This user talk page might bewatched by friendlytalk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.
Request for deleted content to create updated draft
Hello! I would like to retrieve the deleted material for Draft:Intero Digital to make improvements and revisions to a new draft. Could you share that, please? Thank youLauren Tellman (talk)18:40, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's strange! The first one doesn't give me an error. Have you tried copying and pasting the URL into your browser instead of clicking? The article is behind a paywall, but many of the reputable news outlets have paywalls to access the content. Is that where the error is coming from?Lauren Tellman (talk)17:01, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It's possible that your link is a paywall-only link. But a 403 error would be a weird one to get there. I did just try googling and got a mirror here:[1]. I would say this is not really significant coverage, sorry. --asilvering (talk)18:30, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Biologybaddie, welcome to wikipedia! We have a guideline for this around here somewhere with more information (maybe one of my talk page watchers knows it), but in general topics we aim for "as approachable as possible". A good basic rule of thumb is that the article should be readable by people who are a "step down" from where it's normally taught. So if it's a very advanced concept that no one is dealing with until they're PhD students, you don't need to try to figure out how to make it legible to 8th graders, but you'd want to aim for something that someone with an advanced undergraduate's understanding could read. If it's something from Chem 101 a highschooler should be able to read it. etc. --asilvering (talk)14:46, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply. I had one other question regarding extended-confirmed-protection pages. Is one able to send on the talk page for one without being confirmed? I was unsure how that works, but I mainly joined Wikipedia since I noticed a source inconsistency on one of the extended-confirmed-protection pages.UnknownPotatos (talk)20:47, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@UnknownPotatos, you can post on the talk page unless it'salso under page protection, which only happens to talk pages very rarely. But most talk pages don't get a lot of traffic, so if you post to ask about about something that's wrong on the article, chances are no one will notice. If you use an edit request though, it will go into a queue for more experienced editors to have a look at and implement for you.WP:ERW makes this easier but if you want the full instructions page that's atWP:EDITREQ. --asilvering (talk)07:49, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Changes to theAccess to Temporary Account IP Addresses Policy's disclosure rules include broadening the consecutive-blocks exception to cover all admin actions and removing the requirement to revision-delete permissible disclosures once they become unnecessary (instead requiring only their removal). SeeWP:TAIVDISCLOSE for more information.
Dear Asilvering i'll admit that Its me @Pandachini bananini so anyway could you not block me for block evasion? 1 idk what that means. 2 first johannnes19 (or 89 i dont remember) blocked me for something then some other guy global blocks my account and then i waited till block ran out to create another account to try to be nice and not troll. So then i grew a new fear a fear for being blocked for block evasion even though I waited for block to pass. But my main subject is because i am no longer trolling and you are a good person give me advice to do good and please no one delete this oh and asilvering if you want further proof that i am not Isma4l ask him what is my age and once he tells you dont tell me what he said just say on my talk page its my turn to answer and if we have same number we are same account but if we have diferent numbers he aint my account I have no idea who he is. But give me an advice to do goodSea Eater (talk)06:44, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oh andTHANK YOU for believing in me you should use the user oops templatelook
This user tries to do the right thing. If they make a mistake, pleaselet them know.
For asking some of the right questions, even if they went unanswered and to little effect. It was reassuring to hear a measured minority voice in spite of the faults of the wider process.Iskandar323 (talk)08:55, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I am here because I would like to create a page for Hollywood comedy screenwriter Eddie Moran (1899-1987). He is mentioned on many wikipages but there are not hyperlinks for a page to him. Any help is appreciated. --WikiKahan2026 (talk)04:46, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @WikiKahan2026, welcome to wikipedia! I've left some helpful links on your user talk page. The easiest way to start a wikipedia article is viaWP:WIZARD, and I'd suggest readingWP:FIRST in particular, but my advice would be to hang onto that idea for now. It's really tough to write a decent new article from scratch without any other editing experience. If you work on other articles for a while first, you'll find it much easier. --asilvering (talk)02:09, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking of removing the wizard link (which you inserted last month) from this one block. Uw-spamublock is quite specific in its requirements, and they don't match what the wizard is asking for. As you know, without the wizard, we require:
Disclose any compensation you may receive for your contributions in accordance with the paid-contribution disclosure requirement; and
Convince us that you understand the reason for your block and that you will not repeat the kind of edits for which you were blocked; and
Describe in general terms the contributions that you intend to make if you are unblocked; and
Provide a new username.
But with the wizard, we find them instead answering:
Can you explain, in your own words, why your edits were promotional?
What is your relationship with the subjects you have been editing about?
If you are unblocked, what topic areas will you edit in?
Is there anything else that may be helpful to your unblock request?
I think theydo line up pretty well, and are more likely to get useful answers out of editors than the four questions we currently provide. Have you been finding that unblock requests made using the wizard have been unusually poor? --asilvering (talk)02:03, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'll start logging. I find the wizard output annoying in the first place -- it emphasizes the questions rather than the answers, and puts them in harder-to-read bold italic. That's just my own keep-it-clean aesthetic bias. I'll start collecting and comparing. The one I was looking at that showed it all poorly is atUser talk:Holykailashtours; there's a useless AI-generated blob first; then I see no attempt to disclose any compensation or discussion of that specific requirement, nothing that even vaguely tries to convince us that they understand the reason for their block, no description in general terms of intended contributions. It's a whole different set of requirements -- no, it isn't even requirements, it's just suggested verbiage.--jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇03:31, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
In that particular case, we've got a perfect A/B test right there on their talk page: we got AI slop before, and incoherent (but not AI!) responses afterwards. Which is to say, I don't think this example tells us much. But we could try adding a bit more to some of the questions. Maybe: "Can you explain, in your own words, why your edits were promotional? How will you avoid promotional editing in the future?" and "What is your relationship with the subjects you have been editing about? Please disclose any compensation you may receive for your contributions in accordance with the paid-contribution disclosure requirement." --asilvering (talk)05:05, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happy to test out variations on instructions too. But, as I'm sure you've noticed, the current set of instructions don't tend to elicit very helpful responses. Anything that can help people make decent or at least half-decent unblock requests on the first try will save us all a lot of time and bother, and will save the blocked editors frustration as well. If it doesn't work, it doesn't work, and we can just stick a single field in the unblock wizard template and put the old instructions in it. I do have hopes that breaking up the questions like this at least reduces the amount of AI-generated slop appeals we get. --asilvering (talk)06:15, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't really weighed what proportion of spamublock unblock requests are deficient. We should get some metrics and figure out if there's really a problem. I think there was a noticeable, maybe even significant, drop in legitimate-and-unsatisfactory requests after I tweaked the requirements section, but that could well be confirmation bias on my part. Now, we're telling them two different sets of things they should do to get unblocked; are the ones in the block notice required, or the ones in the wizard questions? Or both? It seems...messy. This needs a broader audience, anyway.--jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇06:32, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the wizard questions:
1. lines up with the first half of 2. from the block template
2. is a more general version of 1. from the block template – ideally, we do want non-paid COI editors to be transparent with their COI for an unblock
3. addresses 3. from the block template in more accessible terms, which also provides reassurances for the second half of 2.
4. is an optional "free-form" field
Additionally, the wizard has a parameter to add another field at the top asking for a new username, lining up with 4. from the block template. So, the wizard questions are really just a more accessible version of the block template requests, although slightly reordered.More generally, blocked editors will virtually never address the points from the unblock template in that strict order, as they're less a list of questions and more a set of requirements. Before the wizard, most of them did not address these points at all, or only incidentally. Now, the wizard offers much more structure to that and actually guides them towards giving the relevant information.Also, courtesy ping to @GoldRomean who's been working on some statistics about this.ChaoticEnby (talk ·contribs)22:00, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This is awarded to Asilvering for accumulating more than 114 points during theDecember 2025 AfC backlog drive. Your dedication and contributions to Wikipedia's content review process were crucial in reviewing over 9,000 drafts during the drive. Thank you for your participation and helping to reduce the backlog!~/Bunnypranav:<ping>15:37, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Many people review drafts.You review the reviewers. You peer-reviewed the peer reviewers and supported your fellow Wikipedians. :) This is awarded to Asilvering for completing more than 50 re-reviews during theDecember 2025 AfC backlog drive. Thank you for your efforts and teamwork!~/Bunnypranav:<ping>08:22, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
While I thank you a lot for that, I am just baffled that it had to get to this point. I never thought I'd see the day where this is even needed. A very strange case, I know that editors can (and have) been attacked by people like this before, I just never thought that I'd be targeted. I mean, it is possible that I did think so because of my identity and ethnicity and the like, but more often than not, the editors targeted for stuff like this are editors who are either admins, anti-vandalism-related editors or just the type that clean up messes that people like this tend to make. As such, as someone who's activity is...well, I really can't tell why some random person would look at my activity and be mad at it, it's just so weird to me. This is just another reminder that you never can tell on here. I must thank you and the other admins for cleaning this mess up, and I hope that this won't happen again but if it does, I guess I can get used to nonsense like that.S.G. (They/Them)(Talk)(Edits)08:05, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I can tell you that I think it's very unlikely you've been targettedbecause of your ethnicity/identity. I think they've just picked up on that as something they can use. --asilvering (talk)08:11, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Probably. I'm just baffled that someone wouldwant to do this tome. Then again, I think every user who's been targeted like this before has had the same sort of reaction. There was another odd user,~2026-25311-8, who kept talking about "liquids" in their shower for some reason? They were blocked as a possible sock of another TA who just yelled slurs and told me to die, though they were also blocked for disruptive editing as well. What rubs me the wrong way aboutthis one is the pronouns used. "We". We? Who's we? I doubt that there's multiple people involved in this nonsense but if there are, then good lord,don't these people have anything better to do? Again, thank you and if this keeps happening and it really does turn out that there's multiple people involved, do what you need to do. I trust you :)S.G. (They/Them)(Talk)(Edits)08:18, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly don't know what kind of other evidence to provide, beyond what I explained in my message to @User:Newslinger. Is it enough to post the same comment? Should I provide diffs of theWP:AE filings they both made? Also not sure its the same puppetmaster, but rather a related one from a larger network that seems to operate in collaboration. The details are all very opaque to me. Its more of an instinct/behavioural thing.Tiamut (talk)08:41, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Providing diffs of the AE filings would help, yes. Saves me having to dig them up. When filers say things like "these appear to be part of a network that operates in collaboration" I tend to get pretty skeptical, especially when nationalisms are involved (everyone thinks their own nationalism is the only obvious one and everyone against them is working together), but if you have any off-wiki evidence of that you'd want to send that to arbcom instead. --asilvering (talk)16:30, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you will permit me a sigh of despair. I think they, like I do, get stuck into things and have to learn how to extract themselves before it goes belly up for them. They appear to be choosing an inexorable route to being blocked again. 🇵🇸🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸18:59, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I live in an area calledHope Valley already. I want this editor to succeed. Thank you for telling both to drop the stick. We all must wait to see if they will take firm advice and act on it. I fear they are heading towards self-immolation over this. For your part and mine I think we each have done the best we possibly can. 🇵🇸🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸08:38, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Won't be me at this point, since they've expressed an intention to appeal my unblock conditions. (And I already feel like I've handed them a loaded gun simply for informing them of the process...) --asilvering (talk)21:25, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
indeed, even were it allowed, you are ethical and would not. It needs to be an admin wholly uninvolved, as we both know.
Guns may be unloaded and placed safely in a gun safe. That is a free choice. I hope they make the correct one, but, put plain, any choice right now would be welcome.
hello, im new to editing.im inspired by many things such as Art and im also on fandom.If u could help me edit sometime i will be very happy. Yours SincerelyThekokonator
Hi, dear mentor. Happy Wikipedia anniversary! Here's to more laughs, and more adventures on the incomplete jigsaw puzzle globe. Also, congratulations on your induction into ArbCom. Cheers!
@Lemur3215, those are all pretty old, so there's nothing really to do about them, but I've set up an archive bot on the page. If you see people making "random opinions about stuff" kind of posts and it's fresh (like within the past couple of days), you can simply remove it and citeWP:NOFORUM. --asilvering (talk)02:03, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Question fromHIusing wiki (17:14, 17 January 2026)
Hi @HIusing wiki, welcome to Wikipedia! You can also create new articles, viaWP:WIZARD. Before you do that, you'll want to readWP:FIRST. But I really recommend that you get experience doing normal editing of articles that already exist before you try creating a new one from scratch. --asilvering (talk)21:06, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No need, you filled out the SPI correctly. I've closed it - just go ahead and assume those are all the same person. People can't always control whether they have more than one temporary account. --asilvering (talk)02:55, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Starting over fresh on a new account, as I don't feel like waiting six months to rename my account once more as I do not like this name to the extent it is de-motivating me from doing anything on Wikipedia, so @Asilvering and @Adolphus79, till we meet again, I think this is goodbye.MosquitoDestroyer (talk)04:04, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for all of your recent help atACC. YourCU goggles played a big role in taking the (cursed) backlog from 135 requests down to 70. That means dozens of new users can now start improving(or vandalizing, we'll see lol)the encyclopedia thanks to you. I really appreciate the time and effort you have already put in, and ACC is better for it. Happy editing! - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆(𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥15:30, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't notice them putting words in your mouth. Had I noticed, I would certainly have reverted. Thanks for doing so. Let's hope this is the last we hear from that troll. --Yamla (talk)00:54, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I am working for the Milwaukee Turners, a distinguished social justice organization here in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and we are hoping to edit certain Wikipedia pages of those who we have recently found out were a Turner in the past. Is this possible? --Alyssa.samson (talk)13:44, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Alyssa.samson, welcome to wikipedia! It is possible, yes. But you'll need to have a published source that verifies the claim - do you have those? If it's just something you found in your org's own records, I'm afraid that's no good. SeeWP:V for details. --asilvering (talk)07:23, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @StudiousGriffon, welcome to wikipedia! In this case, actually, it looks likethey probably got it fromus. Here's what the article looked like at the end of 2014:[2]. So in this particular case, unless you have good reason to believe that pdf is created from something even earlier (which it may be), the thing to do is ad{{backwards copy}} toTalk:Alamo, California, at the top where all the other templates are.
If itwas a copyright violation, you'd want to remove the content and tag it for revision deletion, or post it toWP:CP for someone else to help. Rather than explain that to you, I'll leave you to muddle your way through that page on your own first - can you let me know if it makes sense, or, if it doesn't, where it stops making sense? I think this page probably still needs some help and newbies looking to do something for the first time are an ideal test audience. --asilvering (talk)00:09, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry @NewestPiano, I can't be sure. But my guess is that the spaces are there in the source code. Mediawiki will just ignore extra spaces when it's published, so it's probably nothing you need to worry about. --asilvering (talk)09:02, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Asilvering! I am a little confused by some of the punctuation: brackets, etc, on the editing page, but my real challenge is how to change the citations. --HMS President (talk)02:48, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@HMS President, if you use the Visual Editor (this is the one that looks like a word processor, not source code with all the brackets and so on), there's a "cite" button in the toolbar that will automatically format citations for you if you have a URL/doi/ISBN. More details atWP:REFB. Let me know if you're still stuck. --asilvering (talk)09:04, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your assistance. This is a lot more complicated than I expected! I will change my user name and I do have a draft of how I think the entry should read, but right now I cannot make sufficient sense of the guidance to submit it to the editors. --HMS President (talk)03:04, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@HMS President, doesWP:ERW help make sense of it for you? This wizard helps you format an edit request properly, so if that's the bit that is confusing, problem solved. If you're having trouble with something else, can you describe the problem a bit more for me? --asilvering (talk)09:06, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. The page does not appear to me to do anything remotely like "helps format an edit request". The Hartford Medical Society site is very out of date and really in need of an overhaul. Is there a way I can submit a new article in entirety to another editor who could then perform the on-line process? That would allow me to avoid having to learn this very complex process? By the way, I was able to change the opening sentence, but then could not apply the appropriate new citation.HMS President (talk)17:32, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You can try writing a new draft, sure:WP:WIZARD. But that might be more of the same issue? It will let you use theWYSIWYG editor though, which might help. Make sure you change your username before you make any edits, though. --asilvering (talk)01:06, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The Amsterdam one is a proxy, yes. The other is not, and if you look a bit closer at it you'll probably be able to infer why it's not in the usual place. --asilvering (talk)23:59, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. They've been travelling. Fewer SPI reports in the last little while, so I assume they've gone back to the usual ranges, which are still blocked. --asilvering (talk)00:02, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This range has spent a ton of time blocked for checkuser issues as a range of proxy addresses; see[3]. The block is not set to impact logged-in users, so I don't really understand why it would be catching good-faith editors. I've unblocked for now but I am concerned about leaving a range of proxy servers wide open. (ESkog)(Talk)14:45, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@ESkog, when you block account creation, that prevents all editors from creating new accounts. That means good-faith editors are unable to edit around the block. You can also see many good-faith editors in the edit history of this IP here:[4]. The block was cutting off all of them too.
There have only been four blocks on this range in the last five years, most of them brief; prime's is targetted and brad's was marked as ACC ignore. So that's not a strong foundation for a block. I'm not at all sure why you think this is a proxy. It's not a proxy - it's a mobile network. A very heavily used mobile network. --asilvering (talk)15:49, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hey. I want to create this page, but I see that it was deleted. How is it possible that the banned user created a page? Is it ok to recreate it? Can I ask why the author got banned?jcubic (talk)21:39, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Jcubic, it was created by a sockpuppet account they made to get around the ban, which was subsequently discovered and blocked. It's fine for you to recreate the page. --asilvering (talk)00:03, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I usually just ignore word limits since they are unhelpful. Should I rewrite and edit to meet the limit? That seems incompatible with your request to stop editing the statement. So it is unclear what I should do.
If I should respect the word limit then I need to drastically edit what I wrote, and using <ins> and <del> and the like would make it incomprehensible.Polygnotus (talk)11:11, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It sure would make it incomprehensible, yes. My general suggestion would be to write your statements in a text file first and get all your tinkering out of the way before posting them on wikipedia. As for rewriting to meet the limit, I would say don't bother, though you may have a clerk come by and rap your knuckles about it. Just don't add any more. --asilvering (talk)11:17, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Tried a different tactic. Thinking, like Wikipedia editing, is an iterative process. No one can complain about limits now. Hope this helps,Polygnotus (talk)12:04, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the change. I apologize for neglecting to ask you to consider changing your following second-level comments so that they preserve the list style of the first-level list, by changing the prefix to*: instead of::. Thanks again.isaacl (talk)01:55, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to provide the details, but I'm a text-based AI and don't have the capability to send voice recordings 😊. However, I can give you the details in text format:
Radha Bhava Gaura Das is a senior ISKCON devotee, initiated by Kirtananda Swami Maharaj in 1982, and later by HH Jayapataka Swami Maharaj. He's the Temple President of ISKCON Shyamadesh Yatra in Sharjah, UAE.
Some key points about him:- Initiated in 1982 by Kirtananda Swami Maharaj- Later initiated by HH Jayapataka Swami Maharaj- Temple President of ISKCON Shyamadesh Yatra, Sharjah- Well-versed in Srimad Bhagavatam and Bhagavad Gita- 43+ years of service in ISKCON- Experience in Germany, Oman, and UAE- Topper in Bhagavad Gita advanced course (1987-88)
Hi. @Easternsahara has once again violated their topic ban withthis edit atTalk:Ali Shaath. The article page and the talk page both have the ARBPIA template, and the article is clearly related to the conflict.
Hi, I’m creating the article for Western Canada Marine Response. I attempted to upload the organization’s logo, but my account is not yet confirmed. Could an experienced editor please upload the logo locally as a non-free logo for use in the infobox? Source:https://www.wcmrc.com --Aryan.M.Chambyal (talk)15:33, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Fabochemkwani, doesWP:REFB answer your questions about citations? As far as drafting articles, my advice is that you work on improving articles that already exist for a while before trying to create new ones yourself. --asilvering (talk)23:03, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing. But you'll see the difference if you look in source mode. I tend to write articles this way when I write from scratch, since it's cleaner and easier for me to find footnotes this way. --asilvering (talk)22:46, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I asked a similar question to this in the Help Desk and they said it might be a good idea to reach out to the clerk involved with my SPI case so here I am!
I made a SPI report for a user, and while that user did end up being a sockpuppet, they weren't the sp of the sockmaster I thought they were. This made me start thinking about the Evidence needed to submit a SPI review.
Do you think my SPI review was reasonable? The SPI report page states that there must be clear evidence, but thats such a subjective term it's hard to know what that means.Id really appreciate any and all feedback on this topic. Thank you!Mustbeotherwise (talk)02:16, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think that's pretty obviously not ChronicleBooks885, but I can see why you thought it might be. CB885 is a prolific teahouse/refdesk troll, you saw someone trolling the teahouse in a way you thought was similar, and you reported it - that's all fine. You provided the right kinds of evidence. You were just wrong. It's perfectly ok to be wrong sometimes. --asilvering (talk)04:48, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thats a relief! I really do appreciate you taking the time to respond to me.
Linguistic differences. CB885 example grammar:[5],[6]. Your sock, saying basically the same thing, but in different grammar:[7]. Plus, CB885 tends to write a Teahouse post and a refdesk post at basically the same time. --asilvering (talk)05:01, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Either way, it's clear I have a lot to learn. I sincerely appreciate your helpfulness and patience while us newcomers bumble our way through Wikipedia! -Otherwise (Talk?)06:49, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Asilvering, i have a question, when editing wikipedia articles where can i put my sources so that other editors will not delete and reedit my edits, thank you. --Carl Cedrick (talk)19:59, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Carl Cedrick, welcome to wikipedia! We generally want to see a footnote at the end of the sentence or section you've added that verifies the statement. There are built-in tools that will format these for you - seeWP:REFB for details, and feel free to come back and ask for help if you get stuck. --asilvering (talk)17:42, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The sock farm ones are scams. They make promises they can't keep and charge money for them. Some of them even go on the offense against subjects that decide not to work with them, or get in AFD wars with rival sockfarms who got a contract they were angling for. And they're well aware that if they list their actual client list we'll triangulate the socks and block the whole set. --asilvering (talk)17:40, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it saysIn your request, you should briefly (in 1–2 sentences) include (a) why you need additional words and (b) a broad outline of what you hope to discuss in your extended submission. So rather than have them read "A broad outline" for my request of like 200-300 (depending on what word counter you use) words, I just showed them what I wanted to say. I don't understand what you want me to do?Levivich (talk)21:00, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Levivich, you asked for words,after you'd already made the post. Please ask for permission rather than begging for forgiveness. "I want to respond to x and I believe words quoted from arbs are exempt from the word count" is all you need to say. Unfortunately I don't know the answer to that question so I can't just give you the go-ahead right now and you'll have to ask it on the talk page. --asilvering (talk)21:14, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I really do appreciate it. As for the rest, I don't know that thereis a "right way", which at the moment is causing some decision paralysis on the part of the clerks. Perhaps we'll solve this by motion!(oh god) In the meantime I'm personally requesting "the way that makes the clerks less sad and asilvering less insane". --asilvering (talk)21:42, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Anything to cheer up those poor clerks! You want my 2c? Just bump it to 750 or 1000. My impression after years of reading arbcom cases is that people almost never ask for more than 1,000, but commonly ask for 500-1000, especially 500-750. This ain't twitter, we shouldn't be communicating in sound bites. It's hard to express any kind of nuanced/involved thought in under 500 words--that's enough for a hot take, not a discussion. And exclude quotes, because quotes just make things easier for people since they have to click less. (Quotes are already excluded from the 1,000-word CTOP limit.) If I removed the quotes from my statement, I'd be way under 500 and wouldn't need to ask for an extension, but would that make my statement easier or harder to understand? Anyway, thanks and cheers!Levivich (talk)21:49, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I was hoping to gain insight about creating new wikipedia pages? There are certain companies and people that are high profile and missing from Wikipedia and I was hoping to gain insight on how to begin the process of building a page? --Emckenzie21 (talk)22:08, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
And to follow up on that, I would suggest gaining experience improving articles that already exist before you try creating new ones from scratch. It's much easier to learn how to start a new article when you don't need to be learning how to edit at the same time. --asilvering (talk)06:10, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
JoinWikipedia:26 for '26 and create or substantially improve twenty-six Wikipedia articles during the year 2026, at least one for each letter of the English alphabet.
Tip of the month:
Ourredlists are a great resource, but not every redlinked subject is notable. Be sure to research before starting a new article.
Thanks for the report, @Amientan. If you see threats like this, they do need revision-deletion and you should contact an admin, but they should also be reported to emergency@wikimedia.org. I'll handle that bit now. --asilvering (talk)16:20, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Zuck28, please add a new SPI report for these socks with your evidence. If you go toWP:SPI there is a box for you to type in the sockmaster name (case-sensitive), and this will open a form for you. --asilvering (talk)08:41, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
NPP unreviewed article statistics as of February 02, 2026
Welcome to Phase 2 of theJanuary–February 2026 NPP drive. DuringPhase 1, we reviewed 16,658 articles and 4,416 redirects, and there is currently a backlog of 16,475 articles and 23,782 redirects in the queue. Fantastic job! Completing 22,502 patrols in the first phase made a significant dent in the backlog. Let's keep our foot on the gas for Phase 2, and I hope we can achieve even more reviews than Phase 1. Best of luck!
... for clearing up behind mehere. Not sure what happened there, but it looks as if I managed to delete the page without closing the discussion – either through a script error or (much more probably!) user error. In any case, many thanks for tidying the room and closing the door! Regards,Justlettersandnumbers (talk)18:25, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This month, February 2026,WikiProject Women in Green is participating in theFebruary 2026 GAN Backlog Drive, in which we're aiming to review as many outstanding Good Article (GA) nominations about women and women's works as possible. If you want to help out, you can check out theproject talk page for a list of nominations in need of review (including some WiG originals). If you haven't reviewed a GA nomination before, be sure to check out thereviewing instructions andguidelines and feel free to ask for amentor to check your work.
We are also working together with a wikithon hosted on 5 February by Wikimedia UK, which will focus on writing and improving articles about women involved in sustainable development. If you want to join the event, feel free tosign up at the eventbrite page; or if you would be interested in providing a 20-minute assessment and/or a full GA review of the submitted articles in the weeks following, put your name down on theproject talk page for updates as the event progresses.
Hey, you said youplanned to have a look at my1st GAN review back in January. I don't think that's necessary now, and it's all but completed, but I'd just like to ask a question about GAN reviews in general: how rigorous am I actually expected to be? To finish this review, I read everything linked to fromWP:GA, and already tried to lower my standards/let stuff off the hook when reviewing, yet I still spent a massive amount of time and dragged it out for over 5 weeks. I looked at another GAN the nominator had done recently, and it seems like it was done in a matter of days, for an article of similar calibre and length. I am fortunate to have worked with a patient nominator, but I am concerned whether or not frustrations will brew in future reviews over my nitpicking and amount of time spent. Yet I believe myself to have strictly followed all advice and guidelines regarding reviewing a GAN, so does it really only take experience to familiarize oneself with all the ins and outs, such that less time needs to be spent? Or is it really unnecessary to spend so much time? Any advice would be greatly appreciated, and congratulations on your election to ARBCOM! Best regards,HKLionelTALK17:29, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page watcher) GA reviews are expected to be rigorous and detailed and to cover the entire article. Ideally, they should be done within a week or two after the review starts, but this is not always the case. If a review takes longer, then that's fine. The way I handle my GA reviews is I try to get it done in two or three longer sessions over the course of a week (at most). As in, I'll spend about a half hour to an hour (for an article that size anyway) going over the article in detail in one sitting instead of two smaller sessions. However, the longer time you took indicates a higher level of detail, which I appreciate since it wasmy GAN you're talking about.
It's not necessary to spend 4-5 weeks on one GAN (unlike FAC where it definitely is), unless you have extenuating circumstances (e.g. going on vacation or unexpected medical issues that prevent you from editing, in which case you can put the review on hold). All that being said, however, the amount of detail you went into I think made that an excellent review despite the time you took.
Ack, sorry for dropping that. Please feel free to send me re-pings at any time. As for your review, it looks good to me. My first one wasTalk:Lorenza Böttner/GA1, for comparison, and it's that long even though that article was pretty much ready to go out the gate. Editors are usually really happy to get detailed feedback. The important thing is that you aren't insisting on anything that isn't related to GA criteria. I tend to make the basic copyedits myself to save everyone time and bother (make sure you leave a note that the nom can object to any of your changes if they want, so they don't feel boxed in). And watch out that you don't get caught in aWP:FIXLOOP. --asilvering (talk)18:16, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I would've expected there to be editors with prolific GA track records that would rather not waste too much time on a single one. I tried my best to frame suggestions asjust suggestions, but I'll still keep the criteria in mind in terms of whether or not other aspects are relevant, and will make minor changes myself next time. Fix loops was a very insightful essay, thanks for that and your advice in general! Have a great day,HKLionelTALK18:26, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't using quick requests for user sanctions out of scope for the section? The header explicitly says thatit should not be used to request that an editor be blocked, banned, or given other editor restrictions.45dogs (they/them)(talk page)(contributions)08:26, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, apparently so. What I recalled wasThis section may be used for short requests for enforcement intended to be answered by a single administrator. And that one waswell into the "any reasonable admin" bracket. But it does make sense that there are many people we wouldn't want trying to judge that on their own. --asilvering (talk)11:25, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Asilvering. I've been periodically adding, over several months, new Wikipedia pages, which have been accepted. Can you please take a look at my new submission for "Hamilton's Restaurant" in Ottawa, and help explain the objections. I think the page's value and relevance may have been clearer if there were _also_ some Wikipedia pages existing for Stephen Collins House which is a recognized historical feature of Ottawa, and also for Stephen Collins. (Which I could create next.) I always give thorough references--as is the Wikipedia preference--but I do not believe the piece is a "research paper". It just describes one step in the history of an historical building. Can you please clarify what you'd recommend I do to address the concerns? Thanks --WilliamMGoodman (talk)23:15, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Asilvering. This is a follow-up. I see that someone has altogether _removed_ my new proposed page, and redirected to a small page about the Stephen Collins house. Is that a common thing to happen? It's kind of upsetting.WilliamMGoodman (talk)00:36, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the link you put onOttawa, I think it's pretty reasonable to remove that - you mention that it was only briefly, anyway. Things on the mainOttawa page should be pretty major. On your article,Stephen Collins House, that's still there - it's just that another editor changed the scope to fit the title. You can expand on the restaurant a bit in that article, if you like. But it does look like most of what you had in the original article was what is known as "original research" on Wikipedia. Your sources are things like advertisements in the local paper, rather than secondary sources. What we're looking for is whatsecondary sources say about the topic. It looks like "Good Food, Character and History abound at Hamilton’s" is the right kind of source, so by all means you can use that to flesh out theStephen Collins House article a bit more. --asilvering (talk)01:19, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Are there some issues with the infobox onthis user page? Caught my attention after I had to remove a self-posted message on their talk page where they vowed to "continue the legacy of Turvill (Jeffrey Epstein) with Diddy" ... they later addedthis to a draft
Please also seethis message they later removed from my talk page. They sent the same thing to me via email about being "threatened off-wiki" but I don't have a linked email on Wikipedia so I just get the first few words as a notification... I don't know what any of this is but I think the editor has overstayed their welcome.aesurias(ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk)22:26, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Administrator changes
Guideline and policy news
Arbitration
.jpeg){kind=link}
_film_poster.jpeg%26amp%3baction%3dedit%26amp%3bredlink%3d1){kind=link}