This award is given in recognition to CommunityNotesContributor for accumulating at least 10 points the September 2025 NPP backlog drive. Your contributions played a part in the 19,000+ articles reviewed during the drive. Thank you so much for taking part and contributing to help reduce the backlog! Utopes(talk / cont)03:44, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A tag has been placed on Draft:Draft:Iranian Artists Forum, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Rotideypoc41352 (talk·contribs) 03:17, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really sure how to word this. But I'm just a little bit taken aback by another editor who I feel like has possibly taken a special interest in my account and "correcting my mistakes." It was pretty normal at first, but based on the tone in the culmination of the interactions we've had, I'm starting to feel a little bit taken aback. Here's some of the interactions we've had (it's probably nothing, and I'm probably just overreacting, so please tell me if I'm just being unreasonable):
[1] Accused me of "intensively hovering" over articles related to Gaza
[2] Spoke negatively about articles I've written, again criticizing me in a way that felt a little bit demeaning
User talk:Alexandraaaacs1989#Your edits... The user asked to add me on Discord. He also noticed after viewing my user page multiple times that I removed my userbox — something about the tone rubbed me a little bit the wrong way due to the level of interest and comfortability he seemed to have taken in me (he seemed like he may have wanted to emotionally connect with me)
[3] He then found the Protest paradigm through my account page and removed a source cited repeatedly throughout the article (thereby introducing citation errors) without mentioning anything about this on the talk page, saying noam chomsky is not a reliable source on anything other than linguistics, let ALONE "manufacturing consent"
[4] Added "multiple issues" tags criticizing article for relying too much on examples in the United States
[5] Added multiple issues tag saying heavily slanted in favor of Left-populist politics in the United States, which again felt like an unconstructive way to handle criticizing the article
[6][7][8] Multiple changes that introduced issues like replacing "mainstream media" with "News Media" (incorrect capitalization mid-sentence), writing a sentence with a period mid-sentence, and creating headers with hyperlinks that serve little navigational purpose without correcting any of these changes after making them
In the back of my mind I'm wondering what degree of this (mainly asking for my Discord and seeming to attempt to emotionally connect with me on my talk page) is due to my female account name, but I obviously don't want to make any big assumptions. And if I'm just overreacting please do let me know, but I am a little annoyed with some of the arguably reckless changes he is making to articles I wrote because he found them through my account. Your thoughts on the matter would be appreciated whatever they are, and sorry for the bother :) Thanks Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 03:05, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again Alexandra. Overall I'm really not qualified to assess this and I know when I'm out of my depth. Good-faith stalking is somewhat covered at WP:HOUNDING, which is what you're alluding to here. Hence I'm pinging a couple of admins in the hope they can offer some advise here; one I trust, Clovermoss, and another who has sharp judgement, Tamzin. The latter because of your high activity in PIA topics, which to be honest I don't know if it is a relevant factor in this, so an objective opinion without the sugar coating could be useful here. Failing that if these two are busy I'll try think of something else, while recommending you disengage with the the editor/situation for now. As per previous discussion, I'd avoid taking this to the vultures nest unless desperate as ideally things can be resolved via discussion and understanding.
Otherwise from my persective having seen the initial interaction with you, it did seem very bizarre and lacked a focus on content. There are also some outright bad edits there, "New Media" comes to mind, but they don't necessarily fall within the parameters of wikihounding "tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior", and certainly doesn't appear to be malicious per talk page discussion. There are also good edits. [5] is reasonable as many articles are US-centric, even if only initially, likewise [6] arguably. Given the rationale was provided on the talk page, it's certainly in good faith rather than done via drive-by tagging. Bare in mind that maintenance templates aren't intended to act as criticism, even if that's how it can feel, but instead to encourage improvements of articles via discussion.
It's otherwise best not to speculate on the intention of the Discord query, many editors here use it (there is an 'official-unofficial' Wikipedia chat there). But I can't lie I'd never ask that of another editor in such a way without explaining why I'm not being creepy, then proceed to make a series of edits on their articles. It's an unfortunate sequence of events to say the least. CNC (talk) 11:46, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, first things first, I'm sorry you went through that Alexandraaaacs1989. It never feels good to be cornered like that. It's upsetting and I hope you don't feel like you somehow deserved that. These things don't tend to be easy to move on from. I know interactions with other editors that left me disheartened have a tendency to stay with me, too. It's not crazy to feel that way. It's part of why it's hard for me on a personal level to be pinged together with Tamzin like that. But CNC probably isn't aware of that history.
Tamzin can probably give a much more thorough examination of the PIA side of things, as I avoid AE and most user conduct issues. I will go over to the editor in question and tell them politely that they've made you uncomfortable and it'd be for the best if they left you alone as much as possible. Hopefully they'll listen to that advice. Sometimes a third party saying knock it off leads to a realization to how someone's actions are perceived, even if they weren't intending for them to be seen that way or acting with malicious intent. Clovermoss🍀(talk)12:05, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's okay. We do have different strengths in the areas we focus on on-wiki, even if I haven't entirely moved on from how I was treated in the past. It makes sense to ping us both. For example, it's good to know that there's a place to record where I've officially warned someone if it's in a CT. I'm usually more informal about such things and don't usually go out of my way to warn people unless I stumble across something problematic, which is what I did even as a non-admin. Clovermoss🍀(talk)14:38, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed it was the different strengths as a reasoning for the co-ping, the need for human consideration with a delicate matter as well as the ARBPIA-specific considerations. It's not easy to think of an admin that has both of these if I'm honest, no offence intended to anyone. CNC (talk) 15:07, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much both of you Clovermoss and CNC—I really appreciate both your help with the situation. All of your comments on the situation made sense to me, and per CNC's suggestions, I'll work on getting the article to a less US-centric state/making more explicit attributions when attributing to left-wing sources like Chomsky. But thanks again for helping out, and if I had to guess Clover's message will probably resolve the issue Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 12:57, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've given a logged warning for hounding and incivility. If I can give you a more informal warning, @Alexandraaaacs1989—and I'll stress I'm saying this without having looked much at the substance of your edits, so this is not a finding of fault with any particular edit—I'd encourage you to keep an eye on the PIA edit percentage tracker that CNC linked. While there's no requirement that anyone stay below a certain number unless they're under a balanced editing restriction (BER), I strongly recommend that any editor in the topic area try to voluntarily stay under 33.3% (the threshold that a BER would require). This is partly based on a general observation that editors above that point have a much higher rate of getting themselves in trouble, and partly based on a feeling that it really can't be good for anyone to spend too much time editing about our most fraught subjects. Of course your mileage may vary on the latter point; some people are more conflict-tolerant than others. But I've seen a lot of very good, very conflict-tolerant editors still burn out in this topic area from the cumulative effect of editing in it so much. So a little more balance in topic selection can be a healthy thing. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 13:39, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for helping out, I appreciate it. And thanks for the suggestion—you're probably right that it's not healthy to focus so much on one topic, so I'll try to diversify my area of interest. I've also noticed myself WP:BLUDGEONING a bit in some conversations, so I self-criticize for this and will try and be better going forward. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 13:53, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Alexandraaaacs1989, it sounds like you have pretty good self-awareness of your strengths and weaknesses, which is pretty good for your future on the project. Just be careful not to take the self criticism too far and to have a growth mindset! I know that's something I've struggled with in the past. Clovermoss🍀(talk)14:40, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Was just having a look at the England Women Under-23 page and wondered if you have a list of the previous results that you removed for being more than a year previous? I'd like to put together a separate page for their ongoing results and it would be great if I can just pull together any previous results that you'd removed! No worries if not, just wanted to reach out and check.
Thanks for your thoughts at the WP:RSP RFC 2025 in several areas, especially regarding improvements to the "List of subtables" approach. At some point, the Rfc will end, and then there will surely be follow-up discussions about exactly how to organize the presentation details of whatever method is chosen, and I wanted to ask you to come back and contribute again during those discussions, as some of the thoughts you have already expressed will be worth hearing at that time, and I expect you will have more ideas as well.
I noticed your edits at the landing page for Check Your Fact as well; thanks for those. (I wish more people tried out their ideas like you did). The rfc excerpt idea is worth a discussion on its own, but for the moment, I just wanted to mention this edit where you dropped a link per WP:NOTSEEALSO, because it was already present in the summary. I do the same thing in articles all the time, so I get it, but I disagree with it in this instance. When creating the landing pages, I struggled with how best to deal with multiple publications by the same entity (publisher, usually) in the List of subpages. One example is BuzzFeed and BuzzFeed News, another example is Dotdash Meredith, which has seven links to it from the WP:RSPINDEX. Freed from the strictures of a table, with data about related sources separated due to the alphabetical row organization, we can place related items on the same landing page, and the alphabetical Index links ensures easy access.
Partly, I think calling that section "See also" is part of the problem, precisely because it makes one think of the See also guideline applicable to Mainspace, where if something is linked in the body, then don't link it in See_also. But I don't think that applies here. For one thing, landing pages are not articles, and this is not mainspace. For another, I think it would serve users better by being named something else instead, maybe "Related sources", and regardless whether one or another source was listed in the summary field, all relevant sources should be listed in the "Related sources". Even if you disagree (which is fine), I hope you will come back and comment again if and when the time comes to figure out the nitty-gritty of how to implement the List of subpages approach. Sorry if this message feels choppy; I started it a couple of days ago, then got distracted, and came back to finish it now, so I hope it makes sense. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 08:25, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mathglot, thanks for reaching out. I had thought to return to RSP discussions after the RfC in order to help with any potential migration and implementation. I'm not technically minded enough to understand all the template limits and issues, but I do general gnome work so like to think I have an eye for detail with certain things. Hence the CYF excerpt edit, as was thinking that'd be a useful format to follow.
As for removing the see also, I do see your point re landing page vs mainspace, I had not really considered that. I also agree "Related sources" would likely be a better option, especially as some/many of these would otherwise be in see also but not be clear as to why (ie, sources sharing parent ownership being the a big reason), so the change in header would add clarity for one. So if you wanted to restore/amend it then no issues there, I had also thought after removing the see also section altogether was a bit daft as having an empty section, in a test version of a page, is likely intentional in order to provide a more complete picture of the intended example (even if wouldn't be there for the polished version).
Thanks. I'm happy to let you decide if, when, and how you would want to deal with the See-also issue; any path you take is fine with me. I would love to have your help after the Rfc, to whatever extent you are willing; your eye for detail will be very welcome, and the technical issues related to PEIS will be gone, so you needn't worry about that as a precursor to helping; it isn't. Also, I have been heavily involved in the construction of the WP:RSPINDEX and associated landing pages and I don't have a great memory so this could easily slip my mind with all the other things going on, so please do jump in when it feels right about this, or any other issue. Instead of a ping (I will probably forget that, too ) maybe you could watchlist the page or subscribe to the discussion? Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 08:30, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Verifiability is increasingly important as AI evolves. You should ensure that every statement made is adequately sourced. There should be no less than three independent reliable sources for each biography, including at least one source for each paragraph.
Progress ("moving the needle"):
Statistics available via various tools: previously, Humaniki tool; currently, QLever. Thank you if you contributed one or more of the 20,473 articles created in the past year.
21 Oct 2024, 19.963% of biographies on EN-WP were about women (2,030,245 biographies; 405,305 women)
28 Oct 2025: 20.23% of biographies on EN-WP were about women (2,094,677 biographies; 423,778 women)
Help wanted! Want to apply your skills or learn new ones? Help us plan monthly events, design event logos, come up with a tip-of-the-month, and/or provide any general ideas on developing the project.
Hello, CommunityNotesContributor. This message is being sent to remind you of significant upcoming changes regarding logged-out editing.
Starting 4 November, logged-out editors will no longer have their IP address publicly displayed. Instead, they will have a temporary account (TA) associated with their edits. Users with some extended rights like administrators and CheckUsers, as well as users with the temporary account IP viewer (TAIV) user right will still be able to reveal temporary users' IP addresses and all contributions made by temporary accounts from a specific IP address or range.
How do temporary accounts work?
Editing from a temporary account
When a logged-out user completes an edit or a logged action for the first time, a cookie will be set in this user's browser and a temporary account tied with this cookie will be automatically created for them. This account's name will follow the pattern: ~2025-12345-67 (a tilde, year of creation, a number split into units of 5).
All subsequent actions by the temporary account user will be attributed to this username. The cookie will expire 90 days after its creation. As long as it exists, all edits made from this device will be attributed to this temporary account. It will be the same account even if the IP address changes, unless the user clears their cookies or uses a different device or web browser.
A record of the IP address used at the time of each edit will be stored for 90 days after the edit. Users with the temporary account IP viewer (TAIV) user right will be able to see the underlying IP addresses.
As a measure against vandalism, there are two limitations on the creation of temporary accounts:
There has to be a minimum of 10 minutes between subsequent temporary account creations from the same IP (or /64 range in case of IPv6).
There can be a maximum of 6 temporary accounts created from an IP (or /64 range) within a period of 24 hours.
Temporary account IP viewer user right
How to enable IP Reveal
Administrators may grant the temporary account IP viewer (TAIV) user right to non-administrators who meet the criteria for granting. Importantly, an editor must make an explicit request for the permission (e.g. at WP:PERM/TAIV)—administrators are not permitted to assign the right without a request.
Administrators will automatically be able to see temporary account IP information once they have accepted the Access to Temporary Account IP Addresses Policy via Special:Preferences or via the onboarding dialog which comes up after temporary accounts are deployed.
Impact for administrators
It will be possible to block many abusers by just blocking their temporary accounts. A blocked person won't be able to create new temporary accounts quickly if the admin selects the autoblock option.
It will still be possible to block an IP address or IP range.
Temporary accounts will not be retroactively applied to contributions made before the deployment. On Special:Contributions, you will be able to see existing IP user contributions, but not new contributions made by temporary accounts on that IP address. Instead, you should use Special:IPContributions for this (see a video about IPContributions in a gallery below).
Rules about IP information disclosure
Publicizing an IP address gained through TAIV access is generally not allowed (e.g. ~2025-12345-67 previously edited as 192.0.2.1 or ~2025-12345-67's IP address is 192.0.2.1).
Publicly linking a TA to another TA is allowed if "reasonably believed to be necessary". (e.g. ~2025-12345-67 and ~2025-12345-68 are likely the same person, so I am counting their reverts together toward 3RR, but not Hey ~2025-12345-68, you did some good editing as ~2025-12345-67)
Drafts that go unedited for six months are eligible for deletion, in accordance with our draftspace policy, and this one has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission, and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you read this, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the draft so you can continue to work on it.
Dont want to add more to that hellscape. While your addition technically is a WP:MANDY, I think it may in fact be justified by the fact that numerous other countries and some (albeit not many) NGOs concur with the denial. This is going to be a disputed situation for awhile, if not forever, unlike most universally recognized genocides, so it probably merits inclusion. ← Metallurgist (talk) 18:44, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure it's MANDY, partly in consideration of the WP:NOTMANDY arguments out there. If it's removed then so be it, just doing my bit to try and improve the neutrality while respecting the consensus, even if only as a token gesture. CNC (talk) 18:54, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Charlie Kirk, you may be blocked from editing. Copied from: ScottishFinnishRadish 12:48, 17 September 2025 (UTC) Jdftba (talk) 12:04, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean the RM close or removing this comment? If the latter and you really want to remove it then you have my permission to remove my reply as well (ie, that part of the discussion). The issue is by removing your comment my reply is left with no context. Also the comment really doesn't matter, you made a mistake and apologised. No-one really cares tbh, I know I don't, but up to you. CNC (talk) 15:10, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hi Stirchley.resident, I can't remember how but I came across that draft but did make a note to take a closer. SafariScribe who declined it might otherwise be able to provide more insight since your asking, as if it's a notability issue then there's probably not a lot I can help with realistically if you've done a thorough search for reliable sources. I also need to check the guidelines of creating multi-person WP:BLP, presumably it's based on WP:GNG (I'm just randomly thinking of Bonnie and Clyde as a prime example here). The main issue I can see is that most of the article is based on the topic that already exists - Operation Raise the Colours - so what's left is probably better included in that article for now as based on the philosophy of WP:MERGE, even if these two individuals in combination are notable, that wouldn't inherently demonstrate requirement for a standalone article, if they are mainly known within the context of a certain topic. Sorry if that's a bit of a confusing reply, hopefully the wikilinks help to clarify this. CNC (talk) 19:09, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I initially considered adding this material to the Operation RTC page but much more is know about this particular pair of flaggers than others, and including lots of detail on them would feel like unbalancing the article and making it all about Birmingham. Also, they seem to be moving on from just flagging into what looks like vigilante action - see the bit from the Times about Gravelines, plus from their social media, they've been in France again today. For these reasons, I think a separate article would be better. I considered calling it Raise the Colours (their group name), but much more is known about Bridge and Stanley than other members of the group (which is quite small from what I've seen). Stirchley.resident (talk) 19:29, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok so based on that discussion the issue with the article is effectively WP:SIGCOV; it's not quantity of sources but instead quality (depth) of coverage based on the topic in question. Ideally without me having to search for this in the reference section, can you point to 3 reliable sources that provide such depth of coverage of both of these individuals in combination? Otherwise the title and scope at minimum is a no go. Note that most sources will provide passing mention, not significant coverage. While they are fine to use to attribute claims, they do not contribute towards GNG. CNC (talk) 19:39, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok so after a bit of looking, I think this might be more reliable than I first thought. There are other sources here as well. What are your thoughts of moving to Raise the Colours instead with a teak of the lead paragraph? There can be redirects for both individuals and a hatnote at Operation Raise the Colours to distinguish between campaign and organisation. CNC (talk) 20:57, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I should also add that WP:BLP1E otherwise appears to apply here, based on the those sources, which often leads to content merged rather than standalone articles. CNC (talk) 20:11, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive in December!
The goal of this drive is to reduce the backlog of unreviewed drafts to less than half a month of outstanding reviews from the current 2+ months. Bonus points will be given for reviewing drafts that have been waiting more than 30 days. The drive is running from 1 December 2025 through 31 December 2025.
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.
Help wanted! Want to apply your skills or learn new ones? Help us plan monthly events, design event logos, come up with a tip-of-the-month, and/or provide any general ideas on developing the project.
So 3 other editors agree with you on this, but two others don't really indicate that (even with some down-weighting of one !vote, I'm not sure I'd call it consensus). I could put "Most editors agree that The Times is otherwise generally reliable" as part of the summary, what are your thoughts on that? On a side note I always find the semantics over "additional considerations apply" - to a specific topic area - and the same applied broadly speaking to be somewhat wiki-layered MREL arguments that shouldn't be a problem but always seem to appear based on misinterpretation. Hence the opening "Additional considerations apply to topics related to Indian politics or Hindu nationalism due to lack of reliability in this area" attempting to remove ambiguity or over-expansion of the considerations as it were. Maybe I'm just overly cautious of trying to avoid a controversial-ish close for such a straightforward discussion. CNC (talk) 20:46, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On December 9, we will start the voting phase. The candidate subpages will close to public questions and discussion, and everyone will have a week to use the SecurePoll software to vote, which uses a secret ballot. You can see who voted, but not who they voted for. Please note that the vote totals cannot be made public until after voting has ended and as such, it will not be possible for you to see an individual candidate's totals during the election. You must be extended confirmed to vote.
Once voting concludes, we will begin the scrutineering phase, which typically lasts between a couple days and a week. Once everything is certified, the results will be posted on the results page (you may want to watchlist this page) and transcluded to the main election page. In order to be granted adminship, a candidate who has not been recalled must have received at least 70.0% support, calculated as Support / (Support + Oppose), and must also have received a minimum of 20 support votes. A candidate that has been recalled must have at least 55.0% support. Because this is a vote and not a consensus, there are no bureaucrat discussions ("crat chats").
Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.
You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.
