A goodstory today, about a mezzo as a thinking person, DYK? - see also video. Thank you for the DYK review! I didn't see her, but the Carmen production at the Bastille Opéra that she was in last. --Gerda Arendt (talk)16:51, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Z1720. 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)
Starlet147 has given you somecookies! Cookies promoteWikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else some cookies, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookies}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!
@Hog Farm: Thanks for letting me know. I try to open MilHist GARs on a variety of topics (ie different wars, different geographic places, different time periods) so that a single editor's interest isn't being overwhelmed. Sometimes I get it wrong, like opening Nelson at the same time as Borodino, which are both Napoleonic War-centred. I wasn't planning on opening any more MILHIST GARs while these were open (except maybe a military ship, but most of the ship articles are in excellent shape) and I'll hold off nominating MilHist articles until some of the ones that are open right now are closed. Hopefully, after this improvement drive, MilHist editors will be inspired to review their favourite GA topics to ensure the articles still meet the criteria.Z1720 (talk)00:36, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting! Nice to meet you and hear you speaking! What I came to say was: thank you for your OTD efforts! - Look,today's image, -she "portrayed" herself with her husband at the end of the table, - would have been good for Thanksgiving ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk)19:21, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerda Arendt: Ping me or post on my talk page once this is completed, and I'll take a look. For the future, it is easier if suggestions are posted several days ahead of time so that problems can be identified and fixed early. Opera is a great category at OTD births/deaths because it is underrepresented (most entries are politicians or modern-day pop culture) so I'm hoping that more opera articles can be deemed eligible.Z1720 (talk)16:19, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please check again. The best list of his works seems to be IRCAM, and each work has it's own page, - there could be much more but only a bit more today. Please let me know. --Gerda Arendt (talk)18:35, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Today's 1715 Advent Bach cantata translates to "Prepare the ways", -listen to quite stunning music if you haven't ;) - "places" take you to Copenhagen". - I restored the Christmas cantata OTD 25 December, thinking that we can't get a better item for the occasion this year than its 300 years. --Gerda Arendt (talk)18:46, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for the reassessment note for Henry, I haven't taken a look at his article for a few years. I am slower these days but should be able to the necessary patching up. Regards,Amitchell125 (talk)14:26, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While I am sad we will not get to arb together (we'll have to find someone else to be the resident Canadian!), I hope you enjoy your time away from the Committee and find it restorative. It was great to see you again at WCNA (even if that weekend was... you know), and I look forward to seeing you in Edmonton! Best to you and yours in the new year, and happy holidays :)
@Z1720 Speaking of SWEEPS2025, I have talked to David Eppstein regarding three mathematical articles that have been cleaned up, avoiding GAR, and I have guaranteed that they meet the criteria underWP:GACR. Since I received the message that the information is outdated, would you mind rechecking the whole data in SWEEPS2025? Sincerely.Dedhert.Jr (talk)12:16, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Dedhert.Jr: Thanks for moving those articles to "kept": it seems to have been moved correctly. I won't be checking the individual articles at this time: I want to complete the SWEEPS projects before going back and double-checking the "kept with no GAR needed" articles. SWEEPS will probably take a couple of years to complete. I'm not sure what is meant by "the information is outdated": do the articles need updating to reflect more recent academic literature and sources? I mentioned physics articles because there is some crossover: some editors monitor both categories and CALC is prevalent in both. I'll try to reach out to some physics editors in the coming weeks. Thanks again and happy editing.Z1720 (talk)15:54, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Z1720, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on thisseasonal occasion. Spread theWikiLove by wishing another user aMerry Christmas and aHappy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2026. Happy editing, Vacant0(talk •contribs)17:25, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Z1720, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on thisseasonal occasion. Spread theWikiLove by wishing another user aMerry Christmas and aHappy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2026. Happy editing, Abishe (talk)11:29, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm using the "just want an admin" button instead of ANI because 1. I've had bad experiences with Banner atTalk:BiglyBT (where I'd say he's doing outright IDHT like some of the threads) 2. It looks like Banner very much can collaborate constructively, as seen atTalk:United Ireland#Short description & active arbitration remedies. 3. This doesn't look good for Grufo either even though I think a lot of his actions are reasonable but rule-breaking actions. The last link is shortly followed by Grufo involving himself to edit war against Banner for the inclusion of the word "that", apparently in an attempt to hound Banner back. Banner has also given Grufo warnings for edit summaries like "I know your goal is removing templates, especially when I am the author, but your edits are disruptive". 4. I am of ill health right now to draft an opening statement for ANI, something I've never done before. Plus, it feel weird to do this during the Twelve Days of Christmas (Happy Holidays).
(Previously posted this to another admin who has not edited since; should I ping them?) Sorry for this mini–wall of text, and thanks for any help in advance.Aaron Liu (talk)23:27, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Aaron Liu: Hey, sorry that I didn't see this until now. Since I'm on vacation I can't dedicate the appropriate amount of time to this, and it might take a while to find an admin who is willing to take a look at this. I suggest that, when feeling better, you can look at their recent actions and decide if you want to escalate this to the appropriate noticeboard. I know ANI can be scary, but it might be the best option if the disruption continues. Feel free to post on here again if you have any questions.Z1720 (talk)14:23, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
... inviting you to check out "my" story (fun listen today, full of surprises), music (and memory), and places (pictured by me: the latest uploads) any day! --Gerda Arendt (talk)15:04, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Mozartmusic for today! - I'm not sure that you got what I wanted to express by the Bach example: that the music that is performed in religious services is nothing newspapers (journals, thesises, ...) write much about, but it's the key thing church groups give to the world. I could just cut the uncited paragraphs but that would leave the concerts alone, with undue weight. --Gerda Arendt (talk)19:15, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerda Arendt: I think sources, especially those on classical religious compositions, will comment on what occasion the composition was created for. As for where it is performed: I don't think Wikipedia needs specific mention when a random church in California performs the piece, but if it is part of a major event mentioned by newspapers, it can be included in the article. Is there a specific example that we could take a look at to help clarify?Z1720 (talk)19:19, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We don't talk about an article about a musical piece, but abouta church, not only its architecture, but also its people - congregation - choirs ..., that form it and give it character. --Gerda Arendt (talk)19:24, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerda Arendt: Sorry about that: I was thinking of the wrong article! For church articles, especially those that don't receive significant coverage, there might be less text about their activities because secondary sources do not consider them notable. Information about the congregation or parish might be published by the Catholic eparchy, and church architecture might be published in various sources about local buildings or region churches. SinceWikipedians are not considered reliable sources, we can only rely upon what reliable sources have said.Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception (Moscow) might be a good article to look at how one church article cites events at the church. I hope this helps!Z1720 (talk)19:34, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There are sources about the architecture, there are sources about the organ, there are sources about the concerts, - there are no sources about the music in the services, and this has been like that for centuries as I tried to say by the Bach example. One mentioning of a cantata, while he wrote about 200, and that one not saying anything specific about the music. Back to the question: I could just cut the uncited paragraphs but that would leave the concerts alone, with undue weight. --Gerda Arendt (talk)19:42, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
20 January is the 100th birthday ofDavid Tudor (see my story, and thanks for the main page position!) and the 300th birthday of Bach's cantataMeine Seufzer, meine Tränen, BWV 13, if we go by date instead of occasion as he would have thought, so see my story for last Sunday, and celebrate ;) - I'm on vacation, not in the mood for digging up refs. I may work on the St John Passion when getting into Lent. - Good luck for becoming TFA delegate, I just hope that you'll still have time for the OTD improvements. --Gerda Arendt (talk)20:21, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
About that GAR for "Movement for the Intellectually Disabled of Singapore"
I think the GAR may bequick-failed per criterion 3, but being involved, I'd like to seek a second (third, if necessary) opinion before I become determined to close it by myself
Good morning @Z1720, please can you help me create a Wikipedia Article about "Benjamin Angeles"? He is known as a Filipino Singer-songwriter on Google Search. Please help us. Thank You!~2026-25403 (talk)02:43, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've never asked for help before, despite being an editor since 2008, so I'm sorry if this is not the proper place or way to do this, but after reading around, I was directed that this is the best course of action for this situation.
There is a user attempting to edit war with me, frequently reverting my edits which I am making in good faith and I believe to be worthy additions to an article. This user has continued to revert my edits despite the fact that I have tried backing my edits with the appropriate policies and guidelines offered by Wikipedia.
The user has then taken it upon themself to bring this into my talk page and leave me a message saying I could potentially get blocked and banned for edit warring... when it is this user who has begun this situation in the first place.
I removed their message from my talk page, and the user reverted that back too. Aren't I allowed to have complete freedom and control over what goes onto my talk page? Is this harrassment? How do I get this behavior to stop, and were my edits to the article in question okay?
I have also noticed other people complaining on this user's talk page of other disruptive and unhelpful edits and reverts to their edits as well.
Thank you so much for your help and I appreciate your time, and if this is not the appropriate avenue to resolve this, than I apologize and would appreciate further guidance on how to resolve this the correct way.Devann (talk)02:19, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Devann: Commenting without looking into the situation at the article in question: My suggestion is to outline why you think the information should be in the article on the article's talk page. This will allow the other editor to explain why they have reverted your edits. Do not add the information back into the article until there is consensus to do so. If you need help getting consensus,WP:3O orWP:DRN might help to get additional editor opinions.
Yes, you are allowed to remove whatever you want from your talk page, but that means you cannot add the inforamtion back into the article without getting consensus to do so: you'll probably need to engage with this editor to get that consensus. If you do not want the editor to comment on your talk page, kindly request that they stop (or ask them to direct comments about the article to the article's talk page instead.)Z1720 (talk)02:26, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I stopped reverting the changes and engaged in discussion as to why the edits were valid on the talk page of the article in question. They were still refuting my claims with no good reason or proof that what I was adding wasn't worth adding. Despite the fact I stopped editing the article and moved discussion to the article's talk page, they persist to edit my personal talk page.Devann (talk)02:30, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Devann: I see in your talk page history that they haven't re-added a message for several minutes. If they do it again, I suggest keeping the message up for a little bit, but respond below it that they should post on the article talk page instead and that they should stop posting on your talk page. While you may disagree with their reason, it is valid to say that information should not be supported by a YouTube link: it just depends on whether the video is a reliable source. At the end of the day, it is a content dispute and if you think the information should be added, I suggest opening a discussion on DRN to try to find a resolution. Yes, this will take some time but it is better than edit warring and getting topic banned from the page. Another solution is toWP:DROPTHESTICK and move on to editing another article on the site.Z1720 (talk)02:47, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The content that was being posted to my Talk page was some sort of warning about edit warring and being blocked from editing for doing so, which I believe would not be appropriate to be placed on an article's talk page.
So the information that was added was done originally by another user. The information in question is the following:
"Justin Scarred, a close friend, publicly honored Williams’s life and work, describing him as a significant creative presence."
So I'm confused. Does a video uploaded by the person who himself described Adam as an influence to his work not count as an authoritative source?
Additionally, as I said, there were other people complaining on this user's talk page of this user doing the same thing to other people who were also making good faith edits to other articles.Devann (talk)02:58, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Devann: In my opinion, I don't think that information should be added to the article. I think it's too much information and a non-notable (by Wikipedia's standards) friend's opinion is not really noteworthy for an article, regardless of where the source came from. As for the user's talk page: if the user is being disruptive over multiple pages, you can file a case atWP:ANI but be warned: your behaviour on the article page will also be scrutinized, and in my opinion there is evidence that you were edit warning on that page.Z1720 (talk)03:03, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @Z1720, I would like to follow up on this. A month later, or four days ago, this same user took it upon himself to look through my contributions, and revert something I added to a completely separate article for absolutely no reason other than what I can assume is to intimidate me. Hasn't said a word to me, haven't communicated with this person since last month when after I communicated with you, the incident ended and I removed myself from the situation. I logged in today to find thatthis random and completely innocent edit that I made in October and has been there since was reverted on January 31 without reason or explanation.
A precursory glance atthis user's talk page will immediately show a few incidences of people asking why their edits were also reverted without reason or explanation.
This user has done this to multiple people, refuses to explain why he does this, and apparently nobody has pushed this situation further, so he just keeps doing it.
@Devann: I am unsure why the edit was reverted, but it might have been to avoidWP:EASTEREGG. Have you tried messaging them on their talk page or the article talk page? That should be attempted first. Also, your statement that the user looked through your contributions is a very serious statement that requires proof. How do you know that the user looked through your contributions, and didn't just stumble upon the page through their own editing? If you thinkWP:HOUND is taking place, I suggest submitting a complaint on ANI, but there needs to be significant evidence of this in order for action to be taken.Z1720 (talk)00:15, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Z. I've been feeling like I'll hurl the past few hours, so I don't think I'll be able to make it to the event tomorrow. I'd appreciate if you sent my regards to everyone. I desperately want to be there but I know in my heart that it's not the best choice to make.Clovermoss🍀(talk)04:22, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You're receiving this message because you wanted to be notified about Wikipedia meetups in Toronto. You can remove yourself fromthis list if you're no longer interested in Toronto-area messages.
Are primary sources like references #48 at the articleTidus acceptable as a sources at our modern FAs? Probably not right? (I don't want to tag it as potential article to be sent at FAR to avoid conflict). 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔)20:53, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Boneless Pizza!: I looked at what this citation is supporting, and I think a better source can be found to support that information (Tidus is a blitzball player from Zanarkand). Afterall, those are his primary character traits at the beginning of the game. If this was at FAC, I would have (as someone who knows this game extremely well) asked the nominator to find another source. By itself, I do not think it is enough to send to FAR.Z1720 (talk)05:12, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Why on the football ones, do you just write,Uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Can I ask why you don't do a proper analysis? I've asked you before about your process, frankly, but I don't mean to be rude, but I find your whole process very unappealing and fundamentally not helpful on the workload you do. Certain area's on wikipedia are ghost towns, surprisingly football articles and top tier ones like Pep's gets a lot of editing and users to it. So I do question your overall goal. You also have the ability to improve those articles instead of doing a flat! Lets reassess! So I really do question what you think you're going to accomplish here.Govvy (talk)10:57, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Govvy: GARs do not assess every aspect of theGA criteria. Instead, it is assumed that if the reviewer doesn't mention something, the article fulfills that aspect of the criteria. Keeping an assessment short allows interested editors to quickly read my concerns and address them: when I have given long assessments in the past, editors have stated that I am being too nitpicky and creating walls of text. I usethis script to highlight uncited text in an article, and if asked I can add citation needed templates.Z1720 (talk)14:43, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
[1] I see that I am the only one that responded in effort to improve the article and I was told to wait without any further instruction or list of improvements to be made. Now the discussion has been closed and the article has been demoted from GA status. It appears the other editors had no interest in participating or meeting GA guidelines. I made changes and offered to remove the banners, but I was told to wait. What is going on here?DN (talk)21:08, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Darknipples: I recommend using theWP:PING system on Wikipedia to get editor's attention. Also,editors are volunteers and they don't have to respond on the talk page. If you want, you can fix the article yourself, then remove the banners. As for why it was delisted, I would reach out to the editor that closed the discussion and get more information from them.Z1720 (talk)21:17, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Due to the result of a recentmotion, a rough consensus of administrators at thearbitration enforcement noticeboard may impose an expanded topic ban on Israel, Israelis, Jews, Judaism, Palestine, Palestinians, Islam, and/or Arabs, if an editor'sArab-Israeli conflict topic ban is determined to be insufficient to prevent disruption. At least one diff per area expanded into should be cited.
I addedWanda Perdelwitz to the anniversaries because of the frustrating DYK nomination. Yes, it's no round birthday, but nor is 1980. Do you understand? I would like to avoid having to make her GA, - there are so many other open projects. --Gerda Arendt (talk)10:06, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerda Arendt: Is this person moderately or significantly notable? Has she won any special recognition? For actresses, since there are so many at OTD, I try to limit appearances at OTD for those who are significant in their field. I also see that she was at ITN in October 2025, so I would want to wait a year until she appeared on the Main Page again.Z1720 (talk)16:25, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Have your year or two or three. She was on ITN for not even 24 hours while others get five days. I wanted to make up for that by DYK, - it caused the usual frustration. She was on a highly popular TV series, but popular in Germany which seems to "count" less. In 2017, she received a RTV Award, naming her "Coolste Kommissarin" for the role". How notable is the singer who has her career still ahead? --Gerda Arendt (talk)16:43, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerda Arendt: I try not to put actors at OTD that are only notable for being on a popular TV show. Instead, I try to include those who have been given a major award or other notable achievement. I don't know why Perdelwitz was featured on ITN for a short time, and what the concerns at DYK were, but OTD is not a consolation prize for articles that didn't appear elsewhere. I includedMami Kawada because Asian and female biographies are underrepresented and her achievement was her songs used in various anime theme songs. I'll admit it's a weak rationale, and would probably replace it if something better came along that respected article diversity. I also suggest that you place articles in the eligible list (not in the template itself) when adding articles, as sometimes when I swap hooks I assume that the articles in the template were the ones used in 2025.Z1720 (talk)16:50, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for explaining. The reason why she was on ITN for a short while is that many others got eligible, which happens. Deaths are not planned. --Gerda Arendt (talk)16:55, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You kindly left note on my talk page about GAR's that you opened on my talk page and I did nothing about about most of them, because I was mostly inactive. I'm sorry, but I think that the GAR of Monifieth was - sorry, to put it impolitely - a "drive-by review" by the user:TompaDompa, and that it wasnot reviewed in accordance with GAR and GAN. Your only comment on Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Monifieth/1 was "Lots of uncited statements, including entire paragraphs and the "Education" section. The "Demography" section also needs to be updated with the latest census figures".
Going through them in reverse order: the article states: "Accurate demographic information for Monifieth is complicated by the town's inclusion in the Dundee locality in the 2001 census. Estimates from 2020 put the population at 8,860 [Ref 1].". Well yes, but there is a citation 1 which leads tohttps://www.nrscotland.gov.uk/publications/population-estimates-for-settlements-and-localities-in-scotland-mid-2020/ . Census in the UK are normally taken in the first year of a decade 2001, 2011, 2021, e.g. but the 2021 census in Scotland was taken in 2022. I would suggest that mid-2020 information is as good as the latest (2022) Scoland census.
I happen to agree that the whole of the Education section is unreferenced. Now I might regard the statement "The once well manicured grounds where pupils used to play now lie overgrown with weeds." as contenious, but iterestingly no one marked it as such. There would have been a much stronger case for delisting the article if it had reviewed it againstWikipedia:Good article criteria and failed against those criteria./ The User TompaDompa appears to have failed the article against your words of 3rd January "Lots of uncited statements, including entire paragraphs and the "Education" section. The "Demography" section also needs to be updated with the latest census figures". There is no evidence in the Reassessment page that it was reviewed againstWikipedia:Good article criteria andWikipedia:Good article reassessment - particularly this criteria: "The priority should be to improve articles and retain them as GAs rather than to delist them, wherever reasonably possible".
@Pyrotec: The notice on your talk page was a standard notice given to editors connected to a good article. You are not required to respond to them.
Unlike agood article nomination (which an article receives before it is deemed to have reached GA status) agood article review only states concerns an editor has with an article adhering to any of theGA criteria. If you would like this to change, I suggest posting onWT:GA, but I would oppose changing a requirement that GAR be full reviews as it puts an undue burden on the reviewer and would prohibit reviewers from posting new GARs.
GAR states "Wikipedia is not compulsory and editors should not insist that commentators, interested editors, or past GAN nominators make the suggested changes, nor should they state that edits should have been completed before the GAR was opened." I am not interested in bringing these articles back to GA status. I am willing to help any editor who is interested by adding citation needed templates where applicable and re-reviewing articles.
While some editors wish I was more detailed in my reviews, I think that would not be the best use of my wiki-time. Furthermore, there are hundreds of good articles that require lots of edits to meet theGA criteria. I decided long ago that I cannot fix them all myself, so I post them to GAR to see if any editors are interested in resolving concerns. You are always welcome to re-nominate articles to GAN.
My concern is with a GAR that you opened on th 3rd January and another editer Closed and delisted the article on the 18th January using your comments. I don't beleive it was reveiwed against the criteria of the GAR/1: your citeria was that it should contain data from the latest census figures - that is a personal requirement not a GA requirement and clearly it did to refer mid 2020 figures - reference 1 had them, can I reopen the GAR?Pyrotec (talk)22:13, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Pyrotec: That might be a question forWT:GA. I was also concerned that the article had numerous uncited statements and paragraphs. Those would need to be resolved. I am not sure reverting to the 2010 GA version would resolve my concerns, as that version also contains uncited statements and paragraphs. This is why, if it was asked to the community, I would probably oppose reopening the GAR until those concerns were resolved.Z1720 (talk)22:21, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720, I think we are in agreement that the article as it current stands does not comply with the standard for GA. - you commented on the Education section 'it was unreferenced ....' - I'd go much further: it was un-encyclopedic in places e.g. comments about unkept grounds / grass [uncut], a teacher was mentioned by name (quite possibly a living person - so that must be referenced).
The Demographic section had three paragraphs, two of which were referenced, the final one was unferenced; the first paragraph specifically mentioned the 2001 census and had a link to the wikipedia article on the 2001 UK census;but the end of paragraph citation [1] was to a paper published by the National Records of Scotland on 31 March 2022 and covered Scoland's population up to mid-2020 and that citation was referenced as being retrieved on 31 March 2022. So, the comment "The "Demography" section also needs to be updated with the latest census figures." had no validity. Looking at the article's history, in July 2020 the Demographics section was citing 2008 population figures, I beleive that the Mid-2020 population data went in on or before 12th January 2021. This version:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monifieth&oldid=999936960 has mid-2020 data and that five years before this review.
However, it's the process of reviewing that I am also commenting on. You opened it, so you are the lead reviewer; but it was closed by another editor and delisted two weeks later - 'no progress' (which was almost a true statement, the article had been updated from 2001 population data to 2008 population data to mid-2020 population data and it was referenced with a citation number "1").Pyrotec (talk)18:13, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Pyrotec: I can only account for my actions, which were to open the GAR (after leaving a talk page notification and waiting at least two weeks), posting my comments (which I intentionally leave short to avoid tldr and getting bogged down in details) and commenting when progress has stalled (because GARs can't stay open indefinitely). The best way to avoid an article losing its GA status is to monitor it and ensure everything is updated and cited.Z1720 (talk)19:33, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Enable theuser info card
You are invited to join the discussion atWikipedia talk:Selected anniversaries/November 10 § Edmund Fitzgerald photo etc.... Would welcome your thoughts whatever they might be. Also, seeUser talk:Ikhouvanjou14#Your OTD "refresh" for November 10th. Thanks,Shearonink (talk)03:58, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg)
.jpg)
%2c_cropped.jpg)
There is currently a discussion atWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.Long221220 (talk)16:47, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[Tôi tố cáo Nvdtn19 cố tình sửa đổi bài viết của tôi Gang Hyeon (https://vi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gang_Hyeon)][reply]
Administrator changes
CheckUser changes
Arbitration
Miscellaneous
