User talk:Good actions only

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions; however, please remember the essential rule of respecting copyrights. Edits to Wikipedia, such as your edit to the page Roy McMurtry Youth Centre, may not contain material from copyrighted sources unless that text is available under a suitable free license. It is almost never okay to copy extensive text out of a book or website and paste it into a Wikipedia article with little or no alteration, though you can clearly and briefly quote copyrighted text in the right circumstances. Content that does not comply with this legal rule must be removed. For more information on this, see:

If you still have questions, there is the Teahouse, or you can click here to ask a question on your talk page and someone will be along to answer it shortly. As you get started, you may find the pages below to be helpful.

I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:17, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

good to know thanks. I've been trying to do that the best i can lol. Good actions only (talk) 00:23, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:People from Hartland, Michigan

A tag has been placed on Category:People from Hartland, Michigan indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:30, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse!

Hello! Good actions only, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:31, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

test

Good actions only (talk) 07:22, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Views/Day	Title	Tagged with…
58	Oro-Medonte (talk)	Add sources
563	2004 Madrid train bombings (talk)	Add sources
51	Spring Ridge Academy (talk)	Add sources
510	English honorifics (talk)	Add sources
9	Edenvale, Ontario (talk)	Add sources
118	Wasaga Beach (talk)	Add sources
4	Oro Moraine (talk)	Cleanup
2	European Association for Comparative Economic Studies (talk)	Cleanup
18	Environmental issues in Sri Lanka (talk)	Cleanup
894	Pragmatism (talk)	Expand
14,923	United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (talk)	Expand
1,350	Astroturfing (talk)	Expand
366	Barrie (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
1,159	Chicago White Sox (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
7	Science of value (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
3,912	Alberta separatism (talk)	Merge
365	Dust (talk)	Merge
26	Godspeaker (talk)	Merge
680	Zhang Yimou (talk)	Wikify
49	Andrew Pyper (talk)	Wikify
208	Digital media use and mental health (talk)	Wikify
17	Emplify (talk)	Orphan
2	Sadie Park Grisham (talk)	Orphan
1	Kate J. Brainard (talk)	Orphan
3,426	Tumbler Ridge Secondary School (talk)	Stub
13	Lauryn Redding (talk)	Stub
10	Wladimir (footballer) (talk)	Stub
13	Ministry of Cities, Environment, Regions and Transport (talk)	Stub
7	Maria da Conceição (d. 1798) (talk)	Stub
38	Eduardo Ramírez Aguilar (talk)	Stub

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 07:29, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi Good actions only. Thank you for your work on 1832 in philosophy. Another editor, CostalCal, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Use more than one citation when starting the philosophy pages!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|CostalCal}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

CostalCal (talk) 06:16, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@CostalCal: okay i will do that! Good actions only (talk) 16:00, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for helping me for adding the References on my Chicken loaf article

thank you for helping me WhatABanger (talk) 05:06, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Good actions only (talk) 15:24, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Grant Abraham moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Grant Abraham. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing as a live article at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted it to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit the draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. MediaKyle (talk) 21:23, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You are right; thanks. Good actions only (talk) 21:29, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Abbotsford, British Columbia

Hello. Your recent edit to Abbotsford, British Columbia appears to have added a non-notable entity to a list that normally includes only notable entries. In general, a person, organization or product added to a list should have a pre-existing article before being added to most lists. If you wish to create such an article, please first confirm that the subject qualifies for a separate, stand-alone article according to Wikipedia's notability guideline. Thank you. --Magnolia677 (talk) 21:53, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yea i just figured a politician would count as some on there don't have articles and just have a citation so i thought i would do the same.

I'm just trying to help you understand my logic about it all.

My bad i apologize and wont do it again. Good actions only (talk) 21:58, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of islands of Ontario, a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nicholson Island was added. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 10:36, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on List of youth detention center incidents in Ontario

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page List of youth detention center incidents in Ontario, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A dates error. References show this error when one of the date-containing parameters is incorrectly formatted. Please edit the article to correct the date and ensure it is formatted to follow the Wikipedia Manual of Style's guidance on dates. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 18:20, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

you are right. will try to fix it now Good actions only (talk) 18:24, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi Good actions only. Thank you for your work on Newfoundland and Labrador Youth Centre. Another editor, CostalCal, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thank you for your work on youth detention centers in Canada!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|CostalCal}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

CostalCal (talk) 03:49, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

March 2026

This edit is WP:POINTed to the verge of disruption. Please cease actions like this henceforth. Simonm223 (talk) 11:45, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that wasn't my intention at all Good actions only (talk) 13:50, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Exoplanet articles

Why do you create articles on individual exoplanets in multi-planetary systems (HD 85426 c, K2-157 d) instead of creating an article on the entire system? SevenSpheres (talk) 19:22, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yea i guess i could i just haven't seen it on Wikipedia before but that is a good idea i will try to do that next time. Good actions only (talk) 20:52, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi Good actions only. Thank you for your work on 66-form tai chi. Another editor, Mariamnei, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thank you for your work on this article. Please add more sources and footnotes to back up each claim with a reliable source. Please also establish notability as per WP:GNG. Please also note that self-published sources such as YouTube can generally not be used; please find better sources for these claims. Thanks and have a wonderful day!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Mariamnei}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Mariamnei (talk) 07:48, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Mariamnei:

I didn't make it lol.

it was User:RezidntEvil. Good actions only (talk) 15:48, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, sorry to bother you. @RezidntEvil - Please see above. Have a great day! Mariamnei (talk) 08:26, 16 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind words - I think I was spurred into action by the note on the taichi page that this Chinese Government Created form (1958) was "lost". I note that this or a very similar page has existed before in wikipedia and a google search throws it up - presumably deleted for a similar reason. As to notability? You may well be right here and its not sufficiently notable. Some taichi forms have their own wiki pedia pages - some - the lesser practised ones do not. I initially thought it might serve as a point of reference. I can have a look for alternate references but it may be tricky. Even though the youtube page maybe a little sus its the only record I can find of the form being demonstrated - by a prominent wushu judge Liu Lingnian (it records his credentials in chinese at the start of it) RezidntEvil (talk) 13:26, 24 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Joël-Denis Bellavance for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Joël-Denis Bellavance is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joël-Denis Bellavance until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Bearcat (talk) 20:57, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Iceland–Luxembourg relations for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Iceland–Luxembourg relations is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iceland–Luxembourg relations until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

LibStar (talk) 22:17, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@LibStar: Do you think it is good now? Good actions only (talk) 01:25, 16 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Grant Abraham for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Grant Abraham, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grant Abraham until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:04, 20 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi Good actions only. Thank you for your work on Iceland–Jordan relations. Another editor, CostalCal, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Wow! That's a lot of redirects you've created! Keep up the good work.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|CostalCal}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

CostalCal (talk) 05:26, 20 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Previous accounts

You are obviously not a new editor. What accounts have you used before this one? JBW (talk) 22:27, 21 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Can i ask why you are asking. Good actions only 22:33, 21 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, you can, but why would you wish to? Why are you not happy to just answer the question? I asked because Wikipedia has policies regarding the use of multiple accounts, and I wished to make sure you were complying with those policies. What accounts have you previously used? JBW (talk) 00:00, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I understand.

I do not wish to say it but as hopefully made evident i have reformed and learnt a lot since then.

I was told by some people that i may comeback after the ban as i perhaps may have learnt more about Wikipedia during such time in which i very much did.

I have been practically disabled since using this account (was in crutches for a while) so that's why i came on here it gave me something to do and i like stuff like this.

I am not in violation of any rules. Good actions only 00:15, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You say that you "have reformed and learnt a lot since then". Since when?

You say "after the ban"; what ban? What account was banned? Is that other account still banned, or has the ban been removed? JBW (talk) 00:33, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

many months ago my friend. Good actions only 00:34, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Why have you created a new account instead of just returning to your old one? Also I ask you again, is that other account still banned, or has the ban been removed? Answering that question is not optional: you must provide that information. JBW (talk) 00:37, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Shall i consider the conversation closed now? Good actions only 21:02, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

i don't feel like doing this now i do have other stuff i should get done today and i don't want to think about this as much as i perhaps otherwise would be if i was still on today because panic attacks aren't very fun (they would stem from thinking about getting banned again). ill be on tomorrow morning so in about 13ish hours from now.

goodnight.

welp i was gonna send that but you replied don't act like the police you are a volunteer for a massive company and im not sure of any rule stating i must answer to this but i dont feel like demanding it from you.

that account was not banned but the discussion was reopened after someone was unhappy with the result then eventually my supporters stopped being so invested and it seemed like a one way thing and i was banned for a year so i said it was crazy as that was the max ever suggested so then some more reasonable people came in afterward and knocked it down to like 4 months.

during that time i learnt a lot

@User:CostalCal @User:SevenSpheres

just tagging these people in case something happens as i feel as if you are really looking to be able to ban someone.

i really am not harming anything and am acting within guidelines. There is no need to make this a big thing.

goodnight. Good actions only 00:52, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't know you weren't a new user. I am not an administrator so I can't really do anything about what you have suggested. CostalCal (talk) 04:09, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, well, it's always good to have someone to advocate for you (if something for some reason happened), and since you agree that I am your best friend on earth, I'm sure there would be no problem only if needed.^[sarcasm] Good actions only 16:40, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I would recommend you read WP:VANISH and WP:STANDARDOFFER as those are the guidelines covering whether a user who was previously blocked may return. Simonm223 (talk) 21:30, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what the vanish one has to do with it but it has actually been about 6 months now that i have checked it maybe 7 as i think it may have been August.

I know of many policies that would allow me to be on here (i have prepared) but i am not going to say them as i don't want this to turn into anything bigger. From what I've seen Wikipedia has a bit of a problem with banning completely reformed people who have done nothing wrong since taking Wikipedia more seriously.

Take care. Good actions only 21:43, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You have made it abundantly clear that you are evading a ban on another account. I have given you opportunities to clarify the situation, but you have declined to take those opportunities. This account has therefore been blocked indefinitely from editing. If you think there are good reasons why you should be allowed to return to editing, you may request an unblock. To do so, first read the guide to appealing blocks, and then add the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} to the bottom of the talk page of your original account. JBW (talk) 22:15, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Good actions only (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)

Request reason:

I have made 4k edits, 150 pages and somewhere over 25 category's I've been on Wikipedia (on this account) for about 45 days and i haven't broken or vandalized anything i would have been banned by now if that was the case.

I really don't want to be banned i really like Wikipedia it is a lot of what i love doing writing, learning and teaching people.

Yes i admit i used AI at the start but i have taken Wikipedia more seriously since then and i was banned for a few months because of it . I learnt a lot about how Wikipedia actually works since then. and i have done nothing wrong since the unban. By now i have been a net positive.

I very highly urge you to take it up in Wikipedia:Teahouse or whatever the new version of Wikipedia:Community ban discussions is if there is one or perhaps Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard because i am certain that public opinion would be my side. (there is no point in banning me for the time being it will be helpful to respond to people).

Since its true that "A block is not a punishment, but a way to prevent further disruption." then there absolutely is not a reason to block me. it would go against the rules.

I don't believe that there is any rule that would demand for me to be banned if so then it should be stated. regardless Ignore all rules very reasonably and fairly overwrites it as it states "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it."

Also i am not a sock puppet this is not abusively using multiple accounts; this account is not here for malicious reasons i have good faith and have only used it for improving and expanding Wikipedia.

There is zero reason for me to be banned.

Also i was told i may comeback after the ban as i may have learnt more.

The conversation about banning me was closed with nothing happening. Then when one person did not like the outcome, they opened it again, and my supporters became less interested in it and talked less. Then I was banned for a year, which was crazy, as that was the most anyone had ever suggested. Then after someone else reduced the ban to a few months, during such time I was excited to be back on.

The fact that even after all of that time i still want to be on Wikipedia must mean something.

I am clearly here to build an encyclopedia.

Decline reason:

"A deciding factor is not honesty." Yes it is. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 01:03, 23 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This ban needs to be taken up somewhere else on Wikipedia before a final decision. Good actions only 22:47, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There's no such official status as a "final decision" on Wikipedia; you are blocked until either an admin feels there's sufficient reason to unblock you, or a community discussion results in a consensus that you be unblocked. And if the latter, literally the first thing that would be asked would almost certainly be "well, what was your old account?" It seems you could clear this up quite easily at any time, but that you are actively choosing not to do so. Invoking WP:IAR will not be helpful here. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 00:10, 23 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think making a mention to the old accounts of which i am not very proud of will help me in any way at all. A deciding factor is not honesty. Good actions only 00:16, 23 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

ill log back in tomorrow to see what happened. I am looking forward to being back. Good actions only 00:18, 23 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if I can't dissuade you from a path that probably won't get you what you want, all I can do is wish you good fortune. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 00:38, 23 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I wish that you would have the best outcome of this block. If you present yourself as a WP:AGF and reveal your past account, that wouldn't hurt your case it all, it would only help out the case. CostalCal (talk) 05:44, 23 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you listen to CoastalCal because they are correct. It is you who experienced the prior block, not your account. If you disclose the prior account to an admin as part of a standard offer request there may be a path back for you. If you don't, there won't be. Simonm223 (talk) 11:13, 23 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

well it has already been declined.

i would say it if perhaps i would be unbanned but i am not proud of it and would rather leave it in the past.

It would be nice if i had a second chance rather then doing something lame 6 months ago and now i am banned forever with no chance of recovery.

(a better decline reason would be saying that i haven't given the account rather then a small amount of words i said in a appeal) Good actions only 21:36, 23 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You do have a chance of recovery. Admit what your blocked account is, take responsibility for your actions, accept the standard offer, and request unblock on your original account. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 23:36, 23 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of K2-157 d for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article K2-157 d is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K2-157 d until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Abdullah1099 (talk) 06:54, 2 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

April 2026

Before adding a category to an article, as you did to List of youth detention center incidents in Ontario, please make sure that the subject of the article really belongs in the category that you specified according to Wikipedia's categorization guidelines. The category being added must already exist, and must be supported by the article's verifiable content. Categories may be removed if they are deemed incorrect for the subject matter. Thank you. ^SMason_Garrison 19:18, 19 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to email vague complaints about your ban. ^SMason_Garrison 17:22, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for contravening Wikipedia's policy against harassment.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} or use the unblock wizard. ^SMason_Garrison 17:24, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, the second email included racist death threats. ^SMason_Garrison 17:26, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As far as the email you sent me is concerned, as you know full well, it is your decision not to request an unblock of your original account, nobody else's. JBW (talk) 18:57, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ryan Meetup has been accepted

Ryan Meetup, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been accepted!

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 23% of accepted submissions, well done! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

See the quality assessment scheme to find out how to improve the article.

Future articles

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without submitting a draft for review. However, you may continue submitting drafts to Articles for creation if you prefer.

Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

Next steps

Find other Wikipedia articles related to your topic and add links pointing to the new article. This helps readers find it.
Group the article with similar subjects by adding relevant categories.
You may consider nominating a fact from the article within the next 7 days to appear on the Main Page's Did you know section.
Wikipedia is a work in progress. You can continue to expand and improve the new article.
The new article will become eligible to be indexed on search engines once patrolled or after 90 days; search engines may take time to reflect this.
For friendly peer support regarding editing, sourcing, or policies, visit the Teahouse, a question and answer hub for new editors.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

~ A412 ^talk! 22:25, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]