Warning: There is an on-going scam targeting people who would like Wikipedia to have an article about them. See this scam warning for detailed information. I have never edited for pay and will never edit for pay. If someone uses my name for such purpose, they are lying. If you've been scammed please send details to paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org to help others who could be future victims of this scam.
@Suryabeej: I'd be willing to restore it to draft space so you can work on it, unless you want to start from scratch. I'm not entirely convinced by all of the sources you sent (the first one seems like breathless idolizing, not neutral reporting), but if you think it can pass AfC then go ahead and try that process. Let me know. 78.26(spin me / revolutions)00:58, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
It always feels strange to leave these notices on the talk pages of long-time editors and admins. Of course, if you want to work on this draft, you can restore it whenever you like. LizRead!Talk!01:42, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Liz: Yeah, sorry about that. I should finish that up, it's a very interesting story and highly notable, but there's so much conflicting information. I'll restore it when I'm ready to take it up again. In the meantime, thank you so much for all the hard work you do here. 78.26(spin me / revolutions)02:16, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
Thanks. It's nice to see you around, I've noticed at AFD that we are a little light on admin help on Saturdays. I think folks take a well-deserved day off. Then they show up mid-day Sunday and things are back to normal. LizRead!Talk!04:15, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. LizRead!Talk!01:12, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 3 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion
Hello,
Unless I am mistaken you are an admin on this project and have expressed willingness to provide the text of deleted pages to users who may need them. If this is correct, may I please ask you to send me the text of I due evasi di Sing Sing.
I had opened a deletion review to have the page restored but was advised to recreate it instead. Which I might do more easily with whatever material had already been written.
If you agree, could you please input the text on this page for instance? Thank you very much for your help. Yours, â MY, OH, MY!21:41, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
Hello and thank you again. The page is now in the Main, as you can see. Only the editing history is missing (it is on my user's space page, though). I sort of remember there was a template or possible transfer to credit users who started the page before it was deleted. I will look up and try to do it. Apologies if it was needed before restoring it to the Main, Yours, â MY, OH, MY!22:25, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
Thank you. If it is not too much work, I'd be very grateful if you can, yes. It seems the page has already been modified in the Main by another user, but if it's still possible for you to do it, thank you. I had also let a merge request (I guess) on the TP but if that does not interfere with your effort, again, thank you for help! â MY, OH, MY!23:20, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Greetings from Delhi! Could you please put the drafts of my deleted edits in my userspace and point me to them? I will combine them into a single redraft. I have been communicating with Grayfell. Awaiting your message. SuchetaR (talk) 08:58, 15 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hello 78.26,
May I bother you again and ask you to send me the text of I Crab Goalkeeper or its draft Draft:Crab Goalkeeper. As I found some sources, I would like to recreate the page and, again, I might do it more easily with whatever material had already been written. If you agree, could you please create the subpage on my behalf User:Mushy Yank/Crab Goalkeeper? (or what's the most easy for you) Thank you very much for your help. If you'd rather have me ask another admin next time, just let me know. Thanks again. Yours, â MY, OH, MY! 10:13, 19 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
On 28 May 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Bob Harrington (preacher), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that evangelist Bob Harrington would drive miles out of his way to avoid the sight of a steeple? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Bob Harrington (preacher). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Bob Harrington (preacher)), 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.
Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Hi 78.26, I'm a little confused how you get NC for this? The first three keeps were rebutted by three different people and no additional sources had been added/found after that. The fourth keep had no P&G basis at all, and the sixth keep spuriously claimed GNG from tabloid coverage was allowed. Most editors acknowledged the generally poor, tabloid quality of the sources, so given that everything alleged to be SIGCOV was exclusively on minor criminal events that received only fleeting attention in local news, wouldn't BLP and NOTNEWS policy override a claim of meeting GNG? JoelleJay (talk) 01:36, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
@JoelleJay: I think my closing statement explains it well enough. I'm sure you think that your side has utterly destroyed the other side's argument, but there were significant source analysis on both sides, and I found no way to reconcile the positions. I'm sure the other side feels just as strongly they obliterated your side's arguments. Both are policy based. There is fundamental disagreement as to whether or not there is SIGCOV in independent, reliable sources, and there is fundamental disagreement as to whether or not this is BLP1E. Any close other than NOCONSENSUS would be a supervote, in my opinion. If you feel the close is that erroneous that it needs to be overturned without re-litigating the article, then take it to DRV. Happy editing!78.26(spin me / revolutions)02:27, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for your explanation...I was under no impression that the delete side was clearly stronger, rather my confusion was that the close doesn't address at all the BLP arguments, in particular the tabloid sourcing issues for negative content. Almost everyone agreed that the sources "weren't good", and the ones called SIGCOV were uniformly negative news announcements, so I would have appreciated more assessment of how an article written from those sources could comply with Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. [...] Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives and NOTNEWS. JoelleJay (talk) 03:41, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
Tabloid sourcing for negative content isn't a notability discussion, that is a content discussion. AfD is the wrong venue. I also disagree with the characterization that "almost everyone" agree the sources weren't good. I'd call it much closer to 50/50. Some of the keeps arguments stated that "some" of the sources weren't good, but that overall there were enough "good" sources to pass notability. If "almost everyone" agreed the sources "weren't good", I would have readily closed as delete. 78.26(spin me / revolutions)03:54, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
By longtime precedent, record labels were judged by a inverse interpretation of NMUSIC #5.. carrying on from your comment on AfD. I don't want to go further in discussion and stray too far off from the actual discussion AfD. Can you maybe link me to some notable decisions spread over time? Graywalls (talk) 23:28, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hey, 78.26,
You recently restored this draft but because you didn't make a minor edit to the page after restoration, it was tagged for CSD G13 speedy deletion. Luckily, an editor checked the page log and saw that it was recently restored and untagged it before it was deleted. I recommend checking out User:SD0001/RFUD-helper to help with REFUND as it will take care of these steps so you don't have to remember them.
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello, 78.26. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Bernadine Strik, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it againor request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello, 78.26. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Robert Cherry (author), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it againor request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Greetings,
I hope this finds you well, i will like to get more information while my page was deleted and how to get it approved under the wikipedia guidelines Brightheseer (talk) 09:52, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Brightheseer:. Your page was deleted because user pages are to describe who you are in relation to your activities on Wikipedia. The Conflict of Interest disclosure was appropriate, even necessary. The advertisement for a seer is entirely inappropriate for Wikipedia. Articles about topics belong in mainspace when developed, and in your personal sandbox or in draftspace while in development. However, your text would be unacceptable in any location on Wikipedia because it was blatantly promotional (see WP:NPOV). It also does not meet the notability requirements for an article, so this must also be addressed before the topic can be considered for inclusion. Because you have a conflict of interest, you must use the Articles for Creation process. I hope that helps. 78.26(spin me / revolutions)17:39, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello, 78.26,
Hey, I hope you are doing well this winter. I'm just leaving you a reminder that any time you restore a draft article or user sandbox that has been deleted due to CSD G13 criteria, you need to make an edit to the page or it shows up as eligible for deletion again. This is, as you might guess, because there have been no edits to this article in a few years so it is considered stale and abandoned. I've made an edit to the draft so you are good for another 6 months. Take care, LizRead!Talk!03:51, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
First of all you need to read and adhere to WP:COI, WP:NPOV and WP:PROMO. I do not want to be unkind, but frankly if someone asked me to delete your draft for advertising, I would do so. I understand it is not your intent to do anything "wrong", but this is an encyclopedia, not a place to post your resume or press releases. Phrases like "remarkable journey and accomplishments serve as an inspiration to many" have no place in an encyclopedia. How can that possibly present an objective, dispassionate view of the topic? That's why you really shouldn't create an Wikipedia:Autobiography. How can someone be expected to be objective about themselves? You make such claims as "has published several books that have received critical acclaim." What critical acclaim? From whom? Without citations to reliable, independent sources, these claims are empty and completely promotional. I hope that is helpful. 78.26(spin me / revolutions)04:29, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Citation Barnstar
This award is given in recognition to 78.26 for collecting 25 points during the WikiProject Unreferenced articles's FEB24 backlog drive. Your contributions played a crucial role in sourcing 14,300 unsourced articles during the drive. Thank you so much for participating and helping to reduce the backlog! â â DreamRimmer (talk) 18:17, 8 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Wikipedia administrators willing to provide copies of deleted articles
Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi there,
I am new to wikipedia and have had my recent article submission deleted. Can you please copy the content to my user page, so I can save the content and make the requested changes for resubmission?
@Preet Kalkat: I'm sorry, but your page was deleted for copyright reasons, and I can't restore copyright violations. Please write your proposal in your own words, with different phrasing and structure than your sources. 78.26(spin me / revolutions)12:25, 15 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Ambarish2anand: Your page was deleted, because frankly it's one of the worst examples of self-promotion I've ever seen. I don't want to be unkind, but this is an encyclopedia, not a place to advertise yourself. Definitely read WP:COI and WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY before you attempt to make any further edits about yourself. I hope that is helpful. 78.26(spin me / revolutions)00:02, 19 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Dear 78.26,
I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Fifteen Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for fifteen years or more. â
Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
You know I am confused by this AfD deletion, how does a person with SIGCOV like , , , who has won the Los Angeles Live Score Film Festival, and also a recipient of a Global Music Award of Excellence for The Four Players, the Clive Davis Award for Excellence in Music? . Govvy (talk) 10:03, 17 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
None of that was brought up in the discussion. If I were to close any other way than what I did, it would be a super vote, because I would be inserting my own opinion into the close. Because discussion consensus was clear-cut I closed without resisting. I am willing to re-open the discussion if you wish to present new information for consideration. All the best, 78.26(spin me / revolutions)13:36, 17 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
If you reopen the discussion I would post a similar comment. He is not that well known in his field, but has a certain amount of recognition to get those awards, I would have thought it would easily pass WP:BASIC, well that's my two-cents, Regards. Govvy (talk) 16:56, 17 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 years ago11 comments3 people in discussion
Original message: I'd like the Michael Masch draft page to be restored to draft status even though it's been through the AfD process. I've been told to contact the admin of the Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Michael_Masch discussion and it looks like that was you. New references are available for this person since page was deleted due to NPOL concerns. He passed away in 2021 and there are obituaries in The Philadelphia Inquirer and The Jewish Exponent. There are also articles about him preceding his death but I don't know if they were cited in the original draft so I'd like to see it. Is there a way I can do that?
Update: I'd mistaken the admin of the AfD process who told me 78.26 was the actual admin. 78.26 asked me to provide the three best references, which I list below. There are more as well.
The Philadelphia City Council passed a resolution honoring Masch after he passed which lists notable achievements - to me this is a reliable secondary source but would be curious for an opinion.
There are also two articles in The Philadelphia Inquirer about him from his time as chief budget director for Philadelphia (1994) and as Budget Secretary for Pennsylvania (2003). Note Ed Rendell was Mayor of Philadelphia for the first one and Governor of Pennsylvania for the second one.
The deleted article had none of those citations. Most of the citations were to .edu site pages, a couple of blogs, a press release, and primary sources. There is one citation to Howard University but not that obituary (and I would say that university newspapers don't count toward notability). It isn't surprising it got deleted with such poor sourcing. I think it's worth restoring to draft space based on what you found, but I'll leave that up to 78.26, who closed the AFD and deleted it. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:13, 10 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Note the AfD discussion happened in 2019 and this person passed away two years later in 2021 so sources in my first two bullets werenât available at the time of the AfD discussion. I donât know why the original page creator(s) didnât use more reliable secondary sources from earlier times though⌠Nnev66 (talk) 17:11, 10 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Nnev66: So the short story is that this person is semi-notable, and if it went to AfD with the sources you give here I'd give it a 60% chance of deletion and 40% chance of being kept through "no consensus" or "keep". To be more specific about your sources, everything is quite local. The Inquirer obituary is ok, as is the Jewish Exponent. These do not appear to be obituaries sent in, but written by journalists. That's good. The others seem like routine coverage. The City Council resolution is likewise merely local coverage. All of these sources are good to use in an article, but I'm not sure they'd add up to notability. Can you find coverage outside the Philadelphia area? In any case, I'm going to restore it to draft space, and if you feel like working on it given, and want me to look at it when you're done, I'll be happy to. Keep in mind that my views on notability are my own, and although I'm fairly well versed on the Notability policy, in marginal cases like this you'll get different answers from different editors, which is why we have the consensus process here. (I should note that my opinion as an admin carries no more weight than any other editor.) I hope you find that helpful. All the best, 78.26(spin me / revolutions)03:58, 12 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for restoring the Draft which I see is written like a resume with no reliable secondary sources. In the next couple of weeks I'll revise it to read more like an encyclopedia entry, extracting what is notable about the subject and adding reliable secondary sources. Not sure I'll find references outside Philly/PA since the subject is mainly notable there. There are a lot of articles about Philadelphia topics and notable people that need attention. Nnev66 (talk) 02:02, 13 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thanks @Anachronist! I've revised the draft and have a question I'd love to get your input on. Should I do that on your Talk page (sorry, I'm still learning protocol here)? Nnev66 (talk) 14:30, 14 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hello,
Myself along with a group of other people are trying to dig up some info about the band Cojum Dip, its early history being somewhat fuzzy. As such, would you be able to send me a copy of the page Cojum Dip, and the dates of edits that were made to the page before its deletion? Although it redirects to Tally Hall since 2023, it used to have some content in 2005 before being deleted shortly after in 2006. That page also used to contain Image:wow.jpg, and I would also appreciate if you can recover this image.
@57EML: sorry for the slow reply, and I messed up anyway. Perhaps it'll be kept, but I meant to create a sandbox for you where you could see the history. Anyway, you can now see the deleted history at the redirect page. There's absolutely nothing encyclopedic about the deleted versions, but you can see what the band thought about itself at the time. 78.26(spin me / revolutions)01:23, 4 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hello 78.26, how are you?
@DareshMohan told me he was willing to recreate an article deleted in 2009 (Indonesian horror film, 2007, titled Kuntilanak 2). Do you think you could create a page with the deleted content (Draft or User space), if you prefer), so that we can make sure the pages are different (and also save time and restore potential credits, maybe). Thanks a lot! Best, -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:52, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Note: DareshMohan had left a similar request on User:JzG's TP () but is JzG still an administrator? (I see a Rouge admin box on their page; but otherwise cannot confirm it); If they are, sincere apologies for this fauxpas and confusion. If they aren't, 78.26 do you mind doing it? Thanks a lot. Best,-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)09:18, 6 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi there, I received a notice that my sandbox page was deleted. It said to message one of you about getting my deleted content restored to just my 'draft' page. Any help is appreciated. Sethzindler (talk) 15:39, 12 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Sethzindler: I'm a little confused as to what you are referring. The only talk page message you've received is the welcome message. You have a sandbox, which remains intact. You also have a draft article, which is also intact. Neither have been tagged for deletion. Do you have an alternate account where this happened? 78.26(spin me / revolutions)17:45, 12 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Terribly sorry. I must have been referencing something that doesn't exist now. I apologize. Feel free to delete this chain.
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I think it would appropriate to AfD this article but not CSD as there are sources but not very great ones (by looking at RS/P).
There is Dexerto but it is not really good.
There are many sources not listed in RS/P. Don't know what to do with them.
Seems like Arab News and Legit are the only good secondary sources so far. (altough I have doubts about Legit) Rrjmrrr (talk) 18:54, 20 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Heylenny: I'm going to decline this request. First of all, take a look at what you linked to, advertising, where point #4 directly addresses self-promotion. Your draft contained phrases such as "This passion evolved..."; "His academic fervor..."; " "diversified his experience..." "dedicated himself to assisting the community..." each of these blatantly violates WP:NPOV, they are strictly designed to promote the topic, namely yourself. How can your draft possibly be construed as encylopedic? Please refer to Wikipedia:Autobiography as well as the other policies linked to here, included the one you yourself linked to. If you feel I am in error, you may bring my actions up at WP:AN to get another administrator's opinion, but I must forewarn you I don't think that will work out well for you, because if you fundamentally can't tell the difference between self-promotion and encyclopedic writing, you will be blocked because competence is required (this is an essay, not policy, but it does a good job of explaining things). I do wish you luck, and if you need editing assistance other than promoting yourself or other topics in which you have a conflict of interest, I truly am ready to help. 78.26(spin me / revolutions)02:36, 27 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
@78.26 I understand you, but my intention was not really an autobiography or promote myself, but rather to write information about my artistic career. I didn't know I couldn't use the draft for this, so I ask you to restore it to my sandbox. And actually, I have only one song on Spotify, iTunes, etc. I have no relevance to having an article on Wiki, that's why it was in the draft. I'm not going to bring this up to other admins because it's an irrelevant topic. I'm currently at a standstill musically, as you read in the draft. I'm focused on my college. But yeah, thank you anyway:) Heylenny (talk) 03:03, 27 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello, 78.26. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Neely Plumb, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it againor request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
@ççŻćľ: it's hard for me to review this since I don't know the language or the sources. The topic seems notable based on the sales rewards. However, the article also seems promotional to me. Everything written praises the artist, his background, and his art. I would recommend re-writing much of it from a dispassionate standpoint, not from a fan's standpoint. I hope that helps. 78.26(spin me / revolutions)00:31, 1 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hey, 78! I've been meaning to ask about this, Closing as keep, as no one has challenged (5 days) the sources used to improve the article, which I really like but am wondering if I've seen before. In an AfD, I always wonder about early !votes by folks who don't circle back. Is this a close rationale that's used often? I definitely approve, but I'm trying to think if I've seen it before. Valereee (talk) 00:29, 10 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hi @Valereee:! Always good to hear from you. I don't know if you've seen it before, but I don't know that it's a "novel" close rationale. I could have closed it as "Consensus is keep, GNG met", but given the !vote count was 3 to 3 (counting nom statement), I thought it required a bit more explanation regarding my judgement of consensus. I suppose another close could have been "Consensus is keep by strength of arguments" as nobody refuted the sources you added to the article. So if you'd added the sources a within a couple days of the 17th, I would have relisted it. However, in my judgement 5 days is plenty of time for editors to analyze sources and poke holes in them. Good luck finding a rule or hard precedent for that, but I don't think there would be too many who would argue against it. Since an article meeting GNG is presumed to be notable in most cases (WP:CORP being one exception) and the claim to GNG was not refuted by further arguments, and the coverage you provided refuted the argument that there was no evidence of sufficient reliable secondary sourcing, I could only judge that consensus was "keep". Does that help at all, or have I made it worse? All the best, 78.26(spin me / revolutions)01:31, 12 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
No, that totally helps! I don't close AfDs often, and I just thought it was quite the elegant rationale: new additions, no rebuttals. Thanks! Valereee (talk) 11:05, 12 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
AFD discussion for Lists of Wonderful Pretty Cure! episodes
When I first I joined wikipedia I didn't know there was guidelines and policies because it was never mention when you create an account Anime9000 (talk) 02:35, 15 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'm not sure if you're asking a question or making an observation. Of course most new Wikipedia users make mistakes because they don't know rules/guidelines/style manuals. I certainly made my share of mistakes as a new new user. A not-so-secret: I still mess up sometimes. The question really is: Is the user willing to listen to guidance, and are they willing (and in rare instances the question is are they able) to learn from their mistakes and improve. (You also have editors who edit contrary to the purposes of Wikipedia, promoting things, vandals, etc, but they don't count.) Anyway, that's why we try to point new editors to the WP:TEAHOUSE, where there are numerous editors who make it their point to help new editors (and occasionally even the experienced ones.) So if you see a new editor who is floundering, invite them!. All the best, 78.26(spin me / revolutions)02:03, 17 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello, 78.26. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "78rpm".
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion
78.26,
I am still here! How are you doing?
I am interested in writing an article about the Old National Bank Building in Houston, which has already for many years been re-adapted for use as the Islamic Da'wah Center of Houston. I am confident that I can build a solid Start-class or C-level article with a local architecture survey, the historic preservation report, and two local online news reports. This is an important site in Houston, and it would be a shame not to have a solid article on it.
My other interest relates to my original research. This is not relevant to the article, but it is relevant to my motivation for creating it. I have traced the history of this site to its original owners and original use until a fire destroyed the property in 1859. After that it was rebuilt as a theater before that was torn down and the bank was built in the early 20th-c.
Given the concerns about the article, I understand the need to compose this article in draft space, so I am requesting your help as an administrator to enable to write this in draft space, but with the understanding that an administrator would need to vet the draft before publishing to main space. I would also need to devise a care plan, in order to ensure that the article is not corrupted.
@Oldsanfelipe2: So good to hear from you! I'm not sure how I can help. It appears your asking for editorial assistance, and not administrator assistance. Everything in Wikipedia is owned by the editing community, Wikipedia:Ownership of content so I can't promise to keep your work "pure". However, if you're looking to develop this article in peace I'd recommend creating it in your user space and not in draft space. It's highly unlikely anyone would interrupt your work there. Once it's move to mainspace it's subject to the same abuse and improvement as all other articles. I'm terribly sorry if I'm missing your point, and I'll do what I can to help, I've always thoroughly enjoyed working with you. All the best, 78.26(spin me / revolutions)02:11, 31 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
I am sorry that I did not make my request clear. Currently, I cannot save the title as a draft in my sandbox. What just occurred to me is that I could retitle it in my sandbox, and the reviewer can correct the title when they approve the content for main space. So I think I just answered the first question.
Second, before I publish this in main space, it would be good if for me to find a few other editors to help me with vandalism patrol. So I will also reach out to some other Texas-based editors for this.
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Greetings! Happy Winters.
I hope you're doing great.
While looking at Instant Bollywood, I came to know that it was deleted under G5 (created by a banned or blocked user). I liked to create it, as it seems notable. Is it fine to recreate this?
Zuck28 (talk) 11:25, 12 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hello 78.26,
I hope you are well. May I ask you the texts of 2 deleted pages that I wish to work on? Two actresses, one Indian, one Pakistani.
One is Khushi Dubey
For the record, one was the object of a Deletion review (where I didn't !vote and was not "involved" in the editing of the page (at all, I think), but I did mention I would ask for the text of that page; it's long, sorry, hope you don't have to read it....). Other users seemed to implicitly agree she's notable (but I'll make sure it's the case and cannot be challenged, before moving it to Main).
The other is Sahar Hashmi and the page was G5-s-deleted. And there too I mentioned my intention to request the deleted the text on the TP of the admin who deleted it). Her notability has been challenged (obviously) so I'll make sure I provide coverage showing she meets the guidelines for notability. Again I was not deeply involved (apparently one edit only, though) in the editing of the page itself. The AfD showed that one user at least disagrees on her notability so I'll be even more cautious with that one.
Can you put them in my user space (in one page or two) or in Drafts as you think best, please? I am not sure about the history (if you want to restore it or not (what's the word?)). I always thought that having the history of a page is better but you know better.
Again, I will not publish them unless I think I have enough to do so.
As always, thank you very much! Best, -Mushy Yank. 00:37, 6 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi! In this edit you reverted my removal of the detailed Personnel section from In the Wee Small Hours. This section is one of numerous such sections that have been added to many articles about Frank Sinatra albums by one editor. There was a discussion of this editor's "Personnel" sections at Wikiproject Music here and at ANI here. In both discussions I argued that these sections (mostly consisting of mind-numbingly long lists of personal names) are unnecessarily detailed and fail WP:INDISCRIMINATE. It seems to me that the result of both of those discussions was a consensus clearly against retaining these sections. Do you read the consensus differently, or do you think this issue needs more discussion? CodeTalker (talk) 03:11, 8 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
@CodeTalker: Thank you for writing! Also, thank you for bringing my attention to those discussions, of which I was unaware. Please note that what follows is just my thoughts on the matter and nothing more, but I hope you will consider them. (Also consider the fact that I've been known to be wrong on several occasions.) First, I think I would agree that the incredibly long list of personnel on that exhaustive compilation CD is probably not worthwhile, probably crossing into WP:UNDUE territory (perhaps a novel interpretation, but nontheless...) However, I think that the personnel is encyclopedic for instances such as In the Wee Small Hours because the article is about the album and the specific making of that one album, and the artists listed have a direct impact upon the artistic quality of that recording, therefore I don't think the information is INDISCRIMINATE. As a music researcher, I find this information useful and informative. Many of the musicians are notable in their own right, and the names give an indication of the timbre and quality of the recordings for the given tracks. Don't confuse specialized information with INDISCRIMINATE. I get that this is a judgement call, and I most certainly understand that discographical information such as this is not most reader's cup of tea, but Wikipedia is both a general and specialized encyclopedia. The position at the end of the article is not intrusive to the average reader, and Wikipedia's feelings aren't hurt if most readers think "boring" and skip that section. MOS:ALBUM suggests a Personnel section, and in fact if this article were a Featured Article I would expect it to have exactly this sort of information. I also would be cautious of using localized discussions to project consensus broadly. At least the discussion on WikiProject Music is likely to bring knowledgeable editors to the topic, but before I would consider this type of information to be deemed unencyclopedic I'd like the input of WikiProject Albums and WikiProject Discography, or at least give them the opportunity to participate. I understand your frustration with the editor who has been disruptive, but the information has been significantly improved upon regarding formatting, and it is currently referenced to a superior academic source.
Should the page also be deleted and re-created with the block notice or revdeled? I thought I remembered reading that that was generally the procedure with attack pages, but I can't actually find that guideline anywhere so maybe its not necessary. Emk9 (talk) 01:20, 2 September 2025 (UTC)Reply
Usually these aren't outright deleted as the block messages are kept in the edit history. Certainly blanking is appropriate. I think the policy you may be looking for is Wikipedia:CBLANK. I'm indifferent as to whether or not this should be deleted, perhaps someone at WP:MFD will have a stronger opinion than I if you think there's potential that irreparable harm will occur to an individual if the attack page remains available in history. 78.26(spin me / revolutions)01:34, 2 September 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello, 78.26. 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.
Latest comment: 11 months ago7 comments2 people in discussion
Hello. In closing the AfD on Brigadoon Lodge, you said, "It should be noted that sources do not have to be primarily about a topic, they do need to have WP:SIGCOV to help indicate notability". I disagree with that, at least regarding the particular sources identified in that discussion.
WP:Notability is established when a subject has "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Significant coverage means the reliable source "addresses the topic directly and in detail". While the subject doesn't need to be the "main topic" of the reliable source, it has to be more than a trivial or shallow mention.
As I stated in the discussion, many of the sources provided as alleged RS fail this bar, with the lodge receiving passing and shallow mentions, typically in lists of similar locations, that can hardly be described as "significant" (as required by both WP:N and WP:NBUILD). Regardless of the wrong decision, the fact remains that this subject does not have significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
Let's hope the last 16 years of verifiability doesn't meet WP's bar will change, and someone will find sources that actually provide "direct and in-depth" coverage. Jcgaylor (talk) 03:17, 31 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Most other editors disagreed with your conclusions regarding whether the sources contained significant coverage. I made the statement I did because one editor made an argument directly contradicting our notability guideline as stated in SIGCOV. If you believe I have misread the discussion you are welcome to take this to WP:DELREV and have my close assessed by other uninvolved editors. All the best, 78.26(spin me / revolutions)11:36, 31 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
That others agreed to a wrong decision isn't really the point. AfDs aren't votes and this isn't a democracy.
@Jcgaylor: Yes, sigcov was the issue. Most editors were of the opinion that the available coverage is significant, and that it meets GNG. You are correct, AfD is not a democracy, but there is nothing deficient from a policy standpoint on the other side's position. You are asking me to make a WP:SUPERVOTE. My job as the closer is not to make a decision based upon my own opinions. Rather, it is to read the discussion and weigh the discussion for consensus, which includes making sure arguments are policy based. So no, I did not read the sources because then I would be !voting, making myself biased when I closed the discussion. Again, if you feel I did weigh policy, did not correctly read consensus, or if the arguments for Significant Coverage are so egregiously wrong that my judgement of consensus must be overturned, please take it to Deletion Review. I've been wrong before, and I'll be wrong again, but I believe my judgement of consensus on this discussion was correct. All the best, 78.26(spin me / revolutions)01:25, 2 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
Without reviewing the sources, how can one make a determination that the "keep" argument correctly applied the relevant notability policies?
According to the deletion guidelines for administrators, "consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument and cited recorded consensus". Your job as the closer is to ensure that policies and guidelines are successfully upheld. You are allowed to decide in favor of a minority viewpoint. That isn't, necessarily, a super vote.
If you did not review the sources, it is hard to imagine how you evaluated the strength of the "keep" argument.
I appreciate your time, and will consider pursuing a challenge to your decision. Wikipedia isn't bettered by having an unsourced, non-notable article stay up after 16 years of failing to meet site guidelines. Jcgaylor (talk) 01:45, 2 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
My job is to read the discussion and ensure that the arguments are policy based. They were. The participantsâ opinions varied, but a significant majority of the participants were of the opinion that the available sources mean GNG is met, and the article therefore needs improving, not deletion. You may have the last word if you want, but I wonât be replying regarding this again. 78.26(spin me / revolutions)01:56, 2 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
Again, if you did not review the sources, you cannot say that you evaluated the arguments by their strength (which is what you are supposed to do according to the guidelines cited above).
Going forward, I hope that you follow the proper closing procedure, which may mean siding with a minority vote.
Latest comment: 8 months ago11 comments6 people in discussion
{{Help me}}A few more modifications have been made which appear to resolve most of the remaining issues. Could someone assist with the final review of this draft? Thanks in advance!~2026-10873-46 (talk) 17:22, 18 February 2026 (UTC)NHPLReply
Ciao 78.26- Glad to learn of your interest in historical recordings. I recently modified a draft article Draft:Pietro Deiro Presents the Accordion Orchestra. It might be ready for a move to the main page. References have been improved and notability of the participating musicians has been clarified as per the request of another editor.. The article only utilizes only one reference from discogs.com to a photograph of the album cover to support a direct quotation. I think this may be ok as per the WP:RSDISCOGS consensus discussion in 2019 which indicates that the site discogs.com has not been deprecated and the discussion in 2024 which indicates that photographs of albums posted on Discogs.com may or may not be useful as a reference source. Feel free to delete the quotation of the paragraph from the liner notes if it is problematic. When you have time, kindly take a look at the new draft. Many thanks in advance for your kind assistance and enjoy the music. Respectfully, ~2026-41286-5 (talk) 18:03, 19 January 2026 (UTC)GCLReply
Greetings, and thanks for writing! I'm greatly pleased to be discussing these topics. Unfortunately my time has been limited lately, for reasons which are positive on a personal level but bad for spending extended periods of time on Wikipedia. I did take a quick look at your draft. Although I'd really *like* this to be an encyclopedia article, I'm not sure it meets our notability guidelines. The Billboard article of 1960 counts towards notability, but I'm having trouble finding other sources that talk in-depth about the album itself. BNS Pubs is a reliable source, for instance, but it is a listing of albums, and doesn't give any artistic analysis or historical information about the album, it merely confirms it exists. Also, please remove the discogs reference. Instead, use the album itself as the source (use Template:Cite AV media notes). You can link to discogs, but don't cite it.
Can you give me another source besides Billboard that directly discusses the album in particular? If not, may I gently suggest that you include this information into Pietro Deiro's article, where it may be more appropriate? All the best, 78.26(spin me / revolutions)03:46, 20 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
Great to learn of your interest in the article---as per your suggestion a few references supporting "notability" have been included from a critical review in The Catholic Digest as published by the College of St. Thomas (University of St. Thomas (Minnesota) along with a few more references from the Discography of American Historical Recordings. I've also included a few more references to confirm the notability of the orchestral musicians who participated in the recording. While they do not mention the album directly, they do confirm the prominent role which these musicians played in demonstrating the suitability of the accordion as a "serious & legitimate" instrument for the classical music concert hall stage in the early 20th century. I hope the additional references are helpful along with the links to relevant Wikipedia articles on the history of the accordion orchestra in the USA (See (Accordion in music in the section on "The Accordion Orchestra in Classical Music"). Thanks again for your kind assistance and best wishes for your continued editorial success on Wikipedia. With best regards ~2026-43837-1 (talk) 20:25, 20 January 2026 (UTC)NHPLReply
P.S See a few of the additional new references here:
[1][2][3][4][5]
âJacobson, Marion S. (2007). "Searching for Rockordion: The Changing Image of the Accordion in America". American Music. 25 (2): 216â247. doi:10.2307/40071656. JSTOR40071656.
You're trying to prove the notability of the participating artists. That's not in doubt. You need to establish notability for the album itself. You may have it with the Catholic Digest, but I'd at least mention what they say about the album. I did a search on newspaperarchive.com, and several papers covered this album, . Use some of these, and notability will be proven. I hope that helps! 78.26(spin me / revolutions)03:40, 22 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
Ciao 78.26 thanks for the superb advice. I've tracked down the request quotation from the Catholic Digest on archive.org and also included a link to a Swedish publication for accordionists: Accordeon Journalen which mentions the album, but I'm note certain that it offers a review since it is written in Swedish. I also included links to come of the newspapers in the USA which mention the album as per your suggestion. That is about all I could find, so thanks again and good luck with the final review. With thanks ~2026-47646-7 (talk) 18:09, 22 January 2026 (UTC)GCLReply
I'm not going to review this article for promotion to mainspace, as I am WP:Involved at this point. However, if you give me time I'll help incorporate those sources into the article. Also, if you want, I can clean up some other parts I think are mostly irrelevant to the topic and in my opinion would make it stronger to stand on its own and look less like the article is trying to WP:INHERIT notability. Let me know, and all the best, 78.26(spin me / revolutions)17:58, 23 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
Ciao 78.26: Great to hear from you again! Thanks once again for your suggestions. Feel free to make any modifications or deletions from the draft as you deem necessary whenever you have some spare time. Your expertise as a professional editor is more than welcome. I attempted to incorporate additional text from the references which you provided on newspaperarchive.com. Alas, i do not have direct access to this website, so I am unable to provide additional detailed content from these newspaper references. Similarly, I was not able to acquire sufficient text from the Swedish journal "Accordion Journalen" to create a translation from Swedish or Norwegian into English. Google AI indicates that "Accordion Journalen" was published from 1949-1963 and is considered to be a primary resource in academic research into the role of female accordionists in Swedish music during the mid-20th century, along with the encyclopedia "Svenska dragspelare" (1946). The journal was founded by Andrew Walter: (born Anders Walter Kejving, 1914â1978) who was a prominent Swedish accordionist and composer and one of the most influential figures in Scandinavian accordion music during the mid-20th century according to Google AI. Physical copies of the journal and related materials are said to be preserved in the Svenskt visarkiv (The Centre for Swedish Folk Music and Jazz Research) presumably in Sweden. Google Ai claims there is a searchable database for past editions of "Accordion Journalen" at Music Work's library catalog (Gathenhielm). While physical copies of the journal may exists in Sweden, I did not have much success in searching this database online. A search on Google Books suggests that the album may have been reviewed within the magazine "Stereo Review" in 1961, but the link to this issue does not provide any detailed text. Google Books also lists a potential review of the album in the magazine "High Fidelity" (September 1960, Vol. 10, NO 9) and to my amazement I was able to retrieve a clear copy of the review as posted on Worldrradiohistory.com, so I incorporated it into the 'Reviews Sections" of the draft. See [1]
Hi 78.26 - A quick note to let you know that a few more modifications were made to the draft to reduce the number of references and to use a more neutral tone. Perhaps if you have time you can take another look. Thanks.~2026-10873-46 (talk) 17:22, 18 February 2026 (UTC)HNPLReply
@Kelob2678: A couple of mentions and a re-direct created by an editor, even a knowledgeable one, without community discussion and consensus, does not make this Wikipedia policy. It's not that anyone, including yourself, has done anything wrong. However, I am hardly infallible, so if you feel I have misread consensus you are free to take this to Wikipedia:Deletion review. All the best, 78.26(spin me / revolutions)17:55, 23 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
I think the outcome of the AfD was wrong and notable content was deleted, however, you evaluated the consensus correctly, so there is no need for a DRV. I disagree that there is a community consensus that producers do not fall under the other creative professionals or filmmakers clauses of the guideline. WP:DIRECTOR is also just a redirect, but I doubt anyone would argue that film directors do not fall under the guideline. I linked two talk page discussions in which editors said that producers can fall under the guideline, here is another discussion in which an editor from the AfD brought up the topic on the talk page, no one supported him, but no one objected either. Here is a sample of AfDs in which editors took WP:PRODUCER seriously. Your closure implied the existence of this consensus, so I would like to understand why you think so. Regarding the AfD, I am asking you to amend the closing statement so it no longer implies the presence of this consensus, namely, that producers don't fall under the guideline. Kelob2678 (talk) 18:32, 23 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Kelob2678:, thank you for your thoughtful reply. First I need to point out, my close in no way establishes any sort of consensus, just as the links to other discussions in no way establish any sort of consensus. Directors are very different than Producers. Directors have creative impact on a work of art. Producers rarely do. Looking at the article, I think you're argument that Gopalan meets CREATIVE would perhaps have held more sway if you'd mentioned his acting and how his producing aspects weren't merely financial, but had creative input as well. Unfortunately you don't have the sources to back up that claim (regarding the creative aspect of his producing) if it's true. I just can't see that using a redirect that has not received any general community consensus is a policy-based argument. That said I'd be more than happy to restore the article to your personal user space, if you want time to develop it because you know there are sources. Given the number of notable films he produced I'd be surprised if there aren't non-English sources available about him. As it is, the article says he produced films, and then a number of negative things about him. Frankly, that doesn't seem balanced, and I think the article may best deleted from a BLP standpoint because of that imbalance. I hope that helps. All the best, 78.26(spin me / revolutions)03:06, 29 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
hi 78.26 I'm here just to ask you for some help. In the past of February month I was used account 4-02-2026ado666 for editing and this account is blocked. Then I using an temporary accounts on Page Adnan (name). I also have edited on page called Adnan and now I have a problem to remove my own content, so I'm here to ask you for revision deletion for pages Adnan and Adnan (name) by user 4-02-2026ado666 and some temporary accounts edits on page Adnan (name). I just want to remove my edits from revision history. ~2026-17725-49 (talk) 01:26, 21 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
Iâm afraid I must decline. Burying your vandalism doesnât seem like a valid reason for revision deletion. I truly donât see what that would accomplish for anyone. 78.26(spin me / revolutions)03:50, 21 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Could you block me for a short amount of time (preferably around an hour)? I would like to get a visual on what that looks like is all. It is absolutely a bit silly to ask but I simply would like to see how that displays and what not. All the best, (Talk) PHLOGISTON ENTHUSIAST18:37, 3 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion
The editor who made this nomination has been blocked as a sock puppet. If it wasn't for your relist and the associated comment I'd procedurally close it; however, given your comments in the nomination I'll leave it to you. TarnishedPathtalk03:26, 11 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 5 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
â
Thanks for uploading File:PourcelSucces.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Latest comment: 5 months ago5 comments4 people in discussion
Hi, at the [[EPAM Systems]] Logs I saw that it was you who deleted EPAM Systems article based on G8. In my perspective, this was an error. The page had previously been improperly converted into a redirect, even though it had been a standalone article for many years. Please take a look at my arguments at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. I request that the deletion be reversed. Thanks for considering! (Please note: I requested username change, because my German company account Tkommunikation needs to be single individual on the English Wikipedia, so my account will be named Ttimm99 soon.) Tkommunikation (talk) 18:40, 13 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Ttimm99: Sorry I've been offline. I'm glad another administrator looked into this and restored it. Now it is being reviewed at AfD as I think it should be. @Graywalls:, blanking and redirecting to an article you have already nominated for deletion is really not good practice. It's caused confusion, and some people might consider it bad faith. I really don't think that was your intent, and you may not have even realized you did that, given the volume of work you do around here. Nevertheless I need to point out it would have been much better to nominate both articles for deletion. Thanks! 78.26(spin me / revolutions)23:20, 25 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
@78.26:, I don't think it was unreasonable. If an article seems not notable on its own but could merit from a re-direct somewhere else to be mentioned there, contingent on that article passing inclusion criteria. Suppose there are article about Three Brothers NonNotable Framing of highly non-notable nature. The Company was founded by John, James and Jason NonNotable; and they each have page and everything about them are about the framing company with little of anything else. So, I think it's editorially prudent to redirect John NonNotable, James NonNotable,etc into Three Brothers NonNotable Framing. If that target too is of questionable notability, I don't believe it's unreasonable to do the redirect followed by AfD of the target. So, no it wasn't in bad faith. Is there a policy against this? Graywalls (talk) 23:26, 25 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Graywalls: the problem is that this circumvents the ability of the community to review and evaluate the deletion, because it was deleted by G8 soon after you made the redirect. I have no problem with your analysis of notability on these two topics, but the manner of deletion for EPAM is against the spirit of our guidelines if not the letter, because by nominating A for deletion, then redirecting B (questionable notability but not obviously non-notable per current deletion discussion) to A, which is likely to be deleted, you get B deleted without community oversight. This makes it an admin-like action which shouldn't be done that way. I would have been far more transparent to nominate EPAM in the first place. I really don't think redirecting an article to an article up for deletion discussion is best practice. At the very least, if you do so, you should be clear you have made said redirect in the deletion discussion. 78.26(spin me / revolutions)23:55, 25 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 3 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The third round of the 2026 WikiCup ended on 28 June at 23:59 (UTC). As a reminder, good article nomination reviews now receive 10 points, while peer reviews, which continue to be worth 5 points, are now listed in the same section as featured article candidate reviews, rather than with good article reviews. Everyone who competed in round 3 will advance to round 4 unless they have withdrawn or been banned. No other changes to the round-point system have been made for this year.
Round 3 was competitive. Three contestants scored more than 1,000 round points; eight scored over 500; and thirteen scored over 300. The top three contestants had at least one featured article (two of them with two apiece). The following competitors scored more than 800 round points:
MCE89(submissions) with 1567 points, mainly from good and featured articles about Australian people and geography, as well as some article reviews
Bgsu98(submissions) with 1547 points, mainly from good articles, featured articles, featured lists, and a good topic about figure skating, along with 20 article reviews
Reconrabbit(submissions) with 1004 points, mainly from a high-multiplier featured article on European rabbit and several good articles, DYKs, and reviews
A.Cython(submissions) with 1004 points, mainly from good articles about warfare, along with 22 article reviews
Generalissima(submissions) with 859 points, mainly from good and featured articles about rivers and East Asian topics
The full scores for round 3 can be seen here. During this round, contestants have claimed 12 featured articles, 12 featured lists, 7 featured-topic articles, 117 good articles, 74 good-topic articles and more than 30 Did You Know articles. In addition, competitors have worked on 13 In the News articles, and they have conducted nearly 180 reviews. The tournament points table has been updated.
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 nominationâwhether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere elseâwill 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) 13:48, 29 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Hello, 78.26. 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.
Latest comment: 3 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello, 78.26. 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.
Well, this is certainly an unusual message from a new user... I kinda doubt our paths will cross. So long as you are WP:HERE (suggested reading) you've nothing to worry about. Anyway, I wish you happy, productive editing. 78.26(spin me / revolutions)20:43, 18 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
request for assistance, draft article, "Tiny Alice (band)"
Latest comment: 2 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hello 78.26,
The Wiki community inexplicably queued an unauthorized draft revision for initial publication review, it did not have the {{AfC submission|||ts=20260823164828|u=Werdmerk|ns=3}} submit code in the header. The correct version for review is the June 10, 2026 draft, the only revision that included the code. Please delete the incorrect revision from review queue and submit the June 10, 2026 revision in its place.
Also please confirm or clarify: it is my understanding that at this early draft stage, certain formatting [e.g., Infobox, section headings, etc.] as well as pictures and sound files, should not be included in the draft until the article has received initial approval.
I would include the graphics and certainly the section headings and pictures and sound files (make sure these are public domain you you unambiguously own rights and donate the work to Creative Commons. I think you should remove a *lot* of the trivia. I hope that's helpful. Happy editing! 78.26(spin me / revolutions)22:47, 26 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Hello 78.26, thank you for your comments and suggestions, it would be very helpful if you could list several, or best, all, instances of what you consider trivia. Also please clarify, are you saying I am permitted to add approved pics, formatting, and sound file at this stage? My understanding was those must wait until after the initial draft approval. Best regards, Werdmerk Werdmerk (talk) 15:06, 27 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The fourth round of the 2026 WikiCup ended on 29 August at 23:59 (UTC). Everyone who competed in round 4 will advance to round 5 unless they have withdrawn or been removed. Round 4 was competitive, though slightly less so than round 3. Three contestants scored more than 1,000 round points; six scored over 500; and nine scored over 300. Each of the top five competitors had hundreds of points accumulated from multiple GAs. The following competitors scored more than 800 round points:
Vanderwaalforces(submissions) with 1,208 points from 2 featured articles, 2 featured lists, and 12 good articles about African leaders, along with over two dozen reviews
A.Cython(submissions) with 1,084 points from 16 good articles and a small good topic about warfare and Greek elections, along with over two dozen reviews
Bgsu98(submissions) with 837 points from 4 FLs and 8 GAs about figure skating, along with two dozen reviews
The full scores for round 4 can be seen here. During this round, contestants have claimed 10 featured articles, 11 featured lists, 8 featured-topic articles, 103 good articles, 6 good-topic articles and more than 30 Did You Know articles. In addition, competitors have worked on 11 In the News articles, and they have conducted 170 peer reviews, FA and GA reviews. The tournament points table has been updated.
Remember that any content promoted after 29 August but before the start of Round 5 can be claimed in Round 5. 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 nominationâwhether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere elseâwill 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) 02:42, 30 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Speedy deletion criteria G15 has been renamed from "LLM-generated pages without human review" to "Unambiguously LLM-generated pages" and has an additional sign of detection added to it following a RfC.
Following an RfC, late signatures added to administrator recall petitions after 720 hours from opening are reverted or struck and do not count towards the threshold, even if the petition has not yet been formally closed.
The post-May 2026 administrator elections RfCs concluded with consensus for election monitors to curate blatantly inappropriate questions after posting, and to remove or merge true duplicates, clearly marking merged questions. Calls for candidates will include advisory guidance that users with less than one yearâs experience or 5,000 edits generally lack a realistic chance of success.
Technical news
Interface administrators no longer need to specify the ResourceLoader option in the definitions for gadgets on MediaWiki:Gadgets-definition as gadgets are always loaded through ResourceLoader. (T298199)
The list=abusefilters API module now supports formatversion=2 and includes breaking changes to its responses. In particular, the actions property is now a JSON array rather than a string, regardless of the format version. Maintainers of user scripts and other code using this module should check compatibility and update their code as needed. (T435828)
Doug Weller passed away on 30 September 2026. Doug Weller began editing Wikipedia in 2006 and became an administrator in 2008, making nearly 275,000 edits over two decades. He served on the Arbitration Committee from 2015 through 2018 and was also a longtime CheckUser and Oversighter.
Done 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 01:40, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Hello, 78.26. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Bernadine Strik, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
MCE89 (submissions) with 1567 points, mainly from good and featured articles about Australian people and geography, as well as some article reviews
Bgsu98 (submissions) with 1547 points, mainly from good articles, featured articles, featured lists, and a good topic about figure skating, along with 20 article reviews
Reconrabbit (submissions) with 1004 points, mainly from a high-multiplier featured article on European rabbit and several good articles, DYKs, and reviews
A.Cython (submissions) with 1004 points, mainly from good articles about warfare, along with 22 article reviews
Generalissima (submissions) with 859 points, mainly from good and featured articles about rivers and East Asian topics
Vanderwaalforces (submissions) with 1,208 points from 2 featured articles, 2 featured lists, and 12 good articles about African leaders, along with over two dozen reviews
Vestrian24Bio (submissions) with 955 points, mostly from 2 FLs, 2 featured topics, and 16 GAs about cricket, and almost two dozen reviews
Oversight changes
Guideline and policy news
Miscellaneous
Technical news
Arbitration
Obituaries