Latest comment: 1 month ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Thanks for your thoughts at the WP:RSP RFC 2025 in several areas, especially regarding improvements to the "List of subtables" approach. At some point, the Rfc will end, and then there will surely be follow-up discussions about exactly how to organize the presentation details of whatever method is chosen, and I wanted to ask you to come back and contribute again during those discussions, as some of the thoughts you have already expressed will be worth hearing at that time, and I expect you will have more ideas as well.
I noticed your edits at the landing page for Check Your Fact as well; thanks for those. (I wish more people tried out their ideas like you did). The rfc excerpt idea is worth a discussion on its own, but for the moment, I just wanted to mention this edit where you dropped a link per WP:NOTSEEALSO, because it was already present in the summary. I do the same thing in articles all the time, so I get it, but I disagree with it in this instance. When creating the landing pages, I struggled with how best to deal with multiple publications by the same entity (publisher, usually) in the List of subpages. One example is BuzzFeed and BuzzFeed News, another example is Dotdash Meredith, which has seven links to it from the WP:RSPINDEX. Freed from the strictures of a table, with data about related sources separated due to the alphabetical row organization, we can place related items on the same landing page, and the alphabetical Index links ensures easy access.
Partly, I think calling that section "See also" is part of the problem, precisely because it makes one think of the See also guideline applicable to Mainspace, where if something is linked in the body, then don't link it in See_also. But I don't think that applies here. For one thing, landing pages are not articles, and this is not mainspace. For another, I think it would serve users better by being named something else instead, maybe "Related sources", and regardless whether one or another source was listed in the summary field, all relevant sources should be listed in the "Related sources". Even if you disagree (which is fine), I hope you will come back and comment again if and when the time comes to figure out the nitty-gritty of how to implement the List of subpages approach. Sorry if this message feels choppy; I started it a couple of days ago, then got distracted, and came back to finish it now, so I hope it makes sense. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 08:25, 28 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Hi Mathglot, thanks for reaching out. I had thought to return to RSP discussions after the RfC in order to help with any potential migration and implementation. I'm not technically minded enough to understand all the template limits and issues, but I do general gnome work so like to think I have an eye for detail with certain things. Hence the CYF excerpt edit, as was thinking that'd be a useful format to follow.
As for removing the see also, I do see your point re landing page vs mainspace, I had not really considered that. I also agree "Related sources" would likely be a better option, especially as some/many of these would otherwise be in see also but not be clear as to why (ie, sources sharing parent ownership being the a big reason), so the change in header would add clarity for one. So if you wanted to restore/amend it then no issues there, I had also thought after removing the see also section altogether was a bit daft as having an empty section, in a test version of a page, is likely intentional in order to provide a more complete picture of the intended example (even if wouldn't be there for the polished version).
Thanks. I'm happy to let you decide if, when, and how you would want to deal with the See-also issue; any path you take is fine with me. I would love to have your help after the Rfc, to whatever extent you are willing; your eye for detail will be very welcome, and the technical issues related to PEIS will be gone, so you needn't worry about that as a precursor to helping; it isn't. Also, I have been heavily involved in the construction of the WP:RSPINDEX and associated landing pages and I don't have a great memory so this could easily slip my mind with all the other things going on, so please do jump in when it feels right about this, or any other issue. Instead of a ping (I will probably forget that, too ) maybe you could watchlist the page or subscribe to the discussion? Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 08:30, 31 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Verifiability is increasingly important as AI evolves. You should ensure that every statement made is adequately sourced. There should be no less than three independent reliable sources for each biography, including at least one source for each paragraph.
Progress ("moving the needle"):
Statistics available via various tools: previously, Humaniki tool; currently, QLever. Thank you if you contributed one or more of the 20,473 articles created in the past year.
21 Oct 2024, 19.963% of biographies on EN-WP were about women (2,030,245 biographies; 405,305 women)
28 Oct 2025: 20.23% of biographies on EN-WP were about women (2,094,677 biographies; 423,778 women)
Help wanted! Want to apply your skills or learn new ones? Help us plan monthly events, design event logos, come up with a tip-of-the-month, and/or provide any general ideas on developing the project.
Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello, CommunityNotesContributor. This message is being sent to remind you of significant upcoming changes regarding logged-out editing.
Starting 4 November, logged-out editors will no longer have their IP address publicly displayed. Instead, they will have a temporary account (TA) associated with their edits. Users with some extended rights like administrators and CheckUsers, as well as users with the temporary account IP viewer (TAIV) user right will still be able to reveal temporary users' IP addresses and all contributions made by temporary accounts from a specific IP address or range.
How do temporary accounts work?
Editing from a temporary account
When a logged-out user completes an edit or a logged action for the first time, a cookie will be set in this user's browser and a temporary account tied with this cookie will be automatically created for them. This account's name will follow the pattern: ~2025-12345-67 (a tilde, year of creation, a number split into units of 5).
All subsequent actions by the temporary account user will be attributed to this username. The cookie will expire 90 days after its creation. As long as it exists, all edits made from this device will be attributed to this temporary account. It will be the same account even if the IP address changes, unless the user clears their cookies or uses a different device or web browser.
A record of the IP address used at the time of each edit will be stored for 90 days after the edit. Users with the temporary account IP viewer (TAIV) user right will be able to see the underlying IP addresses.
As a measure against vandalism, there are two limitations on the creation of temporary accounts:
There has to be a minimum of 10 minutes between subsequent temporary account creations from the same IP (or /64 range in case of IPv6).
There can be a maximum of 6 temporary accounts created from an IP (or /64 range) within a period of 24 hours.
Temporary account IP viewer user right
How to enable IP Reveal
Administrators may grant the temporary account IP viewer (TAIV) user right to non-administrators who meet the criteria for granting. Importantly, an editor must make an explicit request for the permission (e.g. at WP:PERM/TAIV)—administrators are not permitted to assign the right without a request.
Administrators will automatically be able to see temporary account IP information once they have accepted the Access to Temporary Account IP Addresses Policy via Special:Preferences or via the onboarding dialog which comes up after temporary accounts are deployed.
Impact for administrators
It will be possible to block many abusers by just blocking their temporary accounts. A blocked person won't be able to create new temporary accounts quickly if the admin selects the autoblock option.
It will still be possible to block an IP address or IP range.
Temporary accounts will not be retroactively applied to contributions made before the deployment. On Special:Contributions, you will be able to see existing IP user contributions, but not new contributions made by temporary accounts on that IP address. Instead, you should use Special:IPContributions for this (see a video about IPContributions in a gallery below).
Rules about IP information disclosure
Publicizing an IP address gained through TAIV access is generally not allowed (e.g. ~2025-12345-67 previously edited as 192.0.2.1 or ~2025-12345-67's IP address is 192.0.2.1).
Publicly linking a TA to another TA is allowed if "reasonably believed to be necessary". (e.g. ~2025-12345-67 and ~2025-12345-68 are likely the same person, so I am counting their reverts together toward 3RR, but not Hey ~2025-12345-68, you did some good editing as ~2025-12345-67)
Drafts that go unedited for six months are eligible for deletion, in accordance with our draftspace policy, and this one has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission, and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you read this, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the draft so you can continue to work on it.
Latest comment: 1 month ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Dont want to add more to that hellscape. While your addition technically is a WP:MANDY, I think it may in fact be justified by the fact that numerous other countries and some (albeit not many) NGOs concur with the denial. This is going to be a disputed situation for awhile, if not forever, unlike most universally recognized genocides, so it probably merits inclusion. ← Metallurgist (talk) 18:44, 5 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
Sure it's MANDY, partly in consideration of the WP:NOTMANDY arguments out there. If it's removed then so be it, just doing my bit to try and improve the neutrality while respecting the consensus, even if only as a token gesture. CNC (talk) 18:54, 5 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 month ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Charlie Kirk, you may be blocked from editing. Copied from: ScottishFinnishRadish 12:48, 17 September 2025 (UTC) Jdftba (talk) 12:04, 11 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
Do you mean the RM close or removing this comment? If the latter and you really want to remove it then you have my permission to remove my reply as well (ie, that part of the discussion). The issue is by removing your comment my reply is left with no context. Also the comment really doesn't matter, you made a mistake and apologised. No-one really cares tbh, I know I don't, but up to you. CNC (talk) 15:10, 13 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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.
Hi Stirchley.resident, I can't remember how but I came across that draft but did make a note to take a closer. SafariScribe who declined it might otherwise be able to provide more insight since your asking, as if it's a notability issue then there's probably not a lot I can help with realistically if you've done a thorough search for reliable sources. I also need to check the guidelines of creating multi-person WP:BLP, presumably it's based on WP:GNG (I'm just randomly thinking of Bonnie and Clyde as a prime example here). The main issue I can see is that most of the article is based on the topic that already exists - Operation Raise the Colours - so what's left is probably better included in that article for now as based on the philosophy of WP:MERGE, even if these two individuals in combination are notable, that wouldn't inherently demonstrate requirement for a standalone article, if they are mainly known within the context of a certain topic. Sorry if that's a bit of a confusing reply, hopefully the wikilinks help to clarify this. CNC (talk) 19:09, 18 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
I initially considered adding this material to the Operation RTC page but much more is know about this particular pair of flaggers than others, and including lots of detail on them would feel like unbalancing the article and making it all about Birmingham. Also, they seem to be moving on from just flagging into what looks like vigilante action - see the bit from the Times about Gravelines, plus from their social media, they've been in France again today. For these reasons, I think a separate article would be better. I considered calling it Raise the Colours (their group name), but much more is known about Bridge and Stanley than other members of the group (which is quite small from what I've seen). Stirchley.resident (talk) 19:29, 18 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
Ok so based on that discussion the issue with the article is effectively WP:SIGCOV; it's not quantity of sources but instead quality (depth) of coverage based on the topic in question. Ideally without me having to search for this in the reference section, can you point to 3 reliable sources that provide such depth of coverage of both of these individuals in combination? Otherwise the title and scope at minimum is a no go. Note that most sources will provide passing mention, not significant coverage. While they are fine to use to attribute claims, they do not contribute towards GNG. CNC (talk) 19:39, 18 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
Ok so after a bit of looking, I think this might be more reliable than I first thought. There are other sources here as well. What are your thoughts of moving to Raise the Colours instead with a teak of the lead paragraph? There can be redirects for both individuals and a hatnote at Operation Raise the Colours to distinguish between campaign and organisation. CNC (talk) 20:57, 18 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
I should also add that WP:BLP1E otherwise appears to apply here, based on the those sources, which often leads to content merged rather than standalone articles. CNC (talk) 20:11, 18 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello CommunityNotesContributor:
WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive in December!
The goal of this drive is to reduce the backlog of unreviewed drafts to less than half a month of outstanding reviews from the current 2+ months. Bonus points will be given for reviewing drafts that have been waiting more than 30 days. The drive is running from 1 December 2025 through 31 December 2025.
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.
Help wanted! Want to apply your skills or learn new ones? Help us plan monthly events, design event logos, come up with a tip-of-the-month, and/or provide any general ideas on developing the project.
So 3 other editors agree with you on this, but two others don't really indicate that (even with some down-weighting of one !vote, I'm not sure I'd call it consensus). I could put "Most editors agree that The Times is otherwise generally reliable" as part of the summary, what are your thoughts on that? On a side note I always find the semantics over "additional considerations apply" - to a specific topic area - and the same applied broadly speaking to be somewhat wiki-layered MREL arguments that shouldn't be a problem but always seem to appear based on misinterpretation. Hence the opening "Additional considerations apply to topics related to Indian politics or Hindu nationalism due to lack of reliability in this area" attempting to remove ambiguity or over-expansion of the considerations as it were. Maybe I'm just overly cautious of trying to avoid a controversial-ish close for such a straightforward discussion. CNC (talk) 20:46, 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.
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.
