model to finally catch up to what the math had already predicted.

Right now, Neuro-Electric Therapy is in that "theoretical wilderness." We have the signal (FDA clearance, 98% efficacy in primary studies), but we haven't built our LHC yet to generate the "5-sigma" data required for a Wikipedia entry.

As noted in the Cochrane Review regarding sponsorship bias (Lundh et al., 2017) and investigations by the Center for Public Integrity, device-based therapies often lack the recurring revenue models required to fund the volume of secondary literature that pharmaceutical interventions generate. This creates the "David vs. Goliath" dynamic, the central theme of the documentary The Final Fix, where established players have significantly more capital to generate the "gold standard" literature required by MEDRS. These independent film makers took it upon themselves to shed light on this themselves.

There's a parallel here to how acupuncture was viewed decades ago when it was dismissed due to a lack of Western clinical trials, but eventually integrated into institutions like the Mayo Clinic as the data caught up. We believe Neuro-Electric Therapy is at that same crossroads right now in transitioning from anecdotal success to rigorous validation.

We are currently in active discussions with a research team at Harvard Medical School regarding an independent review of the technology. When that data is published and generates secondary coverage, do you see that as the type of material that would satisfy the MEDRS threshold to revisit this topic?

I will hold off on the draft for now and leave the existing redirect to Meg Patterson in place. Thanks again for your time, it's been really helpful to get a clear sense of the standard required.

Thanks! User:OpiateFreedom — Preceding undated comment added 23:24, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

You bring up acupuncture - this is an excellent example of how Wikipedia tends to deal with such treatments (the lede of Acupuncture mentions that it is considered a pseudoscience). Not being a medical professional, I’m not going to attempt to make medical statements on the efficacy of the treatment, but even taking everything you have said as the ground truth, then this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. I appreciate that this may be frustrating to hear and such labels are often associated with accusations of bad faith; do be assured this is not what I’m accusing you of here, but Wikipedia is not a place for unaccepted original research. Yes, if Wikipedia existed in 1964, AfC would reject Higgs’ article too. To be clear this also doesn’t mean your research is equivalent to Higgs’; I’m sure you’ll appreciate that the majority of things outside the mainstream remain so. Thank you very much for remaining collegial and complying with our COI editing rules. Fermiboson (talk) 08:53, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you from BLPN re AFC

Greetings! Thanks for posting at BLPN about a draft with clear BLP problems. And thank you for cleaning it up; that showed a clearer picture of the draft's nature. When a clearer picture indicates it's just a vanity or promo-piece, please keep in mind our WP:CSD metrics. I nominated it for a speedy deletion, and Deb did the honors. I closed out the BLPN discussion after deletion, but I look forward to working beside you at AFC and BLPN in the future. High five. JFHJr (㊟) 01:10, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks - I’m generally more conservative with CSDs in draftspace than most people since in the past I’ve had a few G11/U5 misfires back when U5 was a thing but certainly will keep it in mind. Fermiboson (talk) 08:40, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Thank you for your help with dealing with the Category:Assas Wikipedians cleanup and mitigation! All the Best -- Chuck Talk 20:22, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Thank you for your work on the Assas debacle. Your clear and sincere comments to the student editors, plus your deliberate and firm comments to the professor are really appreciated. qcne (talk) 23:35, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

IP block exemption request

Home network keeps getting caught up in proxy blocks, would like IP block exemption if possible. Fermiboson (talk) 19:46, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

I'll cut out the middleman and direct you to WP:IPECPROXY so you can contact a checkuser. 331dot (talk) 20:07, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Understood, thanks! Fermiboson (talk) 21:37, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Draft:BLUUDUDE! All you need to know

Hello Fermiboson. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Draft:BLUUDUDE! All you need to know, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not unambiguously promotional. Thank you. asilvering (talk) 19:01, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback!

Hi Fermiboson,

Thank you for getting back to me. This is my first time setting up a wikipedia. I wanted to share more on the Singapore's cybersecurity industry (Draft:Singapore's Cybersecurity Industry). Can I please check how can I go about improving it? Regarding the independent sources, I was thinking would it be better to remove the column on notable achievements and instead, just link the respective company website to it, so that readers can explore and see what they do on their own? Would that be better?

Looking forward to your reply! Fuggyholic (talk) 03:40, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

The latter is definitely not it, see WP:EXTERNALLINK - we don't include them unless there is a very good reason. You should not write the article first then find sources on it; rather you should first find reliable, secondary sources that talk about the topic as a whole and then summarise those sources in the article. Academic sources would be the most risk-free in this case as a lot of other sources can be infected by paid advocacy and other such things. Above all, DO NOT use AI in your article-writing. Fermiboson (talk) 04:13, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Fermiboson, thank you for this! Ive did some minor edits, it this slightly better? I have also refrained from using AI for content writing, mainly for spelling checks and grammer. Hope this clarifies. Fuggyholic (talk) 09:28, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Declined speedy deletion: Draft:J. E. Edjeren

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! I wanted to let you know that I have declined your G11 speedy deletion nomination of Draft:J. E. Edjeren. Although the article has a promotional tone, it does not contain blatant advertising. Especially when articles are in the draftspace, I recommend refraining from nominating articles for G11 speedy deletion unless they contain unambiguous advertising. Editors using the draftspace are much more likely to be new editors who may not fully understand Wikipedia's policies regarding tone--not to mention that learning how to successfully write in a neutral point of view is challenging! As such, I suggest practicing restrain when coming across promotional content in the draftspace as nominating a new editor's first edits for speedy deletion can be very bitey. Thank you for your understanding. Please let me know if you have any questions. Take care, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 02:40, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know and your advice. Will take note in the future. Fermiboson (talk) 02:45, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Declined speedy deletion: Draft:Tina & Trina

Hello, again!! I wanted to let you know that I've declined your G15 speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Tina & Trina. In your deletion rational, you stated that the article included "nonsensical references". However, the article does not currently include standard references, and all the external links provided target what they are intended to target, meaning they are not nonsensical. As such, this article does not qualify for G15. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 03:10, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2026!

Hello Fermiboson, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2026. Happy editing, Abishe (talk) 09:14, 25 December 2025 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Abishe (talk) 09:14, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Federal Money Services Business Association

I can make improvements, but I want to stress that this wasn’t generated by any machine—no large language model could have written this article. Going forward, any criticism needs to be specific and detailed, not just vague or conceptual. Accusermanager (talk) 11:02, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

A finance professional spent two full days of the Christmas holiday researching and drafting a finance-focused article, only to have it dismissed as machine-generated within minutes by someone outside the field. That is deeply frustrating and entirely unacceptable. Accusermanager (talk) 11:22, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

New pages patrol January–February 2026 Backlog drive

January–February 2026 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol
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. Interested in participating? Sign up here.
You are receiving this message because you are a New Pages Patrol reviewer. To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself from here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:22, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Help understanding a revert

Hello @Fermiboson.

Could you please help me understand this revert? Why did you remove the citation needed templates that I added to unsourced info? And I'm especially confused by your edit summary: "Rv pov". How can adding "citation needed" to unsourced statements be considered pov that should be removed? It's not even on a subject that I have a pov on, or that is somehow controversial for anyone to have a pov on to begin with. It's simply unsourced info.

Thanks and good tidings, User:غوّاص العلم (Ghawwas) (talk) 15:16, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Oh, I looked at the page history again, and I guess that you mostly intended to revert the person who edited before me? Is that right? User:غوّاص العلم (Ghawwas) (talk) 15:21, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Ah, yeah… sorry that I didn’t check carefully enough. Feel free to readd your tags and sorry for the trouble. Fermiboson (talk) 15:57, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

All good :) Thanks for clarifying.

Happy editing and good tidings, User:غوّاص العلم (Ghawwas) (talk) 08:20, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2026 WikiCup!

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.

The first round will end on 26 February. The judges for the WikiCup this year are: Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email), Epicgenius (talk · contribs · email), Frostly (talk · contribs · email), Guerillero (talk · contribs · email) and Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs · email). 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) 00:38, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

editing of article about Kioomars Musayyebi

Hi Femiboson,

Happy New Year!

Since, as far as I see, it was you who declined the latest version of this article, I am addressing you – please correct me if I got this wrong.

I noticed on top of the article draft it says now “This article may have been created or edited in return for undisclosed payments”. This note appeared in December, immediately after I mentioned once again that my editing of the article is paid work. I think this is hardly a coincidence.

I had already disclosed this fact in several places, beginning with my user page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ulrich_Eberhardt

I therefore find the claim that there is a possibility that I may have violated Wikipedia’s terms of use highly unfortunate. Please remove this note.

Paid editing in Wikipedia is generally legitimate as long as it is properly disclosed:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Paid-contribution_disclosure

Here it says: "You must make that disclosure in at least one of the following ways: a statement on your user page (...)" which I have done (see above). I also mentioned it in at least one of the discussions about the article.

Thank you very much!

Uli Eberhardt Ulrich Eberhardt (talk) 10:45, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2026

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2025).

Administrator changes

• Epicgenius
• Left guide
• LEvalyn
• MPGuy2824
• The4lines
• Yue

Fathoms Below

• BaronLarf
• Firefly
• kelapstick
• Opabinia regalis
• Pbsouthwood
• Sethant
• UtherSRG
• Whouk

CheckUser changes

• Giraffer
• HouseBlaster
• SilverLocust

• Liz
• Worm That Turned
• Z1720

Oversight changes

• Asilvering
• Giraffer
• Girth Summit
• Guerillero
• HouseBlaster
• Izno
• SilverLocust

• Liz
• Worm That Turned
• Z1720

Guideline and policy news

• All general sanctions imposed by the community may now be enforced at the Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard (WP:AE) as a result of a recent RfC.
• Due to the result of a recent RFC, the administrator recall process is amended to extend the deadline for a re-request for adminship to 30 days or the next administrator election, whichever is later.
• 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.

Arbitration

• Following the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been elected to the Arbitration Committee: Aoidh, Asilvering, Girth Summit, Guerillero, HJ Mitchell, HouseBlaster, Izno, Sdrqaz, SilverLocust.
• The arbitration case Pbsouthwood has been suspended.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:29, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

December 2025 AfC backlog drive award

		The Articles for Creation Barnstar
		This is awarded to Fermiboson for accumulating more than 294 points during the December 2025 AfC backlog drive. Your dedication and contributions to Wikipedia's content review process were crucial in reviewing over 9,000 drafts during the drive. Thank you for your participation and helping to reduce the backlog! ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 15:35, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Top AfC Editor

		The Articles for Creation Barnstar 2025 Top Editor
		In 2025 you were one of the top AfC editors, thank you! --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:19, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Upcoming expiry of your patroller right

Hi, this is an automated reminder as part of Global reminder bot to let you know that your permission "patroller" (New page reviewers) will expire on 00:00, 31 January 2026 (UTC). For most rights, you will need to renew at WP:PERM, unless you have been told otherwise when your right was approved. To opt out of user right expiry notifications, add yourself to m:Global reminder bot/Exclusion. Leaderbot (talk) 19:41, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

January–February 2026 NPP drive - Phase 2

NPP unreviewed article statistics as of February 02, 2026

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

Start patrolling!

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

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

Question from Emmanuel Yaw Anderson Arthur (18:32, 4 February 2026)

How can I edit my information --Emmanuel Yaw Anderson Arthur (talk) 18:32, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi. If you are the subject of a Wikipedia article, please read WP:COI and follow our conflict of interest policy; in particular, please do NOT edit your article directly and use edit requests. If you want to write a Wikipedia article about yourself, please read WP:AUTOBIO as well and be advised that this is generally an unwise thing to do. If you want to add information about yourself to your Wikipedia account, the publicly facing way to do this is through your user page which is at User:Emmanuel Yaw Anderson Arthur; you can click on this link to create the page. Keep in mind any information you add about yourself to this page will be preserved forever in the page history. Fermiboson (talk) 21:12, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Question from C S de silva (06:15, 5 February 2026)

Hi, im new to Wikipedia editing. You are not a bot right. Also, is there a regulations page for me to go through before starting out? --C S de silva (talk) 06:15, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Correct, I am a human. Wikipedia has lots of policies, guidelines, community norms and essays, a lot of which is best learned about by watching other people apply it. But the core content policies that we have are WP:Verifiability, WP:Neutral point of view and WP:No original research. You may also want to read WP:Reliable sources to distinguish which sources you can cite on Wikipedia. You may also read WP:NOT for a concise list of common pitfalls caused by misunderstanding the purpose of Wikipedia. Otherwise, if you have a specific area you are interested in, I will be able to point you to more specific pages about that area. There's lots to do around here - for example patrolling recent changes, copyediting, or contributing content in one of our WP:WikiProjects. Fermiboson (talk) 10:51, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Question from Nathan213243 (15:28, 5 February 2026)

Hello, I am struggling with starting copy edits because I'm not sure of what I should correct and I don't want to get any information wrong also, I was trying to revise the Wikipedia page for Dominic Salvatore Gentile, the article uses a lot of praise such as "Captain Gentile immediately attacked the enemy formation and by extremely courageous flying and skillful gunnery" but since he worked in something respectable are some articles able to use praise? I considered removing the word 'extremely' from it since it was courageous but I'm not too sure how much praise you should use whilst editing.

Thank you have a great day. --Nathan213243 (talk) 15:28, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for your question. The main guideline concerned here is WP:NPOV, which means that we do not attempt to make any subjective judgements on the merit of something not explicitly supported in a source. In this case, you are correct in pointing out the use of peacock/promotional language being used. In general, articles should not contain massive amounts of language such as "X courageously did Y", "A perfidiously attacked B", etc. so if you're thinking that the article consists of a lot of praise (or criticism), it is likely fine to remove it. The one and only exception is when one is quoting something directly from the source. For example, if an award citation states "Captain XXX behaved courageously in the face of enemy fire", it may be appropriate to write According to the citation for his Victoria Cross, Captain XXX "behaved courageously in the face of enemy fire". See also WP:Peacock. Fermiboson (talk) 17:51, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Question from Jeanjubin1108 (15:51, 6 February 2026)

Hi Fermiboson 😊 I am new to Wikipedia, and as such, I have a few questions regarding sources for citations. Are websites of educational institutions or museums, such as the Smithsonian Institution website, considered appropriate sources for citations?

Also, when I went through some of your previous conversations, I came across the abbreviation “COI.” What does this mean?

Thanks in advance!! --Jeanjubin1108 (talk) 15:51, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi, welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for your question. The relevant policy is WP:RS - in general, such websites may be reliable sources for general factual claims. A lot of these websites however have a popular science inclination and would hence fall foul under WP:SCIRS - if you're writing about a scientific subject it is generally better practice to refer to the literature of the subject. (If you want to write about physics, which is my domain of expertise, you can also ask me if something looks right!) Particularly important is if any such websites make a claim about a medical subject (e.g. XX medicine/treatment is more effective than YY), it is very important to stick to WP:MEDRS, which is a set of much stricter standards for sources about controversial medical claims, and museum websites generally will not be reliable under those criteria. It is also important to distinguish between publications hosted on the server of a university, which are usually reliable primary or secondary sources, and material posted for public consumption which can often suffer embellishment. In my experience, aside from WP:ABOUTSELF claims, museum websites or websites of pre-tertiary institutions can usually be replaced by a better source, although it is not strictly wrong to use them.

COI means WP:Conflict of interest. If you are editing about something which you have a conflict of interest over, which can include but is not limited to a group or organisation you belong to, something relating to a strongly held belief of yours, someone you know, and especially if you have a paid relationship with the subject of the article, it is very important to declare it and not to make direct edits to the subject or publish an article about it to mainspace yourself, but to make a WP:Edit request or go through the WP:Articles for creation process. Undisclosed COI editing is looked on incredibly unfavourably by the Wikipedia community, and in particular undisclosed paid editing can and will lead to a block. Fermiboson (talk) 16:17, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you so much!! Jeanjubin1108 (talk) 17:02, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Question from Jhonkylee (16:58, 9 February 2026)

cara mengubah nama halaman --Jhonkylee (talk) 16:58, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2026

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2026).

Administrator changes

Vacant0

• Crisco 1492

• Deepfriedokra
• Hbdragon88
• Karl Dickman
• Worm That Turned

CheckUser changes

Daniel Quinlan

Vanamonde93

Mkdw

Oversight changes

Daniel Quinlan

Arbitration

• 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.

Miscellaneous

• Voting in the 2026 Steward elections started on 06 February 2026 at 14:00 (UTC) and will end on 27 February 2026 at 14:00 (UTC). The confirmation process for current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:08, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Question from Nico Robin69 (17:40, 11 February 2026)

Hello Fermiboson, what should I make an article about?? --Nico Robin69 (talk) 17:40, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Question from Skyblue9ja on Prabha Atre (19:02, 12 February 2026)

Hello. How do I publish an article that I edited? Where's the publish button? --Skyblue9ja (talk) 19:02, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Planning help pages for AI workflows

I'm contacting the members of WikiProject AI Tools because there is a related discussion about creating help pages on using such tools on Wikipedia. You are invited. It's at Wikipedia talk:Help Project#Planning help for AI workflows. See you there!    — The Transhumanist   14:34, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Question from Prince Haidar on Bidyendu Mohan Deb (16:45, 20 February 2026)

Write in detail the classification of fire base on fuel types and fire fire ting --Prince Haidar (talk) 16:45, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Question from Prince Haidar on Bidyendu Mohan Deb (16:47, 20 February 2026)

Write in detail the classification of fire base on fuel types and fire fire ting --Prince Haidar (talk) 16:47, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

WikiCup 2026 March newsletter

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:

• Bgsu98 (submissions) with 1,467 round points, largely gained from 1 featured article, 5 featured lists, 15 good articles, and 42 FAC and GAN reviews;
• Olliefant (submissions) with 1,246 round points, largely from 4 featured lists, 9 good articles, 2 featured topic articles, 4 did you know articles, and 75 FAC and GAN reviews;
• 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

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2026).

Administrator changes

• Brendanconway
• Calmer Waters
• Hut 8.5
• Joe Roe
• VersedFenrir

CheckUser changes

Ks0stm

Oversight changes

Ks0stm

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, the web archival service archive.today has been deprecated; links to the site should be removed.
• 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.

Miscellaneous

• Following the 2026 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: A09, AmandaNP, Barras, Count Count, M7, SHB2000, Teles and VIGNERON.
• An Unreferenced articles backlog drive is taking place in March 2026 to reduce the backlog of articles tagged with {{Unreferenced}}. You can help reduce the backlog by adding citations to these articles. Sign up to participate!

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:36, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for stalking my User Talk Page and answering questions while I've been on Wikibreak, really appreciate it! qcne (talk) 20:23, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Question from DouglasGregoryJohn (13:33, 5 March 2026)

Hi Fermi, I often see a word in wiki that when I hover over it with my cursor, a box pops up with like further clarity or definition, and if you click on it, it takes you to another page for even more information. How can I create such when I am editing? Thanks --DouglasGregoryJohn (talk) 13:33, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi and welcome. This is a WP:Wikilink, which you can create by using two square brackets around the title of an existing article, like this: [[Calculus]] shows up as Calculus. Fermiboson (talk) 14:20, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks so much. I will give it a try. DouglasGregoryJohn (talk) 14:54, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Question from Prettyself (14:46, 11 March 2026)

Hi --Prettyself (talk) 14:46, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Question from Mdongwase (04:11, 12 March 2026)

Hi, how can I publish my article...? And contribute. --Mdongwase (talk) 04:11, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi, please see WP:Your first article. Writing an article on Wikipedia is not an easy task for new editors. In particular, if you have a WP:Conflict of interest and especially if you were paid to write an article, you must declare it. Writing an article about subjects you have close connection to, such as yourself, your family, your place of employment or a political stance you have strong opinions on, is strongly discouraged.

For general ideas to contribute, there are many places you can start. WP:Copyediting and WP:Recent changes patrol are some places that you can get yourself familiarised with how Wikipedia does things. Feel free to ask me or ask at the WP:Teahouse if you have more specific questions about what to do. Fermiboson (talk) 12:45, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Question from Abdissamad (06:10, 12 March 2026)

مرحبا كيف. اشغل حسابي. وصفحتي --Abdissamad (talk) 06:10, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Question from Krishna Mishra India (13:13, 14 March 2026)

How my profile show when someone search --Krishna Mishra India (talk) 13:13, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not there for you to promote yourself. If you are a notable person, you must not write an article about yourself directly, but rather if you choose to do so (which is strongly advised against) you must do it through the WP:AFC process. See also WP:AUTOBIO - most likely, someone else will write the article about you if you are truly notable. If you are not, you must not attempt to promote yourself on Wikipedia especially when (/as) doing so is unencyclopaedic; persisting in doing so is disruptive and will get you blocked. Fermiboson (talk) 19:59, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Still early in the game for Wikipedia:26 for '26

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! BD2412 T 00:35, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks - I am probably more lacking in time and/or energy than ideas! I do still plan to take part, hopefully soon as term break is starting. Fermiboson (talk) 10:40, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Question from Sohaibkhan2431 (21:42, 17 March 2026)

I've correct few things related to my biography on Wikipedia --Sohaibkhan2431 (talk) 21:42, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, please note that you should not edit your article directly. You should proceed via an edit request posted on the talk page of the article, outlining exactly and specifically the changes you want to be made, with reliable sources provided. Please note that this does not mean the changes will be implemented; you do not WP:OWN your article, and any changes to the article must conform with our core content policies such as neutral point of view and verifiability, and be in accordance with consensus. Please also note that, unless you are the copyright owner of an image and upload the image specifically according to the copyright rules of Wikipedia permitting free use (which you should find in the image upload process), or the copyright owner otherwise does so, we cannot use that image. The image being of you does not automatically make you the copyright owner (in fact it is quite unlikely given someone else probably took the photo). Fermiboson (talk) 10:44, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Question from Will Norwood (12:25, 20 March 2026)

Yes, how do you get it to count how many times you edited because it doesn’t seem to be doing that and every time I attempt to edit something it seems to be logged out --Will Norwood (talk) 12:25, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Question from Will Norwood on User talk:Fermiboson (17:44, 20 March 2026)

Well, yes But I’m trying to get my edit mark‘s up to 10 so after four days, I can edit semi protected articles That is my goal. --Will Norwood (talk) 17:44, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Question from Hexrrecords (01:56, 24 March 2026)

I want to be on Wikipedia --Hexrrecords (talk) 01:56, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Question from Hexrrecords (01:57, 24 March 2026)

How do I add myself to be on Wikipedia --Hexrrecords (talk) 01:57, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Please see WP:AUTOBIO. You are heavily, heavily discouraged from doing so. Fermiboson (talk) 15:39, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

My name is Robert Rodriguez solo

I have the same name as a famous Hollywood movie director im the Real Robert Rodriguez solo recording artist singer Hexrrecords (talk) 06:55, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

What do you mean

I have ASCAP ~2026-18325-07 (talk) 15:44, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Question from Dr.Nabeel Bhatti (17:57, 24 March 2026)

hello how i can create --Dr.Nabeel Bhatti (talk) 17:58, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Question from Andrea Courtney (22:55, 24 March 2026)

I'm a local Councillor for the Waratah Wynyard Council and I was wondering if it would be ok for me to have a Wikipedia page to help people see who I am for the next election this year? --Andrea Courtney (talk) 22:55, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

The guideline for inclusion of politician articles is WP:NPOL. In general unfortunately local councillors do not meet these notability guidelines. The avenue under which you might be notable is likely WP:NBIO/WP:GNG which requires significant coverage in two independent, reliable and secondary sources.

Moreover, please also note WP:AUTOBIO - it is difficult for you to write an article about yourself (especially in the context of an upcoming election) that conforms to our core content policies such as WP:NPOV and WP:V. The advice we usually give is that if you are truly notable someone else will come along and independently write an article about you. If you do choose to proceed with an article, you must declare your conflict of interest and submit your draft via the WP:AfC process rather than directly publishing in mainspace. Fermiboson (talk) 12:07, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Question from Cal1963 (22:28, 25 March 2026)

Hey, I want to add some information to my school's wikipedia page since there isn't much on it about recent events. How would that work? --Cal1963 (talk) 22:28, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi, the first thing is to find reliable sources for the information. All information on Wikipedia must be supported by such a source. Then, the next step is to decide whether you should add it in the first place. Some questions to ask at this point would be, for example, does the information conform to neutral point of view? Is it trivia? If the information is controversial does it come from an independent source? Most importantly, if it involves claims about people does it conform to our policy about talking about living people? If you are confident that the material you wish to add is encyclopaedic and conforms with our policies, then you can click on the "edit" button (top right of the page on desktop) and add the content that you wish to add, with appropriate citations, either through the WP:Visual editor or WP:Source editor. Let me know if you have any additional questions about how to do these steps. Fermiboson (talk) 13:33, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2026

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2026).

Administrator changes

• ARandomName123

• Biblioworm
• Causa sui
• Djsasso
• Espresso Addict
• Fenix down
• Firefangledfeathers
• GeneralNotability
• NawlinWiki
• Northamerica1000
• Smalljim

Checkuser changes

Giraffer

Oversight changes

Kj cheetham

Giraffer

Guideline and policy news

• The content of Wikipedia:Writing articles with large language models has been updated following a request for comment. It now prohibits using LLMs to generate content, with exceptions for translation and copy-editing.

Arbitration

• 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.
• The arbitration case Pbsouthwood has been closed.
• The arbitration case Maghreb has been opened. Evidence submissions in this case will close on 7 April.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:18, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Question from Jose Javier Lugo (17:39, 6 April 2026)

Hi, I just joined today I am actually present in school at the moment. I don't know exactly how to word this properly or give a full fledged, definition of which but. You know when ever you get on a page a usually the first thing that shows up is that big box with like a image. And basic stuff about the thing like on biography's it shows when they died when the person was born. What is that area of images or words called I never learned about it please tell me. --Jose Javier Lugo (talk) 17:39, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

That is a WP:Infobox, of which you can find more information on the link. Be careful about arbitrarily adding or removing them from articles - this has been the subject of dispute before! Fermiboson (talk) 22:42, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Question from Baseball197yay (23:29, 6 April 2026)

is there different levels of editing? like admin or something else. --Baseball197yay (talk) 23:29, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

All editors (with few narrow exceptions in contentious topics) have exactly the same authority on content issues - WP:Administrators have no special authority in this regard. They have a role in moderating community behaviour and assessing WP:Consensus in contentious situations but they cannot impose their own opinions above that of the community. (This applies to some extent on conduct issues too - see WP:CBAN, WP:ADMINACCT). Some users will have advanced user rights to assist them in technical tasks, such as WP:Rollback, WP:Page mover, but that does not give them the right to use those tools to impose their own view upon an article. Fermiboson (talk) 09:17, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Question from Baseball197yay (21:07, 7 April 2026)

I did my first edit and it was on a video game. --Baseball197yay (talk) 21:07, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Eva Kolstad - Page Reverted

I note you reverted my edit to the Eva Kolstad page, stating there was no corresponding text on the original article. I am not interested in edit warring with you and will not revert back, but I do wish to point you to the source of my content: https://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eva_Kolstad. That article is considerably more robust than the English version and would offer a great opportunity to flesh out what is a thin article in our language. I hope you will consider letting the edit stand. FallingRocksAhead (talk) 13:34, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

I read the corresponding article, and I agree it is much more robust. However, I fail to see how the edit corresponded to translated content from said article. Given that it apparently does not do what the edit summary says it does, I therefore do not trust the content of the edit. It would be constructive for you to enlighten me as to how you arrived at the translation that you did. Also, please answer the AI use query on your talk page. Fermiboson (talk) 13:38, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

As long as edits are encyclopedic in tone, are readable and meaningful to users, and are supported by strong sources, I fail to see how policy has been breached. A literal translation is rarely useful - especially when an article is long. And equally true when an article section is short, but relevant text exists in another section.

I am not going to address my working style unless I have in some way not met the standard of writing required by Wikipedia. I have seen before how quickly an editor can become the subject of a collective pile-on.

If you continue to revert my edits without policy, I will similarly be unable to trust your good intentions. FallingRocksAhead (talk) 13:44, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

I am not going to address my working style You are aware that AI use is against policy, yes? Dogpiling happens when you violate policy. The best and only way forward is to not do so. Fermiboson (talk) 13:48, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

I am indeed aware of policy around AI. But I’m not sure that you are similarly informed. AI is not against policy, but it is to be treated as tool to be handled cautiously and sparingly. Merely suspecting someone of using AI is not cause to begin wholesale reverting someone’s work. And may I also point out the policy related to new editors? Wikipedia has a dearth of female and gender non-conforming editors. And an embarrassingly  poor retention rate. Unless you can point to copy that is uncited, poorly written or in some other way in actual violation of Wikipedia policy, I will have to consider your continued reversion of my work vandalism. I recommend you find some other way to constructively support our shared project. FallingRocksAhead (talk) 13:58, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Generator Hostels - reverted

Hi Fermiboson,

I was hoping you could help me understand the rationale for reverting the edits I have made to the Generator Hostels page? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generator_Hostels

I am a new editor on Wiki and am trying to get a better sense of what went wrong in this case. I do believe that the content of the edits I implemented was important to understanding the topic, and adds more depth to was was previously a less robust page. If you could help me to identify the areas that were of concern to wiki standards, that would be great. Thank you! MatB123 (talk) 14:11, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Did you, or did you not, use an AI tool to assist you in your editing process? Doing so is generally against policy. Fermiboson (talk) 14:28, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

The passages of updated text were researched and written by me, with sources that I found through organic research. Any copy tweaks that were made with LLMs were done with sensitivity to wikipedia's policy on LLM use: Editors are permitted to use LLMs to suggest basic copyedits to their own writing, and to incorporate some of them after human review, provided the LLM does not introduce content of its own.

If this is the only issue with the proposed revisions that I have made to the article, I hope that my text can reevaluated with this in mind.

Similarly, I saw you left the same feedback on another article I edited (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Hanson), and an article that I had posted for approval (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Bar_Italia_(Toronto)). In both cases, again, the sources came from organic research, and the text was written by me. I hope this clears up some of the concern about LLM use.

Please let me know what I can do to move forward with the edits/new article. MatB123 (talk) 18:42, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Question from Samuel1234546 (18:09, 9 April 2026)

how do i edit pages --Samuel1234546 (talk) 18:09, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

hi Fermiboson, wikipedia said you are now my mentor

that is cool Jvneslvt (talk) 15:03, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For your work at WP:AINB. Keep it up!! StartOkayStop (talk) 23:46, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Question from Echosearch-search-engine (06:06, 20 April 2026)

I made a search engine named EchoSearch, and i made an account so that i can add an article about my search engine. Can i do that? --Echosearch-search-engine (talk) 06:06, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Short answer: no, see WP:AUTOBIO and WP:COI. It is unlikely that your product is sufficiently WP:Notable for inclusion into Wikipedia, and if it did someone else would probably write an article about it. If you do decide to write an article, you must do so through the WP:AfC process and declare your conflict of interest both on your user page and the draft in question. Failure to do so may get your account blocked under violations of the rules relating to undisclosed paid editing. Fermiboson (talk) 09:48, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Request to weigh in on AfD

Hi Fermiboson, I’ve nominated an BLP for deletion - Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion#Michael Karlan - it’s the second AfD for this article and I’m worried it might not get enough attention to reach proper consensus. If possible could you give it a look? I think it’s a pretty close call and it seems like you have experience with dealing with this sort of thing.

Thanks Harryb7 (talk) 10:04, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Question from Coolkid13472 (18:51, 20 April 2026)

I am new to wiki and I want to know the basics about it. Thank you --Coolkid13472 (talk) 18:51, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Regarding Yakov Epshtein’s place of birth

Dear colleague! In two albums about the sculptor that were available to me, it literally stated the following: “Jacob Epstein was born in Kremniz, Poland”. I apologize for the lack of attentiveness. Eraevsky (talk) 14:07, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Is there some other town named Kremnitz we're not aware of distinct from Kremnica? Fermiboson (talk) 14:47, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Health systems

Hi! Everything I edited in the Health Systems page was deleted because it seemed written by an AI. It wasn't. I just checked grammar/typos with an AI, but the content is original. I personally wrote it, with multiple relevant references I personally identified, too. Bat1982 (talk) 09:02, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Your edit still exhibits multiple signs of AI writing. This is likely because when LLMs are asked to check for grammar or typos, including many commercially available tools that market as such out there such as Grammarly, they introduce their own artifacts and generally change the meaning of the text. If you could just put in your original, pre-AI processing content, that would likely be much more productive - typos are easy to fix, AI isn't. Fermiboson (talk) 09:29, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your quick reply. I'll do that. Bat1982 (talk) 09:34, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Section 377A (Singapore) Proposed addition: Reception and criticism

Thanks for the note. I drafted the additions myself based on the cited sources (ICJ joint statement, OHCHR, IBA, Pink Dot) but I can see the section may have come across as synthesised, particularly the counter-majoritarian paragraph. Happy to discuss on the article talk page or trim if there are specific concerns. Principlecitation (talk) 19:32, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Work-Life Balance

Hi Fermiboson. Thanks for your message. I saw that you flagged my contribution as AI and removed our content from the Work-Life Balance article. When we published it, we confirmed the originality through Wikipedia, and that was honest. We did extensive research and produced this content fully originally. This contribution to the Wikipedia page was created by four people, myself and three teammates, as part of a group project for our college class, “Project Team Management.” We are open to other feedback about our work, but from the standpoint of removing our content due to AI concerns, we would deeply appreciate if you restored our contribution.

Thanks so much,

Glen and team GfrancisUmassD (talk) 19:34, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Forgive my bluntness, but if the text was not at least partially AI generated (which, ultimately, only you know and can prove), it certainly did a very good job of imitating it. This is not necessarily an accusation of dishonesty, because I know that many schools demand academic writing styles which are very mechanical and hence can both sound like an LLM and also be completely unsuitable for an encyclopaedia. Some specific points I spotted at a glance:

• All the markdown must go. Bolding is not done inside the article body virtually ever.
• Overuse of passive voice. Vague attribution to "recent research", "studies have shown", etc especially when only cited to a single primary source (instead of e.g. a review paper) is also improper (how can you tell, especially in sociology, that an effect is real just because one study said it was?)
• Incorporate bullet points into smooth text flow - things rarely categorise cleanly into a list of things and it is better to holistically report the state of the literature in prose rather than attempt to categorise effects.
• Don't synthesise. This is milder in the last section but for example you should cut out the mini-introduction and mini-conclusion - get straight to the point and say "source A mentions XX risks, source B notes YY but ZZ can change things". Generic statements should be minimised.

There probably are other things I missed, and if you do add it back to the article I'm not gonna edit war with you over it, but please do also note that if your course follows WikiEdu guidelines, whether your edit stays in mainspace or not should not affect your grade, and if it does you should raise it with your assigned WikiEdu representative. Fermiboson (talk) 21:17, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

I should add that I'm not that good at content, so more prolific content editors will be able to give you far better advice than I can. Fermiboson (talk) 21:21, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Question from Rams080 (10:54, 28 April 2026)

i am from Dubai and working in The Kanoo Group. we are try to creating one wiki page for our company, but dont know why always rejecting and blocking. how you can help us to do correct way --Rams080 (talk) 10:54, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

A good start would be not using AI to write your articles, or talk page comments.

Wikipedia is not for promoting your company. If your company does not meet the strict notability criteria for companies, as seems to be the case after being assessed by multiple reviewers, you cannot have a Wikipedia article. Moreover, you must declare your paid connection to the company on your userpage, not just in talk page comments. Fermiboson (talk) 11:10, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback and clarification regarding Wikipedia’s notability and conflict of interest guidelines.

I understand that Wikipedia is not intended for promotional purposes, and I appreciate the reviewers’ concerns regarding independent sourcing and notability requirements for company articles.

I also acknowledge the requirement regarding disclosure of any connection with the company. I will update my user page accordingly to comply with Wikipedia’s Terms of Use and conflict of interest guidelines.

Thank you again for your guidance and time reviewing the draft. Rams080 (talk) 04:51, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

It is rather depressing that, having made what appears to be the only non-AI generated edit you have ever made to my talkpage and being told not to do it, you proceed to revert to using AI. Fermiboson (talk) 11:33, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

I understand your concern, and I apologize if my edits have caused you to feel that way. I am still learning Wikipedia's editing standards and communication methods,

I will be more careful to write and respond more appropriately in the future, and to follow Wikipedia's guidelines more closely.

Thank you for your patience. Rams080 (talk) 05:58, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Support with article review

Hello @Fermiboson I am hoping to get some more feedback on my article Draft:Ryan Stokes that you have previously reviewed. I updated to fix the sources to only include sigcov secondary sources, as well as ensuring the neutrality of the article. It appears to be stuck in review for over 2 months and I am hoping you might let me know if you have any further feedback? Thank you. @Wikifanap07

Wikifanap07 (talk) 01:16, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

New pages patrol May 2026 Backlog drive

May 2026 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol
On 1 May 2026, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each review will earn 1 point. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:23, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

WikiCup 2026 May newsletter

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
• Generalissima (submissions) with 1,169 points, mainly from good and featured articles related to shipping ethics controversy in fanfiction, waterways, and Gu Yanwu
• 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
• Gommeh (submissions) with 827 points, mainly from good and featured articles related to Genshin Impact and Honkai: Star Rail

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)

Draft:ChatGPT Apps

Hello! Can you please review again my article Draft:ChatGPT Apps MykytaK (talk) 12:30, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

BRFA

Heads up, you don't actually need a BRFA to automate your ai log under wp:BOTUSERSPACE. Just wanted to let you know as I was unsure if you had seen it. MetalBreaksAndBends (talk) 16:32, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Thanks for letting me know. Fermiboson (talk) 18:29, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2026

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2026).

Administrator changes

• Deepfriedokra

• EvanProdromou
• Wouterstomp

Interface administrator changes

L235

Chaotic Enby

CheckUser changes

• TheresNoTime
• Versageek

Oversight changes

Moneytrees

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

• 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.
• The arbitration case Maghreb has been closed.

Miscellaneous

• The May 2026 administrator elections are scheduled to run from April 29 to May 19. The call for candidates ends May 5.
• The 2026 Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) election is scheduled to run from April 25 to June 1. Candidacy submissions close on May 10.
• A new noticeboard for non-urgent, batch page protection requests has been created, primarily for the enforcement of contentious topic restrictions.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:29, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Your feedback on Draft:Pair Finance

Hi Fermiboson, a while ago you gave me helpful feedback on Draft:Pair Finance, pointing me to WP:THREE. I have tried to follow that advice and made the top three sources more prominent, in the draft itself as well as in the AfC comments. However, the draft has been declined again because of insufficient sourcing.

Having re-read WP:NCORP, I am not sure what is still missing. From my understanding, the draft includes multiple published sources that appear to be significant, independent, reliable, and secondary: Handelsblatt, Puls Biznesu, and NZZ. To me, these appear to be substantial pieces from established business and news publications in Germany, Poland, and Switzerland.

Do you think the issue might be that the sources are non-English and partly paywalled, or is there something else I may be overlooking in relation to WP:NCORP? I am also wondering whether the problem may be with how the sources are presented or used in the draft. If you have a moment, I would be very grateful if you could take a look and let me know whether you see a way to address the sourcing concern.

Thanks! Denise at PAIR Finance (talk) 10:26, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi and thanks for your collegial message. Non-English sources are acceptable sources to establish notability so that should not be a concern. For more details, you might want to drop a note to the most recent decliner's page (I cannot, of course, divine why they declined). I happen to have a rudimentary grasp of German so I took a look at the Handelsblatt source. It appears to be an interview, which is considered a WP:PRIMARY source and hence does not contribute to NCORP. An NCORP-eligible source has to be in the widest possible sense of the word a study, i.e. it is an examination of the company from a position of public or academic interest based substantially on material not from the company itself. Fermiboson (talk) 19:19, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your time and your response. The Handelsblatt article quotes our CEO but the journalist also makes his own statements and reports on findings by third parties. However, I will have another look at alternative sources. Perhaps User:Avgeekamfot has a chance to look into our inquiry inquiry as well. Thanks again! Denise at PAIR Finance (talk) 10:31, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Magic?

Was this a joke? Haha Slomo666 (talk) 15:19, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

More accurately satire, but yes. Fermiboson (talk) 19:14, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Question from Sochi26 (16:01, 7 May 2026)

Hey! Fermiboson... i want to ask about article like draft template. what is it all about? draft for entreprenuer and others. --Sochi26 (talk) 16:01, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Unsure what exactly you are referring to, but I am vaguely aware of some templates we have available for various draft topics to give you an idea of how an acceptable article about said topics might be structured. It is unwise to rely too strongly on any of them since the primary driver of any article is not what we want to say about the subject but what sources are available about the subject, so I would personally suggest focusing on gathering sources about an article subject you may want to write about and then structuring the article based on what informaiton is available in sources. Fermiboson (talk) 19:21, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Ok... Thank you.

This is exactly what I was referring to. Sochi26 (talk) 03:39, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Submission declined for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Tibo_Maker

Hi, I saw that the draft was rejected, but I don’t really understand the reasons why. The subject is a very well-known and talked-about figure online, and they have a huge following. Plus, the article wasn’t written using any LLM. Could you at least show me where the AI-generated text appears? I’m sorry, but I really don’t understand the reason for the rejection! Laristo B (talk) 14:40, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Question from Hobeybell on Wikipedia:CITE (00:08, 12 May 2026)

false --Hobeybell (talk) 00:08, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

New Page Patrol Newsletter - May 2026

Hello Fermiboson,

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.

BoyTheKingCanDance, Rosiestep, SunDawn, and Vanderwaalforces were inducted into the NPP Hall of Fame for having two separate years of 2,000+ article reviews.

January–February backlog drive

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.

May backlog drive

An article-only backlog drive is currently underway. We are hoping to make a big dent in the backlog. You can read more about it or join at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/May 2026.

PageTriage

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.

Reminders:

• You can access live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord.
• Consider adding the project discussion page to your watchlist.
• To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:37, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Question from NaveenSankarapu on Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk (08:47, 17 May 2026)

Hi --NaveenSankarapu (talk) 08:47, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Question from Novel1994 on Chengiz (07:01, 25 May 2026)

Hi --Novel1994 (talk) 07:01, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Question from Sufamelico (04:10, 29 May 2026)

Hello, How do I start an edit ? --Sufamelico (talk) 04:10, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Question from Lord Economics (10:44, 29 May 2026)

Note: Lord Economics's mentor SnowyRiver28 is away.

Hello! i am a new editor. how to edit. --Lord Economics (talk) 10:44, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Please do not write on my discussion page again.

I created an image with Grok because there are very few images on Wikimedia Commons for nail conditions. If that is not allowed, it is sad because then there would be no image at all, which is unfortunate for the readers. No, I translated the article from the German Wikipedia article. Please do not write on my discussion page again. EiersalatmitGurken (talk) 17:30, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2026

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2026).

Administrator changes

• Asukite
• Bobby Cohn
• Bonadea
• Ca
• Drm310
• Reconrabbit
• Sammi Brie

• Tamzin
• TonyBallioni

• Ezhiki
• Queen of Hearts

Bureaucrat changes

• WereSpielChequers

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, the "persistent usage of large language models" has been included as a common reason for a block.

Technical news

• Mandatory 2FA for bureaucrats: Bureaucrats without two-factor authentication (2FA) enabled have already lost access to their advanced rights on 26 May. Those who do not enable 2FA may be automatically removed from the groups in mid-June 2026, and from that point onward, new members must have 2FA enabled before they can be added. (T423119, T423120)

Arbitration

• The arbitration case SchroCat has been closed.
• The arbitration case Michael Jackson has opened. Evidence submissions in this case closes on 1 June.

Miscellaneous

• Voting for the 2026 Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) election closes on 1 June.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:14, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

DRN that you were not notified of

The editor that this DRN seems to have failed to notify you, despite being required to: WP:DRN § Olongapo. It seems likely to have been AI-generated (also despite that specifically not being allowed), so there might not be a whole lot that ends up needing to be done. --gurkubondinn 01:13, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Agreed, I did notice. Fermiboson (talk) 08:48, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Question from HKG 2026 (04:26, 5 June 2026)

Hello, Fermiboson. How are you today.

I have a question about editng Wikipedia, especially 'Find Refernece'. Where are you get the reference about article and how can you make sure that reference is proper information to edit Wikipedia Article. If you have some tips, i hope you share that tips to improve Wikipedia envirnonment. --HKG 2026 (talk) 04:26, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

References can be nearly anything as long as said thing is a WP:Reliable source, which you can find more information about on the page. See also WP:Citing sources. In general, for noncontroversial topics one may cite a wide range of primary sources (e.g. reliable catalogues, research articles) or secondary sources (newspapers, academic surveys), or even sources published by the subject itself, though there are restrictions on the latter. For contentious or specialised topics, there are a lot more restrictions; for example in medicine or science, the standards for reliable sources are stricter because lay sources that are usually reliable (e.g. newspapers) can become unreliable. If you have any specific topic and source in mind, feel free to ask me or at the WP:Teahouse. Fermiboson (talk) 12:31, 5 June 2026 (UTC)