Hi! Thank you very much for your comment on theDraft: Moullinex. I already followed your suggestions. I reduced the singles list and left the ones with most notable collaborators or press coverage, and added a couple more reviews. I was wondering if I should reduce the singles and EP's lists even more or just delete it entirely before re-submiting for revision or if there is anything else I should improve!Thank you in advance :))
Hi I'm Kabil Djenasevic born in Yugoslavia, and was taken by my parents as a small child to Italy first, and then to the lower East side of Manhattan. Thank you, as I will be writing a article, starting very soon. This article is from first hand knowledge and experience of which I will provide third party evidence, and fully explain, in detail as best as possible, and thank you for your help and skills, so everything comes across in a true light, of which is supported by evidence and material facts. I think you will enjoy doing this article. I truly appreciate your help and support. Thank you again --Kabil Djenasevic (talk)09:59, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"After a long period of mentorship, the 2 months-old GOAT of Yugoslavia stepped up and created a wiki article based off his first-hand experience and knowledge. But before that, he said his last goodbye and introduction to his long-serving mentor~~"
HilEvalyn, and thank you for all your support so far on theEmily Brontë article. I've had another try at the Personality section - my intention had been to reduce its length, but I may have ended up making it even longer! I wonder if you might look at it at some point, please, and give me your opinion on whether I'm taking it in the right direction? It's such a challenging topic as far as neutrality is concerned, and I'm loth to remove details, although, like you, I wonder how much of the anecdotal stuff an encylcopaedia should contain. (I'm also gradually working through the citations, and replacing some of the sub-optimal ones.)ArthurTheGardener (talk)15:52, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the new structure is definitely on the right track! I especially like the framing that starts with the context of how little we really know here. I do wonder, chronologically should the Charlotte section come before Gaskell? Otherwise I don’t see anything obvious. Oh, the last section could plausibly be called “modern re-diagnoses” but I think the existing title works too. I’ve been glad to see this article getting more and more polished and the sourcing reinforced.~ L 🌸 (talk)19:10, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @LEvalyn! I've finally managed to getEmily Bronte upgraded to a GA, and now I'm starting to look atCharlotte Bronte. One thing strikes me as odd - a previous editor has changed her name to Charlotte Nicholls (her married name) in the lead, and I'm wondering whether this is necessary: she wasn't married for long, and the world knows her primarily as Charlotte Bronte. If you have time, I'd appreciate any thoughts you might have on this, and on the article as a whole.ArthurTheGardener (talk)09:49, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations on the GA!! It’s wonderful to see these important articles so improved. I don’t have time this week to look more closely at Charlotte’s article but I’ll take a look when I can. As for the name issue, looking atMOS:NEE and a comparisonVita Sackville-West I think the convention is to start the lead with the “final” form of their name but still title the article and describe them in the text with their “common” name, which I agree is definitely Brontë in this case. So I think the existing version of Charlotte’s lead works, though I agree it feels odd to encounter her married name first thing.~ L 🌸 (talk)19:23, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello To You...I Would Like To Create A New Article About The Artist I've Interviewed And Want Write A Bio Article About Him...How Do I Go About Doing That? --Youngjaey 97 (talk)02:36, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why did some Wikipedians have their user page redirected to their talk page, likeKhestwol? Isn't it usually led to their not-exist-yet user page if it's still not created?
An interesting question! I haven’t seen that too often, but my guess is that these are folks who have decided not have a user page (for whatever reason) and think the redirect looks nicer. But that’s just a guess.~ L 🌸 (talk)21:03, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The fourth round of the 2025 WikiCup ended on 29 August. The penultimate round saw three contestants score more than 800 points:
BeanieFan11 (submissions) with 1,175 round points, mainly from sports-related articles, including 17 good articles, 27 did you know articles, and 9in the news articles
AirshipJungleman29 (submissions) with 854 round points, mostly from a high-scoring featured article on the Indian leaderRani of Jhansi and two good articles, in addition to 13 featured and good article reviews
Everyone who competed in Round 4 will advance to Round 5 unless they have withdrawn.This table shows all competitors who have received tournament points so far, while the full scores for Round 4 can be seenhere. During this round, contestants have claimed 9 featured articles, 12featured lists, 98 good articles, 9good topic articles, more than 150 reviews, nearly 100 did you know articles, and 18 in the news articles.
In advance of the fifth and final round, the judges would like to thank every contestant for their hard work. As a reminder, any content promoted after 29 August but before the start of Round 5 can be claimed in Round 5. In addition, note that Round 5 will end on 31 October at 23:59 UTC. Awards at the end of Round 5 will be distributed based on who has the most tournament points over all five rounds, and special awards will be distributed based on high performance in particular areas of content creation (e.g., most featured articles in a single round).
Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it onWikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, feel free to review one of the nominations listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. Questions are welcome onWikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges –Cwmhiraeth (talk·contribs),Epicgenius (talk·contribs),Frostly (talk·contribs),Guerillero (talk·contribs) andLee Vilenski (talk·contribs) – are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck!
Hello, LEvalyn. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know thatDraft:Laurence Sterne's correspondence with Elizabeth Draper, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five months. Drafts that have not been edited for six monthsmay be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, pleaseedit it again orrequest that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you canrequest it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Researching historical women writers who used pseudonyms requires careful investigation across multiple sources, as many women adopted pen names to avoid gender bias and judgment (e.g., being labeled a bluestocking) and, ultimately, to get published.
Hello, LEvalyn. Your account has beengranted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names andmoving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind aredirect and movesubpages when moving the parent page(s).
Please take a moment to reviewWikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especiallythe criteria for moving pages without leaving a redirect. Please remember to followpost-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects whensuppressredirect is used. This can be done usingSpecial:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments tosecure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover statuscan be revoked.
HelloCat Gardener, and welcome to Wikipedia! I did take a look, and I appreciate your helpful work to keep the article up to date, and your very clear edit summary which lets other editors understand your change. I'll put some helpful links on your talk page as you're getting started, but it looks like you're off to a good start! You should feel free tobe bold with other opportunities for improvements you notice. Happy editing!~ L 🌸 (talk)03:53, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, LEvalyn. It has been over six months since you last edited theArticles for Creation submission ordraft page you started, "History".
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you canrequest its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
You added {{Sfn|Keymer|2017|p=297}} & {{Sfn|Keymer|2001|p=294}} to this article without also adding the complete citations for the sfn cites to target. Please add the cite books or cite journals or whatever to this article for the 2 sfn cites so it will no longer be inCategory:Harv and Sfn no-target errors. Thanks -Shearonink (talk)20:39, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the suggestion! I will use the tool next time. Thank you also for double-checking for errors, I appreciate it.~ L 🌸 (talk)02:36, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, A user is reverting every single edit made by me and adding his opinion in it. Removing original sourced content. It looks like he has personal problems and now doing edit war with me. Most of his edit revolve around adding awadhi in every article. --Adrikshit (talk)12:21, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
HiAdrikshit, sorry to hear like you're having an unpleasant time editing. Looking at your talk page, I'm honestly not sure what's going on with the underlying content dispute, but it looks like your edits are coming across as disruptive. I also notice that these edits may be related to aContentious Topic (South Asia), which means extra editing restrictions are in force. I'll put the official notice about the contentious topic on your talk page to make sure you're aware of it. But in general I think you have two main options here: you could try one of the formal processes ofWP:Dispute Resolution to work things out with this other editor, or (my suggestion) you could try completely avoiding and ignoring them for a while and editing oncompletely different topics (by which I mean-- not related to South Asia at all). Wikipedia is a big place and it's rarely helpful to dig in to a fight and escalate. If this editor still reverts you on completely different articles, that would beWP:HOUNDING; let me know and I can help you file a report.~ L 🌸 (talk)21:35, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried edited topics like baithak gana which is related to caribbean still my edits got reverted that was sourced without any proper reason.Adrikshit (talk)08:22, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hindustani folk music from an Indian community within the Caribbean is obviously still related to South Asia. My advice was to try working on something that'sreally unrelated. I like to find stub articles and expand them. For example, looking atCategory:Young adult novel stubs, it would be very easy to improveChasing Yesterday (books). You could also tryreviewing a Good Article nomination -- that would definitely give you a chance to experience some mutual collaboration focused on high-quality writing.
Spending some time away from contentious topics can help you reacclimatize to the "normal" Wikipedia editing experience, and then maybe return to South Asian topics with fresh eyes and a lower "temperature". Content and conduct disputes are both easier to resolve when you can avoid getting caught up in aWP:BATTLEGROUND orWP:ADVOCACY mentality.~ L 🌸 (talk)21:55, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is it okay to request help from other Wikipedians on their talk page, like example, for my case, asking help to navigate a website in Turkish? Is there a rule that is atleast against a part of it?
Hello MahmoudAbbasAlDilfti, I don't believe there's a rule against that. In fact, some people post on their user page to advertise languages they know. You could see ifCategory:Wikipedians by language can help you find someone who knows Turkish and is willing to help. Good luck!~ L 🌸 (talk)07:00, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi!Thanks for being my mentor. I need help in improving the article, as it did not get accepted.Here's what the reviewer said:"This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:in-depth (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements)reliablesecondarystrictly independent of the subjectMake sure you add references that meet all four of these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia." --VerifiableVoice (talk)04:52, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
HiVerifiableVoice, and welcome to Wikipedia! I'll do what I can to help. It looks like you've been working onDraft:Predis.ai. That may be a tough one, since Wikipedia is pretty strict about what companies can have articles. First off I suggest you basically ignore thewriting part of the article. What matters first is theresearch -- what published sources exist to base the article on? I recommend taking a look at the advice atWP:BACKWARDS. Companies have to pass the relatively strict criteria atWP:NORG. Usually you need to find at least three sources that meetall four criteria listed atWP:SIRS. Until you've found those, it's not really worth trying to write an article -- and after you've found them, an article can be accepted even if it's just a single sentence long. I hope that help with your next steps. Let me know if you have any questions. Good luck and happy editing!~ L 🌸 (talk)07:05, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First, I notice the "we" in your response, which raises two concerns for me -- 1, it is a very strict rule thatpeople cannot share accounts and each username must be used by only one person; and, 2, our rules arounddisclosing a conflict of interest are also strict. Any kind of connection to a company, such as knowing the founders personally, is considered a "conflict of interest" on Wikipedia and must be explicitly disclosed. It's important to make sure you're following the rules in those areas; let me know if you have any questions.
As for the sources, I can try to clarify. I looked atthe Hindustan Times article and it does look to me like it could count, though it has some question marks for me.
Significant: Yes, fair bit of material about the company.
Independent: Plausible; I checkedWP:NEWSORGINDIA, which mentions that the Hindustan Times sometimes runs sponsored content as news, but I don't see a marker that this one is a "Brand post"
Reliable: Yes, as long as I'm correct that it's not a paid post
Secondary: Plausible; a lot of the article is based on an interview with the founder, which is "primary", but at the end they have also interviewed a customer. I don't have enough experience in this topic area to know if this is enough independent reporting for the article to qualify as sufficiently secondary, but it might be.
Checking a source in this level of detail is a lot of work, so it would be helpful if you posted on the article's talk page with a breakdown of 3 to 5 sources that you think meet all four of those criteria. You can write it as bullet points, ormake a table. After you've done that, you could askthe helpers at the Teahouse if anyone has enough experience with company articles to double-check your evaluation of the sources.~ L 🌸 (talk)21:18, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for catching that. The “we” was simply a habitual phrasing I slipped into, not meant to imply more than one person or any affiliation. I want to be clear that I’m the sole user of this account and have no connection to the company. I’ll make sure to stick to “I” going forward.
Thank you for the detailed breakdown!It’s really helpful to see how you’re evaluating the Hindustan Times article against the criteria. I understand the details you’ve pointed out, especially around distinguishing primary versus secondary reporting. I’ll prepare a list of 3–5 potential sources with a breakdown against the four criteria and post it on the article’s talk page as suggested. After that, I’ll reach out to the Teahouse for a second opinion to make sure I’m on the right track.
Hi! I see you were the most recent person to edit the page for Ari Chambers so I am reaching out for some help on how to get an image included on the page? We are trying to help this be a more robust entry and mirror what Ari's colleagues' pages look like
Hello, I am happy to help! I think the two most useful informational pages for you will beWP:SIMPLECOI andWP:A picture of you. It would be really wonderful if she will help add a photo to the article! I encourage you to create an account to disclose any relationship you have with Chambers; Wikipedia gets a LOT of spammers, so Wikipedians can be kind of hostile toward anyone who looks like they are being "sneaky" about a connection to the subject of an article. For an example you can see me declaring a connectionghere. I'd recommend you start with declaring any connection and working on the photo, and then I'm happy to help with any further improvements you want to make to the prose of the article. If you encounter any trouble or have any questions, feel free to ask. You can also usually get a faster response atWP:TEA. Happy editing!~ L 🌸 (talk)18:54, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The RFC phase of the July 2025 administrator elections has started. There are 10 RFCs for consideration. You can participate in the RFC phase atWikipedia:Administrator elections/July 2025/RFCs.
Any questions or issues can be asked on theelection 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, pleaseremove yourself from the list.
HelloWild west properties, and welcome to Wikipedia! First I think it's important you read our guidelines aboutmanaging a "conflict of interest" (which in a Wikipedia context means any personal connection to the subject you're writing about). You'll need to change our username -- ourrules about usernames do not allow any usernames that are the names of companies. Since you haven't made any edits with this account yet, it's probably easiest to just abandon this account and make a new one with a username that does follow our rules. (It doesn't have to beyour name -- you can pick your favourite food or a random string of letters.) Once you've done that, feel free to reply in this conversation with the new account and I can explain more about how to make an article.~ L 🌸 (talk)21:36, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just FYI, this reply is still from yourold username. I can't help you make an article until you have the new one. If you keep editing with a username that doesn't meet our rules, the "Wild west properties" username is likely to be blocked.~ L 🌸 (talk)21:41, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
HelloSimreks, I'm not sure what you mean by your "profile". If you mean that you want to delete your Wikipedia account, readHelp:Delete account. If you mean that there is an article about you on Wikipedia, in most cases it cannot be deleted; you can read theWikipedia:Guide to deletion for more information. Let me know if that does not answer your question, I will do my best to help.~ L 🌸 (talk)19:25, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As that page explains, Wikipedia does not allow deleting accounts; it is intentionally impossible to do so. In your case, this account hardly has any edit history associated with it and does not have a user page or a talk page, so there's barely anythingto delete. You can just stop logging in to Wikipedia. If you want something more final, the option is a "courtesy vanishing" of your account history. Read more about ithere. The way to request it ishere.~ L 🌸 (talk)21:40, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Most resources are not actually appropriate to use on Wikipedia. As a good rule of thumb, books, scholarly journals, and national newspapers are usually the best sources. If you tell me more about the sources you’re trying to use, I’m happy to explain more in detail.~ L 🌸 (talk)19:50, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, LEvalyn. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know thatDraft:Singing Hills Cycle, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five months. Drafts that have not been edited for six monthsmay be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, pleaseedit it again orrequest that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you canrequest it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Thursday September 18 at 3 pm UTC (8 am PST, 11 am EST) meet at (tinyurl.com/3Thurs3UTC) pass code 1234
We are getting stoked to elevate Katherine Hayles Wikipedia article to Good Status. We have had it reviewed, and there are lots of great comments to follow up on. N. Katherine Hayles - Wikipedia.
Please edit directly in the Wikipedia article, as we need as many editors as we can get to elevate that status and interest--and if you don't feel comfortable doing that, (or if you have a conflict of interest) you can always note what should be added to the article in our Google doc for drafting. tinyurl.com/welwwrite.
Running from October 1 to 31, 2025, WikiProject Women in Green (WiG) is hosting a Good Article (GA) editathon event with the themeWhat Women Do! All experience levels welcome. Never worked on a GA project before? We'll teach you how to get started. Or maybe you're an old hand at GAs – we'd love to have you involved! Participants are invited to work on nominating and/or reviewing GA submissions related to women and women's works (e.g., books, films) during the event period. We hope to collectively cover article subjects from at least31 different occupations or professions (or broader roles in society) by month's end. GA resources and one-on-one support will be provided by experienced GA editors, and participants will have the opportunity to earn a special WiG barnstar for their efforts.
Hi - I’m so pleased to have found this mentor option. I have published a draft page and would welcome your help in getting it official approved and published. I understand that I have a conflict of interest and would be happy to have someone else publish it on my behalf if that’s appropriate. --Btbeaty681 (talk)00:21, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
HelloBtbeaty681, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for being so attentive to our guidelines -- it looks like you've disclosed the COI appropriately and are using the right draft review process. My advice for people who are having trouble getting a draft approved is to basically ignore thewriting process, and focus completely on theresearch process. Wikipedia's criteria for whether an article should exist are based on what secondary sources have already been published on the topic; if you can find great secondary sources, the draft can be approved even if it's just a single sentence.
So, what are "good sources" in this context? A "good source" has to meet all four criteria of being "significant" (in-depth), independent, reliable, and secondary; more detail on those criteria is atWP:SIRS andWP:GNG. So for example,this Guardian article meets all those criteria forA'ja Wilson. It looks like Casey Sacks is in a field where it's pretty rare for people to get that kind of coverage. Some other options are to meet more specific criteria; academics can also meetWP:NPROF, or meet our criteria as authors if they have 2+ books that meet theWP:NBOOK criteria.
Looking at the draft,the article in Metro News seems like a pretty good source. It's borderline on being "independent", since it's all based on an interview with her, but you could make a case for it. We'd need a few more, though. If you want to keep looking, feel free to send me the best ones and I am happy to give you my assessment of whether they "work" and when you've likely found enough.
HiSnugglebuns, and welcome to Wikipedia! That draft honestly looks really great to me. It's clear that Brandford's works have had a real impact/legacy and many people have discussed them. I think it's ready to be published, and can continue being improved "in mainspace".
As a stylistic matter, it looks like you may be an experienced academic writer, and there are some aspects of academic writing that conflict with Wikipedia's take on an "encyclopedic tone". Specifically, Wikipedia articles rarely state in the prose where something was said, and we only namedrop who said it if it's an opinion or the source of the information is highly relevant. I made some edits to change this, so hopefully you can see what I mean.
Thank you for writing this very valuable article, and I hope you will write many more! I'm happy to offer advice or answer questions any time.~ L 🌸 (talk)03:26, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I was about to "publish" the draft, but I noticed you hadn't formally "submitted" it and I decided it would be a bit rude to move it without checking in with you. Your account isn'tquite old enough to "publish" it yourself (here we call itmoving a page) so just let me know when you think it's ready and I will be happy to do it for you.~ L 🌸 (talk)03:30, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would be happy to have you publish it, I can add the sources that you marked tomorrow and I was planning on expanding the smaller sections tomorrow as well. Thank you so much for looking over it for me, I wasn't sure if I had the tone right and figured it was best to ask!Snugglebuns (talk)03:44, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On28 September 2025,Did you know was updated with a fact from the articleAn Ideal City, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was... that Jules Verne's 1875short story about Amiens in the year 2000 describes some changes he later oversaw as a city councilor? The nomination discussion and review may be seen atTemplate:Did you know nominations/An Ideal City. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page(here's how,An Ideal City), and the hook may be added tothe statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free tonominate it.
Sure, I added the page number for the first one! The other one is from a website which does not have page numbers. (It's quoting the preface to a book but doesn't give a page number, and I haven't been able to access that book.)~ L 🌸 (talk)20:30, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was creating an article and when i went to publish it, it said that my session had expired and i had to reload the page or something like that. When i did so, all my edits were gone and my article was completely blank. Is there any way to recover my work? I have the blank article draft open right now--SelfishSalamander (talk)12:47, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’m very sorry to say that no, I don’t believe it can be recovered once you’re looking at a blank article :( This happens when the edit window is still open after the cookie expires for your login session (either after there’s been no activity in the window for a while or sometimes if you change internet connections). The best way to avoid it is to publish your current progress any time you’re going to step away from your computer (you can do this in your sandbox if the article’s not ready to be fully published yet) or writing in a file on your computer that you can save. Also, if you get that message again, you can copy the contents of the draft before refreshing and then paste them after. But sadly, those are all tips for next time… I’ve done this myself a few times and it’sso frustrating, so you have my sympathies!~ L 🌸 (talk)17:18, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Notable does not always mean admirable; you don't have to like an article's subject to make the article a useful contribution to Wikipedia.
Progress ("moving the needle"):Statistics available via various tools: previously,Humaniki tool; currently, QLever. Thank you if you contributed one or more of the 6,283 articles during this period:
19 May 2025: 20.114% of EN-WP biographies are about women (2,066,280; 415,618 women)
24 September 2025: 20.20% of EN-WP biographies are about women (2,088,533 biographies; 421,901 women)
Hey LEvalyn, I was wondering if you could take a quick look at theJoanne Segal Brandford article again. I've expanded it a good bit and wanted to get some feedback before doing more. I am worried that it is reading a little bit too much like a CV and don't want that. Also, I have talked to the photographer that did a lot of the photos for Brandford and he is in the process of re-developing some old photos that he still had in his files for us. Thanks a ton!Snuggle 🖤 (talk)21:13, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can't take a look today but will do so shortly -- glad to hear you've been working more on the article!
It's also very exciting to hear there may be some photo options! If he has photos of Brandford herself, he can certainly choose to release their copyrights to include them in Wikipedia (or there would be a strongNon-Fair-Use Rationale to include exactly one photo of her), but if you're considering photos of her artworks, it's worth keeping in mind that some artworks are themselves copyrighted. However, if the work was created before 1989 itmight not be copyrighted based on how the notice was handled; the specific requirements get pretty complicated but you'd be hoping to meet one of these conditions:PD-US-not_renewed,PD-US-no_notice, orPD-US-1978-89. Let me know if you have questions about that aspects of putting images on Wikipedia.~ L 🌸 (talk)21:39, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On 1 October 2025, a one-month backlog drive for good article nomination reviews will begin in hopes of addressing the growing backlog and to reduce old nominations.
Barnstars will be awarded based on the number, length, and age of nominations reviewed.
Each article review will earn 1 point; for each 90 days an article has been in the backlog, an additional half-point is awarded; one extra point will be awarded for every 2500 total reviewed words.
I've had the article on my watchlist and it's been wonderful to see you working through it! I think it is probably ready to be re-nominated (and theOctober Women in Green event is a great time for it -- I'm sure you'll get a speedy review. The sourcing looks improved and the "Personality and character" section is much more encyclopedic. I do notice that something is wrong with the footnotes for the two portrait paintings (mis-formatted link, and to Wikipedia?) but that should be a quick fix. Good luck with the nomination!~ L 🌸 (talk)18:19, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know a way to cite a series of references in one citation? There are six sources for a sentence and they came from the same website, but with a different page (note:this six pages are tables of information for the six objects of the article). But referencing them each in their own citation will make a line of citation that is more than three, for a kinda trivial info.
I don't know a lot about it, but I foundthis page with some more info. It looks like you can maybe run it on individual articles usingthis and there's also a way to give it a list of pages to run on. If you've just found an individual dead link, you can fix it manually by looking for an archive atthe Wayback Machine and adding that archive URL to the existing reference (I think the relevant parameter for it is archive-link= ).~ L 🌸 (talk)18:19, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) The IAbot is dissuaded from redoing the same searches over and over again by the "permanent dead link" template (and I think in some circumstances the plain "dead link" template), so if you see this, before running IAbot, you'll want to remove that template (just click on it in Visual Editor and hit delete). The template issupposed to mean that there are no archives available, but I've had plenty of luck getting IAbot to find even these "permanently" dead ones for me once it's removed. --asilvering (talk)18:32, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello L, my question revolves around conflict of interest. I created a Wikipedia profile with the intention of creating an article on a family member who is a performing artist / musician. However once I started reading the introductory information for new editors, I realized this would be contrary to the conflict of interest rules. I'm wondering what my options are: Just drop it and let natural selection take its course? Request an article? I'm pretty sure they have exceeded the notability criteria for an article, but maybe I just need to let it go and let nature take its course? Thank you for considering my query. -W --ArgentumDoctor (talk)16:00, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
HiArgentumDoctor and welcome to Wikipedia! I’m glad you’re being so conscientious. We do allow people with COIs to create articles if they use the “Articles for Creation” process, through which an unconnected editor will review the article before it is published to confirm it meets our criteria for an article to exists & is written in an encyclopedic style. So you can proceed if you use theWP:Article Wizard and make sure you declare you have a connection to the subject.
Depending on where this family member is in their career, though, they may not meet our criteria to have an article. The main criteria is the existence of multiple pieces of published, independent, significant coverage (like newspaper profiles or reviews of their albums). I suggest making sure you have enough sources before you start trying to write anything. You may find the advice atWP:BACKWARDS helpful. If you do find some sources I’m happy to look them over and let you know if I think they will work. Feel free to ask any other questions you may have as well. Happy editing!~ L 🌸 (talk)17:42, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•Major mainstream outlet: Rolling Stone is one of the most authoritative and globally recognized music publications.
•Substantial early coverage: Introduces Bella White to a national audience, highlighting her background, musical influences, and early songwriting voice.
•Independent and editorially significant: Establishes her as an emerging artist in a reputable publication before her Rounder Records signing — key evidence of early notability.
⸻
2. PopMatters — “Canada’s Bella White Is Making All the Right Moves These Days” (Michael Bialas, April 11, 2023)
•Full-length artist feature: Goes beyond album review to discuss her career trajectory, songwriting philosophy, label relationship, and growing recognition in Americana and folk circles.
•Independent critical source: PopMatters is a respected cultural journal with editorial independence and long-standing coverage of serious artists.
•Demonstrates sustained notability: Written three years after the Rolling Stone feature, showing enduring and increasing recognition across album cycles.
⸻
3. The Bluegrass Situation — “Bella White May Be the Next Queen of Country and Bluegrass Heartache” (April 2023)
Ok, this is very promising! Technically, interviews don't count as fully independent, so the BGS source can be used to write the article but it doesn't count for showing that she meets the criteria to have an article. I see some non-interview-based research in the PopMatters one, though, so that counts for the criteria, and I'd count the Rolling Stone one too. More importantly, it looks like she's released two albums that each got multiple reviews, and the reviews also count. I think you're good to go to start an article with theWP:Article Wizard!
As an additional piece of advice, I'm not sure if the summary of those sources is in your own words or if you used an AI like ChatGPT -- some bits of the phrasing/structure feel a little like how AIs answers these questions -- so I want to give you a heads-up that Wikipedia really, really opposes using AI-generated text in articles. Especially for musicians, AIs are very bad at following Wikipedia's style guidelines arounda neutral, non-promotional tone, and it's hard to make an AI stick carefully to the sources to keep everythingverifiable. You'll have more success getting a reviewer to approve your article if it's entirely in your own words, even with spelling/grammar errors, rather than using an AI output. Especially since shorter articles also tend to get reviewed and approved faster! (Less work for the reviewers!)
Great! Thank you! You have a good ear for AI! I used it to help me identify strong sources and why they were such. I actually enjoy writing and think I'm half decent at it, so I'll do that myself. I really appreciate your guidance and advice. I'll keep you posted! Cheers, -WArgentumDoctor (talk)22:35, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, folks who review COI articles all develop a good ear for AI, since it's popular with spammers... using your own writing will also help you stand out fromthat crowd. But using it to find sources like that is OK, as long as you verify for yourself what you find, so you should be all good. Have fun!~ L 🌸 (talk)22:42, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On5 October 2025,Did you know was updated with a fact from the articleBootles' Baby, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was... thatBootles' Baby's author's baby was Bootles? The nomination discussion and review may be seen atTemplate:Did you know nominations/Bootles' Baby. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page(here's how,Bootles' Baby), and the hook may be added tothe statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free tonominate it.
Bella White, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed asStub-Class, which is recorded on itstalk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as theydevelop over time. You may like to take a look at thegrading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can nowcreate articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work toArticles for creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at thehelp desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option tocreate articles yourself without posting a request toArticles for creation.
This award is given in recognition to LEvalyn for accumulating at least 5 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)03:55, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know how to archive a fine source in case that they might die in the future? I am trying to archive it without putting the Archive link in front of the original.
I think if you include both the regular link and the archive link within the reference, and include the parameter url-status=live, it will have the archive link available but will still default to the main one. Does that work?~ L 🌸 (talk)03:17, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I have been very busy in the last couple of weeks so I have not had a chance to follow up. Several articles I worked hard to rewrite and update with significant improvements were reversed by another person claiming I used an LLM to write them. It seems a little difficult for me to disprove this claim? I have no idea how they made it without citing a single error in my edits. You will not find a factual error because I worked hard to make sure there isn't one with numerous high quality citations. Maybe you could claim the language is not neutral enough for Wikipedia, and that is probably a consequence of caring about the articles that I updated. If I need to rewrite my contributions to be more neural then I will do so but I would appreciate your thoughts on what to do next.... Cheers, --Ratnapoorva (talk)23:30, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
HelloRatnapoorva, and welcome to Wikipedia. Sorry to hear you're having a frustrating experience. It looks like you've been making very big edits with some intersecting issues -- some unencyclopedic phrasings, some uncited information and information cited only to non-independent source, some over-specific local details... LLMs often sound like very excited tourist brochures, so I see why these additions raised that concern. My advice is to carefully read thepolicy about reliable sources, and then focus on making much smaller edits at a time -- working in just one section or just one paragraph. If you do less in each edit, it's easier for others to change/undo just some of your work instead of all of it at once, and that will help you get a better for which specific parts weren't working. Let me know if you have other questions, and happy editing!~ L 🌸 (talk)05:04, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you canrequest its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
HelloASKWendy, and welcome to Wikipedia. The first step is to make sure the person meets our criteria to have an article, by doing research to find multiple published sources of information about them.WP:BACKWARDS has some helpful advice. If this is a person you know, you should also readour policies around editing with a conflict of interest (Wikipedia considers it a conflict of interest if you know each other at all). On the technical side of things, you can make a draft using thearticle wizard. Let me know if you have any questions, and happy editing!~ L 🌸 (talk)21:26, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, and thank you for volunteering to mentor! I've been copy editing some pages, but I've been hesitant to remove the tag indicating that they need copy editing because I'm new and a little uncertain. Do you have any recommendation about when it is or isn't okay for me to remove those tags from an article I've looked over completely? --GreySquirrel271 (talk)17:59, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thanks for diving in on cleanup! Anyone can remove a tag once they’ve made a good faith effort to address the problem it was tagged for. Often, several people in a row are too cautious to remove the tag and so a perfectly fine article sits there tagged waiting for the hero who will un-tag it: that can be you!
Copy-editing can be a tricky one though because sometimes people tag for a copy edit but actually the page needs a deeper rewrite (for example, if it’s not neutral or has a lot of trivia). In those cases it’s ideal to remove the copy edit tag and add a more specific one about the deeper problem. But, if you don’t see that kind of issue, no need to worry about it.~ L 🌸 (talk)18:54, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi - your incredibly succinct comments on my article were more penetrating and dug a lot deeper than any other editors' comments so I thought I'd run my thoughts past you before responding formally. It is so complicated writing about a spy! Anyway, to save you looking it up you wrote:
Comment Haven't looked at the sources on him, but his one book does not passWP:NBOOK so there's noWP:ATD in converting to a book article instead (and naturally no path toWP:NAUTHOR). It does not inspire confidence in his overall notability that his own site says the book "has been self-published without any major fanfares or publicity".
I (and my colleagues who know more about Wikipedia's processes than I) had the following thoughts:
I don’t think it would be right to conclude that Beyond Enkription fails WP:NBOOK or that there’s “no path” to WP:NAUTHOR or any valid WP:ATD. The book has been commented on independently, including in two factual documentaries by Spain’s national broadcaster RTVE (El Archivo Burlington and El hombre de Pemberton – MI6), both of which included examinations of the autobiography’s authenticity. The book is mostly autobiographical, giving it a factual dimension that goes beyond ordinary fiction and that has attracted journalistic attention. While the author notes in his website that (in 2014) it was “self-published without any major fanfares or publicity” that modest launch makes the subsequent international coverage and sustained public interest all the more notable. In 2015, to satisfy demand from customers, a hardback edition was released by Dolman Scott, a recognised UK publisher of independent titles. Since then the book has drawn steady reader interest with over one hundred reviews averaging over four stars on Amazon and Goodreads alone. Taken together, these points show that both the book and its author meet the spirit of WP:NBOOK and WP:NAUTHOR, and at the very least merit consideration under WP:ATD rather than outright deletion.
In addition it should be noted that:
· The AfD concerns the biographical article (Bill Fairclough), not a stand-alone book article. Whether the book meets WP:NBOOK is tangential: the biography must be judged under WP:GNG and WP:NBLP. The author’s achievements, broadcast coverage and corporate record are independent of the publishing route.
· The RTVE documentaries are editorially independent factual investigations that analyse both the book’s content and the veracity of its autobiographical claims. This constitutes significant coverage under WP:NBOOK and reliable secondary analysis under WP:GNG.
· Regarding verified sustained public interest, numerous reader reviews and a later hardback edition by a third-party publisher evidence continuing relevance and address any possible “self-published” concerns.
· Even if any editor doubts strict compliance with NBOOK or NAUTHOR, WP:ATD requires editors to explore constructive outcomes instead of deletion. The assertion that there is no ATD contradicts this policy directive.
· The use of the phrase “does not inspire confidence” is a subjective opinion and conjecture. AfD outcomes must rest on verifiable evidence and Wikipedia’s written guidelines, not on personal impressions.
· When combined with the RTVE broadcasts, verified career data and documented literary reception, both Mr Fairclough and his principal work satisfy the spirit and purpose of WP:NBOOK and WP:NAUTHOR and therefore comfortably justify retention under WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE.
The sheer volume of our thoughts is testament to just how succinct your comments were! Maybe you might consider these and see if you wish to amend your original succinct comment. Best wishes SapientiaLudensSapientiaLudens (talk)19:42, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This response is quite excessive in length and does not demonstrate a very accurate understanding of Wikipedia's policies, but I'll engage with the substantive information you provide.WP:UGC reviews like Amazon and Goodreads are irrelevant to NBOOK. The existence of a hardback edition is irrelevant to NBOOK. The two Spanish TV broadcasts are in fact interviews, and thus non-independent and irrelevant to NBOOK. EvaluatingWP:NAUTHOR was my generosity to you: a subject does not always need to pass GNG if aWP:SNG is passed instead, so I checked for a plausible SNG option; however, NAUTHOR requiresmultiple NBOOK passes, so the best case scenario in terms of SNGs would be converting the article into one about the book as an alternative to deletion. If the book had at least two independent, published reviews, I would support a book article as an alternative to deletion. Alas, this is not so.~ L 🌸 (talk)19:54, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your speedy response which in your own subjective words "does not inspire confidence". Many of Wikipedia's standards and processes seem to have been born to be wildly manipulated. As Voltaire cautioned, “Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities" even if only in writing. Best wishes SapSapientiaLudens (talk)21:47, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Today, I just stumbled upon a wiki article about a town called "Prusa" while working on articles aboutBursa, which is the successor town of the former. I think the article needs to be merged to the "Bursa" article, because most of the article is already written either in the article about Bursa or the one aboutCius, which is the predecessor of both towns.
I am not saying that there is no distinct information in the article at all. It's just that I don't think the city's timeline is extraordinary/different enough to be created independently from the history section of the Bursa article, unlike Cius.
Overall, the reason I am writing this here is because the article's creator,carlossuarez46, has long retired and that I actually have yapped another essay to him about different issue, which is now currently in the archive, unreplied. And also, I think you may know what article that can or can't be merged.
I see why you think a merge is a good idea! There is (naturally) a whole process for merging, which you can read about atWikipedia:Merging. It doesn't sound like this move would be controversial, but a merge proposal will demonstrate that consensus. Let me know if you have any trouble with it!~ L 🌸 (talk)05:08, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good day, I made a whole new article and it's ready in my sandbox. For some reason I don't find the "move" button to get it into a draft and submit it for review. I only see "publish" on top of the sandbox but then it is not going live on Wikipedia. Can you help me out? Greetings --Otival (talk)07:30, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! If you're talking aboutDraft:Lavito, it looks like a bot did come by and add the "Articles for Creation" interface to let you submit it for review. The simplest way to set up the submission details for future drafts is to use theWP:Article Wizard rather than your sandbox (it will do it for you). It also looks like a reviewer has already come by and declined the draft. It looks like Lavito is a successful musician but I don't see that he yet meets any ofour criteria to have an article. It's possible he might meetour criteria for actors if you can find 2+ reviews each for 2+ performances he was in (eg the Oliver Twist production and the film he starred in). In general, you might find theadvice in this essay helpful -- before you spend any more time writing this draft, I encourage you to spend your time on researching sources and confirming that there are enoughsignificant, independent, reliable publications. They don't have to be in English! I'm happy to offer advice about specific possible sources if you have questions. Good luck, and happy editing!~ L 🌸 (talk)13:17, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
HiNathanmc2000, and welcome to Wikipedia!User:Nathanmc2000 is your user page, which you shouldn't use to write articles; it's a place for editors to introduce themselves to each other, as you can see at my user page,User:LEvalyn. If you want to write an article, the simplest way is probably to use theWP:Article Wizard, which will handle giving it the right name and also letting you submit the article through our review process.
Something I notice about what you have so far is that it doesn't cite any sources. For a topic to meetour criteria to have an article, there need to be secondary sources about the topic that the article is based on. It's OK for plot summaries and cast lists to be uncited (the idea is that all the info is in the show itself) but some part of the article should still have sources. In this case, I suggest adding some information on the production, release, or reception of the special. Let me know if you have more questions as you work, and happy editing!~ L 🌸 (talk)18:34, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good morning sir, i am entirely new to wikipedia and i want to start by contributing an article on military and National Cadet Corps of India and its achievements. Can you guide me? --Nishant 43 (talk)02:13, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia! It looks like there is already an article,National Cadet Corps (India), which you could contribute to. I notice a lot of the material there does not cite any sources, so you could improve it by findingreliable sources on the topic, making sure the article matches what the sources say, and adding citations to those sources. However, India's military history is recognized here as a "contentious topic". so it may not be the best place to make your very first edits -- on contentious topic, there's a lot less wiggle room for mistakes. I suggest looking for another topic that interests you (popular media is a common one) and contributing to articles related to that topic while you learn the rope. If you have any questions as you work, I'm happy to answer, or for a faster response you can ask atthe Teahouse, our question forum for newcomers. Happy editing!~ L 🌸 (talk)06:51, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just changed my draft and submitted it again. Will it be reviewed again, or do I need to create a separate submission? If so, how would I do that? --4theculture (talk)16:51, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On30 October 2025,Did you know was updated with a fact from the articleLady Jennifer, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was... that the novelLady Jennifer sometimes came with a book of advice promoting John Strange Winter Toilet Preparations? The nomination discussion and review may be seen atTemplate:Did you know nominations/Lady Jennifer (novel). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page(here's how,Lady Jennifer), and the hook may be added tothe statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free tonominate it.
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.
This award is given toLEvalyn for accumulating at least 30 points in theOctober 2025 GAN Backlog Drive. Your dedicated reviews contributed to the successful reduction of the backlog and helped improve the quality of articles. Here's our token of appreciation. Thank you for your time and efforts, and hopefully we'll see you soon again!Bgsu98(Talk)23:09, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
BeanieFan11 (submissions) with 1,035 round points, mostly from 19 good articles and 21 did you know articles about athletes
vigilantcosmicpenguin (submissions) with 819 round points, mostly from 13 good articles and 11 did you know articles about a wide range of topics from abortion topics to African cities
TheNuggeteer (submissions) with 508 round points from 9 good articles, 4 good topic articles and 6 did you know articles mainly about Philippines topics, along with 19 good article reviews
The final round was very productive, and contestants had 2featured articles, 4featured lists, 106good articles, 5good topic articles, 178 article reviews, 76did you know articles, and 9in the news articles. Altogether, Wikipedia has benefited greatly from the activities of WikiCup competitors all through the contest. Well done everyone!
The top eight scorers will receive awards shortly. The following special awards will be made, based on high performance in particular areas of content creation. These prizes are awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field during the competition.
Gog the Mild (submissions) wins the featured article prize, with 12 featured articles total, and the featured topic prize, with 9 featured topic articles in total
AirshipJungleman29 (submissions) wins the featured picture prize, submitting the only featured picture in the entire contest during round 3
History6042 (submissions) wins the featured content reviewer prize, with 127 featured content reviews. He will also share the ITN prize, with 20 in the news articles in total.
BeanieFan11 (submissions) wins the good article prize, with 100 good articles total, and the DYK prize, with 147 did you know articles in total. He will also share the ITN prize, with 20 in the news articles in total.
Next year's competition will begin on 1 January. You are invited tosign up to participate. The WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors, and we hope to see you all in the 2026 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement!
Hello,there is user that changed the information onMirzapur District about the language spoken there. Although earlier it was mentioned Bhojpuri is spoken which is true and its mentioned in everywhere from census to govt data. But a user kept changing it. I have asked someone who already a admin but he keep changing. I dont think there is need to dicuss when its clearly a wrong info. --Adrikshit (talk)05:20, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I was wondering if you could revisitthis change to theLaurence Sterne article. There are short references to "Sandhu 1998" and "Carretta 2015" inserted in the text, but they do not have an entry giving the full details in the references section. Could you supply this information to clear the reference errors?Keith D (talk)00:02, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes, thanks for the catch and my apologies! I was duplicating some material I'd written atTristram Shandy that I considered an improvement, but forgot to bring over the full references too. Fixed now!~ L 🌸 (talk)01:43, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My Goal: To permanently add highly accurate, cited historical and geographical information about the Aguri / Ugra Kshatriya community to their Wikipedia page.The Problem: The "Caste" topic area is under the Extended Confirmed Restriction (ECR). My account is too new (lacks 30 days / 500 edits), and all my previous, uncited, good-faith edits were quickly removed (due to WP:NOR/WP:V policy violations).The Request: I need an experienced editor (with ECR status) to help me post two fully sourced, policy-compliant sections, or help me find the final, hard-to-access source needed for the most important claim.Part 1: Section Ready for Immediate Posting (Surnames)This section is complete and fully sourced to accepted ethnographical references (H.H. Risley, via Indpaedia).Proposed Section Text:
As a community with strong historical ties to landholding, cultivation, and administration within the Rarh region, members of the Aguri (Ugra Kshatriya) community commonly carry a variety of surnames and titles. The most frequently identified family names associated with the community, particularly in Western Bengal (including the Bardhaman district), include:
**Chand**
**Chowdhuri**
**Dikpati**
**Hazra**
**Jana**
**Josh**
**Karfa**
**Khan**
**Konar**
**Kundu**
**Mandal**
**Nandi**
**Nayak**
**Panja**
**Roy** (or Ray)
**Rudra**
**Samanta**
**Sarkar**
Some of these titles, such as **Konar, Panja, Samanta,** and **Chowdhuri**, are specifically noted in ethnographical studies as being highly prevalent and are associated with their historical function as administrative or military titles.[1]Part 2: High-Priority Section (Regional Concentration)This section makes the most important claim (concentration in Paschim Bardhaman) --S.CHAND007 (talk)18:05, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! This doesn’t appear to be a message addressed to a human? I’m a volunteer Wikipedia editor. I can answer your questions if you have any, or you can get a quicker response atour help forum.~ L 🌸 (talk)18:15, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This barnstar is given in recognition of your contributions to theOctober 2025 "What Women Do" Women in Green Good Article Editathon! Together, we nominated 27 Good Articles and conducted 19 GA reviews. We exceeded our goal, addressing 34 different occupations. Thank you for improving the quality of Wikipedia's coverage of women!~ L 🌸 (talk)23:14, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you canrequest its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
I'm new to Wikipedia, but I've always been a connoisseur of knowledge- I'd love to help make an impact here in Wikipedia. However, getting used to the overall format and criteria for articles is something I'd like a bit of guidance on. Thanks <3! --71Moose (talk)00:58, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. Alleligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia 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 imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello, LEvalyn. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know thatDraft:A Caricature Group, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five months. Drafts that have not been edited for six monthsmay be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, pleaseedit it again orrequest that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you canrequest it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
WikiProject Articles for creation is holding amonth longBacklog Drive in December! The goal of this drive is toreduce 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 isno official difference between an administrator appointed through RFA versus administrator elections.
Ask any questions about the process at thetalk 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, pleaseremove yourself from the list.
.jpg)
