but you can use this website to download it as a CSV file. Just copy and paste the URL of the table page, then click on the send button.(By DreamRimmer)
Process for wp:AFC accept when the target is a redirect?
What is the process for accepting an article when the the target is currently a redirect? Tag the redirect with this and move the AfC draft to mainspace after the redirect has been deleted under G6.
At the top of each section of an article (if it has sections, that is), located on the far right of the screen, is an [edit] button. The button is offset slightly above the section, and sometimes new users get confused and think it belongs to the section above it. When you click on the edit button, the edit window opens up, displaying the source text from the section immediately below the edit button. Please use these whenever you can. You can set your preferences to have the section headers themselves to act like the [edit] links.
Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
The relevant text is in the pink box located at the WP:3RR hyperlink - An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes or manually reverses other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert.
I read that differently. That if a combination of consecutive edits is a revert, it's still a revert even if each one alone is not. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:42, 7 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
I hear what you're saying, but given the very generous way individual edits are interpteted as reverts in general, it isn't clear to me how a revert could emerge in the aggregate from edits that are not themselves reverts, considered separately. But in any event, the "case law" at WP:3RRN is fairly clear that consecutive edits always count as only a single revert. Newimpartial (talk) 21:49, 7 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
Details about the summary page, the two phases of evidence, a timeline and other answers to frequently asked questions can be found at the case's FAQ page.
Just a quick note to greet you outside of a noticeboard discussion.
I appreciated your recent comment at the COIN thread that there is something tangible, in certain closely examined cases, between "strongly discouraged" and "forbidden" re COI editing. Part of the community seems to be using the "wikilawyering" charge to shut down any thoughtful exploration of that gap, which I find egregiously unjust.
You make the comment above that "too often Wikipedia is a nasty place". I feel this, and may or may not resume editing the encyclopaedia.
In case it's of interest, I made some general comments re my concerns about the editor experience, and tendentious applications of WP policy, in my statement at my user page.
I found the content and tone of your contribution to that thread refreshing.
@Walton22: Thanks for the post and compliment. I really don't enough about the situation to have an opinion. The universe of Wikipedia editing can be a weird alternate universe and often a rough and tumble or nasty one. I don't have the wiki-minutes to take a deep broad dive, but if I can ever advise or help, let me know. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:55, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
@North8000: Thank you very much. I was happy to just make broad brush strokes now by way of this introduction, but I do very much appreciate the offer to counsel a little in the future if need be. "Alternate universe" is right! There is great potential for justice here, and indeed I see it happen often. Walton22 (talk) 16:23, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
@XAM2175: Thanks. There was one where I did it wrong and then fixed it a few minutes later. Is that the one that you are referring to? or did I make another error. :-) North8000 (talk) 14:11, 7 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
The edit must add new lines of text, not just edit existing lines.
The edit must be signed by adding ~~~~ to the end of the message.
The edit must either be entirely within an existing section (it cannot have new section headers in the middle) or start a new section (starts with a new section header).
The number of users to be pinged must be equal to or less than 50.
Thus, if you forget to add a ping, or get it wrong, the easiest thing to do is revert your reply entirely and then add it again with a working ping. Cheers. XAM2175(T)18:37, 7 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
@XAM2175:Thanks much for your post. I learned from it. I thought that you just needed a new signature and a new ping. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:58, 7 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hey, did I accidentally ping you 3 times consecutively in my attempt to edit the Fox News RfC? If so, so sorry. Wait, wouldn't this talk page message make it 4? Oh no. -- Mebigrouxboy (talk) 03:51, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Mebigrouxboy: I did get a couple of pings and it was bit confusing where they didn't go. Thanks for the pings and the post. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:19, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
Latest comment: 2 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
I think you may be misrepresenting me here. I am trying to abide by WP:CIVIL, as we all should. I find it troublesome, but perhaps it was just an accident? DN (talk) 04:24, 26 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Darknipples: I didn't write anything by accident nor did I write anything uncivil. I did civilly take issue with one thing that you said about those who feel opposite that you do but even that was just a sidebar to my post. From your apologetic post I think you are being sincere and so I would like to offer a thought that might be useful. I've familiar with TFD's work (for over a decade) and they are one of the most careful, non-emotional, academic and source-based editors that I've interacted with. Their arguments (and mine) are just trying to sort out / discuss the specific narrow topics that you opened the section with. I think that you are misreading this as being about some broader POV struggle. There's nobody there who likes the KKK. IMO there are people who want to make the KKK article be (just) about the KKK. What reinforced my thought about the possible misreading was that quote that you closed you post with is something the to me looks like excellent relevant material for the article but you seemed to mistakenly thinking that the people who want to exclude that (IMHO irrelevant) material that you opened the section with have some broader exclusion goals which they don't have. In short, you may be imagining a battle that does not exist. And that a good way to sort that out would be to not conflate the narrow topic of your post that started that section with the other topics that you are mentioning, and to use the test of relevance to the article to help sort things out. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:52, 26 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
I'll clarify my so-called "absurd argument" for you. It's because it is excluding him, not entirely, but it's still exclusion. If that's how you want to interpret it, that's up to you. I clarified that I wasn't accusing anyone and that I was talking about under-representation, not disassociation. You seemingly used a misinterpretation as a means to discredit arguments I technically wasn't trying to make, which is a Straw man. That is not something I get bent out of shape over because it isn't typically uncivil. Where it crossed the line was calling it "absurd" (your word) which adds Appeal to ridicule on top of the misrepresentation. Now try to look at it from my perspective. If my response to you was..."I didn't write anything by accident nor did I write anything uncivil", what would you do? Would you still take the time to try to clear the air in effort to keep things CIVIL? Think about it, unfortunately I won't be responding on the article talk page until this gets sorted out. Cheers. DN (talk) 01:42, 27 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
BTW I don't mean to sound condescending, by linking those logical fallacies. I do agree with and respect the rest of your explanation, but I don't feel as though I am being acknowledged or understood properly, so when I respond sometimes I overcompensate. DN (talk) 02:31, 27 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Darknipples: There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding. I NEVER said that you made an absurd argument. Let's let the actual words speak for themselves. Please review the following:
You made the following statement: "While I don't agree with the explanations I've been given as to why excluding David Duke from the KKK article...."
And I responded to /referred to that statement saying "you open with saying that somebody made the absurd argument to generally exclude David Duke from the article (which I don't see anyone having said anything like that)"
It is not abundantly clear that this is NOT calling your argument absurd? My complaint was that you were misstating the arguments of others in a way that makes them / their argument look absurd. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:51, 27 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The arbitration case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/AlisonW has been closed, and the final decision is viewable at the case page. The following remedy has been enacted:
For failure to meet the conduct standards expected of an administrator, AlisonW's administrative user rights are removed. She may regain them at any time via a successful request for adminship.
Hi @Greghenderson2006: I'd be happy to take a look and see what I think. In your approach to these things I'd suggest reading WP:Canvassing so that your efforts will be in compliance with that guideline. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:59, 29 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hello friend. Your user talk page is lagging my computer a bit. If you ever want me to set up bot archiving for you, just let me know, would be happy to help. Happy editing. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:42, 31 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Thanks for the thanks, but it wasn't me who wrote it. It seems the page curation tool needs to be made a bit smarter about identifying who did the work. Yes, my edit is the first, but all I did was make a redirect for a redlink. I didn't flesh it out. The credit lies with Reubot. Kerry (talk) 21:37, 31 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
What in the world are you talking about? You nominated the article for deletion. I am showing that there are sources, and that the subject passes WP:GNG. I don't have to go and add them into the article. We are evaluating the subject's notablity, not the quality of the article. Please review WP:BEFORE and WP:AFD. Paul Vaurie (talk) 22:11, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
The reasons were the ones that I gave at the AFD. If you mean responding to the "similar pages" point that you made, when IMO there is pretty clearly a problem, I don't consider the face that other similar ones exist to be a reason to change that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:59, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment
@FormalDude: I had a purpose in mind, and chose a lighthearted/indirect way to pursue it. (Rather than a direct nasty overreach like accusing of accusing a particular editor of "Making a habit out of" and "disruptive") Either way I don't plan to do any more of those there. Sincerely. North8000 (talk) 03:00, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I just receive a notice on my talk page.
It seems I've been given a broad, indefinite ban on editing wikipedia articles.
No explanation has been given to me as to what I've done wrong.
I don't understand this. At all. Something is very wrong, here.
@Sbelknap: You are banned from editing certain Wikipedia articles. I've not looked at the background leading up to this. Regarding degree of culpability maybe there are three possibilities:
Your behavior was fine by both Wikipedia real world standards and the result was a travesty.
You behavior was fine by real world standards but (possibly in good faith.....ala "take it to talk") not by Wiki standards. With the most likely issue being WP:bludgeoning. And some thinking by the crowd that the referred to emerging-science that is overtaking widely accepted folklore widely presumed to be science-based but which has no basis in science.
Your behavior was outrageous by Wiki standards .....maybe extreme WP:bludgeoning and maybe strongly pushing ideas (aside from the above) which are actually fringier.
My guess is that #2 is most likely. If so, based on what you said at ANI you've probably learned that and already shifted course. If so, I'd suggest editing the 99% of Wikipedia that you are not banned from (and practice that) and then ask to have the ban removed in 6 months or a year. In case it might help and if you wish, I'd agree to watch you for a month after that.
@Immanuelle: I think that the short answer is yes, (the long answer is that it is not an explicit authority) but I haven't been doing AFC reviews. I think that the (unintended) standard for getting out of AFC is tougher than passing NPP patrol because the AFC reviewer is sort of saying "this article is overall fine" where in NPP patrol we are sort of saying "it's OK for an article on this topic to exist." If you have one that you'd like me to look at ping me and I'd be happy to and do my first AFC review. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:44, 11 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Immanuelle: That one has a few things that make it complicated. Let's say that it wasn't already at AFC and I ran across it as a harried NPP'er who has about 5 minutes or less to review the article. (NPP is basicaly a case of about 20 reviewers trying to review about 500 articles per day) . I'd give the article a quick first read and then look at the references. There is (only) one paragraph on line. The other 2 references are to off-line books. There is nothing wrong with that! However that leave me unable to verify suitable GNG coverage. Next I would try to read the article to understand what it is saying / to learn what I can from the topic. I must say that from a typical reader's standpoint, it is rough going. Throughout, your explanations utilize/depend on terms that the reader does not know. Many are linked, but IMO links are to provide additional info rather than to make the sentence understandable by a typical reader. So my recommendation would be to add a lot more plain English explanations. So I read the article (without reading/learning all of the linked articles) and really didn't get an understanding of the topic from reading it.....if I had, that would have helped me assess. So I'd google the topic. Didn't find any in-depth coverage but found enough to know that it's a real/legit topic and which sounds likely to have more substantial off-line coverage. So I'd take a gamble and give it a NPP pass. And I usually like to send the creator a note with a compliment or thanking them for their work. So, in my hypothetical scenario, I wasn't able to confirm that suitable GNG coverage existed, but took a guess/gamble that it does.
For this particular article, an AFC reviewer has already declined it so me jumping in would be a case of saying that I'm using my guess to override their review.
There are lots of possibilities here, too many to try to cover in my first post. Maybe a good next step is to ask for any thoughts of yours at this point? (as a prelude to discussing further) Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:40, 12 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Immanuelle: If I were to run across that article during new page patrol, I would pass it. But IMHO it has the same readability problem that I discussed above. A reader could not learn anything from just reading it unless they first know/learn the specialized terms than nearly every sentence is dependent on. Let me give you an example.
Sentence dependent on knowledge of the terms: The nucleus of the atom holds together because the strong force exceeds the Coulomb's law force.
More explanatory...a person can learn something from reading it even if they do not know the meanings of the linked terms: Since the protons within a nucleus of an atom are positively charged particles, they electrostatic force would make them repel each other, tending to make the nucleus fly apart. But at the close distances within the nucleus, the strong force is even stronger, thus holding the nucleus together.
At the time it was an unsourced BLP violation, and that was explained. As sources became available, I supported the addition. However, your making this post with false accusations (even after you saw ptherwise...that I supported putting it in once sourcing was provided) IS a big problem. North8000 (talk) 10:53, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
You have to admit what I posted was the truth and you removed that. At the time the truth was not available online as Buffy has spent 60 years (and the entire existence of the Internet) weaving her false story. Now Wikipedia is one of the only places where researchers can find the truth about Buffy. Encyclopedia Britannica (lies), PBS documentaries (lies), Numerous Major Award sites (lies) and pretty much the rest of the Internet and so called authorities have validated her lies. I am glad that numerous contributors updated her wikipedia page and you came to accept the truth, Buffy is a Pretendian.:( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:7133:1600:EC53:E8D5:9F9F:8ADB (talk) 00:17, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
You are oblivious to what I was saying but we ended up with something that was fine with both of us. So all's well that ends well. Happy editing! North8000 (talk) 00:21, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Transhumanist: What an interesting/ excellent page! I wouldn't know where to start regarding suggestions. My one thought is that it is written for people who have no knowledge in this specific area but sometimes presumes knowledge in it's explanations. Witness my unsuccessful experimentation (after reading it on that page) with how to make the daily tip appear at the top section. North8000 (talk) 14:18, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Transhumanist: Thanks! Suggest putting in what you just told me....copy from the viewed page, not the edit page. Also note that it's either one or the other...not both. North8000 (talk) 14:56, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
Daily tip - trying to figure out how to make this appear at the top
At the top of each section of an article (if it has sections, that is), located on the far right of the screen, is an [edit] button. The button is offset slightly above the section, and sometimes new users get confused and think it belongs to the section above it. When you click on the edit button, the edit window opens up, displaying the source text from the section immediately below the edit button. Please use these whenever you can. You can set your preferences to have the section headers themselves to act like the [edit] links.
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I have nominated Brownsea Island Scout camp for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:50, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion
Hi. I'm here to talk about what you did with Piaseczno Narrow-Gauge Railway. It's a mess. You cannot just change he name of article (Wierzbno station) and pretend its entirely new article. You didn't write anything about the railway, you didn't change the interlanguage link, and you didn't mention any other railway stations. Not to mention it's not even the first time you took upon yourself to "delete" article about minor railway station without any discussion.Artemis Andromeda (talk) 12:20, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Artemis Andromeda: I was going to AFD the railway station article during NPP (IMO clearly fails wp:notability) but instead thought of using it to start an article on the rail line. I though another station article (with the same problem which I would have also AFD'd) which I thought was on the same rail line and planned to put material from both articles into the rail line article. I knew that it would temporarily be a mess, which is what you noted. Then I noticed that the second article was not on the same rail line. That is as far as I got. I think that an article on the rail line (including details and images on the stations) would work out excellently and survive. At this point, what would you prefer to do? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:00, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
Recapping, I was going to AFD the railway station article during NPP (IMO clearly fails wp:notability) but instead thought of using it to start an article on the rail line. There was another station article (with the same problem which I would have also AFD'd) which I thought was on the same rail line and planned to put material from both articles into the rail line article. I knew that it would temporarily be a mess, which is what you noted. Then I noticed that the second article was not on the same rail line. That is as far as I got. I think that an article on the rail line (including details and images on the stations) would work out excellently and survive. It turns out that the other station/article is not on this particular rail line. If I receive no response to my question below I plan to circle back and tidy the situation up a bit.North8000 (talk) 21:36, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
@North8000: Don't start messes you don't intend to fix. Tell me, whose now gonna go and write an entire article about Piaseczno Railway? Me? You? Some third person who will stumble onto it in the next 10 years? You cannot just make messy articles like this and hope somebody else will fix it.Artemis Andromeda (talk) 15:27, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Artemis Andromeda: That's not an answer to my question, which seems a very reasonable one. In light of my response, what would like to happen next? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:37, 10 November 2023 (UTC) North8000 (talk) 19:37, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
Also, as a sidebar, you had numerous implied accusations like "don't intend" which are pretty creative, particularly in light of what I wrote. North8000 (talk) 19:41, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
If you wanted to delete the article, you should have had just report it for deletion on the notability basis. If you wanted to creat article about the Piaseczno Railway, you should have had just made a new article. Instead, you just changed the name, without changing any content in the article itself. It's now unencyclopedical, contins wrong categories, is still linked to Polish Wikipedia article about Wierzbno station, and talks only about this one station, and has basically no information about the railway line itself. You cannot just do that, and hope that somebody else will notice, and ever come to fix that, and write a proper article, because most of the times, nobody does (it's to niche to be notices).Artemis Andromeda (talk) 19:50, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Artemis Andromeda: Again no answer to my very reasonable question. This is far simpler and easier to resolve than you seem to think. Again, what would like to happen next? North8000 (talk) 21:58, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Immanuelle: As an experienced NPP reviewer (and more recent AFC reviewer) I would pass it. The main criteria is "should this exist as a separate article in Wikipedia?", with wp:notability being the main question. There are no obvious GNG references to confirm this. However, taking into account the (very old) period and the more obscure topic, the apparent type and quantity of references, the large diversity of footnoted coherent content developed from the references, I would make a judgement call and pass it. North8000 (talk) 16:05, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
From my limited knowledge of you past article, this looks much more readable and substantial that many of your previous ones. By readable" I've seen previous ones that as basicaly unreadable by a typical reader. In nearly every sentence they rely on knowledge of unfamiliar terms to understand what the sentence says. This article has far fewer of such problems. Alo0s it is more substantial and more content and source that your typical one.North8000 (talk) 16:05, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
As a typical (more cautious) AFC reviewer I might fail it or skip reviewing it. I'd see no clear cut GNG sources; it would take days of research to see if any of those sources confirm GNG compliance, especially since you did not include page numbers and the sources are off-line. And since you've had some troubles at the notice boards, I would be particularly cautious and err on the safe side. North8000 (talk) 16:05, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
This article is a bit weaker in all of the areas I discussed above in the Owari section. I'll need more looking at it before I could say anything. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:05, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
To a typical reader, this article is nearly unreadable. Nearly every sentence relies on knowledge on some obscure term to even know what the sentence says. Having an internal link to a term does not change that, a reader should not have to read another article just to figure out what each sentences says. Internal links are generally more "for further reading". Also, you are creating redlinks for plan English words where the target of the redlink is not even in the sentence. I would not consider these items grounds to reject an article, but having an article with a severe problem in this area is a significant problem. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:18, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
@North8000: I tried to fix the Yamato no Kuni no Miyatsuko article. I see both of them were recently accepted. I noticed somehow the reply function broke so I am unsure what happened (unsigned by Immanuelle)
@North8000: Yeah they were helpful. Yamato no Kuni no Miyatsuko is pretty difficult I think to explain and I will want to do further rewriting of it to make it clearer. btw are your pronouns he/him or is wikipedia just not set up weith them? I thought you had a pic and were a girl.Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian)21:48, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Immanuelle: Cool. I have on my user page "I live in the USA and (to simplify the pronoun question for folks) am male." but beyond that I don't participate in stating pronouns. North8000 (talk) 21:57, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
@North8000: I had thought this was a picture of you tbh
Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
FYI this was undeleted at REFUND recently due to it being a soft-deletion. Just a courtesy heads-up given you were the last AfD nominator, and may wish to re-nominate. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 20:31, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Daniel: Thanks for the post and heads up. My nomination was just under trying to do my NPP job properly. It's still tagged for wp:notability and awaiting another NPP review. I might just let a second set of eyes review it. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:23, 10 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2024!
Hello North8000, 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 2024. Happy editing, Jerium (talk) 16:22, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
– robertsky (talk) is wishing you Happy Holidays! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user Happy Holidays, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Happy holidays}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
I don't agree that "I think it's time for you to mellow out. That would be much more pleasant for everybody, including you. " is an unproductive remark. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:54, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
This is turning into quite a little rant. I was considering a hat, but I think that honor should go to someone else. Do you have any further suggestions? Cheers. DN (talk) 02:59, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I replaced the notability tags you added to Group Otte with an expand German tag. When I was looking for additional sources I found the de.wikipedia article and the German name for the group. The de.wikipedia article has several German language sources in addition to the 3 or 4 now in the English article. Let me know if you still think it needs the tags. Ben Azura (talk) 18:05, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, it looks like you are only interested in reviews done after 2023. I've modified the query to support this. The new query runs much faster (14s vs 325s) and also gives much less results which would make your post-processing easier too. Please fork it. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:14, 5 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
@MPGuy2824: Thanks. I figured that we need to have it start somewhere, and in order to serve it's purpose, where interested people can be in and keep themselves in Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:20, 5 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
BTW if we went back farther, there would be only one person in the running. So we're trying to create more folks doing that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:46, 5 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
I felt better when I saw that I gave edge case answers ("weak ...." and "Neutral") on the one where I had different positions! North8000 (talk) 18:07, 8 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Haha, indeed. In one of them it had been fully 3 weeks in between, I think very understandable. It does look to me like you still have two oppose votes in proposal 4 and two supports in 16, though. --JBL (talk) 19:25, 8 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hey there! This is to let you know that phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship (RfA) review is now no longer accepting new proposals. Lots of proposals remain open for discussion, and the current round of review looks to be on a good track towards making significant progress towards improving RfA's structure and environment. I'd like to give my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has given us their idea for change to make RfA better, and the same to everyone who has given the necessary feedback to improve those ideas. The following proposals remain open for discussion:
Proposals 3 and 3b, initiated by Barkeep49 and Usedtobecool, respectively, provide for trials of discussion-only periods at RfA. The first would add three extra discussion-only days to the beginning, while the second would convert the first two days to discussion-only.
Proposal 5, initiated by SilkTork, provides for a trial of RfAs without threaded discussion in the voting sections.
Proposals 6c and 6d, initiated by BilledMammal, provide for allowing users to be selected as provisional admins for a limited time through various concrete selection criteria and smaller-scale vetting.
Proposal 7, initiated by Lee Vilenski, provides for the "General discussion" section being broken up with section headings.
Proposal 9b, initiated by Reaper Eternal, provides for the requirement that allegations of policy violation be substantiated with appropriate links to where the alleged misconduct occured.
Proposals 12c, 21, and 21b, initiated by City of Silver, Ritchie333, and HouseBlaster, respectively, provide for reducing the discretionary zone, which currently extends from 65% to 75%. The first would reduce it 65%–70%, the second would reduce it to 50%–66%, and the third would reduce it to 60%–70%.
Proposal 13, initiated by Novem Lingaue, provides for periodic, privately balloted admin elections.
Proposal 14, initiated by Kusma, provides for the creation of some minimum suffrage requirements to cast a vote.
Proposals 16 and 16c, initiated by Thebiguglyalien and Soni, respectively, provide for community-based admin desysop procedures. 16 would desysop where consensus is established in favor at the administrators' noticeboard; 16c would allow a petition to force reconfirmation.
Proposal 16e, initiated by BilledMammal, would extend the recall procedures of 16 to bureaucrats.
Proposal 17, initiated by SchroCat, provides for "on-call" admins and 'crats to monitor RfAs for decorum.
Proposal 25, initiated by Femke, provides for the requirement that nominees be extended-confirmed in addition to their nominators.
Proposal 27, initiated by WereSpielChequers, provides for the creation of a training course for admin hopefuls, as well as periodic retraining to keep admins from drifting out of sync with community norms.
To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I/Closed proposals. You are cordially invited once again to participate in the open discussions; when phase I ends, phase II will review the outcomes of trial proposals and refine the implementation details of other proposals. Another notification will be sent out when this phase begins, likely with the first successful close of a major proposal. Happy editing! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her), via:
Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello, North8000,
I just thought I'd let you know that this article, which was just moved to this particular title, had the PROD tag you added last week removed. Editors used to be routinely notified if an article they tagged was de-PROD'd but that habit has kind of died out now that we have more articles being de-PROD'd than in the past. So, I just thought I'd alert you in case you wished to take it to WP:AFD. Thank you. LizRead!Talk!21:49, 27 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Liz: Thanks for the heads up. It was sitting in the NPP que for almost 4 months and nothing was happening on problems (including a severe one with the title and thus title-defined subject) long noted by others. With the title change it would probably need hours of learning by me or involvement of someone more knowledgeable on the topic than me to figure out what to do next. Either way it still has "waiting for NPP" flag on it. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:07, 27 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I have found twice now this article redirected to the band's main article. This was down to "no evidence of notability", despite it charting at 42 on Official German Charts. Please enlighten me on what other evidence of notability is needed, because I thought if a song charted in at least one country, that's enough.
@Bandit5660: The main idea of wp:notability, including the wording choices at N:Music is having the in depth coverage in sources from which to build an article from. Similarly in the discussions at other policies and guidelines even if one made points such as yours regarding the wp:notability condition. This article has no such coverage and no such content. IMO it should be merged into the band or album article. I'm going to step away from this one from a NPP standpoint (and also I'm not tagging it) and let someone else review it. Either way, happy editing!North8000 (talk) 14:56, 3 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello! I am asking you to please review my article to see if it is worthy of being moved to the main page of the English Wikipedia. I have replaced some references that were not reliable sources and added careers to the article. If you don't think the article is worthy please feel free to make suggestions on the article's talk page or my user talk page. Thanks and regards Badak Jawa (talk) 07:07, 4 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Nemesia345: I copied them into the talk page of the draft....is that what you meant? Also, just clarifying, if you wish I could do the AFC review when you resubmit if you pinged me. I'd probably also do the NPP review at the same time. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:58, 11 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Feedback request: History and geography request for comment
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Djong (ship) has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you.
The core question is whether or not there are independent sources that cover him in depth. If you could pick out the two references that best do this and ping me I'd be happy to take a look. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:51, 23 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
@North8000: Hi again. There is this article from "Shine News" in Shanghai, and this article (in Hebrew) in "Calcalist", references 32 & 33 respectively on the current draft. There is also this article on Israe21c, reference number 30 in current draft. In addition, Ami Dror is a prominent protest leader who is constantly sought after by television media, and radio. Your help would be greatly appreciated. --Omer Toledano (talk) 07:49, 24 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Omert33: Those look very solid. My wiki-minutes are limited which is why I'm asking you to do legwork in order for me to help.
Are all 3 of those references currently in the article? (please be sure to answer this question even if not)
If not, can you put them in and then confirm to me?
@Omert33: Nice work. I moved it to article space and NPP reviewed.Left a post at talk referencing this thread regarding GNG sourcing. North8000 (talk) 13:22, 26 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Hi North8000, Thank you for reviewing the page I wrote about ThirumaLi and leaving an appreciation note saying nice work:) Thank you. I was wondering if you would also be able to review a page I wrote about Masala Coffee's founder - Varun Sunil, please? Thanks! 𝓡𝔂𝓭𝓮𝔁15:11, 26 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
My Wiki minutes are limited, but if you could help a bit..... In your case it needs to have GNG sources, which means published independent sources that cover the topic of the article (Varun Sunil) In depth. Could you pick out the 2-3 sources in the article that you think best fulfill this requirement? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:24, 26 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hi, Definitely. I understand. Sharing few GNG Sources for you to review them easier. Here's 1 (The Hindu Article - Considered a Reliable Source), 2, 3 Thank you for your time, North8000. 𝓡𝔂𝓭𝓮𝔁17:55, 26 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hey, Just wanted to let you know, Times of India (and WP:CHURNALISM reporting from other Indian news sources) are generally considered fairly unreliable. (See WP:NEWSORGINDIA).
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Sohom Datta}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
@Sohom Datta: Thanks for the post and info. I'm a bit confused in a couple ways......I didn't work on / edit the article. I left a note but didn't review it and you did. But thanks for the info. North8000 (talk) 01:12, 29 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Sohom Datta: Do you have much experience with Times of India. I can understand where they they might not be reliable enough for various purposes (such as sourcing something controversial for BLP). But my most common situation is where `I'm evaluating for GNG coverage in the customary degree of stringency. For example, if they have a substantive article on someone that looks like a real article (not posting a bio supplied by the person). So we're basically looking for puplished independent coverage. Do you think that they fall short for that type of thing? Enough so to not look at Times of India when reviewing for GNG coverage? North8000 (talk) 01:22, 29 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
My approach to looking at Times of India for notability purposes is to take each and every individual article on a case by case basis. In the case of Amloki (TV series) almost all of the articles are short (compare the size of vs or even which is just a fluffy summary of a tweet), do not have an attributed author and are written in the style of a press release which makes me doubt their reliability and neutrality. For most BLPs, companies and TV shows (basically any topic where paid publishing can be a concern) I tend to approach TOI reporting with scepticism from a notability POV. Sohom (talk) 01:51, 29 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion
Hi North8000, I'd like to raise a concern regarding your AfDs and ask for clarification. I appreciate that you do a lot of review of new pages. However, I'm concerned about how thorough your WP:BEFORE searches are particularly as they relate to looking for native language sources are required under step B7 of the process. I notice that you've recently nominated articles for deletion where the primary language is Divehi, Arabic, Bengali, Filipino, Azerbaijani, and Japanese. These are quite varied languages and the probability that one person can do a competent WP:BEFORE search in all of these languages strikes me as unlikely. Understand you're a far more experienced editor than I am but it strikes me that in some cases articles may be getting deleted that would be kept if someone who spoke the language searched for sources. I appreciate that I was notified when you nominated a page I created but perhaps it would also be appropriate to somehow notify other editors who speak the appropriate language or consult them before making a nomination? Wikipedia is already known to have a systematic bias towards the Anglo world and I would hate for a pattern of AfD nominations to reinforce that bias. Just a note and appreciate that you help cull quite a bit of spam from the website. DCsansei (talk) 11:36, 1 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
@DCsansei: Thanks for that thoughtful post. I think that even the most thorough search in all languages would not result in a keep on the first 5 of those 6 and maybe also the 6th. Discussing all of them would be a long multi-faceted discussion on each of them I'm not able to do here right now. But maybe if you could pick one of theme to have a more in-depth discussion on I'd be happy to do that and I think it would be helpful. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:13, 1 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
I also don't consider myself qualified to evaluate the notability of most of the examples I provided: I don't speak those languages. My interest was piqued by Shibata Takumi (fund manager), an article I started a few weeks ago with the intention of coming back to but didn't expect the notability to be questioned. I struggle to see how you could come to the conclusion that he isn't notable if a BEFORE search was conducted. I'm working to improve the article a bit now to at least head-off deletion (with the intent of return to it further later). I found your response when I provided numerous sources a bit dismissive particularly as it relates to perpetrating Wikipedia's tendency to focus entirely on American/English topics despite being a global resource. Shibata was described (in English) by Reuters as one of Japan's most high-profile financial executives and there are numerous sources describing his various career moves. If English-speaking editors don't view one of the most high-profile business leaders in what was then the world's second largest economy as obviously notable on Wikipedia it's no wonder we have systematic bias. DCsansei (talk) 12:41, 1 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
@DCsansei: Well that was the "#6" that I referred to which could go either way. Long story short, structurally the current question is whether or not there are two (maybe one will do) published independent sources that cover the topic of the article (him) in depth. And the main point behind that is to see if there is enough published in-depth material to create a real wiki-article from. So the question isn't how "real world notable" he is, the question is whether or not those 2 sources exist. So if somebody googles a person and finds a whole lot of "hits" that doesn't answer that question. The real work is going through those hits to find the 2 (or maybe 1) sources that fulfill the relevant criteria (or find out that they don't exist). The flip side is that if those 2 (maybe one) sources exist to advise that keeping the article is far simpler than you think.....just identify those two sources and it's a "keep".
There might be a bit of a background thing that affected the shortness of my response. Which might be me (possibly mistakenly) assuming that you know all of the above. About the 20 most active NPP'ers need to do about 90% of the review work and right now we're struggling to get through / drowning in a 15,000 article backlog. With the "real work" part being sorting through a bunch of hits to find the 1-2 sources of the right type, your post could be taken as criticizing me for not doing that work while declining to actually do that work. Either way, thanks for your posts. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:22, 1 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Admittedly, I was not pleased with being asked to do any "real work" since I'm on holiday this week so finding the 7-day AfD clock during time it would take away from vacation rather than work is not ideal. Not a knock on your work patrolling new articles which must run across a lot of craff. Could you take another look at the article now? I believe notability should be apparent now although I'll continue slowly reviewing Japanese sources. DCsansei (talk) 11:15, 2 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
"Keep/withdraw The creator has increased it from 4 references up to 27 references. They've also asked me to take a look at those/the article as they are away on vacation/holidays. (IMO this mostly means analyzing all of the new references and finding the GNG-best ones per my request above)....happy to help someone enjoy their vacation/holidays and I did. Most of the best looking ones are behind paywalls, but as a minimum there are many near-GNG references by top tier sources. They have also expanded the article substantially with enclyclopedic content, also indicative of the addition of in-depth references. While I can't vouch for the most rigorous-interpretation GNG compliance, I have decided to switch to "keep/withdraw"."
Latest comment: 2 years ago10 comments3 people in discussion
Hey North8000, I noticed you are having trouble with that monthly reviewers query. I can assist you, but first, I’ll need to create a page in your userspace. Once that’s done, you’ll be able to update data with just one click anytime you need to. – DreamRimmer (talk) 03:21, 4 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
@DreamRimmer: Wow! Thanks. Is there a way I can export it to a file? Because that's how I was doing what I was doing. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:33, 5 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
@DreamRimmer: I import into MS Access, so almost any structured file will do. But let's say Excel or .csv. If this is possible, thanks!North8000 (talk) 14:46, 5 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Exporting from there isn’t possible, but you can use this website to download it as a CSV file. Just copy and paste the URL of the table page, then click on the send button. That’s all. – DreamRimmer (talk) 17:45, 5 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
@MPGuy2824:@DreamRimmer: Yes, it worked out great and thanks to everyone. Just trying to learn a bit....what does that one run in seconds where the other one wouldn't complete even in hours. Or maybe I was doing something wrong. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:57, 11 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Feedback request: Economy, trade, and companies request for comment
Latest comment: 2 years ago11 comments8 people in discussion
You are a remarkable editor in many ways. You would be a good administrator, in my opinion, and appear to be well qualified. You personify an administrator without tools and have gained my support already!
North8000 is one of the remarkable page reviewers I've ever seen. The fast yet accurate is giving. You're now the third I'm owing a rock and I support all about you. Safari ScribeEdits!Talk!22:19, 30 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
I have often and many times seen and been impressed by your competence, conduct, and clue North8000, and like the others here: I think you would be a very good administrator. I also believe that your RfA would easily succeed as your qualifications are readily obvious, robust and well rounded, and rock solid by any fair measure. Your temperament is as close to admin perfect as it can practically be. And it's unambiguously clear that your character traits are genuine (not a contrived cell in your body I'm certain). Wikipedia is better because of you and the gifts of your time given. Above all else, I sincerely thank you for that. And I would be thrilled to support you for adminship. Having said these things with best regards, I wish you wellness and good cheer.--John Cline (talk) 00:56, 1 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'm only seeing this now, good idea! Didn't know you weren't an admin yet. My email is open if you'd like to get some private feedback or talk about about a nomination. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:35, 9 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, I do not think it is a good idea to continue a closed discussion, like what you have done at this section of the Jordan Peterson talk page regarding the Jubilee medal 14 minutes after the closure of that discussion. I have planned to revert it, but due to uncertainty over how appropriate the revision really is (and how appropriate it would be to revert it), I have found it better to instead discuss that revision here with you. CarlFilip19 (talk) 21:35, 17 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
@CarlFilip19: What I did was both OK and appropriate. Including responding to a comment/accusation about me wrongly implying that I was out of line because I participated in a discussion without an invitation. Or I could have reopened it to make it even more official. But it would be improper to revert it. :-) Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:07, 18 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hi North8000. Thanks for your response. Yes things are fine and hope the same with you. With other things on hand the contribution towards Wikipedia reduced, though efforts to improve this platform with guidance from all is always there. Gardenkur (talk) 02:52, 25 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Feedback request: History and geography request for comment
Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Greetings North8000, Hope you're having a great day! I was wondering if you could review a recent article I wrote about a record label Mass Appeal India, please? Here's couple of independent sources - 1, 2, 3, 4
@Scope creep: I don't know what you mean by the 2nd half of your sentence, but regarding the first half, IMO it's very solid that there is no reason for it to not be in mainspace. And on what is likely the main question, IMO has sourcing to solidly meet GNG, much more solid that a typical new article. In your AFD nom, you indicated that is has some low quality sources, I did not review all 57 sources, just enough to confirm GNG compliance. If some (or many) of the other 57 have the problems that you describe, that is not a reason to delete the article or preclude it from mainspace. BTW, I plan to move this thread to my talk page. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:18, 26 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The New Page Patroller's Barnstar
This award is given in recognition to North8000 for accumulating at least 100 points during the May 2024 NPP backlog drive. Your contributions helped play a part in the 14,452 reviews completed during the drive. Thank you so much for taking part and contributing to help reduce the backlog! Hey man im josh (talk) 18:58, 6 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Rydex64: Hello Rydex64. I really don't do "respond to request" reviews about current personalities/groups engaged in a business. This one would need a large amount of work going through all of the references to see if there some GNG references which it would need to have in order to pass wp:notability. But if you'd like to help pick out the references most likely to be GNG references, I'd be happy to review. This would be to select the 2-3 references which best meet the following criteria: Independent, published sources which cover Tech Panda & Kenzani in depth. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:30, 18 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hey @North8000, Oh apologies, I forgot to mention they're an Electronic music group/band. And surely, I will select the 3 best references for you to review easily. Here - 1, 2, 3 Thanks!
Hey hey @North8000, Sorry for the ping! I think the previous message might have slipped through your mind. Could you please take a look when you have a couple of minutes? Thanks a lot!:)
@Rydex64: Sorry I missed that you already looked. The first is just to the article but I did review it. Happy editing! North8000 (talk) 19:58, 25 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Oops! Sorry haha, It was an accident. But, thanks for the review. Appreciate it! Cheers.
Note regarding attribution of merges in page history
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from one or more pages into Council Service Territories. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Red-tailedhawk(nest)17:45, 22 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Red-tailed hawk: Thanks for the note. I was thinking that it was obvious because I noted in the edit summary that it was implementing a merged decided at AFD, and the talk page discussed what the source article was. But better to also put it into the edit summary which I didn't do. North8000 (talk) 13:11, 24 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Dear North8000,
I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Fifteen Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for fifteen years or more.
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Dear User:North8000, thanks for your efforts! On 15-16 September 2024 I edited Neural network (machine learning). You reverted and wrote: "You are doing massive reassignment of credit for Neural Networks based on your interpretation of their work and primary sources and deleting secondary sourced assignments. Please slow down and take such major reassignments to talk first." So that's what I am doing now. (Not quite sure whether this should be done on the article's talk page or your own.) Please note that most of my edits just resurrected important old references deleted on 7 August 2024 in a major edit when User:Cosmia Nebula (whose efforts I appreciate) tried to compress the text. I also fixed links in some of the old references, added a few new ones (both primary and secondary sources), corrected many little errors, and tried to streamline some of the explanations. IMO these edits substantially improved the history section of the article, although a lot remains to be done. Now I'd like to ask you: please check out the details and revert your revert! Best regards, Speedboys (talk) 16:42, 17 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hello @Speedboys: Thanks for your work and your post. The series of rapid fire edits ended up being entangled where they an't be reviewed/ potentially reverted separately. In that bundle were several which IMO pretty creatively shifted/assigned credit for being the one to pioneer various aspect. So I'm not open to reinstating that whole linked bundle including those. Why not just slow down and put those things back in at a pace where they can be reviewed? And the the ones that are are a reach (transferring or assigning credit for invention) take to talk first. You are most familiar with the details of your edits and are in the best position to know those. I'd be happy to discuss at either place, but may I suggest having this general discussion here and any more specific ones at the article? Happy editing! Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:09, 17 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
User:North8000, thanks! Well, all the edits are backed by important references, and most of them aren't novel, just resurrecting old stuff deleted in a massive edit of 7 August 2024 that (unlike mine) has remained unchallenged so far. At your suggestion, I put it in the article's talk page. Speedboys (talk) 21:35, 17 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments2 people in discussion
I'm curious how NPP plans to patrol articles on animal species? To meet the proposed guidance of "valid name exists" a species only needs to be published (no restrictions on being academic or peer-reviewed) using the oldest available, non-invalidated name purporting to be that new taxon. This would mean even a single self-published journal article would be sufficient for a species to have a valid name and therefore warrant a standalone article. And since at least some curated databases do not assess scientific merit of species descriptions they will automatically designate such species as having a "valid name" unless and until someone else publishes something calling it into question -- which means we technically could also have a reliable source for this species even if it is not secondary, independent, or significant. JoelleJay (talk) 00:03, 19 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
@JoelleJay: Thanks for the post. Didn't quite understand that last sentence. My first thoughts regarding the other items in your post:
Several folks who know this area a lot better than me spent a good amount of time developing the proposal. And so sooner or later it needs to go up for an RFC rather than dying under it's own weight like many discussions do. I think that it pretty clear that people would be open to tweaking it/ modifying it. IMO such a two-step process is probably even the best way to move forward. Get something reasonable in place and then have a separate conversation on where it needs changes. Or maybe it will go fine as currently written.
Regarding "how NPP plans to patrol articles on animal species", I don't think that there is an overall plan. Speaking for myself, I'll need to learn / get fluency on that area to evaluate that sourcing. I'm guessing that once I do, patrolling one of those will be 20 times easier than the kinds of situations that we are already dealing with. Like in gng-dependent sports articles where the standard is technically GNG but in practice it isn't.
After the (presumed positive) close, if you have an idea on a change to improve it, I'd be happy to work on it with you and support it.
Well, the issue as I see it is that the proposal claims that it's impossible to have a valid name without reputable academic sources when this is flatly false for millions of species. Before this proposal, you could dismiss self-published sources via WP:V; but if this passes we now have a guideline explicitly endorsing creation of articles based only on one self-published source. You could argue that WP:V overrides this, but then we're already actively flouting WP:PRIMARY so why should we expect people to observe the one policy but not the other?
The point I was trying to make with the last sentence is that even if someone is trying to avoid self-published sources (even though they would satisfy the guideline), they may assume that the content in a database is RS and secondary when actually it isn't. I showed that mollusks have essentially zero oversight in the mollusk database -- some species get "valid name" status immediately on publication of the primary discovery paper because the author is also a curator for the database, and some species still get this status automatically despite being self-published by someone known to be a taxonomic vandal. We likely have hundreds (maybe thousands? we'd need @BilledMammal to query this) of articles sourced only to this database (or that plus the primary source) that have had no documented secondary evaluation at all and yet would be impossible to delete with this guideline in place. JoelleJay (talk) 22:25, 19 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
@JoelleJay: Starting with the caveat that you have more expertise than me on this.... Let's be pragmatic on this. Positing that it passes, is there a recommended change that you would make? Or let's discuss to potentially develop one. North8000 (talk) 23:48, 19 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello, North8000,
I was looking into the situation of a blocked editor after seeing one of their drafts, see User talk:ⵟⵓⵔⴽⵉⵙⵀⴽⴰⴱⵢⵍ and noticed that you posted over 30 messages to their User talk page after they were blocked, encouraging them on their editing. While well-intentioned, this seems excessive to me. I'm not sure if these notifications happen automatically or whether you chose to post 30+ talk page messages but I think you should limit the messages to 2 or 3 per day or it easily could be overwhelming especially when it is the exact same message each time. I can see that perhaps you didn't know that the editor was blocked and couldn't respond but it's still just a helluva a lot of messages to an editor on the same day.
If this is editing behavior that you no longer do, then just ignore this message but I saw this flood of messages (and I've seen it on other user talk pages) and just thought I'd comment. But thanks to you for the encouragement you deliver, I just think you could dial it back a little. I hope you are having a great weekend. LizRead!Talk!03:08, 22 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hello @Liz: Thanks for the post. I usually like to leave a quick nice note after a NPP review. That was sort of an freak occurrence, (being many reviews of articles by the same person at the same time ). With trying to help on the huge NPP backlog, I usually don't take any extra time to look into the editor or even notice the editor's name. But for the reasons I noted, it's no biggee and easy to do to avoid those unusual occurrences. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:43, 22 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
RFA2024 update: Discussion-only period now open for review
Latest comment: 1 year ago7 comments3 people in discussion
Wondering if you minded creating a shortcut to this for easier reference. I didn't want to do it myself since you spent all the work creating it (which I thank you for by the way). CNMall41 (talk) 19:19, 29 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello, North8000,
Please look at User talk:RandomMe98. You posted over 100 notices on this editor's talk page. It's overwhelming just looking at the page, I can't imagine being the editor. It's fine to send an encouraging note or two but do not plaster editor's user talk page with dozens and dozens of notifications. LizRead!Talk!05:39, 7 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
That one was an anomaly. I just post something postive when passing a NPP review. Sometimes just a thanks for their work and sometimes with a suggestion for improvement. That one had both types (plus a third type...an AFD notice) and I was trying to help put a dent in the > 13,000 + article backlog by reviewing a whole bunch of similar articles. North8000 (talk) 14:57, 7 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hey North8000, I just created a page on a biotechnologist based in Jamaica couple of days ago (M. H. Ahmad). Could you please have a look and give your remarks. Warm regards. It’d be great if you could review it. Hamza A. Durrani (talk) 14:01, 10 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hello @Hamza A. Durrani: It's a well written article, particularly/given for one which does not have GNG type sources. The article content does look like routine resume/CV material for an academic. I don't see any sources which would qualify for meeting wp:notability under WP:GNG. I'm guessing that he/the article would meet wp:notability under the Special Notability Guideline for Academics but I don't currently do reviews that require that because I haven't yet acquired the expertise / got fluent with that special guideline. Happy editing!!! Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:36, 10 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Okay, okay, I get it. The amount of notification bells you're sending me is going to cause me to have an heart attack. I thought I was sent to ANI for some reason (this happened to me before!), pinged several times while I was asleep, then blocked. Jesus christ.... ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 23:19, 18 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
@AlphaBetaGamma: Thanks for your work. Certainly nothing "ANI" related. I did four posts on articles which you created which a copy went to your talk page on. Three were a heads up on three train station articles which are unlikely to meet wp:notability criteria on. The fourth was on a train station article which IMO was an edge case and I marked as reviewed. On all 4 I made the suggestion on a way forward to up-merge or cover them on an article which is on the overall rail line. Either way, happy editing! Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:05, 19 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
(I'm aware WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a thing) I've been confused on what to do on train station articles which could just be sent to the railway line article and be called a day, because in the end I'd be yelled at when the massive infobox in the "Stations" section that would be placed if I merged everything and converted the train stations articles into redirects surpasses the rest of the article.
The WP:N issue exists with thousands of TRAINSTATION articles, even if you limit the scope to trains in Japan. Of course, some articles have been BLAR'd by some editors, but that's merely a fraction considering some can be improved to prove their point of having an article. (ex. Kominato Station. Of course, not every articles have the history to be expanded up to GA, but older stations and newly built stations are usually easier to cover and cite and expand) Because merging literally every station articles is a move that destroys dozens of potentials of GAs and even FAs, (although, there aren't any FAs in the scope of WPTIJ, you can find plenty of GAs in jawiki related to trains) I've hesitated to do the "just mention it in the railway line article, this doesn't meet GNG!" move that everyone does (and should be doing).
Considering that WP:TIJ is barely managing to do its work with the small fraction of the former members, a major change of mass BLARing articles with insurmountable WP:GNG issues and expanding stubs that can be covered and expanded to the point people won't question their notability anymore is impossible.
@AlphaBetaGamma: Thanks for the post. Well, we both said our things. Rather than discuss those many angles, I'll just limit myself to two notes which might be useful: IMO it's not necessary (or even advisable) to list all of the stations in the info box of an article on the line. IMO it would be best to give each station a small subsection in the body of the article (or a row in a table) which would have the factoids that the text is derived from and the image. The other is that the issue of wp:notability (on these) isn't one of unexpanded articles, it's a matter of having a couple sources which cover the topic of the article in depth. The existence of these determines whether it is build-able into an enclyclopedia article vs where there are just some factoids in sources which the editor expands into sentences. Whether or not that building of the article has already occurred is not the question, except that it can be an indicator of whether or not the GNG sources have been found. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:09, 19 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Dear North8000, thank you very much for your checking Stano Bubán's page. I really appreciate your work...
I would like to consult with you:
Admin Reconrabbit added tags to the page using Page Curation (orphan). Even though I studied the issue of "orphan" pages, I did not understand what I should change or redesign on the Stano Bubán's page to remove this bar.
Please, could you advise me, what exactly I should do? After all, the page has links to other internal pages of Wikipedia. For example, at the Academy of Fine Arts in Bratislava, Academy of Fine Arts, Prague, Velvet Revolution, Slovak National Gallery, etc. Should I add more links to other pages from Wikipedia?
Thanks for the post. ((As an aside, Reconrabbit isn't an admin.) If you want to remove the reason for that tag, find an article elsewhere) where it is appropriate to) create an internal link to the Stano Bubán page and create that link. It's not specifically a problem to not have those links so IMO another approach might be to consider it to be providing some info and say "Thanks for the info" and remove the tag. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:22, 21 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Merry Christmas, North8000! Or Season's Greetings or Happy Winter Solstice! As the year winds to a close, I would like to take a moment to recognize your hard work and offer heartfelt gratitude for all you do for Wikipedia. May this Holiday Season bring you nothing but joy, health and prosperity. Onel5969TT me23:26, 22 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2025!
Hello North8000, 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 2025. Happy editing, Abishe (talk) 22:23, 24 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello there, 'tis the season again, believe it or not, the years pass so quickly now! A big thank you for all of your contributions to Wikipedia in 2024! Wishing you a Very happy and productive 2025! ♦ Maliner (talk) 02:27, 6 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi @North8000, I don't appreciate your wholesale revert of my edits on the L. David Mech page. I spent close to an hour proofreading the edits you made, including fixing bare urls and grammatical errors, and you just undid all of it in one click. This is both rude and inappropriate. If you disagree with specific changes I made, please take it up on the talk page instead. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 00:12, 7 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Revirvlkodlaku: You did a massive bundle of controversial deletions of good informative material material and sourcing. Including deletion of a 10 page article by Chicago's largest newspaper and all of the cites to it and material citing it on giving the rationale that it is "sub par" Please take specific specific controversial proposed deletions to talk. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 04:41, 7 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The New Page Reviewer's Silver Award
This award is given in recognition to North8000 for conducting 2,800 article reviews in 2024. Thank you so much for all your excellent work. Keep it up! Hey man im josh (talk) 18:05, 8 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Huldra: It probably still doesn't officially meet WP:NGEO but there's enough there that I woulld not have moved to draft and would have marked as reviewed. If it's not already marked, I'll mark it as reviewed. Hppy editing! Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:42, 4 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment
Latest comment: 1 year ago6 comments2 people in discussion
Re: Your draftifying many of the Lebanese village-articles made by User:Syrian91: I looked at some of the ones in Sidon District, and many (most) of them were also:
A. noted in Localiban,
B. have articles in 3 or more other wikipedia languages,
@Huldra: I think that my own standard for wp:NGeo is more lenient than a thorough interpretation of NGeo which in turn is more wp:NGeo lenient than GNG. The above Ain Jarfa exchange I think illustrates this. I think that the two relevant possibilities are:
Historically recognized with a real identity as an inhabited place.
If based solely on modern times, a true village/city/municipality. Not just a neighborhood or subdivision, and not just a specialized tract/district such as an electoral or census tract.
If the article contains some sourcing and content developed from that sourcing that establishes the above, I'd be in favor of it existing as a separate article. If someone identifies any specific one(s) as such and points them out I'd be happy to review and move and also mark as NPP reviewed. Of course you can also move them although I would recommend expanding sourcing and content at least a bit before doing that. Others have also expressed concerns about those. Happy editing! Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:50, 5 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
Then can we agree that the villages which also are mentioned in Localiban should be kept? They are the "official municipalities" of Lebanon. All are mentioned here.
I have been trying (for years!) to "map" the places which Victor Guérin visited in the 19th century, published in 7 books, now freely available online, see User:Huldra/Guerin. I had basically put the Lebanese-part on hold, as too few places had their own articles. These village -stubs makes it a lot easier for me to map his path, Huldra (talk) 18:54, 5 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
Well, as you might know: the economy of Lebanon has been in a complete melt-down these last few years, and I assume paying for web-sites isn't a priority, Huldra (talk) 19:42, 5 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Order of the Lesser Scribe of Wikipedia
This award is given in recognition to North8000 for accumulating at least 350 points during the January 2025 NPP backlog drive. Your contributions helped play a part in the 16,000+ articles and 14,000+ redirects reviewed (for a total of 19,791.2 points) completed during the drive. Thank you so much for taking part and contributing to help reduce the backlog! Hey man im josh (talk) 19:29, 6 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Geneva mechanism Award
This award is given in recognition to North8000 for accumulating at least 25 points during each week of the January 2025 NPP backlog drive. Your contributions played a part in the 16,000+ articles and 14,000+ redirects reviewed (for a total of 19,791.2 points) during the drive. Thank you so much for taking part and contributing to help reduce the backlog! Hey man im josh (talk) 19:46, 6 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Przemysł II has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 02:38, 19 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
Feedback request: History and geography request for comment
Latest comment: 1 year ago7 comments2 people in discussion
Hi North8000. We are working again on a project for NPP which exists practically all but the scripts and js tooltips. It will not only much reduce the number of new articles to review but it will also greatly reduce the blowback reviewers get. Please take a moment to have a look and let me know what you think and if you would be interested in the workshopping. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:56, 5 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Kudpung: |Thanks for the post and for the flattery of inviting me. Usually by the time I "write" I've pretty worked it out in my brain. Your project is so huge and broad (considering all of the possibilities that it has to cover and "make simple") I sure don't have that. But I'm happy to try to help. BTW two of the three most common forms of blowback I see are claims that I was too lenient or too strict. After thousands of articles I sort of go by when the community as a whole does, and if I'm hearing both that probably means I'm in the middle. The other one is most common is complaining/ questioning at AFD about having done (an impossibly huge) wp:before. Usually by someone who who says "coverage exists" but doesn't come up with any, and notably says "coverage" instead of "GNG coverage". But note that all three are someone who has already decided that it should be deleted/kept and is using the critiquing to pursue that goal. I was going to say that I don't see how your project could help that but one big way is to establish that finding and putting in suitable wp:notability sources for GNG-dependent articles is job one of creating an article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:00, 5 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
Are you sure you were looking at the right project? I don't mean the thread I started at WT:NPR. I meant this one. Something quite simple in concept and which is almost complete. It doesn't change anything in the way we work at NPP. It makes it much easier though because it will reduce the pages in the feed by anything up to 40% and give the reviewers an easier and more rewarding task. I want to get an online meeting together of those who will be the workshoping team. That's where you will be most valuable - only if you want to be on the work group. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:46, 5 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Kudpung: That's the one I was looking at although with just a 5 minute look it could be that I totally misunderstood. Or that my comment wandered too far off topic. The on-topic portion of my comment was that in "new editor guidance for new articles" is a good opportunity to emphasize that finding and including any needed GNG sources is an essential part of creating a new article. North8000 (talk) 14:48, 6 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
[f]inding and including any needed GNG sources is an essential part of creating a new article. It does all that and much more. It's its fundamental objective and in doing so it will significantly reduce the burden of decision making on NPPers. It's a very simple concept and easy in the making (much of it is done already), but your ideas will be an essential contribution to the content of some of the linked pages that will summarise in a few words the walls of text of PAGs which new users will ignore (every freshy of Communication studies knows this). I am familiar with them only because I've been around on Wiki for nearly 20 years with my main focus on NPP. DYK that our notability guidelines are 44,035 words (up to 5 hours reading time) and that there are a further 113 essays on the subject? But you'll need to take about 15 minutes to read the two pages to cover the essentials of the project. You'll then understand that rather than huge and broad, it is actually tight and concise. Bear with me, once we can discuss it in a voice meeting you'll see how it's just right up your street. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:36, 6 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
Hi. I'm still not sure you went to the right pages. I don't see a comment from you on the talk. We're just in the early stage of getting the project back on the road following my Wikileave. Please let me know if your are interested - your insights will be valuable. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:26, 14 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Kudpung: Thanks for the post. I said "huge and broad" because of the wide range of scenarios that it need to handle, and also it has to handle interactions with policies and guidelines, particularly the big fuzzy ecosystem of wp:notability. I sort of ration out my available Wiki minutes and to be honest I don't think that this is one of the most effective ways to tackle the NPP backlog and so I don't see myself as a major contributor to this big project. But I be happy to volunteer to help a bit and give my 2 cents. I'll post a shorter version of this at the talk page. Thanks again. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:27, 16 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Barr Theo is currently in the middle of a "streak of creations", so he asked me to ask you to pull off another January 9th, when you reviewed several of his pages in a short period of time. But this time try to not flood his talk page. Thank you. 89.214.121.88 (talk) 00:53, 7 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
done
Feedback request: History and geography request for comment
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi @North8000
Just a quick note, the draft proposal in the Vasojevići RfC has been substantially revised following the earlier feedback, including your helpful comment. If you have time or interest, your thoughts on the new version would be very welcome.
Link: Talk:Vasojevići#Updated_RfC_proposal Thanks!
Aeengath (talk) 12:52, 26 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago6 comments2 people in discussion
Hello. Sorry for taking so long to reply. I was on the middle of a “insane streak of creations” (March edition).
You are hella confusing. On 7 March, I had my colleague ask you to review my pages just for you to refuse, and you even told me that you didn't “plan to do anything” about them, but then three weeks later, you changed your mind and decided to review everything. Not to mention that you once again flooded my talk page even though my colleague specifically told you not to do so on 7 March.
Anyways, have you ever heard of recency bias? Around 98% of my articles are about subjects which were clearly notable in their time, but who are not covered by modern media because of recency bias. So yeah, you don’t need to worry about wp:notability in my articles.
I will even quote you a phrase from the renowned present-day Wikipedia reviewer JTtheOG: “While I think one should always strive to find the best sourcing available, I also think it's important to cover subjects which normally don't have a light shone on them”. So yeah, feel free to review all of my pages.
@Barr Theo: I thought you would be happy. I passed a large amount of your articles and didn't AFD or PROD any and didn't tag any except for maybe 1 or 2. Despite them technically not meeting the wp:notability requirement. In this case wp:notability is about in-depth coverage in some sources, not real-world notability. And JTtheOG has been more strict than me, tagging many of your articles for lack of GNG sources and not marking them as reviewed. I don't agree with this post of yours or your rationale, argument and complaints. But you are doing a large amount of excellent work and was happy to mark those articles as reviewed and am happy that you are doing that work. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:41, 1 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Barr Theo: One more note, if you prefer that I don't do the NPP review on any more of your articles, just say so and I won't. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:52, 1 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
Don’t get me wrong, I’m extremely happy. I just got a little bit triggered about my talk page getting flooded again. I don’t mind the NPP reviews when they are constructive, like “more in-depth coverage would solidify” or “an image would be a nice addition”... But when they are just empty and flat, like those repeated series of “nice works” and “good starts”, I dispense.
@Barr Theo: Thanks and good point. My normal MO can be a bit whacky when I do a bunch of reviews at once for the same editor. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:15, 2 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
@Paxromana69: I don't normally respond to NPP review requests but that one is really solid and non-promotional and I was happy to. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:59, 23 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I noticed that you provided a comment on the Jung Lea article in October 2024. I would appreciate it if you could share your current commentary on the article. Your input would be most helpful. Btspurplegalaxy💬🖊️08:56, 25 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
You were the only opposition. Part of the reason was that the proposed guideline was too narrow.
I am not going to move fast on anything - maybe months more - but I wanted to check in on if and where we have agreement to broaden this.
You said that there should be a guideline for media notability. There are already several guidelines similar to media cited in that news RfC. Beyond that, the general guidelines which I would really prefer is something like Wikipedia:Notability of reliable sources, where if a media source is good enough to cite in Wikipedia, then we deem it good enough for notability, with some line probably beyond one citation but still possibly with zero reliable third-party sources to cite.
Are you able to concisely say what you have in mind for a broader media notability guideline?
@Bluerasberry: My opposition started out mild and then went to milder/ near-neutral on the question. My comment was a general one.....with the proposal being a good idea but too narrow for it's one SNG, that the answer would be a broader media SNG. So I'm open to lots of different ideas.
I do think that there are several structural problems in your "You said that...." paragraph above, but I don't think that there is a need to get into that.
Latest comment: 1 year ago9 comments3 people in discussion
Hello, North8000. The last time we spoke I was known as Barr Theo.
Two months ago, on 31 March, you reviewed A LOT of my articles; for instance, between 15:33 and 15:59, you reviewed a total of 37 articles. That is, 37 articles in just 26 minutes, which results in an average of 45 seconds per review, which means that you might have made some mistakes. And in fact, you did.
@Sirfurboy: pointed out one of them at Talk:Carlos Ibáñez (Spanish footballer). Likewise, I think that some of your comments on "edge case regarding wp:notability" were a little bit harsh, but perhaps I'm wrong.
Alfred Compeyrat: This secondary source treats him in depth as a historical subject, notable because he is a French international, so it meets GNG, right?
Albert Caillet: Three paragraphs about the subject in a newspaper, how is this not SIGCOV from a secondary source?
Alejandro Acha: This secondary source mentions the subject three times, so it's "beyond just a mere trivial mention", right?
See below for a general overview. Regarding the above (including your refactoring after I read it to write the below), note that the only articles which I reviewed quickly were the ones that I passed, and they all looked very similar in that respect. There is a confusing range of situations in your list above, including listing ones that I passed as a "mistake" while your argument is obviously that they should be passed. Sincerely,
Summary & response for Luis7M, previously Barr Theo
I did this as a section so that it can be linked to avoid duplication in the multiple places that this is being discussed. As an overview, you do a lot of work creating nice thorough articles on historic sports figures, with lots of sources. Most of these articles don't have the types of coverage needed to meet WP:GNG or what I call the "GNG-lite" in sportsbasic. Even the latter more lenient standard still requires in depth coverage by at least 1 source. Because of the good stuff I just described, plus other reasons which you've covered in your arguments I (and I think JTtheog) have bent the official rules to pass a lot of your articles. When I said "bent the official rules" I have another view on that. Which is that I try to apply them in the context of overall community type application of them, which I see as my summary at Wikipedia:How Wikipedia notability works. But again, different people see things differently.
There's an additional area where I think that people are cutting you some slack. Many of your comments to other editors are what would be considered out of line, including what can be seen criticizing the people that you are conversing with personally. Including criticizing the people who are going out on a limb to bend the rules in your favor for not bending them enough. I think that people cut you slack there because that seems to be your (rough) friendly conversational style rather than having nasty intent. But you should still understand that you are doing that and different people will see it differently.
Finally, in some cases you are asking me to conflict with what other editors or reviewers has said or tagged. For me to do that would require meeting a much higher standard rather than edge case / benefit of a doubt, and the "much higher standard" is not the case on these.
Perhaps a way to sort this out would be to take a typical one of your articles as described above (which doesn't meet even the sportsbasic GNG lite) and go to AFD with it and ask for a very thorough and longer discussion, including pinging people that have been involved on these. I'd probably say somewhat the same thing as above. The result might provide a bit of a guide for all concerned. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:12, 8 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
You are completely right about the second paragraph. I do indeed have a risky sense of humor that can be seen as "out of line", but most users already know that I am a good-faith editor, and that my way of talking is simply me channeling my inner Prince Charming.
"asking me to conflict with what other editors tagged", I'm assuming you are referring to @Sirfurboy:'s tags, but please keep in mind that he only tagged those articles because of your feedback remarks, as per his edsums. Furthermore, I genuinely believe that the articles I listed above are not edge cases; for instance, the sources on Alfred Compeyrat, Albert Caillet, and Solco Tromp are straight up SIGCOV, because they describe the respective subject in depth.
So, you want me to choose one of my articles as a representative of my overall work and throw it into a thorough AfD as a means to determine the future of my legacy? As in, a king choosing one of his knights as the champion of his kingdom and throwing him into a great duel as a means to determine the future of his empire. Hmm... that's risky. If it doesn't go my way, the consequences would be... enormous.
I might already have a blueprint of what that AfD would look like, given that both you and JTtheOG participated in it: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gregorio Sena. Oddly enough, this AfD had SIX votes to keep and only one to delete (from you of all people), and yet, the result was, quite inexplicably, "no consensus". So yeah, I'm understandably reluctant to pursue this plan, but what do you think? Kind regards. Luis7M (talk) 03:09, 9 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
Luis7M, you say the sources on three pages I tagged are "straight up SIGCOV". I disagree. And, of course, SIGCOV is just part of what is needed for GNG. Sources must also be independent, reliable and secondary. But North8000 will not appreciate the source discussion here, and it will lack visibility for other editors. Please open a section on the relevant talk pages, and feel free to ask why such and such a source does not meet the guidelines. I'll be happy to discuss sources with you there.Please also note that I did not tag these just because North had tagged them. I looked at various of your creations as listed on your talk page when I visited there, but North8000 knows the guidelines well, and I had no concerns with the majority of what you have written. I tagged the others not so much that they get deleted (I would just take them to AFD if that were my concern), but in the hope that drawing attention to the issue would lead to improvement of those pages, and more careful source assessment in your future creations. I don't want your work taken off the encyclopaedia - I would just like to see more encyclopaedic treatments.On that last point, I was aware of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gregorio Sena and decided not to participate (I only choose to participate in about a quarter of the AfD cases I watchlist as source review takes so long). This was once again a benefit of the doubt moment, although I agreed with North8000's comment there, which I read at the time. Your observation about the !votes is incorrect. You must always count the nom., so there were two delete !votes. Furthermore, it is not a vote. What matters at AfD is the arguments, and the keep arguments there were pretty poor. There was no source discussion at all. There was an "other stuff" argument and a benefit of the doubt argument, but no policy reason was given to keep that page at all. Looking at it now, I wonder whether it should have been relisted. It was definitely more no consensus than keep. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:04, 9 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
See below, again as a section for possible future linking.
WP:Notability analysis of an example Luis7M (previously Barr Theo) edge case article
This is for the Gregorio Sena article which was AFD'd at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gregorio Sena. To understand this posting, please see my comments above under the above "Summary & response for Luis7M, previously Barr Theo" section as well as the article and it's AFD. Also everything in this section is just my opinion....so consider there to be an "IMO" before each sentence. The editor creates many historical sports figure articles. Here are some points from the AFD and regarding the article which are relevant to my opinion expressed at the end of this.
The article has a substantial number of sources...eleven sources. Most were database-type sources but there were several sources of other types which had material on the subject. None met the Wikipedia notability standard of in-depth coverage to meet the coverage requirement in sportsbasic much less the general GNG standard.
This is about athlete who was active about 100 years ago
Many respondents said "keep" citing "common sense" as a reason, combined with noting some items about the subject. IMO what others call "common sense" are considerations that the community uses on wp:notability decisions which I described at Wikipedia:How Wikipedia notability works
In a field where contemporaneous coverage is the main type of coverage; this being over 100 years ago, there was less coverage then and so IMO based on these two things, the community lowers the bar a bit.
The editor has developed a pretty well done substantial article. The community tends to count that a bit.
The included sources establish that the athlete had a long, substantial, somewhat prominent career. A part of the "somewhat prominent" was because this was a pioneering period for the sport. Some sports-knowlegable people also made comments that concur with this
The two "delete" weigh-ins were by myself and another experienced NPP'er; both were based on not having sources with in-depth coverage. The result of the AFD was "no consensus" and my guess is that if I had not weighed in it would have been "keep".
IMO, for an article which has all of the above special considerations, the community would decide "no consensus" or "keep" at AFD. In my NPP work I try to follow what the community would do at a hypothetical carefully. expertly thoroughly discussed AFD and so my current thought process is that I would tend to pass ones like this. Because it does not meet the prima facie / literal requirement I would probably note something......saying that it is an edge case or referring to this explanation but probably not tag it for wp:notability. Per my note above, this isn't solid enough to meet the higher bar of me contradicting another editor. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:30, 9 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
Wow, great analysis! I certainly don't have the intellect to build such a well-crafted analysis about this delicate situation.
"this being over 100 years ago, the community lowers the bar a bit", yeah, I had already noticed that. Players from 100 years ago are given much more leeway than those from the internet age, and rightfully so, given that players from the past are victims of recency bias. It's almost an unwritten rule, that perhaps should actually become a written one. Because, personally, I feel like the GNG football policies should have a line that states something along the lines of “pre-internet footballers should be given more leeway than 21st century footballers due to recency bias”, or something like that, but I don't know where to take this discussion to...
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
After your latest reply acknowledged WikiProject Roots music as "somewhat inactive", I started investigating its recent activity. Other than our exchanges this week, its Talk page hasn't been used for any discussion between participants this year. Its revision history also shows no significant changes to the project page since last year. As a project participant, would you change the project's status to inactive?
I suggest that's the first step to figure out if there really needs to be three music projects with overlapping scopes and if there's enough participants to actively maintain these projects. As my topics in the Talk page illustrate, the substantial overlap is confusing to determine which project should be interested in which orphaned article. I believe that former participants of all three projects shared some confusion about the overlapping scopes between the projects, because I see duplicated topics have been cross-posted by the same participant across more than one project's Talk archive. rootsmusic (talk) 03:05, 13 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi there,
just saw that you responded to the RFC for the circumcision article. Just wanted to check in real quick to hear if you've seen my response to you on the talk page. You said you'd oppose the RFC because it would be too broad and give carte blanche, but right now, there is a specific proposal on the table. That was discussed later in the section, so maybe you didn't see it. I would appreciate if you could have a look at it and see if you still oppose the RFC. Kind regards Chaptagai (talk) 19:07, 20 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 months ago7 comments2 people in discussion
Hi North8000,
as you have changed your verdict on the RFC, would it be ok for you if I unbold your earlier "oppose" verdict and bold your new "support" verdict for easier recognition of your stance by readers? Kind regards Chaptagai (talk) 11:47, 21 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Chaptagai: My position on the RFC question has not changed. My newer comment was about a specific idea in a post, not the RFC question. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:23, 21 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
You did it without my OK and were reverted. Do not modify other people's talk page comments. North8000 (talk) 13:30, 21 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
Ok, sorry for that, I thought you wouldn't mind it. So as I understand you, you do support the proposal I made to revise the article, so if that's your position, currently with the "oppose" in bold, it looks to readers like you oppose it. That's why I thought maybe bolding the word "support" would be a good thing so your position doesn't get misunderstood. Chaptagai (talk) 13:40, 21 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 months ago4 comments2 people in discussion
I reverted your deletion, although of course you're welcome to tighten the wording up and maybe trim the quotes. This is one of the very few actual scholarly books about the Fitz and I think has a place there. --Orange Mike|Talk14:11, 27 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Orangemike: Thanks for the post. Someone else removed it and instead listed the book as further reading. If the book has substantial content about the Fitz, then I think it would be a good source for the article. But content that you put in really isn't about the Fitz. It's about the author's views on the decline of American industry and shipping. And promotional type wording about the book. At best it says that the Fitz illustrates their theory, and at worst they might be using the popularity of the Fitz to gain publicity for their theory or book. Again, I'm only going by the content that you put in, I don't know what's in the book. If it has substantial content about the Fitz, I'd be happy to buy and read the book. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:22, 29 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
It's not officially released yet, but the reviews I've seen specifically mention new interviews with families of the crew and insights derived from the authors' study of company and industry policies and behavior. I have advised the boss at the bookstore where I work part time that we should carry a couple of copies. --Orange Mike|Talk03:59, 29 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Special Edition New Page Patroller's Barnstar
This award is given in recognition to North8000 for accumulating at least 200 points during the May 2025 NPP backlog drive. Your contributions played a part in the 17,000+ articles reviewed during the drive. Thank you so much for taking part and contributing to help reduce the backlog! Hey man im josh (talk) 19:36, 27 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Worm Gear Award
This award is given in recognition to North8000 for accumulating at least 7 points during each week of the May 2025 NPP backlog drive. Your contributions played a part in the 17,000+ articles reviewed during the drive. Thank you so much for taking part and contributing to help reduce the backlog! Hey man im josh (talk) 19:52, 27 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
@ScottishFinnishRadish: Thanks. I noticed that after I had written the answer to the questions and integrated much of that into those answer. Now I need to noodle on it bit to figure how to answer. Sincerely,
Hello North8000, just my two cents. Q3 asked Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past. I was surprised to see that you did not mention your 2014-2016 siteban. Long in the past, yes. But still important to discuss, I personally think. Perhaps you simply missed it. starship.paint (talk / cont)14:00, 10 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Starship.paint: Thanks for the post. I would avoid being disingenuous and would call it a malfunction of the system / someone able to make it do that. Which would then take a very long post to credibly say that and get into it. I could do that if asked but it would be lengthy write-up about something that was 11 years ago. North8000 (talk) 16:28, 10 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
Hi North8000. I've got to be honest and say that even if it is not in response to that particular question, you're going to have to address this somewhere. In an RFA you can expect someone to raise the length of time in your defence, but in AELECT people vote without discussion, and a magnanimous spirit is less likely to prevail there just by itself. I think we generally agree on topics like GEOLAND and so I was happy to see you putting yourself forward, but I was also unaware of the previous siteban and TBan until I came here to congratulate you on putting yourself forward. I would not simply hope that this issue is not brought up: it is sure to be, and even if it isn't raised on WP, it will be raised off-Wiki. FOARP (talk) 21:12, 10 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
North8000, if it would take a long post, I think you should start (as soon as possible) writing that on a user subpage and link to it in your Q3 answer. By not mentioning the elephant in the room, it’s very possible that voters would see it as a lack of candor. starship.paint (talk / cont)23:12, 10 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Starship.paint:@FOARP: BTW, I don't see it as an omission for Q3 because it wasn't that type of thing. That epic and astounding mis-fire (I never did anything that merited even a 1 day block) was a combination of about 7 factors but a major one was a very nasty and clever editor using it as a weaponization in a content dispute. Any thorough description would need to include describing that role (11 years ago) I was so disgusted that that result could happen in Wikipedia that I decided to never come back but eventually changed my mind. That experience and understanding the wiki-realities was immensely impactful on me including on my current approach and vigilance. I did describe the latter somewhat thoroughly in my answers to the standard questions (note about trying to keep it from happening to other editors) . BTW I will be off the grid for 3 days. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:01, 14 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
Sorry to see this turned out the way we warned it might. I actually think you might do better with an RFA than AELECT. In RFA it's a lot easier just to point out that things that were a long time ago aren't relevant. In AELECT there's apparently circa ~90 people who are just voting down nearly all the candidates, and it doesn't take much for others to join them. FOARP (talk) 17:09, 1 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
@FOARP: Thanks. I think that a more thorough venue would be better, but right now I have no plans to go through that. I was willing and able to help in that area. I'll probably be shifting where I spend my time but still contribute some to Wikipedia. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:32, 2 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Feedback request: History and geography request for comment
On July 23, we will start the voting phase. The candidate subpages will close again to public questions and discussion, and everyone will have a week to use the SecurePoll software to vote, which uses a secret ballot. You can see who voted, but not who they voted for. Please note that the vote totals cannot be made public until after voting has ended and as such, it will not be possible for you to see an individual candidate's totals during the election. You must be extended confirmed to vote.
Once voting concludes, we will begin the scrutineering phase, which will last approximately four days, or perhaps a little longer. Once everything is certified, the results will be posted on the results page (you may want to watchlist this page) and transcluded to the main election page. In order to be granted adminship, a candidate must have received at least 70.0% support, calculated as Support / (Support + Oppose), and must also have received a minimum of 20 support votes. Because this is a vote and not a consensus, there are no bureaucrat discussions ("crat chats").
Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.
You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.
Latest comment: 10 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I'm certain many others feel the same way. I appreciate your putting yourself forward, answering questions (including mine) with candor, and demonstrating BOLD while still maintaining AGF. Thank you, and good luck to you in the next phase. We've certainly learned more about all the candidates during the last few days. BusterD (talk) 22:50, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
@BusterD: Thanks! North8000 (talk) 00:33, 23 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 9 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Updates for editors
Template authors can now use additional CSS properties, since the CSS sanitizer used by TemplateStyles was updated. For example: width: fit-content; ruby-align; relative units such as lh; and custom strings in list-style-type. These improvements are a Community Wishlist wish.
On large wikis, the default time period to display edits from, within the Special:RecentChanges page, has been changed from 7 days to 1 day. This is part of a performance improvement project. This should have no user-facing impact due to the quantity of edits on these wikis.
Wikimedia Commons videos were not shown in the Videos tab in Google Search. The problem was investigated and reported to Google who have now fixed the issue.
One new wiki has been created: a Wiktionary in Betawi (wikt:bew:)
Two fields of the recentchanges database table are being removed. rc_new and rc_type are being removed in favor of rc_source. Queries to these older fields will start to fail starting this week and developers should use rc_source instead. These older fields were deprecated over 10 years ago and should not be in use. This is part of work to improve the performance and stability of queries to the recentchanges table.
The latest quarterly Language and Internationalization Newsletter is now available. This edition includes: support for new languages in MediaWiki and translatewiki; the start of the Language Onboarding and Development project to help support the growth of new and small wikis; updates on research projects; and more.
Meetings and events
The next Language Community Meeting is happening soon, August 29th at 15:00 UTC. This week's meeting will cover: the Avro keyboard developers from Wikimedia Bangladesh, who were recently awarded a national award for their contributions to this keyboard; and other topics.
Latest comment: 9 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello North8000,
I hope you’re doing well!
I’m seeking your assistance with restoring valuable content from several previously deleted articles that were already mentioned in the Bahahuddin Nadwi talk page. Hidaya Chemmad (talk) 14:54, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Not sure what this about. I'm not familiar with the subject and don't have access to deleted articles. North8000 (talk) 16:28, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 9 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Weekly highlight
The Editing team wants to compile a list of templates, jargon terms, and policies used in edit summaries when a copyright violation is removed. This will help them identify the number of edits reverted due to copyright issues. We invite community members from the following Wikis to list these terms in T402601, or to share their list with Trizek_(WMF): Arabic Wikipedia, Czech Wikipedia, German Wikipedia, English Wikipedia, Spanish Wikipedia, Persian Wikipedia, French Wikipedia, Hebrew Wikipedia, Indonesian Wikipedia, Italian Wikipedia, Japanese Wikipedia, Korean Wikipedia, Dutch Wikipedia, Polish Wikipedia, Portuguese Wikipedia, Turkish Wikipedia, Ukrainian Wikipedia, Vietnamese Wikipedia, Chinese Wikipedia. This project is open until September 9th 2025.
Updates for editors
The CampaignEvents extension has been enabled for all Wikisources. The extension makes it easier to organize and participate in collaborative activities, like edit-a-thons and WikiProjects, on the wikis. The extension has three features: Event Registration, Collaboration List, and Invitation List. To request the extension for your wiki, visit the Deployment information page.
The lists in the footer of the editing interface, such as "Templates used on this page," will now be organized into columns when there is enough space. This enhancement minimizes scrolling when editing lengthy articles on Wikipedia.
On September 3rd, 2025 we will increase the sampling percentages of our group by toggle experiment of the Special:RecentChanges, Special:Watchlist, and Special:RelatedChanges pages on the Chinese, French, and Portuguese Wikipedias to 100 percent, allowing more editors to be part of this experiment. This adjustment is intended to ensure we have sufficient data to make informed decisions when evaluating the experiment results.
Upon clicking an empty search bar, logged-out users will see suggestions of articles for further reading on English Wikipedia beginning the week of September 22. The feature will be available on both desktop and mobile. All non-English wikis received this change in June and July. The goal is to make it easier for users to find articles. Learn more.
Wikifunctions now has a new capability called "lightweight enumeration types", an enumeration type is simply a fixed set of values that's in the type's definition. This capability makes it quick and easy to define such a type, and allows for the reuse of values that are already present in Wikidata. Here is a newsletter to learn more.
The latest Readers Newsletter is now available. This edition includes: the formation of two new teams — Reader Growth and Reader Experience; insights into declining pageviews and account creations; highlights from the Wikimania Nairobi panel on improving the reading experience; upcoming experiments to engage new and existing readers; and more.
Upcoming and current events and conversations Let's Talk continues
Wikimedia Futures Lab: Apply before Sep 4 to join The Wikimedia Futures Lab, the in-person convening hosted on January 30 – February 1, 2026 in Frankfurt, Germany with participants from affiliates, contributors and external experts, to learn more about global trends and discuss potential movement-wide responses.
Wikimania 2026: The theme and date for Wikimania 2026 have been decided: Liberté, Équité, Fiabilité (Freedom, Equity, Reliability). This edition will take place in Paris, from July 21 to July 25, 2026.
Tech News: Some of the latest updates from Tech News week 34 and 35: An A/B test comparing two versions of the desktop donate link launched on testwiki and English Wikipedia for 0.1% of logged out users on the desktop site. The experiment will run for three weeks, ending on 12 September; Administrators can now access the Special:BlockedExternalDomains page from the Special:CommunityConfiguration list page. This makes it easier to find.
Community Wishlist: Template authors can now use additional CSS properties, since the CSS sanitizer used by TemplateStyles was updated. These improvements are a Community Wishlist wish.
Wikipedia Mobile Apps: The Android app team has launched a new experiment in Italy that lets logged-out readers of Italian and English Wikipedia set their own donation reminders based on how often they read. This new approach responds to feedback from donors who say their motivation to give is tied to their reading habits. Instead of one-size-fits-all banners, readers can now choose reminders that fit their own usage, all while keeping their privacy intact.
For information about the Bulletin and to read previous editions, see the project page on Meta-Wiki. Let askcacwikimedia.org know if you have any feedback or suggestions for improvement!
Upcoming and current events and conversations Let's Talk continues
Wikimedia Futures Lab: Apply before Sep 4 to join The Wikimedia Futures Lab, the in-person convening hosted on January 30 – February 1, 2026 in Frankfurt, Germany with participants from affiliates, contributors and external experts, to learn more about global trends and discuss potential movement-wide responses.
Wikimania 2026: The theme and date for Wikimania 2026 have been decided: Liberté, Équité, Fiabilité (Freedom, Equity, Reliability). This edition will take place in Paris, from July 21 to July 25, 2026.
Tech News: Some of the latest updates from Tech News week 34 and 35: An A/B test comparing two versions of the desktop donate link launched on testwiki and English Wikipedia for 0.1% of logged out users on the desktop site. The experiment will run for three weeks, ending on 12 September; Administrators can now access the Special:BlockedExternalDomains page from the Special:CommunityConfiguration list page. This makes it easier to find.
Community Wishlist: Template authors can now use additional CSS properties, since the CSS sanitizer used by TemplateStyles was updated. These improvements are a Community Wishlist wish.
Wikipedia Mobile Apps: The Android app team has launched a new experiment in Italy that lets logged-out readers of Italian and English Wikipedia set their own donation reminders based on how often they read. This new approach responds to feedback from donors who say their motivation to give is tied to their reading habits. Instead of one-size-fits-all banners, readers can now choose reminders that fit their own usage, all while keeping their privacy intact.
For information about the Bulletin and to read previous editions, see the project page on Meta-Wiki. Let askcacwikimedia.org know if you have any feedback or suggestions for improvement!
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.
Learning Clinic: The next Let's Connect Learning Clinic will talk about "Mastering the Capacity Exchange (CapX) Tool" and will take place on September 30 at 13:00 UTC.
Big Fat Brussels Meeting: The tenth in-person gathering of Wikimedians enthusiastic in free knowledge advocacy, Big Fat Brussels Meeting, will take place on October 3-4.
Wikimedia Research Showcase: "Celebrating 13 Years: Wikidata’s Role in Learning and Culture" will be the featured theme for the next research showcase taking place on October 15 at 16:30 UTC.
Search Suggestions: Upon clicking an empty search bar, logged-out users now see suggestions of articles for further reading on all Wikipedias, in order to make it easier for users to find articles.
Activity Tab now on Android: Beta users of the Wikipedia Android app can now try the redesigned Activity tab, which replaces the Edits tab. The new tab offers personalized insights into reading, editing, and donation activity, while simplifying navigation and making app use more engaging.
Wikipedia 25: Wikimedia Foundation is creating playful, celebratory interventions on the Wikipedia portal page, the Wikipedia app, and potentially any interested Wikipedias to celebrate Wikipedia’s 25th birthday. Please share your inputs and add your username on the Talk page if you think your community would be interested in participating.
National award: Wikipedian and current chair of Wikimedia Deutschland, Alice Wiegand, receives the Order of Merit of the Federal Republic of Germany for her voluntary commitment to Wikipedia and the global Wikimedia movement.
For information about the Bulletin and to read previous editions, see the project page on Meta-Wiki. Let askcacwikimedia.org know if you have any feedback or suggestions for improvement!
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.
Wikipedia 25: Are you planning to organize events to celebrate Wikipedia's 25th birthday? The Wikimedia Foundation offers grants to support active Wikimedia groups in organizing short-term, low-cost projects to celebrate this milestone. Applications are open until November 1.
WikiConference North America 2025: WikiConference North America will take place from October 16–19 in New York City, USA.
Dark Mode will soon be available on all Wikimedia sites.
Mobile Editing: Insights on mobile web editing on Wikipedia in 2025 are now available. This report highlights that ~95% of IP mobile users editing via wikitext open the editor but make no changes at all, a vast untapped potential. It also pinpoints where contributors most often drop off.
Dark Mode: Dark Mode user interface will be rolled out on all Wikimedia sites on October 29. All anonymous users of Wikimedia sites will have the option to activate a color scheme that features light-colored text on a dark background. This is designed to provide a more comfortable reading experience, especially in low-light situations.
Community wishlist extension:The new Community Wishlist extension has been released. This will allow users to add tags to their wishes to better categorise them, and (in a future iteration) to filter them by status, tags and focus areas. It will also be possible to support individual wishes again, as requested by the community in many instances.
Paste Check: 22 Wikis are now testing a new Edit Check feature, Paste Check, to help avoid and fight copyright violations. When editors paste text into an article, Paste Check prompts them to confirm the origin and licensing of the content.
Tone Check: The Wikimedia Foundation is working on a new check for newcomers: Tone check. Using a prediction model, this check will encourage editors to improve the tone of their edits.
Search Suggestions: Search Suggestions was deployed on English Wikipedia. Upon clicking an empty search bar, logged-out users see suggestions of articles for further reading. The feature is available on both desktop and mobile.
Unsupported Tools Working Group: A new Unsupported Tools Working Group has been formed to help prioritize and review requests for support of unmaintained extensions, gadgets, bots, and tools. The group has chosen Video2Commons as the first tool for its pilot cycle. The group will explore ways to improve and sustain the tool over the coming months.
Tech News: Read updates from Tech News week 40 and 41 including about Sub-referencing – a new feature to re-use references with different details.
Wikimedia Research Showcase: Don't miss the next Wikimedia Research Showcase, "Celebrating 13 Years: Wikidata's Role in Learning and Culture" taking place on October 15 at 16:30 UTC.
Human Rights: Making sure AI serves people and knowledge stays human: Wikimedia Foundation publishes a Human Rights Impact Assessment on the interaction of AI and machine learning with Wikimedia projects.
Don't blink: The latest developments from around the world about protecting the Wikimedia model, its people and its values.
Learning Clinic: Join the next Let's Connect Learning Clinic on the topic of "Mastering the Capacity Exchange (CapX) Tool (Part 2)" taking place on October 20 at 17:00 UTC.
For information about the Bulletin and to read previous editions, see the project page on Meta-Wiki. Let askcacwikimedia.org know if you have any feedback or suggestions for improvement!
Latest comment: 7 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Responding here because I don't want to bludgeon/bloat the discussion any worse than I already have - I actually pretty much agree with your caution surrounding changes to GEOLAND. My intent in having what amounts to a no-confidence !vote on the "legally recognized, populated place" standard is basically to try to overturn the incumbency bias that reigns in this field (which can be seen particularly in the proposals to ban any further discussion of changes that accompany every VPP discussion on it) and provide a suitable spring-board for change, rather than change the guide in a one-and-done fashion. Obviously I don't own this process, and people are free to decide what they want, but my idea here is, if this closes as "consensus that this is not fit for purpose" then that starts a WP:NSPORTS2022-like process where we consider a range of options for change, thus maximising the chance that we do ultimately end up with a proposal for change. FOARP (talk) 10:51, 19 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Traffic report: One click after another Serial-killer miniseries, deceased scientist, government shutdowns and Sandalwood hit "Kantara" crowd the tubes.
Global trends: We are seeing 8% declines in human page views on Wikipedia as some users don't directly visit Wikipedia to get information. Learn about this new user trend, how the Wikimedia Foundation anticipate these changes, and how you can help.
The naming contest for the new Wikimedia project, known until now as Abstract Wikipedia, is ongoing.
Making it easier to say thanks: Users on most wikis will now have the ability to thank a comment directly from the talk page it appears on. Before this change, thanking could only be done by visiting the revision history of the talk page.
Account security: Improvements to account security and two-factor authentication (2FA) features were enabled across all wikis. Another part of the project is making 2FA generally available to all users. Along with editors with advanced privileges, such as administrators and bureaucrats, 40% of editors now have access to 2FA. You can check if you have access at Special:AccountSecurity.
Tech News: Read updates from Tech News week 42 and 43 including the community-submitted tasks that were resolved last week.
Wikimedia apps: The Wikipedia iOS App launched an A/B/C test of improvements to the Tabbed browsing feature into Beta for select regions & languages. Called “More dynamic tabs”, the experiment adds user-requested improvements and introduces article recommendations within the tabs overview, showing “Did you know” or “Because you read” content depending on how many tabs are open.
CampaignEvents extension:Campaignevents extension will be deployed to all remaining wikis during the week of 17 November 2025. The extension currently includes three features: Event Registration, Collaboration List, and Invitation List. For this rollout, Invitation List will not be enabled on Wikifunctions and MediaWiki unless requested by those communities.
Event registration tool: Autoconfirmed users on small and medium wikis with the extension can now use Event Registration without the Event Organizer right. This feature lets organizers enable registration, manage participants, and lets users register with one click instead of signing event pages.
Digital safety: Explore how you can help make Wikimedia safer by taking our new self-paced course, Safety for Young Wikimedians.
Wikimedia Core Curriculum: The Wikimedia Foundation has developed seven online video learning modules covering the core English Wikipedia policies. You are invited to use, adapt, and translate the course.
Advocacy: The Wikimedia Foundation has signed onto a statement that calls on governments and UN bodies to keep discussions about the future of internet governance accessible to non-government actors like industry and civil society. This statement is part of ongoing joint advocacy with affiliates to influence UN discussions about the future of internet governance such as the Global Digital Compact campaign and WSIS+20 deliberations.
GLAM: The Wikimedia Foundation and several affiliates have signed onto the Open Heritage Statement, which supports galleries, libraries, archives, and museums (GLAM institutions) to have the legal rights they need to collect, preserve, and provide access to cultural heritage.
For information about the Bulletin and to read previous editions, see the project page on Meta-Wiki. Let askcacwikimedia.org know if you have any feedback or suggestions for improvement!
Latest comment: 7 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Shortwave listening has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 00:19, 3 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
Latest comment: 7 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi North8000; I've noticed you were involved in the FA upgrade of the Edmund Fitzgerald page and I thought I could mention that I've started doing similar upgrades for the Gordon Lightfoot song about it at The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald. It may be an interesting idea to think about doing an upgrade there for the song about it as a co-nomination if this sounds remotely interesting to you. My initial edits seem to have had a reasonable response on the daily page counts spike over the last few days. Any interest? ErnestKrause (talk) 16:38, 7 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
Feedback request: Economy, trade, and companies request for comment
Latest comment: 7 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Here is a quick overview of highlights from the Wikimedia Foundation since our last issue on October 24. Please help translate.
Upcoming and current events and conversations Let's Talk continuesWikimania Santiago will happen in 2027.
Wikimania 2027: Santiago, Chile is announced as the location for Wikimania 2027. The annual conference returns to Latin America after more than 10 years, following previous editions in Buenos Aires (2009) and Mexico City (2015).
Tech News: Read updates from Tech News week 44 and 45 including the community-submitted tasks that were resolved last week.
Activity Tab: The Wikipedia Android app expands the new Activity tab to all users. It offers a complete view of your Wikipedia activity: reading time, saved articles, edits, and donation history (for known donors). This change aims to make Wikipedia a more engaging experience for readers and contributors alike, while keeping all personal data private and stored locally on your device.
Tabbed browsing: Tabbed browsing is now available on the Wikipedia App for iOS. Tabs will let you keep more than one article open at a time, making it easier to explore complex topics, follow links without losing your place, and pick up where you left off.
CampaignEvents extension: Autoconfirmed users on small and medium wikis with the CampaignEvents extension can now use Event Registration without the Event Organizer right. This feature lets organizers enable registration, manage participants, and lets users register with one click instead of signing event pages.
Image browsing: The Wikimedia Foundation launched image browsing, an experiment that puts images on top of your Wikipedia article reading journey, on Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Indonesian, and Vietnamese Wikipedias.
Temporary accounts: Temporary Accounts are now enabled on 1,000+ projects including English Wikipedia.
Digital Safety: The Wikimedia Foundation is launching Digital Safety Office Hours to explore how to stay safe digitally, what does digital safety mean, what extra precautions can Wikimedians take. The first session will take place on November 28 at 9 AM and 7 PM UTC. Check out also our Digital Safety Resources Center to learn practical tips and tools you can use immediately.
Volunteer roles for movement governance: The Movement governance committees are seeking new volunteers to support essential and high-impact work across the Wikimedia ecosystem. The current appointment cycle is open for the AffCom, Ombuds Commission, and Case Review Committee. Applications for these committees will remain open until December 11. The team will host a community conversation on November 26, at 3 AM UTC.
Don't Blink: The latest developments from around the world about protecting the Wikimedia model, its people and its values.
For information about the Bulletin and to read previous editions, see the project page on Meta-Wiki. Let askcacwikimedia.org know if you have any feedback or suggestions for improvement!
Latest comment: 5 months ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Hello North8000, I know you've previously checked an article I started, which is why I'm coming back to you. This week I created the article Alexa Nisenson from the previous redirect. Since English isn't my native language, could you please check the article for me to see if it's correct? Greetings, RuedNL2 (talk) 13:36, 29 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
@RuedNL2: Looks like a good start. Looks like someone already did the NPP review. A good next move would be to expand the prose portion of the article using material from those sources. Happy editing! Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:45, 15 December 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Thank you for your recent contributions to one of Wikipedia's articles related to the Scientology topic. Given the interest you've expressed by your edits, have you considered joining WikiProject Scientology? We are a group of editors dedicated to improving the overall coverage of the Scientology topic on Wikipedia. If you would like to join, simply add your name to the list of participants. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask at the project talk page. We look forward to working with you in the future! ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 22:34, 13 December 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 5 months ago2 comments1 person in discussion
I just noticed how large your user talk page is (over 400KB). In case you didn't already know how, you can add this sort of code to your page and it will automatically archive old threads for you.
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|maxarchivesize = 200K <!--select the max size you want for each archive file, after which it starts a new archive, plus 1-->
|counter = 2 <!--the current counter of how many archives you have already-->
|minthreadsleft = 5 <!--select the minimum number of threads to keep on the page-->
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(90d) <!--how many days you want to keep threads after the last edit made to a thread-->
|archive = Talk:____________/Archive %(counter)d <!--replace underscores with your filename prefix-->
}}
It will automatically handle your archiving. You can modify the parameters to suit your needs. And you can always 'undo' an archiving, or move selected threads back if it takes something you wanted to keep. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 22:07, 15 December 2025 (UTC)Reply
P.S. You can start with old threads to test it out, such as changing "algo=old(365d)". Once you are comfortable with it, you can lower the number and the next 'run' it will archive more threads. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 22:09, 15 December 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 5 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Updates for editors
From January, edit filters can be set to automatically suppress their details such as rules and list of attempted edits and actions. This will help oversighters use edit filters to prevent doxxing or other suppressible material.
The next issue of Tech News will be sent out on 12 January 2026 because of the end of year holidays. Thank you to all of the translators, and people who submitted content or feedback, this year.
View all 16 community-submitted tasks that were resolved last week. For example, the crash that occurred when tapping "First Steps" in the Wikipedia Android Year in Review has now been fixed, and the feature opens as expected.
Updates for technical contributors
Interface elements such as diffs and categories generated by MediaWiki used to have the attribute data-mw="interface" to distinguish from wiki content. The attribute has been replaced with data-mw-interface="", to avoid potential conflicts with other data-mw attributes, which are generated by Parsoid.
There is no new MediaWiki version this week or next week.
Meetings and events
The Wikimedia Hackathon Northwestern Europe 2026 will take place on 13-14 March 2026 in Arnhem, the Netherlands. Applications just opened mid-December and will close in mid-January or earlier if capacity is reached. With space for approximately 100 participants, early application is encouraged.
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
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Weekly highlight
The Wikimedia Foundation has shared some guiding questions for the July 2026–June 2027 Annual Plan on Meta and Diff. These focus on global trends, faster and healthier experimentation, better support for newcomers, strengthening editors and advanced users, improving collaboration across projects, and growing and retaining readership. Feedback and ideas are welcome on the talk page.
Updates for editors
As part of the current work of Community Tech team on the Multiple watchlists project, the display of EditWatchlist will be updated as a first step towards multiple watchlists. Additionally, the pagination on Search will be updated too, as a part of the work on the Revamp pagination / page navigation wish.
The Global Watchlist is a MediaWiki extension that lets you see your watchlists from different wikis on the same page. It was recently updated to look more like the regular Watchlist, such as preparing it for temporary accounts in IP masking (including rerouting user links to contributions pages), making page titles bold, and opening links in edit summaries and tags in new browser tabs.
View all 28 community-submitted tasks that were resolved last week. For example, the issue where global blocks did not have the option to disable sending emails, has now been fixed, and will be available for use in the week of January 13.
Latest comment: 4 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi there,
I'm leaving this message because you contributed to the recent RfC regarding the inclusion of airport destination lists. As promised, now that that RfC has closed, I've initiated a further discussion about the sourcing standards to be applied to these lists.
Latest comment: 4 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Jaco Van Dormael has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Roast (talk) 05:57, 8 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 4 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Updates for editors
Logged-in contributors who manage large or complex watchlists can now organise and filter watched pages in ways that improve their workflows with the new Watchlist labels feature. By adding custom labels (for example: pages you created, pages being monitored for vandalism, or discussion pages) users can more quickly identify what needs attention, reduce cognitive load, and respond more efficiently. This improves watchlist usability, especially for highly active editors.
A new feature available on Special:Contributions shows temporary accounts that are likely operated by the same person, and so makes patrolling less time-consuming. Upon checking contributions of a temporary account, users with access to temporary account IP addresses can now see a view of contributions from the related temporary accounts. The feature looks up all the IPs associated with a given temporary account within the data retention period and shows all the contributions of all temporary accounts that have used these IPs. Learn more.
When editors preview a wikitext edit, the reminder box that they are only seeing a preview (which is shown at the top), now has a grey/neutral background instead of a yellow/warning background. This makes it easier to distinguish preview notes from actual warnings (for example, edit conflicts or problematic redirect targets), which will now be shown in separate warning or error boxes.
The Global Watchlist lets you view your watchlists from multiple wikis on one page. The extension continues to improve — it now properly supports more than one Wikibase site, for example both Wikidata and testwikidata. In addition, issues regarding text direction have been fixed for users who prefer Wikidata or other Wikibase sites in right-to-left (RTL) languages.
The automatic "magic links" for ISBN, RFC, and PMID numbers have been deprecated in wikitext since 2021 due to inflexibility and difficulties with localization. Several wikis have successfully replaced RFC and PMID magic links with equivalent external links, but a template was often required to replace the functionality of the ISBN magic link. There is now a new built-in parser function{{#isbn}} available to replace the basic functionality of the ISBN magic link. This makes it easier for wikis who wish to migrate off of the deprecated magic link functionality to do so.
A new global user group has been created: Local bots. It will be used internally by the software to allow community bots to bypass rate limits that are applied to abusive web scrapers. Accounts that are approved as bots on at least one Wikimedia wiki will be automatically added to this group. It will not change what user permissions the bot has.
The MediaWiki Users and Developers Conference, Spring 2026 will be held March 25–27 in Salt Lake City, USA. This event is organized by and for the third-party MediaWiki community. You can propose sessions and register to attend.
Latest comment: 3 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello, these pages are up for speedy deletion under the recently introduced CSD U6, because as you noted at User:North8001, they haven't made more than a few test edits in their userspace. Just thought you should know. Graham87 (talk) 14:14, 2 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
Birthday mode: This limited-time campaign feature celebrates 25 years of Wikipedia with a birthday mascot, Baby Globe. When turned on, Baby Globe is shown on ~2,500 articles, waiting to be discovered by readers. The feature is available for all Wikipedias to customise through Community Configuration until 6 April 2026. So far 17 Wikipedias have joined in the fun.
Wikipedia's 25th birthday party celebrated on Commons: Content from the January 15th global birthday party selected as Media of the day.
Etherpad cleanup: For security and performance reasons, all current pads on Wikimedia’s Etherpad instance, the web-based "ephemeral" editor for real-time collaborative document editing, will be permanently deleted after 30 April. We will continue running this Etherpad instance to support events and other short-term collaboration, but will be periodically deleting data going forward. If you have content in Etherpad you want to keep, please create local backups, as data will be permanently deleted and will not be able to be recovered.
Activity tab: Wikipedia iOS app has rolled out the improved Activity tab to all users in version 7.9.0. A/B test results showed increased account creation among users with access to the feature. Updates include enhanced editing impact insights, module customization, and relocation of History into the Search tab.
Reference Check: The feature Reference Check has been deployed to all Wikipedias. In A/B testing, the impact was substantial: newcomers shown Reference Check were approximately 2.2 times more likely to include a reference on desktop (or acknowledge/explain why they did not) and about 17.5 times more likely on mobile web.
Semantic search: The Foundation has launched a limited Android mobile app experiment that tests hybrid search capabilities which can handle both semantic and keyword queries. The Phase 1 beta is now live on Greek Wikipedia. The goal is to understand whether combining meaning-based retrieval with keyword search helps readers find information more effectively. Testing will expand to English, French, and Portuguese Wikipedias in March.
Navigation experience: The Foundation will run an experiment for mobile web users, that adds a table of contents and automatically expands all article sections, to learn more about navigation issues they face. The test will be available on Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Indonesian, and Vietnamese Wikipedias.
Screenshot of the current prototype of Abstract Wikipedia, showing a two sentence article about Kolkata.
Site notices: Site notices (MediaWiki:Sitenotice and MediaWiki:Anonnotice) now will render on all platforms, not just on the desktop site. Users on mobile web will now see these notices and be informed.
Tech News: Latest updates from Tech News week 08 and 09 include the new “Edit full page” button for people who are editing a page-section using the mobile visual editor. They also link to the 40 community submitted tasks that were resolved over the last two weeks.
Wikifunctions: Abstract Wikipedia is going to have its public preview within the next few weeks, here is the preview.
Gender gap: The Celebrate Women 2026 is coming! The Wikimedia Foundation will host a kick-off celebration that will work as a welcome session for both organizers and participants on March 5 at 13:00 UTC.
Let’s Connect Learning Clinic: Watch the recordings of past learning clinics about Wikipedia’s 25th Birthday Tool and Strengthening Local-Language Admin Communities.
Digital Safety: The next edition of Digital Safety Office Hours will be on Mar 27 at 9:00 UTC and 19:00 UTC. The session will explore practical threat modelling: a structured way to think about risks, assess your exposure, and make informed choices.
Human centered AI: Members of the Wikimedia Enterprise team presented on "Wikipedia in the Age of AI and Bots" at the seminar of Stanford’s Institute for Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence.
For information about the Bulletin and to read previous editions, see the project page on Meta-Wiki. Let foundationbulletinwikimedia.org know if you have any feedback or suggestions for improvement!
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
Ion Creangă has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 00:48, 27 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
Feedback request: History and geography request for comment
Latest comment: 2 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Here is a quick overview of highlights from the Wikimedia Foundation since our last issue on March 13. Please help translate.
Editing on the mobile apps
Highlights
Supporting the mobile experience: The Foundation is starting conversations with communities to explore how editing should work on the Wikipedia mobile apps. The goal is to understand how to better support both new and experienced editors, and how the app can guide users to the right editing tools. Your input is welcome. Join the discussion!
Wikimania 2026: Registration for Wikimania 2026 is opening soon from the end of March to May 1. Like other Wikimedia events this year, we are introducing a "request for invitation" process, with trust and safety checks conducted prior to confirming in-person attendance. Our priority is to create a safe environment for connection, collaboration, and shared learning.
Around the Puzzle Globe in the CEE region: On March 23 almost 60 Wikimedians took part in the CEE-Catch up- a meeting for Wikimedians from Central and Eastern Europe and Central Asia. As a part of continuous conversations we have with the communities around the Foundation's annual plan, participants discussed the global trends related to Readers and Contributors in their regional context. The meeting was also an opportunity to connect with the new Foundation CEO, Bernadette Meehan, who is meeting communities around the puzzle globe to listen, learn and engage with the communities.
Crawlers: The Foundation is now detecting and blocking billions of bot requests that don’t follow our robot policy, such as aggressive scrapers, to make sure our resources go towards serving human readers. In the coming months we’ll be working on better detection of rapidly changing bot behavior and better API infrastructure.
Moderator tools for newer editors: Wikipedia editors in Indonesian, Thai, Turkish, and Simple English now have access to an early version of Special:PersonalDashboard. It introduces newer editors to patrolling workflows, making it easier for them to move from making edits to participating in more advanced moderation work on their project.
Account creation on mobile: Mobile editors at several wikis are now presented with a simplified logged-out warning message, which encourages them to create an account or log in. This test is part of our ongoing effort to enhance the account creation experience on mobile and increase participation.
Verification email redesign:The verification email sent to new accounts that add an email address during signup has been redesigned. When tested on English Wikipedia, Wikimedia Commons, and Wikidata, the same-week email verification rate increased from 41.6% to 45.9%.
Retaining notification history: Wikimedia site users can export their notifications older than 5 years using a new Toolforge tool. This will ensure that users retain important notifications and avoid losing them based on the planned change to delete notifications older than 5 years, as previously announced.
Tech News: Latest highlights from Tech News weeks 12 and 13 include the update that Wikimedia site users can now log in without a password using passkeys as a secure method supported by fingerprint, facial recognition, or PIN. See also the 64 community submitted tasks that were resolved over the last two weeks.
Experiments: Check out the list of experiments in Product and Technology to see all upcoming, live, in-analysis, and completed experiments. One new experiment that just went live is the "Improve the logged-out warning message on mobile web," which aims to reduce the sense of friction or alarm when users encounter the logged-out warning upon editing.
Microtask Generator: Learn more about the Microtask Generator, a tool which identifies content quality gaps in Wikipedia articles and suggests tasks for editors to address within a dashboard. Users can input lists of articles for analysis, or get recommendations based on article categories. Ideal for edit-a-thons and other article improvement drives.
WikiLearn: Discover the latest edition of WikiLearn News where you can find the latest online learning opportunities to take your editing skills to new heights.
For information about the Bulletin and to read previous editions, see the project page on Meta-Wiki. Let foundationbulletinwikimedia.org know if you have any feedback or suggestions for improvement!
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 ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Hello. Wasn't a bold change, the quote was just added so that was a back-to-stable text edit and a request to talk page it, which it has been. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:49, 11 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
Maybe you can look at the page history timeline and bring back the lead to the stable version, since the discussion is taking place on the new edit which you've now returned. If I revert again it's edging into edit war territory, and I'd think the addition needs consensus, not the revert. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:34, 12 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Weekly highlight
Experienced editors are invited to test the Article guidance feature, designed to help less-experienced editors create well-structured, policy-compliant Wikipedia articles. Testing instructions are available. Also, after reviewing the outlines, please provide feedback on the project talk page. Based on your input, the feature will be refined and transferred to the pilot Wikipedias to translate and adapt. Check out the video explaining the feature.
The Growth team has launched an account creation experiment to evaluate whether adding an account creation button to the mobile web header increases new account registrations and encourages more mobile users to contribute to the wikis. The experiment is currently live on Hindi, Indonesian, Bengali, Thai, and Hebrew Wikipedia, and targets 10% of logged-out mobile web users.
View all 30 community-submitted tasks that were resolved last week. For example, an issue where VisualEditor could get stuck loading on Windows devices with animations turned off, has now been fixed.
Updates for technical contributors
Starting later this week, Edit filter managers who have the ⧼codemirror-beta-feature-title⧽ beta feature enabled will have CodeMirror instead of CodeEditor as the editor at Special:AbuseFilter. This is part of the broader effort to make the user experience more consistent across all editors.
Tools and bots that access the Notifications API (action=query&meta=notifications) will need to update their OAuth or BotPassword grants to also include access to private notifications.
Due to a library upgrade, listings on category pages may be displayed out of order starting on Monday, 20th April. A migration script will be run to correct this, and will take hours to days depending on the size of the wiki (up to a week for English Wikipedia).
Goal setting for edit-a-thons: The CampaignEvents extension now includes a new group goal-setting feature, enabling organizers to set and track event goals such as the number of articles created and participating contributors in real time. This feature is now available on all Wikimedia wikis. Join the Connection Learning Session on April 14 at 16:00 UTC to learn more about this feature and new ways to promote events and campaigns to editors.
Collaboration with the United Nations: Learn how the Foundation engages with the United Nations to secure our collective voice and protect free knowledge.
Navigating articles on mobile: The Foundation is launching an experiment to test how to make it easier and more intuitive for readers to navigate through articles on mobile. To do this, we want to test Mobile Page Previews. This experiment will go live the week of April 20 and will run for four weeks.
Editing tools for new editors: Tone Check was deployed on French, Japanese, and Portuguese Wikipedia as a default-on feature for editors who have published 100 or fewer edits locally. When promotional or subjective language is added, users are prompted to consider "neutralizing" the tone of the edit.
Managing watchlist labels: The new watchlist labels feature is now available via VisualEditor, the source editor, and the "watchstar" (or watch link, for skins that don’t have a star icon). Previously it was only possible to assign labels via EditWatchlist.
Latest Wikifunctions: Check out the partial list of the 102 new functions created last week – likely the first week we have exceeded 100.
Tech News: The latest highlights from Tech News weeks 14 and 15 include an ongoing A/B test running on 10 Wikipedias to evaluate a clearer, more user-friendly message that promotes account creation on wikis. See also the 68 community submitted tasks that were resolved over the last two weeks.
Community discussions on Semantic Search: The Wikimedia Foundation, in collaboration with the CEE Hub, hosted a discussion session on Semantic Search for members of the CEE Youth Group.
Don't Blink!: This month's highlights from the Global Advocacy team include how the Wikimedia Foundation co-presented alongside the Internet Archive at the State of the Net conference.
Digital rights and inclusion: Take a look at the sessions that Wikimedians and allied partners will lead during Digital Rights and Inclusion Forum (DRIF) 2026.
Manuscript preservation: The Wikimedia Foundation supported volunteer-lead workshops to write Balinese Wikipedia articles about palm-leaf manuscripts (lontar) from the Leiden University Library collection.
Youth content creators: Wikimedia Indonesia, together with the Wikimedia Foundation, delivered an introductory session on Wikipedia for young content creators representing all 11 ASEAN member states.
Legal and Safety Contacts: The Wikimedia Foundation has created a single "Legal and Safety Contacts" page, to be linked in the footer of each wiki page. This will ensure that everyone has access to accurate and up to date Legal contact information. Insertion of the new links on different wikis will be done in stages, based on assessment of legal risk and necessity.
Building shared principals for the internet as a public good: The Global Advocacy team published a blog with the Center for Studies on Freedom of Expression and Access to Information (CELE) and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) summarizing a workshop that brought together digital rights advocates from Latin America to dream of a "digital utopia."
Wikidata API: Wikidata’s structured knowledge is now available through Wikimedia Enterprise.
Annual Planning and global trends: Join the America APP call on April 21 at 18:00 UTC. This meeting is an opportunity for the Latin American community to ensure that the region's voice helps shape the Wikimedia Foundation's work and priorities for the next fiscal year. The call will be in Spanish with interpretation into Portuguese and English. The last meeting between Wikimedia EDs and Foundation staff was dedicated to discuss global trends too. More discussions are happening on-wiki and in community spaces around different regions and projects.
Futures Lab: The world is changing around us. As the Wikimedia movement navigates this moment over a hundred Wikimedians from different Wikimedia projects came together to deepen our understanding of how these trends are impacting our people and projects at the Wikimedia Futures Lab.
Fundraising Hub: The Wikimedia Foundation has launched Fundraising Hub on English Wikipedia. The first discussion you can participate in is about distributing fundraising banner on English Wikipedia throughout the year.
Ombuds Commission: Announcement of the 2026 Ombuds Commission, the small group of volunteers who investigate complaints about violations of the Privacy Policy, the Access to Nonpublic Personal Data Policy, the CheckUser Policy and the Oversight Policy.
Wikinews closure: All Wikinews editions will be closed and switched to read-only mode on May 4. Content will remain accessible, but no new edits or articles will be able to be added. This closure was approved by the Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation following extended discussions.
For information about the Bulletin and to read previous editions, see the project page on Meta-Wiki. Let foundationbulletinwikimedia.org know if you have any feedback or suggestions for improvement!
Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion
You are invited to participate in the Destubathon of the Americas, a contest/editathon which will run from May 1 to May 31. The goal is to destub as many of our 475,000+ stubs for the Americas (from Alaska down to Chile) as possible. A good chance to have fun in expanding many of our old stale stubs and win up to £2000 ($2680) in Amazon vouchers for expanding stub articles. Sign up in the Contestants/participants section on the contest page if interested. Even if not interested in prizes you are still warmly welcome to participate in it as an editathon! Hopefully we can achieve something significant in the month of May together! ♦ Dr. Blofeld17:22, 15 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Updates for editors
There is a change in how new users are autoconfirmed that will improve anti-vandalism protection. Currently, users who have had an account for a few days and made a few edits are automatically added to the Autoconfirmed users group. This configuration tends to be exploited by some vandals, who create accounts and start to use them only after some time. To mitigate this, the configuration will be updated next week so that – for the purpose of becoming autoconfirmed – the account age will be counted from their first edit, instead of registration date. The numeric value of the age threshold will remain the same. This change will be deployed only to wikis which require at least one edit as part of the autoconfirmation conditions.
All Wikipedia users with new accounts and those who activated the "automatically enable most beta features" option in their preference can now use the reading lists beta feature to save articles for later reading. This helps organize reading interests in one place for convenient access.
View all 30 community-submitted tasks that were resolved last week. For example, the issue where infobox images have huge padding in Firefox, has been fixed.
Updates for technical contributors
As a reminder, the global API rate limits will be applied this week to identified API traffic. This is to help ensure fair use of infrastructure. Bots running in Toolforge/WMCS or with the bot user right on any wiki should not be affected for now. However, all developers are advised to follow updated best practices. For more information, including the actual rate limits, see Wikimedia APIs/Rate limits and Frequently Asked Questions.
Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The administrator elections process has officially started! Interested editors are encouraged to self-nominate or arrange to be nominated by reviewing the instructions at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/May 2026/Candidates.
Here is the schedule:
April 29 – May 5: Call for candidates
May 8–12: Discussion phase
May 13–19: SecurePoll voting phase
Please note the following:
The requirements to run are identical to RFA—a prospective candidate must be extended confirmed.
The process will have a seven day call for candidates phase, a two day pause, a five day discussion phase, and a seven day private vote using SecurePoll. Discussion and questions are only allowed on the candidate pages during the discussion phase.
The outcome of this process is identical to making a request for adminship. There is no official difference between an administrator appointed through RFA versus administrator elections.
Ask any questions about the process at the talk page. Later, a user talk message will be sent to official candidates with additional information about the process.
If you are interested in the process, please make sure to watchlist the appropriate pages. A watchlist notice will be added when the discussion phase opens, and again when the voting phase opens.
You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.
Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Here is a quick overview of highlights from the Wikimedia Foundation since our last issue on April 10. Please help translate.
Highlights
Annual Planning: The Wikimedia Foundation published the draft Annual Plan for the coming fiscal year (2026–2027) which will focus on four main goals that directly respond to the external trends. The goals include increasing our reach, deepening engagement, protecting our projects and building speed and resilience to enable the change needed to respond to the internet being at an inflection point. Feedback welcome on the talk page and many other places.
Sustainable reuse of Wikimedia content: The Attribution API is now in beta. It makes it easier to credit Wikimedia content fairly wherever it is used. It provides all information required by the Wikimedia Attribution Framework in a single, well-structured and easy-to-use endpoint, simplifying attribution for off-wiki reuse. Share your feedback on the project talk page.
Feedback on Article guidance: Experienced editors are invited to test the Article guidance feature. This tool helps less-experienced editors create structured, policy-compliant Wikipedia articles. Review the outlines and share your feedback on the project talk page. Check out the step-by-step and video instructions.
Games Hub available on Android: The Games Hub is live in the Wikipedia app for Android. This new feature offers a space for users to find all available games in one place, explore archives, and get updates on new games. It currently includes Which Came First?, with more games coming soon.
Update to Wikipedia app for iOS: A major update to the Wikipedia app for iOS has rolled out, redesigning the interface to align with Apple’s latest “Liquid Glass” visual design. Download the latest version and explore the update.
Confirming email addresses: On several wikis, logged-in editors who haven’t confirmed their email addresses now see a banner encouraging them to do so. Confirming the email address helps users restore account access if they lose it and receive messages about their accounts. It also provides an easy option to communicate with other users off-wiki if they choose. As of early 2026, about 62.9% of all registered Wikimedia user accounts that have an email set had not confirmed it.
Testing mobile web page previews: Mobile page previews experiment was launched on Arabic, English, French, Italian, Polish, and Vietnamese Wikipedias. Page previews are pop-ups that show a thumbnail, a lead paragraph, and a link to the full article to improve content discovery. It is already available on desktop and in the apps.
Account creation experiment: Account creation experiment is live on Hindi, Indonesian, Bengali, Thai, and Hebrew Wikipedia targeting 10% of logged-out mobile web users. It looks at whether adding a button to create accounts in the mobile web header boosts new registrations and increases mobile users contributing to the wikis.
Experimenting with Hybrid Search on mobile apps: The Hybrid Search Phase 1 experiment on the Wikipedia Android app has concluded. It tested a combined keyword and meaning-based search methods to meet various information needs. The team is analyzing data and feedback, and will share insights and next steps soon.
Top read element on the current Explore Feed on Android
Latest experiments: See all live, upcoming, and completed experiments in Product & Technology. One upcoming experiment is testing a refreshed Explore Feed to make it easier for readers to discover interesting content and visit Wikipedia app more often.
Wikifunctions: Wikifunctions crossed 4,000 functions, with subtracting two complex numbers as the 4,000th function. Also, Abstract Wikipedia reached 1,000 articles. The article about the famous Indian Brahmin Chanakya marked this milestone.
Reading lists now a beta feature: New accounts are now opted into Reading lists by default on all Wikipedia wikis. This brings the "Save pages" feature to the web, which has been popular in mobile apps. For users in the beta, a "Save page" (bookmark) button appears in the toolbar on every page. The watch/unwatch (star) option moves to the tools menu. The "Watchlist" button in the top navigation shifts to the user menu. A new "Saved pages" button takes its place. In June, the feature will be available to all users and a user preference will be added to choose between two sets of buttons: Watch + Watchlist or Save + Saved list. The other set will be in the tool and user menus.
Tech News: The latest highlights from Tech News weeks 16 and 17 include CodeMirror 6 being promoted out of beta on Tuesday, April 21. See also the 45 community submitted tasks that were resolved over the last two weeks.
Wikimedia Research Fund submissions in review: The submission period for this year's Wikimedia Research Fund is now closed. The technical and internal reviews of the proposals have begun.
Around the puzzle globe in the America region: More than 60 people joined America call to discuss the annual plan and the global trends impacting the movement. Participants came from across the region, and the audience included a mix of affiliates from LATAM, online contributors, and users with extended rights.
Transparency Report: The Wikimedia Foundation published a transparency report covering July to December 2025.
Board selection process: The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees is reviewing and improving how it selects new members. The goal is to ensure that there is the right mix of expertise and community representation on the board. Join the conversation and share your ideas on the talk page.
For information about the Bulletin and to read previous editions, see the project page on Meta-Wiki. Let foundationbulletinwikimedia.org know if you have any feedback or suggestions for improvement!
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.
Latest comment: 1 month ago2 comments2 people in discussion
It's been a long journey on becoming a pro editor and it is sad that my mentor assigned to me has not been responsive and here i am talking to you so i could learn and become better. I currently have a page i edited but now moved to draftspace based on my edits, my affiliation with the person was questioned and i do not know or have any relationship with the name or person. Speaking to you as a pro editor and a reputable name on this platform, What do i do better please Distrigency (talk) 03:53, 4 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Distrigency: First step for me to try to provide an intelligent answer would be that I'd need to learn more. Due to medical reasons I'm basically gone for the last and upcoming week. I'd be happy to look into it and try to help after that. Can you give me a link to the article? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:33, 4 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Weekly highlight
The Article guidance team invites experienced editors of pilot Wikipedias—Arabic, Bangla, Japanese, Portuguese, Persian, Turkish, Simple English, Spanish, and French—to help translate and adapt sample outlines. These outlines will guide editors in creating clear, well-structured, and policy-compliant articles when using the feature once it is launched in May 2026. Simple instructions on how to translate and adapt the outlines are available.
The number of available thumbnail size preferences in MediaWiki is being reduced to three standardized options—Small (180px), Regular (250px), and Large (400px), as part of ongoing efforts to improve performance and reduce strain on thumbnail services. As a result, existing preferences will be mapped to the nearest new size (for example, smaller selections like 120px or 150px will render at 180px, while larger ones like 300px or 360px will render at 400px). The preferences interface will soon be updated to reflect these changes, and users who wish to opt out or provide feedback can do so.
From now on, even when a permission expires automatically, users will receive an Echo notification similar to the standard notification for permission changes. There is a difference between this and Global reminder bot in that the latter reminds users a week before the rights are due to expire, so that they can renew the rights.
View all 32 community-submitted tasks that were resolved last week. For example, the problem where the ULS language selector in Special:Translate would scroll vertically when it shouldn't, has been resolved. Previously, when users opened the "Translate to English" dropdown and typed certain inputs, the dialog would scroll vertically by a few pixels even when there was enough space to display all results. The dropdown no longer shifts unnecessarily when filtering languages.
The Global Watchlist, which lets you view your watchlists from multiple wikis on a single page, continues to improve. For example, watchlists for Wikibase sites such as Wikidata now support EntitySchema elements for better tracking. The Live Updates mode now refreshes the special page every 60 seconds to comply with the updated global API rate limits for improved real-time responsiveness. Additionally, a directionality bug that displayed links as "changes 3" instead of "3 changes" in mixed-direction lists has been fixed.
Updates for technical contributors
The second phase of global API rate limits has been rolled out to reduce the impact of AI crawlers and ensure fair, sustainable access to Wikimedia resources, prioritising human and mission-aligned traffic. Limits have been shifted from per-hour to per-minute, producing smoother traffic patterns and more predictable API load. Community users are not expected to be affected, and no action is required. Early indications show some User-Agent-based requestors are adjusting behaviour, and around 64% of automated API traffic has been identified. Monitoring continues, and Wikimedia Enterprise remains available for commercial support.
Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Armenian Americans has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 02:35, 5 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Weekly highlight
Community Tech has published new guidance explaining how wishes on Community Wishlist are triaged and prioritized. The documentation is intended to help contributors write stronger proposals by clarifying the factors that influence prioritization decisions. Beyond vote counts, the guidance highlights considerations such as potential impact on the community when determining which wishes move forward.
Updates for editors
The Reader Growth team is launching an experiment to test a new Share Card feature that allows readers to create visually engaging cards from Wikipedia articles or selected article sections and share them online, with each card linking back to the original article to help expand readership and article discovery. The mobile-only A/B test will be available to a portion of readers on Arabic, Chinese, French, Vietnamese, and English Wikipedia to better understand reading and sharing habits, and is scheduled to begin the week of May 18 and run for four weeks.
The Android and iOS Wikipedia apps recently released the 25-day reading challenge into Beta, as part of efforts to drive reader engagement by encouraging users to complete reading milestones. To track their reading streak during the challenge, App users can add a widget featuring Baby Globe to their home screen. The challenge officially begins May 11.
View all 17 community-submitted tasks that were resolved last week. For example, an issue where the global preference for enabling syntax highlighting in wikitext could unexpectedly disable itself after being turned on, has now been fixed.
Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Sängerfest has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 20:09, 11 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
In the voting phase, the candidate subpages close to public questions and discussion, and everyone who qualifies to vote has a week to use the SecurePoll software to vote, which uses a secret ballot. You can see who voted, but not who they voted for. Please note that the vote totals cannot be made public until after voting has ended and as such, it will not be possible for you to see an individual candidate's vote total during the election. The suffrage requirements are similar to those at RFA.
Once voting concludes, we will begin the scrutineering phase, which will last for a few days, perhaps longer. Once everything is certified, the results will be posted on the results page (this is a good page to watchlist), and transcluded to the main election page. In order to be granted adminship, a non-recall candidate must have received at least 70.0% support, calculated as Support / (Support + Oppose), and a minimum of 20 support votes. Recall candidates must achieve 55.0% support. Because this is a vote and not a consensus, there are no bureaucrat discussions ("crat chats").
Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.
You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.
Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello North8000,
New Page Review queue November 2025 - May 2026
Backlog update
At the time of this message, there are 15,282 articles and 32,951 redirects awaiting review.
After the January–February drive the article backlog was reduced to 15,179 articles and the redirect backlog to 19,053 respectively. Great job! However, both queues are growing rapidly and any additional reviews are highly appreciated.
2024 and 2025 NPP Awards
JTtheOG was selected as the NPP reviewer of the year for both 2024 and 2025, for reviewing the most articles amongst all reviewers.
Hey man im josh and MPGuy2824 won the Redirect Ninja Master Award for 2024 and 2025 respectively, for reviewing the most redirects.
Overall in 2024, one Platinum, two Gold, eight Silver, 12 Bronze and 45 Iron Barnstars were awarded. Additionally, 66 reviewers got the NPP barnstar for doing more than 100 reviews through the year. In 2025, one Platinum, ten Silver, 13 Bronze and 38 Iron Barnstars were awarded. Additionally, 38 reviewers got the NPP barnstar for doing more than 100 reviews through the year.
The experimental two-month long backlog drive concluded with 183 reviewers patrolling over 27,761 articles and 35,309 redirects, earning over 36,836 points. Congratulations to JTtheOG, who achieved first place with 6,484.6 points in this drive.
An attempt was made to get the New Pages Feed to sort by date marked as reviewed instead of date created. However we had to revert it due to bugs. We may try again in the future. You can subscribe to the Phabricator ticket if you're interested in following along.
Latest comment: 28 days ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Good day @North8000, two years ago you reviewed an article I wrote on Restlezz, which was reviewed in 2024, and since then his notability has increased to the next level. A couple of days ago, I saw a notification from Wikipedia:AI noticeboard#User:Dahproman saying the article on Restlezz and a few other articles I made were suspected to go against Wikipedia:Presumptive removal of AI-generated content purely based off suspicion.
If you check the noticeboard, you would find only one of those articles actually had concerns shared, that's 1/7 and I asked the community to provide more context on why the rest were nominated, and nobody gave me anything. Then I got a message saying I needed to find whatever AI content I suspect and fix that myself. With 7 articles, obviously everyone has a different opinion on what sounds like AI or not. I found none, and then I came today and found out that the articles have been deleted, even the one on Restlezz that was written over 2 years ago when LLMs hadn't been incorporated in writing yet.
They all got deleted for basically nothing, and they expect me to write everything from scratch again. I find this unfair and I've tried ways to get the previous content of the articles to help reduce the workload in rewriting, and still I can't. I'm at an impasse; I need help and advice, please. Whatever you can offer would go a long way. Thanks. Dahproman (talk) 18:30, 17 May 2026 (UTC)@Dahproman: It's hard to comment on 7 deleted articles. But here are a few notes after just a quick look, and I might be wrong. .Reply
I couldn’t find the admin that deleted the article; that was why I asked for your help. I thought and hoped you would be an admin by now so I can at least get back the articles, as you said, and work on them in draft space. I know I’m probably taking a lot of your time, which I apologize for, but could you help me check which admin deleted the article, or if you know any admin I can request an undelete from to move to draft space for further improvements? Dahproman (talk) 20:09, 17 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
It looks like 6 of the 7 were uncontested PRODs. A prod can be stopped by merely removing the prod tag (which nobody did), after which a more thorough process would be required to delete. And Carterson was a soft delete which means you can ask for it to be brought back.
I don't know how much time has since passed, but it says if recent you can ask for an undelete.
Probably the most realistic approach is the most conservative smallest step; to ask an admin to (to start with) bring one article back into draft space and then go to work on it. Make sure it really meets wp:notability. Make sure you really aren't using AI to write anything and take out anything that was AI written. Probably best to not use AI in any way, not even in permissible ways. Also look for any problems that are typical for AI stuff. Make sure that it has enough cites and that for each the cited source really supports what's in the article. If you get all of that done and want me to take a look at it and recommend an idea on what to do next, let me know. And if all goes well with that start on the other 6.
I couldn’t find the admin that deleted the article; that was why I asked for your help. I thought and hoped you would be an admin by now so I can at least get back the articles, as you said, and work on them in draft space. I know I’m probably taking a lot of your time, which I apologize for, but could you help me check which admin deleted the article, or if you know any admin I can request an undelete from to move to draft space for further improvements? Dahproman (talk) 20:09, 17 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 23 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion
News and notes: Offline: Osama Khalid still in prison He has been imprisoned since 2020 for his Wikipedia edits. A fresh campaign is calling for his release.
Recent research: WikiLambda the Ultimate Does Abstract Wikipedia help fight "One ring to rule them all" solutions for knowledge access - or does it implement one itself?
Latest comment: 20 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Good day North, since I didn’t get a response from Explicit, I've decided to rewrite the Restlezz article. I'll be using the original content that cleared WP notability and ensuring the tone is completely natural with no AI traces. Once it's ready, should I publish it straight to the mainspace and have you review it there, or would you recommend a different strategy? Thanks. Dahproman (talk) 20:00, 23 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
I'd have to see the article (when you're ready) in order to have an opinion. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:52, 25 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Feedback request: History and geography request for comment
Latest comment: 6 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Weekly highlight
Wikimedia Enterprise has increased the free usage limits for its API offerings. The monthly request limit for the On-demand API has increased from 5,000 to 50,000 requests, while the Snapshot API limit has increased from 15 to 30 requests per month. In addition, Structured Contents snapshots are now available for free accounts. These changes expand access to Wikimedia Enterprise data for developers, researchers, and organizations using Wikimedia content.
Updates for editors
The refreshed Explore Feed, now called the Home Feed, is rolling out to 50% of users of the Wikipedia Android app. The Home Feed helps readers discover relevant content through two new tabs: Community and For You. The Community tab provides a scrollable feed of curated content and updates from the broader Wikimedia community and movement, while the For You tab offers a full-screen, swipeable experience that shows content tailored to a user's interests. The redesign is part of a broader effort to improve discovery and enhance the learning experience in the Wikipedia app.
The Which came first? daily trivia game is now available in the beta version of the Wikipedia iOS app in English, German, French, Portuguese, Russian, Spanish, Arabic, Chinese, and Turkish. The game uses historical events from Wikipedia's "On This Day" content and challenges readers to guess which of two events happened first. The game was previously released on Android. Communities interested in making the game available in their languages can read the instructions and requirements.
Sub-referencing, a new MediaWiki feature that allows editors to reuse references with different details, will begin rolling out to Wikimedia wikis following a successful pilot phase. Deployment will start on 8 June for most Group 1 wikis and French Wikipedia, with additional Wikipedia language editions receiving the feature over the coming months. Communities are encouraged to prepare by checking for untranslated Cite extension messages in their language and reviewing any use of Reference Tooltips, which may require updates to support the new functionality. Wikis using Reference Previews do not need to take any action. Communities may also wish to create the cite-tracking-category-ref-detailstracking category as a hidden category using __HIDDENCAT__ (or a dedicated template), and connect it to the corresponding Wikidata item d:Q129764848.
The Page Previews experiment on mobile web has concluded. The team decided not to roll out the feature after the results showed no statistically significant impact on reader retention, as the primary success metric was retention improvement. Page Previews, which are already available on desktop and in the apps, display a thumbnail, lead paragraph, and link to the full article when readers tap a blue link. The experiment tested this experience on mobile web across six Wikipedias.
The user interface icon library will be updated later this week or next week. Most of the ~300 icons have been slightly refined and ~30 new icons have been added. These changes improve the icons to make them more consistent and comprehensible, and provide more visual balance when they are used in groups.
The Universal Language Selector (ULS) interface in MediaWiki, which helps users select content in other languages, has been updated. The new version improves speed and accessibility, and users of Wikimedia projects can now pin languages for quicker language switching. The deployment to Wikimedia sites will happen gradually in the coming weeks. You can test it now as a beta feature by selecting beta features in your profile preferences and share your feedback on the project page.
View all 21 community-submitted tasks that were resolved last week. For example, an issue where the Pageviews Analysis dashboard on pageviews.wmcloud.org stopped updating graph data in May 2026, affecting all users, has been fixed.
Updates for technical contributors
The function signature for mw.util.addPortletLink() has been simplified. Developers can now pass a configuration object instead of a list of positional parameters when creating portlet links. The previous function signature remains supported for backwards compatibility. For example, instead of: mw.util.addPortletLink('p-cactions', '#', 'Stub', 'ca-stubtag', 'Add a stub tag to this page'); use mw.util.addPortletLink('p-cactions', { href: '#', text: 'Stub', id: 'ca-stubtag', tooltip: 'Add a stub tag to this page' });. Script maintainers are encouraged to review existing uses of addPortletLink() and update them where appropriate. This change will be available on all wikis from 11 June. Thanks to community volunteer Gerges for contributing this improvement.
Community Wishlist discussion: Product & Technology introduced changes meant to increase the number and complexity of wishes fulfilled, including the disbanding of the Community Tech team. They are engaging in discussions about a proposed direction for the wishlist from community members. Includes ways to structure annual voting, better tracking of wishes, removing focus areas, and staffing updates.
Latest comment: 5 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Here is a quick overview of highlights from the Wikimedia Foundation since our last issue on May 8. Please help translate.
Highlights
Community Wishlist discussion: Product & Technology introduced changes meant to increase the number and complexity of wishes fulfilled, including the disbanding of the Community Tech team. They are engaging in discussions about a proposed direction for the wishlist from community members. Includes ways to structure annual voting, better tracking of wishes, removing focus areas, and staffing updates.
Digital Public Goods: The Wikimedia Foundation has become a member of the Digital Public Goods Alliance (DPGA).
Better bot detection: A trial of hCaptcha on several Wikipedias, including English, French, and Japanese, showed it can effectively detect and deter bad-faith automated activity, on its own and by giving checkusers and stewards signals to look into. Based on these results, hCaptcha will be rolled out across all wikis. See the project page for technical information about the implementation and privacy protections.
Example of the Attribution Framework recommendations.
A better way to give credit: The Wikimedia Attribution Framework and API makes it simple for developers to fairly credit volunteer contribution. When anyone encounters Wikimedia content, we want them to know that it comes from our projects, and they are invited to participate.
Baby Globe joins the Reading Challenge: The Android and iOS Wikipedia apps released the 25-day reading challenge, to drive readers engagement through reading milestones. To track their reading streak during the challenge, users can add a widget featuring Baby Globe to their home screen.
Account security: The Foundation is technically enforcing that all privileges that enable users to take security- or privacy-sensitive actions can only be held by users who have enabled two-factor authentication. Logging in with passkeys is quicker than logging in without two-factor authentication. In addition, logged-in users can see a banner encouraging them to confirm their email address. These changes secure individual accounts as well as communities and the wikis.
Incident reporting form: The Foundation began a trial on English Wikipedia of the incident reporting form. 60% of unblocked logged-in users see a new Report button, allowing them to report conduct issues.
Encouraging account creation: Following a successful account creation experiment, an improved logged-out edit warning message will be deployed to all Wikimedia wikis this week. The change will only affect logged-out users on mobile web who open an editing session.
Wikimedia Android App: The Wikipedia Android App is at the Phase 1 of redesigning its Home Feed. The new feed includes two tabs: Community, featuring refreshed Explore content, and For You, with personalized reading recommendations based on reader interests and activity. The For You feed refreshes daily with updated suggestions.
Reading Lists feature: The Foundation is conducting an experiment to show the reading lists feature, which is still in development, to logged-out mobile readers to test whether it encourages account creation at a higher rate compared to the watchstar button. The experiment was launched on May 18 on German, Spanish, Italian, Portuguese, Polish, Dutch, Turkish, and Urdu wikis, and will run for a month.
A design mockup of what the share card looks like.
Testing Suggestion Mode: Suggestion Mode was released as an A/B test for newcomer editors on the mobile website at ~15 Wikipedias. The experiment will measure its impact on the proportion of newcomer mobile web edit sessions that result in constructive (un-reverted) article edits. It will also evaluate the feature’s impact on editor retention and monitor changes in revert and block rates.
Wikifunctions now supports Wikidata references: References in Wikidata statements are now available on Wikifunctions, and you now can use external links in Wikifunctions-generated citations. This allows the use of more than 1.3 billion references available in Wikidata and adding them as citations to individual statements in Abstract Wikipedia.
Pilot wikis adopting Abstract Wikipedia: The Abstract Wikipedia team has identified five potential pilot wikis to assess their interest in adopting abstract articles on their wikis. The pilots are Malayalam, Bengali, Dagbani, Arabic, and Indonesian Wikipedia. If your community is interested in becoming a pilot, let us know on Meta.
Latest experiments: An upcoming experiment is testing whether we can serve readers better when a footnote click in read mode shows the full bibliographic information rather than flying them to the reference list. See all live, upcoming, and completed experiments in Product & Technology.
Tech News: The latest highlights from Tech News weeks 20, 21, 22, 23 include an experiment to test a new Share Card feature that allows readers to create visually engaging cards from Wikipedia articles and share them online See also the 92 community submitted tasks that were resolved over the last two weeks.
Tech blog moved to Diff: The migration of the Techblog to Diff is now complete: 138 posts going back over a decade have been successfully migrated. Diff is now happy to welcome technology-focused blog posts with renewed vigor.
What’s new in the Wikipedia Library: Access to the American Psychological Association was renewed and collections from the Harvard Business Review and Swiss Media Database (Swissdox) are now available to editors who are eligible for The Wikipedia Library.
New course on WikiLearn: A free self-paced online course, designed for researchers who want to make their field more visible on Wikipedia, was launched on WikiLearn. Share "Wikipedia for Researchers” if you work with early-career researchers, teach in an academic institution, or support open knowledge communities.
Wiki Mentor Africa: The first edition of Wiki Mentor Africa - Women Tech Summit brought together over 315 registered participants across Africa to learn, explore, and grow in tech together.
Let's Connect Learning Clinic: If you missed it, you can now watch the recording of the Let's Connect Learning Clinic "How to support up-and-coming groups in the movement as a long-time Wikimedian" with Wikimedistas El Salvador.
Sharing the Form 990s: The Wikimedia Foundation and the Wikimedia Endowment published their Form 990s, covering the fiscal year that ran from July 2024 to June 2025. The Form 990 is an annual form required of all nonprofit organizations in the United States. You can read the highlights on Form 990 for the Foundation and Form 990 for the Endowment on Meta-Wiki.
Wikimedia Enterprise: Wikimedia Enterprise's free API accounts gets a substantial upgrade across the Snapshot and On-demand APIs, including free access to Structured Contents Snapshots.
Board selection process: The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees is reviewing and improving how it selects new members. The goal is to ensure that there is the right mix of expertise and community representation on the board. Join the conversation on 16 June at 17:00 UTC, and share your ideas on the talk page.
For information about the Bulletin and to read previous editions, see the project page on Meta-Wiki. If you have feedback or suggestions about the bulletin, let us know at foundationbulletinwikimedia.org. For questions about the Wikimedia Foundation's work, contact us!
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
,_cropped.jpg)
