governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues
gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them
genetically modified organisms, commercially produced agricultural chemicals and the companies that produce them, broadly construed
the region ofSouth Asia (India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal), broadly construed, including but not limited to history, politics, ethnicity, and social groups
post-1978 Iranian politics
the topics of Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed
the region ofSouth Asia (India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal), broadly construed, including but not limited to history, politics, ethnicity, and social groups
the results of any national or sub-national election
My name isUser:Thenascarsonicblueyfan and I have a question about citing, I'm good at it, and because of that I knew what citing was before all of my other friends did! But anyways, how do I put the name of the source before citing the website, and can I use an MLA text citator?
Also, I found out that thefailed 2024 revival of the AFL had divisional alingnments, but I, I did find photos of divisional alignment schedules on Reddit through Google Search though, but I'm not sure, would you think it would be a good idea for me to edit it, and source the Reddit photos to take extra measure?Thenascarsonicblueyfan (talk)18:44, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I could only find stuff on the league website, and OFFICAL instagram posts from arenafootball.coverage (so probably not), but is it strong enough to be an article with improvement given.Thenascarsonicblueyfan (talk)16:23, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
HiThenascarsonicblueyfan! What you're talking about is a "merge", and the process is described atWP:MERGE. If you're sure the best way to present all the info is in one article, I'd follow the steps listed there. If it's an obvious case (I'm not sure it is), you could be bold and merge the articles yourself. If there's likely going to be any disagreement, you'd start a merge discussion to pull in others' opinions.Firefangledfeathers (talk /contribs)02:15, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Mr.Firefangeledfeathers, I think I've looked at the sources correctly and saw that theNational Gridiron League might not even be a league, I KNOW that the article says it, but another thing I saw was that the league website is not avaliable, should I edit the article? Also, I'm about to work on the merge we talked about a while ago.
Thanks,
Anonymous
(Be free to check my fantasy soccer league website and wiki here) (And my research website)
FFF, I need some tips for the fakeIndoor soccer league I created, any tips on the website, and how I can improve my Miraheze, and my soundtrack better? My "league" starts in March, the links are below, and here is the soundtrack.
"Some critics said it showed the truth/ proper history while some claimed it distorted it."
I'm not sure how this would be edit warring, if both sides are represented with WP: RS sources.
As you yourself noted, I did make an entry in the Talk page after the lock. But please note there was no response to that after 3 days.
Also if you check the talk page, prior to that I had given lots of arguments and supporting evidence and wiki policy. in fact, majority of the talk page topics were started by me.
I'm not sure if I should go on repeating the same arguments over and over again in the talk page?
Also can you please clarify if this sanction prevents from putting anything in the talk page?
Your edit directly undid changes to parts of the article that were obviously in dispute. Changes that were part of the dispute that led to the page protection. If local discussion is not producing consensus, the next step is dispute resolution, not edit warring. No you should not repeat the same arguments repeatedly.Firefangledfeathers (talk /contribs)18:53, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I hear you and get what you are saying, but please do consider of all this ->
I had already raised for dispute resolution on 8th September, but it was closed with a false allegation which I clearly denied, but still made it to the note.(and another factor - which no one warned me about before closing the dispute resolution)
its very disillusioning when you attempt to do the right thing and you get closed and blocked at every step.
2. The "falsely" claimed part did not have any citations at all. If you go and click on [b] that is a set of miscellaneous articles about the film and there is zero citation there to anyone calling the claim as false. So I don't think there should be a problem in removing that word false as there is no citation.
3. The propaganda film part had citations from The Hindu and The Indian Express, but obviously as I had shown in my talk page, there were articles calling it the truth/realistic portrayal of history. No one replied or contradicted to my point in the talk page for nearly 3 days.
So I removed the propaganda part and moved it to the last line -> "while some claimed it distorted it" with the same references.(The Hindu and The Indian Express). So its not like I am removing the opposing views. I am just putting it in Wiki as per WP: NPOV, WP: RS and WP: Balanace.
4. Can you please clarify if this sanction prevents from putting anything in the talk page of the article?
For 2 and 3, those words are wasted here. Pursue those content disputes at the article talk page or some other dispute resolution forum. For 4: you are welcome to continue posting at the talk page. For 1: the DRN moderator said it would be ok to file again while including only parties who are extended confirmed.Firefangledfeathers (talk /contribs)19:09, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the moderator did mention that, but he still left the false accusation on the summary page which means if I request again, it could very well come up, again.
As you can see, I have made a lot of attempts to resolve, but kept getting shut almost every place. Therefore I request you to reconsider and withdraw the sanction. I assure you, I won't make any more changes in the disputed section and I will either bring it up in the DRN or on the talk page in a different way.
If you tell me which sanction you're referring to, I can give you more specific info. In general you should not edit disputed material until there's consensus. I can't say in advance what would happen if you did. Yes, you are welcome to edit non-disputed parts of the article. If you are reverted, you'll need to gain consensus for those changes before restoring them.Firefangledfeathers (talk /contribs)23:02, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to report this userComputeracct here.
He has resumed edit warring as the protection was automatically removed fromThe Bengal Files.[1] He is removing the same content for which YashTheBosss has been blocked.[2]
He has already been told to stop calling reliable sources unreliable.[3] However, he has now gone a step further by labelling The Wire as unreliable on a similar article and removed long-standingWP:STABLE content[4] contrary to the consensus on RSN.[5] I am also going to mention that this user has admitted using AI tools for writing his messages.[6]
Furthermore, take a look at his misrepresentation of sources onthis recent edit.
@Firefangledfeathers Alright, I will elaborate on the last point. Onthis edit, Computeracct has misrepresentedthis source while changing "Reception among Pandits has been mixed" to "Reception among Pandits has been mostly positive". The new source added by Computeracct in question, is from over 3 years after the film was released, and that too about a completely other incident, the2025 Pahalgam attack than. No reviews of the movie have been provided on the article.
He has also misrepresentedthis another source for justifying the same edit. This article merely shares views ofVenkatesh Prasad andSuresh Raina rather than attributing their views to be coming from "Kashmiri Pandits". Nowhere in the article are Venkatesh Prasad or Suresh Raina stated to even be Kashmirie Pandits, a violation ofWP:OR. The version of the article before Computeracct's edits used reliable sources to explain a community's views on the film, that being the fact that Kashmiri Pandits as a whole had mixed views towards the film. The edits by Computeracct uses the views of a few individuals, that too in completely unrelated contexts (one from several years later, and one individual the given source doesn't even say is a Kashmiri Pandit), to change the views of the whole community as a whole.EarthDude (wannatalk?)19:22, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That 2025 article includes a mention of a prominent Kashmiri Pandit, Samay Raina, supporting the movie The Kashmir Files in 2022.
The article doesn't have to refer to Suresh Raina as a Kashmiri pandit. It is a well known fact for those who know about Kashmiri Pandits that Suresh Raina is a Kashmiri Pandit.
Suresh Raina himself saying this in 2020:
"Since my ancestors belong to Kashmir and I myself feel deeply connected to my roots in the valley as a Kashmiri Pandit originally"
So yes, it is your ignorance that you did not know Suresh Raina is a Kashmiri Pandit. Instead of checking/asking me why I had put the Suresh Raina view, you put a false accusation on me.
Without checking the 2025 article mentioning Samay Raina (prominent Kashmiri Pandit) PoV about The Kashmir Files in 2022, you put a false accusation on me.
Even if that were to be the case, it really does not change much. Firstly, all information has to be sourced in Wikipedia. The source you provided did not state him to be a Kashmiri Pandit. Secondly, him being a Kashmirir Pandit still does not change the fact that you misrepresented sources, and used only the viewpoints of two individuals to unilaterally change Wikipedia's stating of a viewpoint of a community, going against the long standing stable version. Thirdly, none of this changes your edit warring to an article of a contentious subject, your calling of reliable sources unreliable and vice versa, your unexplained removals (with no consensus might I add) of reliable sources and reliably sourced content, or your inclusion of biased content. Everything I said in the my original message in this thread still stands.EarthDude (wannatalk?)20:38, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@EarthDude yes it does. 4 vs 2 and 6 vs 2 is a difference. it can be debated yes. note that I did not revert anything in that page. you could have put something in the talk page of Kashmir Files. you didn't. instead you falsely accused me saying Raina is not a kashmiri pandit.
and again you nor anyone else provided proof for The Scroll being reliable.
Reception among Pandits has been mostly positive with some regarding the film to be a cathartic experience[1][2][3] , while few have been critical.[4] JournalistRahul Pandita, who fled fromSrinagar during the exodus, said that the experience for Pandits watching the film was like "an emotional catharsis."[5] A Kashmiri Hindu immigrant toNew Zealand toldStuff thatThe Kashmir Files was a good representation of the exodus, requesting that Muslims watch it to understand the other side of the conflict.[6] Indian cricketer and Kashmiri PanditSuresh Raina tweeted "Presenting #TheKashmirFiles It’s your film now. If the film touches your heart, I’d request you to raise your voice for the #RightToJustice and heal the victims of Kashmir Genocide".[7] President of the Kashmiri Pandit Sangharsh Samiti (KPSS) Sanjay Tickoo criticized the film for its misrepresentations and added that this film is making Kashmir Pandits feel unsafe in theKashmir Valley.[8][9]
There are 3 links showing positive+ Rahul Pandita + new Zealand Immigrant + Suresh Raina --> all positive
Sanjay Tickoo one is negative and another citation
3. YashTheBoss had not put anything in the talk page. OTOH I had put so many comments, links in the talk and attempted to resolve the dispute, but opposing view people were going round in circles.
4. @EarthDude has already been told 3-4 times to produce evidence the Scroll is reliable. He didn't.
I'm not going to take any further admin action based on the above, but I'll give some advice.Computeracct, when there's consensus atWP:RSP that a source is generally reliable (like The Wire), that doesn't mean it'salways reliable forevery claim, but it does mean you should use the talk page to discuss it rather than removing content cited to it and saying "not RS". Sources need to support the content explicitly, so we can't rely on your own knowledge of who is or isn't a prominent Kashmiri Pandit.Firefangledfeathers (talk /contribs)01:48, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He has been changing words under contention. He has not put a single word under the talk page and this is the first time he has edited this page The Bengal Files. He has removed reliable sources as well.
Request you to warn or ban him from the page and restore it back since he has not been involved in the page/talk page in any way before this.
Anything on the content in the page since he has not attempted to engage in any discussion and made the changes including deleting reliable sources?Computeracct (talk)19:29, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you're asking if I'm going to do anything about the content on the page, no. You should continue to work toward consensus for your proposed changes, and consensus does not depend on any one editor's participation.Firefangledfeathers (talk /contribs)19:30, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(redacted ECR vio question about The Bengal Files)
I think @Firefangledfeathers has already made his decision on that. l'm moving on from that.
Hello! I have a picture that I would like to add to the page for U,S, Route 74. I've uploaded the picture to the Commons. This is my first try at editing. How do I proceed. Do I add a link somewhere in the source code? --Samwbeach (talk)19:29, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I really feel like everyone has gotten very frustrated and I hear you. I'm going to try and not reply at all further. I don't feel that anything I've said so far or any edits I have made have been misplaced.Mathglot (talk·contribs) has been very helpful in terms of his comments and replies that he has made on his talk page in response to some questions I have had about civility being a two-way street.
It's not my intention to create a bickering-fest... and I feel the wholeWP:ANI has been way out of bounds since it stemmed from this change:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fargo_(1996_film)&diff=1311924194&oldid=1311535237^ you can see here that I added 1 word to the page, using a reliable source. Another editor explained this didn't meet the manual of style for the page, of which I was unaware was a guiding principle. As such, I closed the talk topic and have not sought further changes. I actually do agree with the editor who launched theWP:ANI that this change wasn't needed. But I also think the whole process for theWP:ANI and what it has... devolved... into is also unwarranted.
Something similar happened onThe Wire, which again was just a misunderstanding that was resolved amicably through the talk page, because in that case the editor didn't bite my head off.
I hear you loud and clear about not engaging further as it seems to be largely counterproductive to the process.
There's no consensus view I'm aware of on whether it's appropriate to point from content discussions to related ANIs. I think it's probably fine. Looks like one other participant should be pinged.Firefangledfeathers (talk /contribs)16:41, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Have a nice day, sorry for taking up unnecessary space. It was just a silly mistake that I then fixed. Cheers. {{subst:unsigned2| Moshi Smalls |13:48, 25 September 2025]]
Thank you so much for fixing this mess. I sincerely tried but kept getting reverted and did not want to edit war over it. I really appreciate this.Simonm223 (talk)18:29, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello hope you are well, onWP:AE, regarding my case you have clearly stated that Pofka and I don't have any more rights to comment because of word enforcment, as you can see Pofka broke this rule today [[7]], and also again they are castingWP:aspersions. Since their case is based only on their opinions and accusations can something be done regarding their behaviour because like I stated here [[8]] when someone is obviously constantly repeating accusations like this [[9]] and exceeding their word limit then this is the case ofWP:ICANTHEARYOU. Thank you.Theonewithreason (talk)18:36, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Theonewithreason, I wouldn't worry about that one link addition. If you feel like you need to address that extra bit of evidence that Sadko engaged in inappropriate coordination, you can have 50 words to respond to that specifically, but I would recommend against doing so. I don't think that part of the case is going to influence admins one way or another, and it's best to keep your statement focused on the core issues.Firefangledfeathers (talk /contribs)22:33, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response, my concerns are bit different, I will follow your instructions and not respond over there anymore, however I believe that Pofka isWP:gaming the system by putting links and posts that have nothing to do with me or the matter for which they reported me just to keep this report alive, you probably noticed that this report is getting stale since there was no response from admins or anyone else in the last 7 days. If they continue to link unrelated things every few days than wp gaming policy should be considered.Theonewithreason (talk)22:45, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Their edit will not affect whether the case gets archived with no action, since it didn't change any timestamps. I think gaming is unlikely because this wouldn't have the intended effect and because the likelier explanation is that the evidence against Sadko wasn't public until after the initial filing.Firefangledfeathers (talk /contribs)22:54, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How do I add FYI based on personal testimony of the Historical Courthouse built in Saint Cloud, Minnesota, around 1929? "My grandfather was a stone mason, and he referred to 'Beaver King' and 'Lewis Day' as his bosses. When the gas explosion occurred in 1998. The historical courthouse did not budge one sixteenth of an inch. However, the new courthouse was constructed later and suffered close to half a million dollars in damage. --Thron22 (talk)19:49, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
An interesting story,Thron22, and I'm sure the details are even more juicy. Wikipedia is not really the place for recording oral histories. We're atertiary source, which means we mainly pull our info from secondary sources (books, journal articles, newspaper stories). I'd recommend reaching out to local or regional history societies or museums of history.Firefangledfeathers (talk /contribs)22:37, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You also have some primary sources, that have provided leads to articles pertaining to case law. I always shepherdize, which means is the case still a precedent.  Good example is SCOTUS taking Roe V Wade and delivering it to the states of the Union.  One case that still holds precedent is 'Marsh V Alamba' The disagreement was Mrs. Marsh arrest for distributing J.W. information on what was claimed to own by a huge mining company to be private property, the conclusion was 'since everyone in the community enjoyed the monetary benefits of the store that supplied many different goods. That Ms. Marsh was not trespressing nor gaining monetary benefits, just practicing freedom of religion.  This case has been beneficial to SCOTUS. In regard to monopolies as Facebook, Google, etcetera.  JUSTA is a good resource for cases on various areas of law.Thron22 (talk)17:03, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The extended-confirmed restriction has been in place since July. You can post edit requests for uncontroversial changes at article talk pages, but no other edits or comments related to the topic are permitted. That means no DRN cases either.Firefangledfeathers (talk /contribs)15:04, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sir. I do not understand. If the ECR had been in place since July. How was i able to edit it in the first place?
and it was deleted by an editor who was edit warring with me.
It was restored by another editor and you had deleted it stating it required extended confirmation request. But the ecr changes were brought after i raised the dispute. Please have a look at the edit history once more.Thengakallan (talk)15:12, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are two related concepts here:
Extended-confirmedprotection (ECP): protection is applied by admins to pages and it prevents some users from editing that page. ECP means that editors who aren't extended-confirmed are prevented from changing the page in any way.
Extended-confirmedrestriction (ECR): this is a rule that applies to newer and unregistered users. There is often no protection that prevents such users from editing affected pages. It's common to violate this restriction before being made aware of it. Now you've been notified.
Okay sir. Thank you. So now can you please tell me how i can request an admin to take a look at the article and restore the changes? I had explained it in detail in the talk page with relevant sources. The article as it stands now has many errors.
You can't, for now. Please focus your editing attention on other matters. You will find a great number of articles with many errors in other topic areas. As you learn more about how Wikipedia editing and discussion works, you will become a better Wikipedian. We'd certainly be interested in your edits, comments, and dispute resolution attempts regarding caste matters once you are extended-confirmed. Take your time, and avoidgaming the right.Firefangledfeathers (talk /contribs)15:27, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sir,You have previously posted caste-based content targeting the Nair community and flagged South Asian caste issues are need to stop. However, some of these accounts likeThengakallan are already violating the rules by specifically targeting theNair community and related pages.Additionally, these accounts are active on pages related to Ezhava, Thiyya, Kalaripayattu, and Mappila, etc under different names. Based on my own research, there appears to be a connection between them. Some of these accounts are quite old, while others have already been banned for sockpuppetry, some are ip address.Could you please file a complaint? I am willing to provide my details and email if needed.TheRoyalStaarr (talk)04:03, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Any conduct concerns about caste-related topics need to be raised by extended-confirmed editors. I've left a final warning about your participation in this topic at your user talk page. I'm empathetic to the situation you may be in: seeing conduct and content issues and feeling like you must bring them to someone's attention. The restriction in place is draconian and byzantine. It's only in place because of severe disruption. Please turn your attention to other topics, or be prepared to participateonly with uncontroversial edit requests at article talk pages.Firefangledfeathers (talk /contribs)15:06, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, first questions: 1. How can I change my username?2. Can you notice the slight edits I made to the soil carbon page? #nolinkhere --Aofria (talk)12:01, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
HiMarko Mawien Mawien. I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "public profile". Do you hope to have an English Wikipedia article that is about you? Are you looking to create an internal WIkipedia page so that other editors know a bit more about you and your editing interests?Firefangledfeathers (talk /contribs)15:30, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
hi i don't know how to send messages on wikipedia but there is an error on the "List of South Park Episodes" wikipedia page on the last paragraph on the intro where it says "As of Septmeber 3 2025, there are 333 episodes". When the last episode done as of now was on September 24 2025. Since I cannot edit it I'm asking my designated editor mentor to do it for me if you can, thank you in advance. --Paul57547 (talk)22:49, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mention your advicehere. We could use some help. I believe the RfC thatUhoj posted was premature and disruptive--as continues to drain editor time--and believe other editors feel similarly based on my comment and diffs shown. I would close the RfC, but I don't want to break any rules. I was thinking about asking at a proper forum for it to be closed or whether it would be acceptable for me to close for the reasons mentioned. I'd prefer not takingUhoj to the drama ofWP:AN/I, but a number of editors are losing their patience with him/her. Can you help resolve this? --David Tornheim (talk)02:43, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've reviewed the article talk page discussion. Uhoj, you've definitely been bludgeoning the discussions there, and I'm leaving a warning at your user talk page. As you'll see there, I do hope it's taken as a collegial nudge on your conduct and not something intended to scare you off.David Tornheim, I don't think the RfC should be closed early, and the feedback from Apfelmaische (which seems reasonable to me) is that this is probably the best next step. Uhoj has made a brief proposal with a brief explanation of why they think it's an improvement. I encourage you to engage with the proposal on its merits. It's not the perfect RfC, and it's definitely not perfectly timed, but it's reasonable. You are welcome to disagree with me, andWP:CR would be a sensible place to request early closure.Firefangledfeathers (talk /contribs)02:36, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for coming to this BLP talk page. I was just about to start a section at BLPN. Maybe ANI would be better. Anyway, if you could please examine the situation and take appropriate action, that would be great. There’s no reason for Georgia DemocratStacey Abrams to be in the lead of this Virginia Republican. (The aim seems to be to tie them together, and thus alienate Virginia Republicans who otherwise might vote for Earle-Sears.) Anythingyouwant (talk)05:13, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you don't mind my asking another question. If it's too much, I will ask another admin.:
Would it be considered a kind ofWP:CANVASSing to put a request on a talk page of an article(s) for editors to notify me either via ping or message on my talk page of any significant removal of well-sourced content? Or of major changes to the article?
On certain articles, I find it to be a recurring but infrequent problem, and I would like to be notified sooner rather than discover it much later. Even though those articles are on my watchlist, I have so many articles on my watchlist and so many changes are minor, major changes slip by.
Perhaps there is a way to adjust the watchlist to only track big changes? I know in the past, I asked about making multiple watchlists, but I got the impression that was not possible. I'm open to other suggestions. --David Tornheim (talk)15:57, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion can place a message at any of the following:
* * *
On the user talk pages of concerned editors. Examples include:
* * *
Editors who have asked to be kept informed
That suggests to me that it would be acceptable. If I do put such a notice, I would like to do it in the appropriate way. I haven't seen such notices before that I can recall--except for specific discussions. --David Tornheim (talk)16:07, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do believe that adding macrons help get the reader to understand the correct pronunciation.This source for example, mentions Farīdābād with the macrons but my edits atFaridabad and other articles where I added macrons have been reverted (which I believe was wrong).-Baangla (talk)00:26, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I would like to add a page for an album (Early Twenties Torture) for an artist (Sadie Jean). I am having difficulty doing that. --Teach90210 (talk)18:37, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I had pinged you a few days ago but it appears that the ping did not go through. I am writing this message to remind you of page protecting the final batch of Indian political party articles :D —EarthDude (Talk)06:43, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings. I was wondering how people create those flawless userpages and I thought that there would be nobody better than my own mentor to ask that about. Could you perhaps guide me in doing that. That would be immensly helpful.
Thanks for being my mentor! I'm finishing up schooling and have some free time to pick up a hobby. Love research and love markdown, so I'm excited to help out where I can!
I have a question about citations: when I'm choosing a reference, should it be open-source? I'm looking through legal articles and I have access to secondary source and case databases like westlaw and Lexis+ through my law school, but these may not be accessible to the public. What do you recommend? --JoystickLaw (talk)21:24, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Free time + research skills + markdown love? What a great combo! We do have a philosophical preference for open source materials, but I wouldn't let that stop you from making the most of your institutional subscriptions. When citing, make sure to"Say where you read it", and it can help to download and store a copy for later review. You can also use the quote parameter of the citation templates to support the text, so readers and editors without access can still verify the content.Firefangledfeathers (talk /contribs)02:09, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Firefangledfeathers. This message is being sent to remind you of significant upcoming changes regarding logged-out editing.
Starting 4 November, logged-out editors will no longer have their IP address publicly displayed. Instead, they will have atemporary account (TA) associated with their edits. Users with some extended rights like administrators and CheckUsers, as well as users with thetemporary account IP viewer (TAIV) user right will still be able to reveal temporary users' IP addresses and all contributions made by temporary accounts from a specific IP address or range.
How do temporary accounts work?
Editing from a temporary account
When a logged-out user completes an edit or a logged action for the first time, a cookie will be set in this user's browser and a temporary account tied with this cookie will be automatically created for them. This account's name will follow the pattern:~2025-12345-67 (a tilde, year of creation, a number split into units of 5).
All subsequent actions by the temporary account user will be attributed to this username. The cookie will expire 90 days after its creation. As long as it exists, all edits made from this device will be attributed to this temporary account. It will be the same account even if the IP address changes, unless the user clears their cookies or uses a different device or web browser.
A record of the IP address used at the time of each edit will be stored for 90 days after the edit. Users with thetemporary account IP viewer (TAIV) user right will be able to see the underlying IP addresses.
As a measure against vandalism, there are two limitations on the creation of temporary accounts:
There has to be a minimum of 10 minutes between subsequent temporary account creations from the same IP (or /64 range in case of IPv6).
There can be a maximum of 6 temporary accounts created from an IP (or /64 range) within a period of 24 hours.
Temporary account IP viewer user right
How to enable IP Reveal
Administrators may grant thetemporary account IP viewer (TAIV) user right to non-administrators who meet thecriteria for granting. Importantly, an editor must make an explicit request for the permission (e.g. atWP:PERM/TAIV)—administrators arenot permitted to assign the right without a request.
It will be possible to block many abusers by just blocking their temporary accounts. A blocked person won't be able to create new temporary accounts quickly if the admin selects theautoblock option.
It will still be possible to block an IP address or IP range.
Temporary accounts will not be retroactively applied to contributions made before the deployment. OnSpecial:Contributions, you will be able to see existing IP user contributions, but not new contributions made by temporary accounts on that IP address. Instead, you should useSpecial:IPContributions for this (see a video about IPContributions in a gallery below).
Rules about IP information disclosure
Publicizing an IP address gained through TAIV access isgenerally not allowed (e.g.~2025-12345-67 previously edited as 192.0.2.1 or~2025-12345-67's IP address is 192.0.2.1).
Publicly linking a TA to another TA is allowed if "reasonably believed to be necessary". (e.g.~2025-12345-67 and ~2025-12345-68 are likely the same person, so I am counting their reverts together toward3RR, but notHey ~2025-12345-68, you did some good editing as ~2025-12345-67)
You may have aconflict of interest when it comes to OMOOPEFUSION. Editing with a conflict of interest is complicated. I suggest you read the links in that welcome message, and I highly recommend editing other topics while you get used to the process and guidelines here.
All that said, there's guidance on writing your first article availablehere. If you do indeed have a conflict of interest, make sure you create it as a draft article. This is a lot, so please ask follow-up questions if you have any.Firefangledfeathers (talk /contribs)13:45, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, hope youre doing well! I had a question regarding connections between pages in different languages. In traditional Iranian architecture, there is a type of vestibule called "Hashti" (Persian: هشتی). The Persian page on this connects to a very broad English page called "Vestibule (architecture)". However, there is also an English page called "Hashti" on specifically that type of room in Iranian architecture. I tried to connect the Persian page to the more specific English page and and failed. So, do you know how that can be done? Thanks! --Amhmr (talk)19:56, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
HiAmhmr! I'm doing okay, and I hope you are as well. I think what you're hoping to do is actually going to be accomplished at Wikidata, which controls the inter-language links identified with discrete topics. I think you'll want to remove the Persian Hashti article fromvestibule and add it toHashti.Firefangledfeathers (talk /contribs)14:04, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response! I realised my problem was whenever I entered wikidata I was being cicked out of the desktop stie and back into the mobile version.Amhmr (talk)09:27, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you aDobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it.
To give a Dobos torte and spread theWikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
Hi, in October, I did a few very different edits onInternational Police Organization, and each time @Rosguill reverted. On 24 Oct I did my last edit, very different from previous ones. When Rosguill reverted, I agreed with him and let the page stay. Then ten days later you blocked me for "slow edit warring". I was not edit warring. I agreed with Rosguill. How can that be a violation? I edit rarely, but I have been editing Wikipedia for 22 years with no issues, always in good faith. I kindly ask you to remove the block and I promise not to edit that page again.Topjur01 (talk)02:06, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Topjur01, you are only partially blocked, meaning you can edit any page exceptInternational Police Organization. To answer the question on your user talk page, yes, you can edit your own talk page. I'm concerned that you say you were "not edit warring", so I don't plan to lift the partial block at this time. I encourage you to either move one with the partial block in place or read/re-readthe evidence presented and the applicable policy (WP:EW) before we continue discussing.Firefangledfeathers (talk /contribs)13:23, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Firefangledfeathers and @Rosguill, only now that Firefangledfeathers has referred me to the discussion on a noticeboard I read it. It tried to respond there but it says that I am not allowed. So I will respond here. Rosguill claimed that I was continuously trying to remove from the page any reference to right wing and criminal ties, including recently. Not true. In the past few months I was trying to remove it from the lead paragraph and I each time kept it lower in the text. This is an international organization with chapters in 20+ countries and only in one of them (Serbia) there was alleged connection with right wing politics. If an organization is active in 20+ countries, and there was alleged misconduct in one of them, that belongs lower in the text and not in the lead paragraph. I do not understand why Rosguill was removing some chapters from being mentioned on the page (including Malta where the organization held a large congress in 2025). Why would you remove Malta (and other countries)? That's all from me. Kind regards.Topjur01 (talk)01:31, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Topjur01, you are welcome to raise the points about placement of text and other chapters at the article talk page, which you can still edit. If other editors agree, one of them can restore your changes.Firefangledfeathers (talk /contribs)18:09, 17 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 , I was wondering if there is a more private way we could communicate to discuss certain matters concerning a new Wikipedia page.Thank you , Nikos --NikosKavv (talk)10:14, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am asking for your intervention because you have previously banned this user from a contentious topic. The user bulk moves the pages to new names without consulting editors. He bulk moves the pages, as he did with Indian Football related pages and cricket related pages.as can be seen here. I request you to intervene.Coderzombie (talk)08:28, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
HiCoderzombie, I page-blocked that user from one article due to edit-warring, but this new conduct doesn't seem related to me. I'm glad you first approached YashTheBosss with a warning, but "vandalism" was not the right charge to make. It looks like the new titles are reasonable. If you disagree, you are welcome to follow the procedure atWP:RMUM. It looks like other editors are raising concerns atUser talk:YashTheBosss#December 2025, so hopefully they absorb the feedback given there. I won't intervene yet, but I'm watching.Firefangledfeathers (talk /contribs)15:12, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
An unreasonable user started edit warring, you have decided to block me but you let that user continue editing the Pizza Effect page. Can you explain how that is in any way fair or balanced, thank you.Gotofritz (talk)16:51, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When you partially blocked Don Beroni fromPizza effect, was it your intention that the partial block serve as a topic-ban, so that they may not discuss the topic, or was it your intent that they be encouraged to discuss atDRN? Should I close the DRN, or leave it open to welcome them to discuss without edit-warring?Robert McClenon (talk)07:33, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you also partially blocked the other editor. So should I consider them both topic-banned, or should I encourage them to discuss in place of edit-warring?Robert McClenon (talk)07:35, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Around two months ago, I had created many redirects toRashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh in the hopes that they'd be useful to readers. Since then, I have become much more careful and considerate when creating redirects. Looking back, most of the redirects I created to the RSS article are shoddy and extremely poor in quality, and I don't think they are ever going to be that useful for readers. I thought it might be too chaotic to tag them all for speedy deletion, and so I am asking you personally.WP:R3 applies to these. Could you please delete them as an uninvolved admin? Here's those redirects: —EarthDude (Talk)02:03, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
HiEarthDude. I don't mind the workload, and I'd be happy to help. That said, I'm not sure deletion is the best option here, and R3 is not a good fit. If you are the creator of all these, and if no one else has made substantial edits (rare with a redirect), I could delete perWP:G7. Are you sure that's what you want? Redirects are cheap.Firefangledfeathers (talk /contribs)16:02, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I guess G7 would be more accurate than R3, considering that I am indeed the creator of all of these redirects. I know redirects are cheap but allowing so many poor quality redirects would, even if unintentionally, encourage the creation of similarly poor quality redirects. —EarthDude (Talk)17:02, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, hope you are having a good day! What do the red and green numbers next to edits on my user page mean under my edits page? (So sorry if this doesn't make sense) --Qu2115 (talk)17:05, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
New Pages Patrol is hosting a one-time, two-month experimental backlog drive aimed at reducing the backlog. This will be a combo drive: both articles and redirects will earn points.
The drive will run from 1 January to 28 February 2026.
The drive is divided into two phases. Participants may take part in either phase or across both phases, depending on availability.
Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled during the drive.
Two-month drive-exclusive barnstars will be awarded to eligible participants.
Each article review earns 1 point, while each redirect review earns 0.2 points.
Streak awards will be granted based on consistently meeting weekly point thresholds.
Barnstars will also be awarded forre-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive.
I added a listing in the Beauty and the Beast page under Literature for my writing friend. It reads:Giana and the Ogre (2020) by R.P. Infantino, a New York writer.
Shauna, I've removed it - there should already be an article for a given author if we're adding their works. In any case you should not link to the story itself - that's considered a kind of spamming. Please readWP:AUTHOR to see if your friend meets the notability standard for authors - if so, you could write an article about them if there is enough reliable independent sourcing.Acroterion(talk)22:54, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I like updated information about somewhat niche civil engineering stuff like Northwest Parkway or E470. The Northwest Parkway logo is out of date and was wondering if you could upload the new one to the English Wikipedia for me? --Orcawave (talk)00:12, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for being there for me. I am new to editing and had a lot of trouble setting up my account due to VPN issues. Now that I have an account, do I still need to turn off VPN when I log in to edit Wikipedia topics? --BlueAcres (talk)13:37, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I am trying to get my first short article submission published on wikipedia but struggle with addressing the edits of the reviewers. Can you give me any tips on my current page on "Moritz Baer"? --Brianecho (talk)17:52, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hello 👋 am from Kenya 🇰🇪 and i would like to write to Mr Netanyahu that i would like to meet him i have something to share please connect me --Peter marwa (talk)12:32, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There is currently a discussion atWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.Orientls (talk)11:24, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Enable theuser info card
.jpg)
