Born to quill. It's like the Fourth of July, Christmas and New Year all rolled into one.
"We're all going on a summer holiday!"
You just stay around to keep the tools, you just stay around to keep the tools! You think that we're all fools, you just stay around to keep the tools! Making minute edits every year, you make minute edits every year! We can see it's very clear, you make minute edits every year! Users such as yourself who make a significantly low amount of edits just to keep your administrative tools sicken me and many others. Just give up the tools already!!! What are you holding on to them for anyways!! What a selfish thing to do!!
Congratulations, Serial Number 54129! The article you nominated, Wonderful Parliament, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Hog Farm (talk) via FACBot (talk) 12:06, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations, Serial Number 54129! The article you nominated, Robert de Umfraville, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Buidhe (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:06, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations, Serial Number 54129! The article you nominated, John Minsterworth, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Gog the Mild (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:05, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations, Serial Number 54129! The article you nominated, Richard Roose, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Gog the Mild (talk) via FACBot (talk) 01:12, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations, Serial Number 54129! The article you nominated, Order of Brothelyngham, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Gog the Mild (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:05, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Milhist reviewing award (2 stripes) for participating in 6 reviews between January and March 2022. Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 06:04, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply] Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space
Congratulations, Serial Number 54129! The article you nominated, Thomas de la More, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Gog the Mild (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:05, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations, Serial Number 54129! The article you nominated, Thomas Neville (died 1460), has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Gog the Mild (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:06, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations, Serial Number 54129! The article you nominated, Act of Accord, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:05, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You've got your way - I won't take part in the GA process or any discussions about the GA process - so why are you twisting the knife? If you don't have the power to ban me from the GA process like you claim, THEN HOW ON EARTH have you the right to demand that I am not allowed to post on my own user page, or to demand that I "get back to work". What "work" am I allowed to do? Who gets to decide it? Are you trying to drive me off the project - if so you are doing a good job of it. I don't want to continue this discussion, so please don't.Nigel Ish (talk) 14:42, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Although thinking about it, continuing a discussion on someone's talk page is an odd way of 'not wanting to continue' a discussion that Nigel Ish started in by now *checks notes* two other venues, and has now also taken to Users:Kyteto's and Thebiguglyalien's talk pages, ywo completely inoffensive editors who have somehow earned Nigel Ish's ire. Or perhaps not enough people were paying him attention. SerialNumber5412918:10, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, meant to write this last night and my battery ran out just as I was wrapping up. I'm not quite sure what you mean by "entailed in the male line"; the barony of Cromwell was created by writ of summons, so heritable by heirs general, rather than heirs male. The situation on Cromwell's death is exactly that described in Abeyance#History: no account is taken of the relative seniority of daughters, so the title lapses when their are coheirs. (I rewrote the phrase "could not be split between two female heirs" because to me that implies there are circumstances under which a peerage could be split.) Payling just says "elevated to the Peerage as Lord Cromwell, a promotion facilitated by Neville's death four weeks earlier", so I don't feel that I broke source-text integrity on the rewrite (I wouldn't defile one of your articles like that!). Indeed, Cokayne says on p. 554, note "b" that Bourchier "was not a coheir himself", so I'm reluctant to describe him as "remaining heir", as the article does now. I don't want to encumber Neville's article with legal finicking that's rather tangential to the man himself, but I do think the phrasing should reflect peerage law a little more closely; I'd like to hear your thoughts.
As you saw, I spun up a stub on Humphrey Bourchier, 1st Baron Cromwell, which you might be able to pad out from some of the sources you've used, especially Payling. It looks as though Payling is writing his biography for HoP (he must have been in the Commons as well before 1461), which will make interesting reading when it comes out. There's an episode in his history which I don't quite understand: Bourchier becomes chamberlain of the receipt again at Edward's accession in 1461. In 1464, John Leynton, who as the legal mind among Ralph, Lord Cromwell's executors had presumably been sparring with Neville & Bourchier, is appointed auditor of the receipt, and in the next year receives, fide the Calendar of Patent Rolls, "a writing of Humphrey Bourgchier, knight, lord Cromwell, one of the chamberlains of the receipt of the Exchequer, under his seal at arms dated 31 August, 5 Edward IV, granting to the said John for life the said office of one of the chamberlains of the receipt of the Exchequer with the appointment of one of the ushers of the Exchequer and other officers, as granted to himself by letters patent dated 17 July, 4 Edward IV". Apparently Humphrey wasn't supposed to be alienating his office, as the writing is enrolled along with "pardon to the said Humphrey and John of their trespasses in this matter; and confirmation to the said John for life of the said office and all fees thereof." That seems rather relevant to the state of the settlement in the 1460s, and I'm a bit surprised it didn't come into Payling's piece!
Richard Beauchamp, 2nd Baron Beauchamp may also be of interest to you given your recent work: there's an unsourced paragraph there that brings his wife's adultery into the trial of Burdet and Stacy, although the Croyland Chronicle is ambiguous about which Lord Beauchamp's wife was implicated (the 1st or 2nd).
On 18 February 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Thomas Burdet, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Thomas Burdet supposedly plotted treason against King Edward IV in 1477 after he killed Burdet's favourite white deer? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Thomas Burdet. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Thomas Burdet), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
On 16 March 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article John Stacy (alchemist), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that John Stacy warned the Duke of Suffolk that a Tower would be dangerous to him; Suffolk was later murdered by sailors on a ship called The Nicholas of the Tower? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/John Stacy (alchemist). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, John Stacy (alchemist)), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
On 19 March 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Roger Tocotes, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Roger Tocotes was suspected by the Duke of Clarence of masterminding the Duchess of Clarence's death, but Tocotes avoided capture until the King got involved? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Roger Tocotes. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Roger Tocotes), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
This is a formal warning for this comment. Even if the link had worked it did not meet the expectations that exist for a contentious topic and was itself aggressive. I don't think you've been formally introduced to how contentious topics work, so I will be giving you the official template designed to introduce that topic below. Please let me know if you have any questions. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:25, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What part of "my personal experience with this user indicates they probably won’t budge" met the core expectation of good faith? The fact that you have not left a simlar warning for DB indicates that you do not take good faith as seriously as faux-civility; which, incidentally—although I admit I fucked up the ping—was a direct quotation, and, in the context of a demonstratable lack of good faith, perfectly reasonable, and indeed, accurate. Fortuna,ImperatrixMundi16:36, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Truthfully it was the entire comment including its aggressive start I am glad to prove you wrong, not that that's a particularly onerous exercise. The quote you made wasn't of Dronebogus but was of ScottishFinnishRadish who was responding to a good faith question from Dronebogus about their conduct and was offering direct feedback to that question. Context matters and you, as someone in conflict with Dronebogus, saying the same thing is very different than SFR offering it as feedback after being asked about it. My choosing to correct issues when I see them doesn't mean there aren't other issues and it doesn't mean that I have an obligation to police the entire topic area. As a volunteer I do work where I think I can add value, have an interest, and have availability; I expect this to be similar for most of us here and that volunteer ethos is something I really cherish about the Wikipedia community. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:49, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please reconsider. I respect you as one of our most reasonable admins, but using the volunteer ethos as an excuse for ignoring a provocation (the initial remark by Dronebogus) while rebuking the response is not good administration. Nobody is asking you to police the entire topic area, but you should have looked at the context of Fortuna's edit before you issued the warning. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 16:59, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have sympathy with any editor whose experiences with Dronebogus elicit such a blunt admission, since in my experience he sometimes lashes out. On the merits, Fortuna imperatrix mundi's comment was a foolish thing to tack on, almost on a par with DB's provocation, IMHO. I trust Barkeep49's judgement, so I defer to their BOLD. A warning of some kind is appropriate, even for an editor with 100K edits. BusterD (talk) 17:31, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the warning for Fortuna was reasonable. But the lack of consistency is not acceptable, and when the lack of consistency is brought to the warning admin's attention, doubling-down on the grounds of volunteer ethos is even less acceptable. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 17:38, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't it in the first link, piped "this comment"? Actually, Talk:Satie displays several instances of less than superb "ethos", before and in the RfC. Let's just hope that it will not happen again. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:29, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fortuna was replying to a comment in Dronebogus concluded by saying my personal experience with this user indicates they probably won’t budge. As Fortuna pointed out above, that comment fails to assume good faith. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 18:45, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did not and do not find the two comments equivalent and acted accordingly. However, you're correct that something and nothing was not the correct outcome. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:44, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes, "probably won't budge" is a good thing. I hope that all of us cling stubbornly to our positions about whether copyvios are acceptable, whether unsourced articles are desirable, etc. More often, "probably won't budge" is a statement of fact; for example, one does not expect a POV pusher to change their POV, so you might as well save your (digital) breath because discussion won't change matters.
A few years ago, I saw an editor say something about the need to apply an appropriate amount of tact. (I can't find it right now.) The "probably won't budge" statement does not apply an appropriate amount of tact. However, the statement about it being easy to prove the interlocutor wrong goes beyond just being tactless. Therefore I am not surprised to see a concern raised here but not there.
To jump to my original thought: People do sometimes choose to provide advice where it seems more likely to be useful. Therefore, if two people post comments of dubious tactfulness or civility, and only one gets warned, that could mean that the two comments were not equivalent. (I have made the case for that above.) But it could also mean that the warner has decided that the un-contacted editor "probably won't benefit" from any advice, to adapt one of the disputed phrases. I don't think therefore that you should feel singled out inappropriately. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:05, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be transparent here in a way that some might think reflects poorly on me. I had no idea you had renamed. I saw a comment that was "not great but not on its own actionable" followed by an escalation that crossed the line from a user I didn't recognize and had no CT postings (because the filter hits don't come along with a user on a rename). So a "friendly word" with someone who I have no ideas about and who might have no idea of who I am didn't feel like it was going to be preventative. If I'd known who this was I would have indeed chosen a different tact as the best way of getting the outcome I'd hoped for. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:40, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Barkeep49: You are correct to suggest that a "friendly word" would have been preventative; now that you "know who this was", may I suggest rescinding the Formal Warning™ for a different tack. Season's greetings to you and yours! —Fortuna, imperatrix15:30, 23 December 2025 (UTC) (Serial Number 54129)[reply]
In general I am in favor of doing the lightest weight action that I think will produce results. So had I known about our history that action would have been a discussion rather than a formal warning. So in that spirit, it feels silly for me not to agree to this request. However, I looked through the AELOG from 2023 and 2024 and the only time I could find a warning rescinded was when the warning was based on incorrect information. I don't think that applies here and I think many other admins who decided to action this comment would have landed on a formal warning, even knowing your entire editing history. So in the spirit of "discussion", let's make sure we're on the same page about what this incident and kind of thing means moving forward. Presuming we are, I would be happy to append a note to the log. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:52, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 17 May 2025. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 2025, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/May 2025. Please keep an eye on that page, as notifications of copy edits to or queries about the draft blurb may be left there by user:JennyOz, who assists the coordinators by reviewing the blurbs, or by others. I also suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from two days before it appears on the Main Page. Thanks, and congratulations on your work! Gog the Mild (talk) 16:32, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying really hard to keep my cool over this Tolkien AfD - I have mentioned in other places that I am actually a professional literature critic and I find the suggestion that anyone reading sexuality into a text that isn't *about* sex is somehow Fringe to be highly anti-intellectual and honestly quite offensive. But because I know that this has got me actually quite upset I'm afraid of missing details.... like the canvassed AfD template. So I appreciate your putting it in. Simonm223 (talk) 15:24, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Simonm223 no problem, of course. Let me say, too, that I think you've been remarkably restrained! (And by the way, yours at FTN was one of the most neutral messages I've seen at a noticeboard, so no worries there either.) Fortuna,ImperatrixMundi15:34, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The second round of the 2025 WikiCup ended on 28 April at 23:59 UTC. To reiterate what we said in the previous newsletter, we are no longer disqualifying contestants based on how many points (now known as round points) they received. Instead, the contestants with the highest round-point totals now receive tournament points at the end of each round. These tournament points are carried over between rounds, and can only be earned if a competitor is among the top 16 round-point scorers at the end of each round. This table shows all competitors who have received tournament points so far. Everyone who competed in round 2 will advance to round 3 unless they have withdrawn or been banned.
Round 2 was quite competitive. Four contestants scored more than 1,000 round points, and eight scored more than 500 points (including one who has withdrawn). The following competitors scored at least 800 points:
History6042 (submissions) with 1,088 round points from four featured lists about Michelin-starred restaurants, nine good articles and a good topic mostly on Olympic-related subjects, seven ITN articles, and dozens of reviews
Gog the Mild (submissions) with 1,085 round points from three FAs, one GA, and four DYKs on military history, as well as 18 reviews
Arconning (submissions) with 887 round points, mostly from four FLs, six GAs, and seven DYKs on Olympic topics, along with more than two dozen reviews
In addition, we would like to recognize Generalissima (submissions) for her efforts; she scored 801 round points but withdrew before the end of the round.
The full scores for round 2 can be seen here. During this round, contestants have claimed 13 featured articles, 20 featured lists, 4 featured-topic articles, 138 good articles, 7 good-topic articles, and more than 100 Did You Know articles. In addition, competitors have worked on 19 In the News articles, and they have conducted nearly 300 reviews.
Remember that any content promoted after 28 April but before the start of Round 3 can be claimed in Round 3. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, feel free to review one of the nominations listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:02, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
News from the WMF: Product & Tech Progress on the Annual Plan A look at some product and tech highlights from the Wikimedia Foundation's Annual Plan (July–December 2024).
Hello, I just wanted to let you know I have edited my remarks, due to the fact I have substantilly expanded the article sourcing at The Sol Foundation. You may wish to read my update and if it has any relevance to your own remarks there, should they warrant updating or amending. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 01:38, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am confused because you reverted a few of my edits without any explanation whatsoever, including a caption with demonstrably incorrect grammar, and another done in full compliance with MOS:CAPFRAG.
...I also got a rather negative comment for it, so your thank-you helps me put overall feedback in a better perspective. Thank you! The small stuff still counts. JFHJr (㊟) 00:23, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
Thanks Gerda, a good story, and the kind of thing we need to hold onto these days. I hope you're well—apologies for not replying to your earlier messages here; for whatever reasons, my talk was a pretty dispiriting place at the tme, so I don't think I answered anyone that I liked! Fortuna,ImperatrixMundi21:22, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Thanks for taking care of the move request at the RM board. However, the final destination for this page should be "Palam Kalyanasundaram" and not "Palam Kalyan Sundaram" (as it is at the moment). It's the first one that is move protected and is the correct name of the subject (unlike my draft page title). Thanks! — WeWake (talk) 19:14, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I'm putting this on your talk page rather than at the Help desk as I'm still playing around with the parameters in the second box to get as close as possible to what you asked for. I suspect that it is impossible to get the two quotes exactly lined up because the second box acts like a subsidiary of the first one even when given a 150% parameter for its width. Note how I've increased the font size in the second box. In previous versions, it was obvious the fonts reduced once embedded within the main box. To be honest, I suspect that the best way forward might be to cheat by putting both quotes together as if one, using line breaks. Compare the source codes. I hope this helps! Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:32, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Turnbull. Talk about coincidence—I just fixed a few typos in my HD post the same minute you posted here :) thaks for working on this. see what you mean about the font size needing adjusting. It's clever to increase the font size to compensate, but as you say, there's always a gap. To be honest, think that last on does exactly what I want. I'm just sorry to have wasted your time on the technical stuff when it was as simple as line breaks! Thanks though! —Fortuna, imperatrix17:39, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I noticed you moved a request to the bottom of the page, but that was not just a regular section. It was an active Trainee/Clerking request. If you look at the page history, all such requests use level 4 headers and are placed in the Active requests section at the top. That is also what the page instructions say. Thanks! – DreamRimmer■12:48, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Goodfellas–The Sopranos cast overlap 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.
Thanks Bishonen; as it happens, I added another account to the SPI, not Giorgia Melons. And you know, when it comes to sock hunting, etc... you know, I had to relying on a non-admin to remove trolling from my talk page? No advanced permissions. No .spihelper script. Just good old-fashioned back watching. More power to Johnj1995, who with no blocks, >70K edits should probably be an admin. On a lighter note, best version. Semper crescis, aut decrescis, in our work, like the pissed monks we live forever. Prost! —Fortuna, imperatrix23:09, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.
Unless I am missing something, you need to recalibrate what you consider aspersions and slurs. This edit is so mild, i had to check a few times that I didn't misclick the diff. EvergreenFir(talk)22:19, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No you didn't miss anything. But I did. In the interests of protecting our editors, I've reopened... this time, with the correct diff. D'oh. Cheers, —Fortuna, imperatrix22:40, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
I had a look at the underlying content dispute that led to the legal threat at AN/I and I am sorry to say that it looks like the editor who made the legal threat has a bit of a point. Much of this material looks like it's covered under WP:BLPGOSSIP and should probably be excluded. I have no intention of adding another revert to the edit war but I'd appreciate it if you would self-revert. Happy to discuss my reasoning further. Simonm223 (talk) 17:11, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this; I hadn't realised it was at AN/I (although I probably should've guessed it would be). I was taken in by the untruthful edit summaries and removal of references; but since I can't (and won't attempt to) demonstrate those references are at all reliable—and per ONUS/BLPSOURCES—I've reverted. Cheers, —Fortuna, imperatrix17:24, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
I saw your response to an editor who was requesting changes to Zionism. In your response you suggested they start a discussion and obtain consensus. Such responses aren't helpful because non WP:ECR editors aren't permitted to make edits in the topic area beyond simple edit requests per WP:ARBECR. In general if they are making any requests which are contentious they should simply be informed that their request hasn't been carried out. TarnishedPathtalk12:56, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At WP:ANI#Administrator civility standards and Necrothesp, you have accidentally entered a semicolon instead of a colon in your reply to DuncanHill's comment, which has caused the entire comment to appear bold except for "20, 18 June 2025 (UTC)," which appears indented on the next line. Please fix this by replacing :::::::;{{u|DuncanHill}} with ::::::::{{u|DuncanHill}}. GTrang (talk) 15:01, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @Fortuna imperatrix mundi! I was wondering what led to your last edit / restore. I haven't reviewed the addition in the 'Project Reboot' subsection yet, but the sentence about the game's US debut week was added by me. Is there something wrong with it or did I miss a discussion somewhere else? Vestigium Leonis (talk) 22:30, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the one who added content to the Project Reboot subsection and I also set the url-status of a source to "dead". I’d appreciate it if you could clarify what specifically was problematic about my edits, so I can avoid making similar mistakes in the future. Itdoesntmatteranymore (talk) 05:52, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sammi Brie (submissions) with 1,055 round points, mostly from television station articles, including 27 good articles and 9 good topic articles
Everyone who competed in round 3 will advance to round 4 unless they have withdrawn. This table shows all competitors who have received tournament points so far, while the full scores for round 3 can be seen here. During this round, contestants have claimed 4 featured articles, 16 featured lists, 1 featured picture, 9 featured-topic articles, 149 good articles, 27 good-topic articles, and more than 90 Did You Know articles. In addition, competitors have worked on 18 In the News articles, and they have conducted more than 200 reviews.
Remember that any content promoted after 28 June but before the start of Round 4 can be claimed in Round 4. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, feel free to review one of the nominations listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:49, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unblock requests should only be removed in extreme circumstances, such as when they dox other editors or the like; basically cases where you would request oversight of them in addition to removing them. This unblock request [1] was not something like that and should not have been removed. In that case, even if you feel the unblock request is frivolous or silly, please leave it in place for review. SeraphimbladeTalk to me14:17, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I had acknowledged that my RFAR was in title case when sentence case is mandated, in my addition to my statement. I made that mention about 24 hours before you did, but you may have reasonably not been looking at additions to statements. I thought that the name of an ArbCom filing, like the name of a Wikipedia article or section of an article, is a title and can reasonably be put in title case. Perhaps that illustrates what this case is about. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:35, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Robert, there was me thinking I was being original! I suppose in the spirit of the occasion we should take it as seriously as certain other people... and edit-war over it for the next few years in half a million words. Sigh. Thanks for the note though, it's appreciated.Whatever the decision, I think the case had to be brought, and you should be thanked for that. And should it not be heard in full now, then it'll certainly have to be heard in the future. 19:00, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
Hello Fortuna imperatrix mundi, JFHJr has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
There is something I have wanted to complain about to someone for months and I cannot suppress it any longer: have you noticed how poor the state of the articles about the queens consort of England is? There is not a single GA or FA in the list of pre-Union consorts. On top of that, somehow the poorest of these articles is the one about the militarily most active queen. There, that's off my chest now. I'll put that article on my ever-growing to-do list. Surtsicna (talk) 23:17, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The administrator elections process has officially started! Interested editors are encouraged to self-nominate or arrange to be nominated by reviewing the instructions at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/July 2025/Candidates.
Here is the schedule:
July 9–15 - Call for candidates
July 18–22 - Discussion phase
July 23–29 - SecurePoll voting phase
Please note the following:
The requirements to run are identical to RFA—a prospective candidate must be extended confirmed.
The process will have a seven day call for candidates phase, a two day pause, a five day discussion phase, and a seven day private vote using SecurePoll. Discussion and questions are only allowed on the candidate pages during the discussion phase.
The outcome of this process is identical to making a request for adminship. There is no official difference between an administrator appointed through RFA versus administrator elections.
Ask any questions about the process at the talk page. A separate user talk message will be sent to official candidates with additional information about the process.
If you are interested in the process, please make sure to watchlist the appropriate pages. A watchlist notice will be added when the discussion phase opens, and again when the voting phase opens.
You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.
G6, as you know, is for untranscluded RFAs, as at the time of tagging it was. I never mentioned NOTNOW; "Anti-bloodbath speedy" was my custom-crit. ("Another inexperienced editor" obviously referred to LordDiscord, who got him into it in the first place, Stanley). —Fortuna, imperatrix16:19, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On July 23, we will start the voting phase. The candidate subpages will close again to public questions and discussion, and everyone will have a week to use the SecurePoll software to vote, which uses a secret ballot. You can see who voted, but not who they voted for. Please note that the vote totals cannot be made public until after voting has ended and as such, it will not be possible for you to see an individual candidate's totals during the election. You must be extended confirmed to vote.
Once voting concludes, we will begin the scrutineering phase, which will last approximately four days, or perhaps a little longer. Once everything is certified, the results will be posted on the results page (you may want to watchlist this page) and transcluded to the main election page. In order to be granted adminship, a candidate must have received at least 70.0% support, calculated as Support / (Support + Oppose), and must also have received a minimum of 20 support votes. Because this is a vote and not a consensus, there are no bureaucrat discussions ("crat chats").
Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.
You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.
In the voting phase, the candidate subpages will close to public questions and discussion, and everyone who qualifies to vote will have a week to use the SecurePoll software to vote, which uses a secret ballot. You can see who voted, but not who they voted for. Please note that the vote totals cannot be made public until after voting has ended and as such, it will not be possible for you to see an individual candidate's vote total during the election. The suffrage requirements are similar to those at RFA.
Once voting concludes, we will begin the scrutineering phase, which will last for approximately four days, perhaps longer. Once everything is certified, the results will be posted on the results page (this is a good page to watchlist), and transcluded to the main election page. In order to be granted adminship, a candidate must have received at least 70.0% support, calculated as Support / (Support + Oppose), and a minimum of 20 support votes. Because this is a vote and not a consensus, there are no bureaucrat discussions ("crat chats").
Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.
You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.
Congratulations, Fortuna imperatrix mundi! The article you nominated, English invasion of Scotland (1385), has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, David Fuchs (talk) via FACBot (talk) 01:42, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello everyone, and welcome to the 27th issue of the Wikipedia Scripts++ Newsletter, covering all our favorite new and updated user scripts since 2025! Boy, does it feel good to kick off the year with an issue. Yep, it's been a year since we cleared out the 2022-2024 backlog with issues 23 and 24! Good times. Though in this case "a year" just means... 6 months? 😯 The salience of whatever joke I was planning to make here has vanished speedily. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:00, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Got anything good? Tell us about your new, improved, old, or messed-up script here!
WikiTextExpander by Polygnotus, is this edition's featured script. At the click of a configurable hotkey, this script will find and replace or link a configurable list of phrases within the selected text in all source editors (even in the comment/reply field!). Besides allowing the quick insertion of templated messages, this script greatly mitigates the WP:WTF? problem by providing both the legibility of familiar words and the convenience of shortcuts. And to those asking, the capitalization of "Wikitext" as "WikiText" was a necessary sacrifice for far-more-memorable acronymy.
CanonNi: AlertAssistant has been fixed and rewritten using OOUI instead of Twinkle's Morebits. Such modern, very tool. (Do note that the maintainer has since become inactive.)
NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh/AjaxLoader has been updated to use modern JS APIs that replace the browser's URL bar with the link you clicked on to load in place. The "back" (and "forward") buttons also work now. Cool, innit?
andrybak: Unsigned helper no longer shows an error when the message to sign was added in the earliest 50 revisions of a page's history. This is especially relevant to pages with short histories.
BilledMammal/Move+ needs updating to order list of pages handle lists of pages to move correctly regardless of the discussion's page, so that we may avoid repeating fiasco history.
In breaking m:Tech/News, Gadgets can now include .vue files. This makes it easier to develop modern user interfaces using Vue.js, in particular using Codex, the official design system of Wikimedia. Codex icons are now also available. The documentation has examples.
Appo/Globstory integrates OpenHistoryMap, updating the map whenever hovering/clicking on a location or year, the latter of which changes the map to be (hopefully) accurate to the year selected. It's pretty interesting.
linkinfo Somewhat similar to WP:NavPops, Awesome Aasim/linkinfo(pictured) provides a collection of links to replace the right-click context menu, presented beautifully.
PreviousDiscussions provides a link to search for your username on subpages of another user's userpage and talkpage conveniently.
Twineeea/noRedLinks brings you to the "read" instead of the "create" tab when you visit a red link. Contemplate life's mysteries as you stare into the blank! Deeply.
No, this is not going to be the enduring tradition of S++ for the future. This was meant to be a joke for the special occasion on the first day of the fourth month but was delayed by four months because I'm lazy.
Today's story - short version: ten years ago we had a DYK about a soprano who sang in concerts with me in the choir, - longer: I found today a youtube of an aria she sang with us then, recorded the same year, - if you still have time: our performances were the weekend before the Iraq war ultimatum, and we sang Dona nobis pacem (and the drummer drummed!) as if they could hear us in Washington. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:39, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 25 October 2025. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 25, 2025, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/October 2025. Please keep an eye on that page, as notifications of copy edits to or queries about the draft blurb may be left there by those who assist the coordinators by reviewing the blurbs, or by others. I also suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from two days before it appears on the Main Page. Thanks, and congratulations on your work! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:54, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited English invasion of Scotland (1400), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jilt. 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.)
The fourth round of the 2025 WikiCup ended on 29 August. The penultimate round saw three contestants score more than 800 points:
BeanieFan11 (submissions) with 1,175 round points, mainly from sports-related articles, including 17 good articles, 27 did you know articles, and 9 in the news articles
AirshipJungleman29 (submissions) with 854 round points, mostly from a high-scoring featured article on the Indian leader Rani of Jhansi and two good articles, in addition to 13 featured and good article reviews
Everyone who competed in Round 4 will advance to Round 5 unless they have withdrawn. This table shows all competitors who have received tournament points so far, while the full scores for Round 4 can be seen here. During this round, contestants have claimed 9 featured articles, 12 featured lists, 98 good articles, 9 good topic articles, more than 150 reviews, nearly 100 did you know articles, and 18 in the news articles.
In advance of the fifth and final round, the judges would like to thank every contestant for their hard work. As a reminder, any content promoted after 29 August but before the start of Round 5 can be claimed in Round 5. In addition, note that Round 5 will end on 31 October at 23:59 UTC. Awards at the end of Round 5 will be distributed based on who has the most tournament points over all five rounds, and special awards will be distributed based on high performance in particular areas of content creation (e.g., most featured articles in a single round).
Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, feel free to review one of the nominations listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges – Cwmhiraeth (talk·contribs), Epicgenius (talk·contribs), Frostly (talk·contribs), Guerillero (talk·contribs) and Lee Vilenski (talk·contribs) – are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck!
Hi, thanks for closing the discussion. I understand the close, but I'm a bit confused about the warning; I've read the page you linked; WP:Disruptive editing, in full, and I don't understand why I have been warned. The examples given on that page are:
Is tendentious: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from other editors.
I have edited the article once, after the active discussion in which I replied was archived by an involved editor for no reason. This seems to describe the behaviour of the editor I reported.
Is unwilling or unable to satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability; Engages in "disruptive cite-tagging"
Irrelevant
Fails to engage in consensus building: repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits; repeatedly disregards other editors' explanations for their edits.
I have never done any of those things on the article or talk page;
Fails to recognize, rejects, or ignores community input: resists moderation and/or requests for comment, continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors.
There was no consensus and I've never resisted anyone.
In my view, I reported an editor that reverted another editor 4 times in a row, that archived an active discussion immediately after I disagreed with them, that didn't addressed the points in my comment even after I unarchived the discussion, and that kept not cooperating in the consensus-building process.
Could you kindly explain which of my edits were disruptive? It clearly seems I've done something wrong without knowing it, and I'd like to avoid repeating the same mistake. FaviFake (talk) 15:18, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, per WP:NHC, Consensus is not determined by counting heads or counting votes, nor is it determined by the closer's own views about what action or outcome is most appropriate. The closer is there to judge the consensus of the community. User:Graham Beards seems to have most closely assessed the situation generally and your behavior specifically. Re. WP:DE, you've missed the most important sentence: Editors may be accidentally disruptive. Note that GB is an administrator; without wanting to mind-read, It's probable that he commented as he did in order to guide a close; he could have closed it himself, with a warning—that would have carried the moral weight of a logged warning—but, perhaps assessing you would be unlikely to return to WP:AN/I for any reason (I note, fore example, that you've only ever made one edit to that page before today, a proud record) and therefore a close with a lighter touch would be sufficient. In any case, I think (apropos "I've done something wrong without knowing it") GB summarized their thinking clearly enough. Cheers, —Fortuna, imperatrix16:17, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @Graham Beards in case they can share more details. you've missed the most important sentence: Editors may be accidentally disruptive Editors usually aren't formally warned at ANI for "disruptive editing" if they do it by accident. I think the fact that this was accidental is of great importance. I am worried this warning may leave a "black mark" on my account, so I would like to make sure I understand this closure and the reasons behind the warning.Firstly, I can concede that there wasn't a clear-cut consensus, but to me it seems Graham Beards's view of how the whole thing unfolded possibly missed some important facts. In their comment:
It started over a change to the format of a See Also link at the bottom of a recently promoted Featured Article. This lead to a disagreement that was rightly continued on the Talk Page. Rather than engaging in this discussion FaviFake starts an edit war.
If this is supposed to be in chronological order, it is wrong. [E]ngaging in this discussion was the very first thing I did.
6 minutes later, the editor read my reply and archived the discussion without replying to me or giving a rationale for the archival. The discussion was very much active, it had been started only a few days prior.
Since the discussion was archived, I restored the edit to the article. Sure, maybe I shouldn't have done this. But it doesn't seem like DE to me; it's the very first time I have ever edited that article, and I only have done so after the discussion was archived.
I then restored the discussion that the editor archived. Is this what I shouldn't have done?
FaviFake starts this thread at ANI, which includes erroneous accusations of deleted discussions
Congratulations, Fortuna imperatrix mundi! The article you nominated, Poisoning of Abbot Greenwell, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Gog the Mild (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:05, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not undo edits made to this article. It is riddled with factual errors. It includes incorrect dates, incorrect names and incorrect locations, and whole passages have been copied from poorly-researched articles. It is now being corrected.
Thank you.21:54, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
Again, please refrain from undoing edits to this article.
This article is completely incorrect. It is riddled with factual errors. It includes incorrect dates, incorrect names and incorrect locations, and whole passages have been copied from poorly-researched articles. It includes statements invented from whole cloth, i.e. that Ridgewell served in Rhodesia (he never went anywhere near Rhodesia).
I am replacing all of this with correct information from credible sources. Please leave it alone.23:33, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
The RFC phase of the July 2025 administrator elections has started. There are 10 RFCs for consideration. You can participate in the RFC phase at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/July 2025/RFCs.
Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.
You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.
@Tenshi Hinanawi: Thanks for this! But does the bot "know" whether, e.g., a RM should be at AfC, for instance? Or does it just mark everything as accepted/declined? Apologies for the (massive!) delay in replying by the way! —Fortuna, imperatrix14:39, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did not want to make a reply comment on the coordinator page because I did not want to make it into a big deal or any type of contention. Nor did I want to appear to be critical. Since you commented, I thought I would just leave you a note on the side instead.
I occasionally struggle with templates that are somewhat out of the ordinary and other programming tasks, unlike some others such as Hawkeye7 who have more skill and experience with such tasks. I actually tried to change the alphabetical order and for some reason was not getting it done without deleting some lines. I saw no reason to mention that generally in a reply. Hawkeye7 is right, the bot does not do it and it is not in the instructions, just in the introduction to the voting page. I am reasonably sure that is meant to show neutrality. Also, I forgot about the tally box and I suppose the others did too. The bot also does not do that but Hawkeye 7 has written that he will change that. In my experience, it has magically appeared each year. So in view of the fact there were only five candidates, and I did not want to spend more time trying to change the listings, I gave up on alphabetizing of the entries.
TomStar81 is right that the project "has seen better days" in one sense. There were more coordinator candidates that coordinator slots for some years in the past. Now, the project could use more coordinators. The number of coordinators for the project was set up at 10 plus the lead so that there would be enough coordinators to handle all of the tasks and make some other writing and editing contributions, even if a few coordinators participated only sparingly. As it is, the number of coordinators has been declining over the past few years. We are at a low with only five candidates. Luckily, the project also has had some coordinator-type work from a few coordinator emeriti, former coordinators and experienced users such as yourself. That's not really enough to do all the work of the project, especially promptly. On the other hand, many projects now exist in name only with no coordinators or guidance. They may have an occasional random comment on the talk pages but that is about all.
If you may wish to be added to the coordinator group, the lead coordinator can co-opt new coordinators at any time before the next election and I think would do so gratefully after a request. I hesitate to suggest you add yourself to the list at this late date. However, I think that nobody would object if you did so. Also, you would assuredly get the one vote that is needed to be elected this time around.
@Donner60: Apologies for making what was meant, honestly, to be a smart (albeit lighthearted) remark, but which I see could have sounded sarcastic. Sorry about that—I wasn't attacking coords, who all do a pretty intense job (there always seems to be something to do!) with fewer people to do the work. I want to say, thanks for this message, though. It's really nice. I don't get so many supportive messages (some would say I get all the support I deserve, perhaps!), but this is really cool. I appreciate the vote of confidence! And thank you, friend, for everything you do here :) —Fortuna, imperatrix14:39, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. No problem. I did not really take it as sarcasm so much as something in need of an explanation and maybe a further comment. It probably really needed a general explanation on the page itself for anyone interested in the topic. Then again, I did not want to insult you (inadvertently though it would have been) or to cause any contention with TomStar81, a long-time and valued contributor. As I noted, I agreed with his comment when taken generally, though I thought it was a bit unnecessary under the circumstances. Thanks for your contributions to the project and to Wikipedia in general. Donner60 (talk) 21:16, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Fortuna imperatrix mundi. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
There is a new update for Abstract Wikipedia and Wikifunctions. Please, come and read it!
In this issue, we kickstart our naming contest for Abstract Wikipedia, we present a beautiful representation of functions by a community member, we report on the next events we'll be part of, and we take a look at the latest software developments.
Want to catch up with the previous updates? Check our archive!
Thanks both for the vote of confidence, it's kinda heartwarming. Unfortunately, it would be a bloodbath, honestly. But it's nice of you—both editors to be highly respected—to suggest it! (On that, Toadspike, maybe encourage Poly along that road instead...?) —Fortuna, imperatrix14:39, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just commenting here that I was about to ask you to run in the upcoming elections before I saw this section. You would make a great admin, and you'd easily have my support. I can't think of a single reason you would be opposed. You should run! QuicoleJR (talk) 15:04, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When you corrected your count from 3 to 2 after I pointed out it was wrong, you removed my comment pointing this out. Please don’t do this in the future. Dronebogus (talk) 17:37, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dronebogus, please take your ABF and insert it somewhere. I hadn't seen your comment, which is why my e/summary was "e.c" (i.e. edit conflict) having decided to double-check my facts. It's because of this persistent WP:BATTLEGROUND approach, whereby you consistently default to assuming bad faith, that will be your undoing at your inevitable, if unsurprising, future appearances at AN/I. —Fortuna, imperatrix17:42, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
...is delighted with your talkpage and has parked her big butt on it to gobble up the food as it falls. (I'm helping with the donuts.) How wonderful that more and more just keeps on coming! She may actually stop "accidentally" eating little users! Bishonen | tålk19:34, 19 October 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Congratulations, Fortuna imperatrix mundi! The article you nominated, English invasion of Scotland (1400), has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, FrB.TG (talk) via FACBot (talk) 03:52, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations to more featured content, and thank you today for Act of Accord, introduced: "One prince promised a throne, another prince denied a throne, a queen spurned, a king humiliated, and all because of an agreement that satisfied no one and angered most. Accord... it didn't."! - I brought the name of Elsa Reger to the same page. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:14, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Traffic report: One click after another Serial-killer miniseries, deceased scientist, government shutdowns and Sandalwood hit "Kantara" crowd the tubes.
There is a new update for Abstract Wikipedia and Wikifunctions. Please, come and read it!
In this issue, we welcome two new additions to the team, we update you on our naming contest for Abstract Wikipedia, we report on the next events we'll be part of, and we take a look at the latest software developments.
Want to catch up with the previous updates? Check our archive!
Wikifunctions & Abstract Wikipedia Newsletter #224 is out: Round 1 of “abstract content wiki” naming vote ending Monday; An example of short descriptions
There is a new update for Abstract Wikipedia and Wikifunctions. Please, come and read it!
In this issue, we update you on our naming contest for Abstract Wikipedia, we announce our first experimentation with short descriptions on Wikidata, we talk about our presentations at the upcoming WikidataCon 2025, and we take a look at the latest Type and software developments.
Want to catch up with the previous updates? Check our archive!
BeanieFan11 (submissions) with 1,035 round points, mostly from 19 good articles and 21 did you know articles about athletes
vigilantcosmicpenguin (submissions) with 819 round points, mostly from 13 good articles and 11 did you know articles about a wide range of topics from abortion topics to African cities
TheNuggeteer (submissions) with 508 round points from 9 good articles, 4 good topic articles and 6 did you know articles mainly about Philippines topics, along with 19 good article reviews
The final round was very productive, and contestants had 2 featured articles, 4 featured lists, 106 good articles, 5 good topic articles, 178 article reviews, 76 did you know articles, and 9 in the news articles. Altogether, Wikipedia has benefited greatly from the activities of WikiCup competitors all through the contest. Well done everyone!
The top eight scorers will receive awards shortly. The following special awards will be made, based on high performance in particular areas of content creation. These prizes are awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field during the competition.
Gog the Mild (submissions) wins the featured article prize, with 12 featured articles total, and the featured topic prize, with 9 featured topic articles in total
AirshipJungleman29 (submissions) wins the featured picture prize, submitting the only featured picture in the entire contest during round 3
History6042 (submissions) wins the featured content reviewer prize, with 127 featured content reviews. He will also share the ITN prize, with 20 in the news articles in total.
BeanieFan11 (submissions) wins the good article prize, with 100 good articles total, and the DYK prize, with 147 did you know articles in total. He will also share the ITN prize, with 20 in the news articles in total.
Next year's competition will begin on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate. The WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors, and we hope to see you all in the 2026 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement!
Wikifunctions & Abstract Wikipedia Newsletter #225 is out: First round of voting for naming the wiki for abstract content closed; Calling for Wiktionary functions; Embedded Wikifunctions on Bengali Wikipedia and seven more Wiktionaries
There is a new update for Abstract Wikipedia and Wikifunctions. Please, come and read it!
In this issue, we update you on the closing of the first phase of the naming contest for Abstract Wikipedia, we introduce a possible implementation of Wikifunctions for Wiktionaries, we talk about our latest outreach events, and we take a look at the latest Type and software developments.
Want to catch up with the previous updates? Check our archive!
Not a good move. The long-established practice for railway names connecting two places is to have an en-dash and a lower case "railway". No doubt somebody else will move it to Kunming–Singapore railway in due course.--Grahame (talk) 02:01, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Grahamec If they do, it will no doubt be considered WP:MOVEWARring and require administrative intervention. Randy Kryn is an extremely experienced editor and made a reasonable request for the move (as my edit summary makes clear). If you dispute the move, which you are entitled to do, the next stage—per WP:RMNOT—is to initiate a talk page discussion and establish a community consensus for either page title. Either way, that's the best place for this discussion to continue. Cheers, —Fortuna, imperatrix07:40, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not bothering with this, but there is a long established consensus. In event, it is complete rubbish to say that returning to consensus is edit warring. Please don't seek to intimidate me.--Grahame (talk) 07:44, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, Grahamec, it's my fault. I did not know about the consensus and asked that the page be moved solely to be consistent with Trans-Siberian Railway and Trans-Asian Railway, two names I was working with which are proper names. If Kunming-Singapore is not a proper name then it should be moved back. Thanks for the ping. Has there been a problem with Trans-Siberian Railway being uppercased?, it seems the one that is a household name. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:34, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus, if I remember correctly is that lines with proper names like the Trans-Siberian Railway are spelt with all capitals. I'm not sure where the consensus is written down, but no doubt somewhere within WP:Rail.--Grahame (talk) 01:59, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikifunctions & Abstract Wikipedia Newsletter #226 is out: Getting ready for second round of voting for naming the wiki with abstract content; Rewriting the backend: Why Rust?
There is a new update for Abstract Wikipedia and Wikifunctions. Please, come and read it!
In this issue, we summarise current discussion regarding the naming contest for Abstract Wikipedia, we discuss how we are rewriting the backend, we ask for help in substituting a function, we suggest you the recordings of Wikifunctions-related sessions at the WikidataCon 2025, and we take a look at the latest software developments.
Want to catch up with the previous updates? Check our archive!
Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia 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 impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Wikifunctions & Abstract Wikipedia Newsletter #227 is out: Second round of voting for naming the wiki with language-independent content; Sharing function calls
There is a new update for Abstract Wikipedia and Wikifunctions. Please, come and read it!
In this issue, we announce the start of the second phase of the naming contest for Abstract Wikipedia, we share the results of the MacArthur Foundation's 100&Change contest, we share the recording of the last NLG SIG meeting, and we take a look at the latest software developments.
Want to catch up with the previous updates? Check our archive!
The process will have a seven day call for candidates phase, a two day pause, a five day discussion phase, and a seven day private vote using SecurePoll. Discussion and questions are only allowed on the candidate pages during the discussion phase.
The outcome of this process is identical to making a request for adminship. There is no official difference between an administrator appointed through RFA versus administrator elections.
Ask any questions about the process at the talk page. Later, a user talk message will be sent to official candidates with additional information about the process.
If you are interested in the process, please make sure to watchlist the appropriate pages. A watchlist notice will be added when the discussion phase opens, and again when the voting phase opens.
You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.
Hi Fortuna, I had been meaning to ask you this for a few days now but I have been really busy and absent-minded lately. Have you considered making a run for adminship in the December election? The Call for Candidates just started, and I think you would be a great fit for the role. I know you already have the support of plenty of users, and you are already essentially an admin without tools, so why not make it official? If you don't want to, that's fine, but I figured I'd ask since having you as an admin would be great for the project. Thanks, QuicoleJR (talk) 01:45, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikifunctions & Abstract Wikipedia Newsletter #228 is out: Vote on the new wiki name! Finishing each other’s sentences
There is a new update for Abstract Wikipedia and Wikifunctions. Please, come and read it!
In this issue, we update you on our naming contest for Abstract Wikipedia, we discuss our progress on sentence creation with functions, and we take a look at the latest software developments.
Want to catch up with the previous updates? Check our archive!
Hello, Fortuna imperatrix mundi. Per your request, your account has been grantedtemporary-account-viewer rights. You are now able to reveal the IP addresses of individuals using temporary accounts that are not visible to the general public. This is very sensitive information that is only to be used to aid in anti-abuse workflows. Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Temporary account IP viewer for more information on this user right. It is important to remember:
Access must not be used for political control, to apply pressure on editors, or as a threat against another editor in a content dispute. There must be a valid reason to investigate a temporary user. Note that using multiple temporary accounts is not forbidden, so long as they are not used in violation of policies (for example, block or ban evasion).
It is also important to note that the following actions are logged for others to see:
When a user accepts the preference that enables or disables IP reveal for their account.
Revealing an IP address of a temporary account.
Listing the temporary accounts that are associated with one or more IP addresses (using the CIDR notation format).
Remember, even if a user is violating policy, avoid revealing personal information if possible. Use temporary account usernames rather than disclosing IP addresses directly, or give information such as same network/not same network or similar. If you do not want the user right anymore then please ask me or another administrator and it will be removed for you. You may also voluntarily give up access at any time by visiting Special:Preferences. Happy editing! — rsjaffe🗣️17:25, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations, Fortuna imperatrix mundi! The article you nominated, John Fressh, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Gog the Mild (talk) via FACBot (talk) 23:05, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On December 9, we will start the voting phase. The candidate subpages will close to public questions and discussion, and everyone will have a week to use the SecurePoll software to vote, which uses a secret ballot. You can see who voted, but not who they voted for. Please note that the vote totals cannot be made public until after voting has ended and as such, it will not be possible for you to see an individual candidate's totals during the election. You must be extended confirmed to vote.
Once voting concludes, we will begin the scrutineering phase, which typically lasts between a couple days and a week. Once everything is certified, the results will be posted on the results page (you may want to watchlist this page) and transcluded to the main election page. In order to be granted adminship, a candidate who has not been recalled must have received at least 70.0% support, calculated as Support / (Support + Oppose), and must also have received a minimum of 20 support votes. A candidate that has been recalled must have at least 55.0% support. Because this is a vote and not a consensus, there are no bureaucrat discussions ("crat chats").
Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.
You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.
There is a new update for Abstract Wikipedia and Wikifunctions. Please, come and read it!
In this issue, we share the final results of the naming contest for Abstract Wikipedia, we share two demos about new Wikifunctions features, we talk about Wikidata components in Wikifunctions, and we take a look at the latest software developments.
Want to catch up with the previous updates? Check our archive!
In the voting phase, the candidate subpages close to public questions and discussion, and everyone who qualifies to vote has a week to use the SecurePoll software to vote, which uses a secret ballot. You can see who voted, but not who they voted for. Please note that the vote totals cannot be made public until after voting has ended and as such, it will not be possible for you to see an individual candidate's vote total during the election. The suffrage requirements are similar to those at RFA.
Once voting concludes, we will begin the scrutineering phase, which will last for a few days, perhaps longer. Once everything is certified, the results will be posted on the results page (this is a good page to watchlist), and transcluded to the main election page. In order to be granted adminship, a non-recall candidate must have received at least 70.0% support, calculated as Support / (Support + Oppose), and a minimum of 20 support votes. Recall candidates must achieve 55.0% support. Because this is a vote and not a consensus, there are no bureaucrat discussions ("crat chats").
Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.
You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.
Since the previous discussion, because of my poor judgement at grouping together unrelated sources, was a mess and was archived with no outcome, I've started a fresh, targeted, discussion about FR24. Pinging you because you were in the old discussion :-) Danners430tweaks made14:43, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I love how I recognized who stood behind today's FA just from that little Main Page blurb. I really ought to pay more attention to FAC, but if I did, I would miss this excitement. Surtsicna (talk) 00:50, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you today for Poisoning of Abbot Greenwell, introduced: "'The Mysterious Affair at Styles Fountains', anyone...? Actually, it's not that exciting at all, no real denouement (although Greenwell seems to have been as popular as Alfred!). Another vignette from days of yore."! - The same page has two names of people who recently died that I brought there, and (without me) four of classical composers, just because Beethoven was baptised on this day. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:15, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is a new update for Abstract Wikipedia and Wikifunctions. Please, come and read it!
In this issue, we showcase some templates using Wikifunctions functions on several projects, and we wrap up work for this Gregorian year, wishing you happy holidays.
The updates will resume in the week of January 14, so if you feel like you want more, you can always read the previous updates in our archive!
Unfortunately, this message seems to have needed post-nomination editing; I suggest running it through PR first. Regretfully, I must oppose its promotion per WP:WIAFA criterion 1A.😄 😉
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. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
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 for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive.
Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The 2026 competition has just begun and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. Even if you are a novice editor, we hope the WikiCup will give you a chance to improve your editing skills as you go. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here, and a bot will set up your submissions page within one day, ready for you to take part. Any questions on the scoring, rules or anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page.
For the 2026 WikiCup, the highest-ranking contestants will receive tournament points at the end of each round, and final rankings are decided by the number of tournament points each contestant has. This is the same scoring system that we had last year. If you're busy and can't sign up in January, don't worry: Signups are open throughout the year. To make things fairer for latecomers, the lowest-scoring contestants are no longer eliminated at the end of each round.
.png?lang=en){kind=spacer}
_detail.jpg?lang=en)
.jpg?lang=en)
