User talk:Goldsztajn

Mentor

Hi @Goldsztajn, nice to connect and thanks for offering assistance. I'm getting on well for now mostly editing biographies of scientists and public figures, starting to get into anti-vandalism work and new page patrolling. Feedback on my work always appreciated but happy to drop you a line if I need advice on particularly contested issues or edits. I got involved early on in a discussion about Sydney Sweeney's politics and raised a new RfC which got some support but was ultimately a mixed bag so I asked a more experienced outside editor for help, who closed the RfC deciding against my proposed inclusion. It was a good learning experience on how to deal with high-profile controversial edits. I respect that there was no majority consensus but not sure how to return this in the future as I still think it should be featured and editors clearly had different interpretations of WP: NPOV, WP: BLP, and WP:UNDUE but perhaps best to move on sometimes! ∞ HardScience (talk) 10:24, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi @HardScience - I think you've taken a quite reasonable (and sensible) approach, I wouldn't worry too much. While in that case I'd probably have agreed with you, one of the most important things to get used to with Wikipedia is to take one's pleasure contributing in areas where one get things done. Some editors feel a need to engage in high profile, recent topics for lots of different reasons - but I'm generally not aware of many who do so then remain here long term. Wikipedia needs editors with skills (and patience) ... and having a PhD is usually a good sign (heh). Find a quiet patch and beaver away, find someone who you can collaborate with and get building. If you feel the need, join the frey every now and then to keep one honed and aware of the state of play, but far more often than not drama is best avoided. I've been here almost 20 years and I think part of that has been learning to stay away from drama, focussing on content and remembering that yesterday's battle can often be tomorrow's consensus (and vice versa!). Anyway, feel free to ask any questions and I'll try my best to help. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 12:58, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! And yes great advice. I mostly stick to editing within my broad expertise and I do find having scientific training can be helpful with sourcing and technical editing but I attempted to branch out once or twice to "hot topics" to see what that's like but I think what you say makes a lot of sense, not a long game! Happy to circle back if any questions come up in the future, thanks for your time, appreciate it ∞ HardScience (talk) 15:31, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Back already! Sorry will try not to bug you too much. I'm editing award sections of scientist biographies and one editor removed award additions claiming they need secondary sources to demonstrate importance. My intuition was to rely on primary sources for awards to ensure verifiability (because any secondary source can claim anything) but I can see the value of adding some secondary sources, to demonstrate notability of included awards. However, only relying on secondary sources seems very risky and some awards have their own wikipedia entry so I kind of took that as implicit evidence it's notable and some bodies have press announcements of their own but I guess I need to find independent coverage? It's a bit counterintuitive to look for secondary coverage of things that are obviously notable in science, like elections into well-regarded fellowships. I'm happy to try to find some sec sources for the less well-known ones perhaps (or leave them out) but do we really need to do this for things like fellowships of major academies and so on? And does a university announcement count as secondary or does it have to be mainstream media? I've not been doing this so just wanted to check.

Thanks for the guidance! ∞ HardScience (talk) 18:52, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi @HardScience - you've stumbled (not meant in a bad way!) into an area of Wikipedia that actually operates somewhat outside the scope of pretty much everything else here. Essentially, academics and politians/judges are more or less the only groups that are assessed for notability with criteria that differ to all other subjects (see WP:NPOL for judges and politicans). Many living academics (most) would fail to satisfy the WP:GNG, but are considered notable because of WP:NPROF. That has given rise to a more complex approach with regard to sourcing for articles about academics. Basically, determining the legitimacy of sourcing with academics is often going to be a case by case basis. I've seen editors argue that an academic's CV hosted on a university website is legitimate as a source for information about the academic (I'd tend to agree, in most cases, but this could often sit somewhat on an edge). If the academic has an award from an institution of body that has an article on Wikipedia (ie has been determined to be notable in itself) then I think it would be reasonable to take the view that the organisation itself is suitable as a source of who it awards. Directories of fellows for a learned body would also be suitable (eg a Royal Society Fellow). There's nothing wrong with WP:PRIMARY sources for certain types of information - eg basic facts - in a civil action it would be perfectly reasonable to cite a court document as a source for who is the plaintiff and who is the defendant, but a court document would generlly not be used in explaining a court's decision or its significance, that would require secondary sources. Nevertheless, every and any reasearch grant an academic has won is not necessarily needed for inclusion - a Fulbright scholarship is far less significant than a MacCarthur Genius award. That will be an editorial/content decision. Anyway, WP:NPROF is quite detailed, if you've not read it before, I'd recommend reading it in full. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 02:57, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Super helpful, thanks! I'll read WP:NPROF again in more detail. I think the concern of not wanting CV-style pages makes good sense. But what I struggle with is that I'm always looking to apply the same rule equally and fairly to all Wikipedia pages but many editors come up with different interpretations or applications of the same rule for specific individuals/pages. So if we need a secondary source for an award or achievement for person X we should maintain needing secondary sources for everyone with the same situation but that's not really how it is. I'll try to do more of a case-by-case evaluation, thanks again! ∞ HardScience (talk) ∞ HardScience (talk) 06:32, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

FYI, I have just reported this user to ANI: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#HardScience_and_Sander_van_der_Linden_sockpuppetry_-_ban_proposal SmartSE (talk) 12:14, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Question from Sheilabrase (16:03, 12 June 2026)

I just noticed an error / omission in the Filmography list for Danny DeVito. Other Peoples' Money (1991) --Sheilabrase (talk) 16:03, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Sheilabrase - welcome to Wikipedia. The great thing about Wikipedia is everyone can correct mistakes. As long as the change you wish to make is supported by a reliable source, go ahead and make the change, or if you are not sure, leave a message on the talk page of the article. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 11:43, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Question from Nepthys72 (09:50, 17 June 2026)

Hi. I have recently updated my work colleagues page - Kevin Drinkell - but twice the amended paragraph has been removed by someone called Plasticwonder. There is no reason for this to be removed as it is purely an update on current career. How can I stop this person from keep deleting the paragraph? Thanks --Nepthys72 (talk) 09:50, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Nepthys72 - welcome. Wikipedia has quite strong "rules" (policies and guidelines) about contributing to subjects where someone has a conflict of interest - in any form. In this case you are a work colleague, which means you have a relationship with the subject. Another rule, is that material can be removed from Wikipedia by anyone if it is not supported by reliable sources (simply put, a source must be independent of the subject and must have had some degree of editorial oversight). The material you added was not supported by reliable sources and appeared to be promotional as well. If you would like material added to the Kevin Drinkell article - please read the following, it explains what you need to do: Wikipedia:Simple conflict of interest edit request. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 11:55, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

I appreciate you taking the time to explain as that make sense.

Thank you so much. Nepthys72 (talk) 15:03, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Added edit without loggin in - help?

Hello Goldsztain, I accidentally made an edit using ~2026-36025-49 instead of my own account. Can I import that edit to my profile? I think it's the first proper edit I've made. Thank you, Cass Reimer Cass Reimer (talk) 17:56, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Cass Reimer - the short answer is no, it's not possible. However, it would appear your first edit [1] was to the article Kyū in 2024. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 00:12, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 June 2026

• From the editors: Ways for beginners to support The Signpost community journalism
  Pointing the way to your contribution to The Signpost!

• News and notes: Community Tech development team disbanded
  And English Wikipedia reaches a milestone in number of highly active editors.

• Disinformation report: PR for the people?
  Or, "PR using PR for PR"?

• Recent research: Proposed tagging system for AI involvement; successful and unsuccessful AI tools for contributors
  And other new research publications.

• In the media: Who won a 14th century battle and who won the 2026 Iran war?
  Media take issue with portrayals of recent and medieval history on Wikipedia. Plus a team supporting Wikipedians gets dissolved, and a few other things.

• Community view: Putting the Wish into the Wishlist
  A history of the Wikimedia community's request process to Foundation developers.

• In focus: A global standard for Neutral Point of View
  Wikipedians are commenting on a proposed global standard for neutral point of view.

• On the bright side: Flowers, blue helmets, reefs, pride, and Juneteenth
  Nice things around the world.

• Op-ed: Breathe, Don’t Panic, there is a different story about Wikimedia + AI futures
  We can build a strategy about AI that doesn't just center on readers; there are still plenty of humans to write the encyclopedia and work on diverse global knowledge.

• Opinion: Wikimedia Foundation staff develop union and Wikimedia user community reacts
  Why should editors support the Wiki Workers United union drive? Lessons the Wikimedia movement can learn from other labor struggles.

• Technology report: Community Tech team is disbanded, controversy erupts
  WMF disbands Community Tech, sparking community backlash over the future of the Wishlist and concerns about unionization.

• Traffic report: 'Cause this is thriller, thriller night
  Horror movies and Michael Jackson dominate theaters in the lead-up to the World Cup.

• WikiConference report: Report of Volunteer Supporters Network Annual Meeting 2026
  Outreach staff of Wikimedia chapters host a global discussion.

• Comix: Take your turn
  In a maze of twisty little edits, all alike.

• Humour: Group of banned T-shirt makers comes out of hiding to sell new Wikipedia-themed merchandise
  It ain't WikiProject United Nations, but you will find some PUNs.

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:17, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Love Get Chu

Of the four sources, I machine-translated all four. The first one seems to be reliable, the second one is just a directory listing, and the other two are press releases from cell phone companies. Ten Pound Hammer (they/them) • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:12, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi @TenPoundHammer - I don't have any reason to question your (or any participant's) translations and/or use of translation tools. In assessing any discussion, I assume good faith regarding translations unless there's a reason shown otherwise. Which leads me to looking at the discussion - you assessed some Japanese language sources, two contributors provided support for deletion (albeit with limited analysis - with one essentially agnostic altogether on offline Japanese sources) and the last contributor offerred sources in support of keep. I didn't feel there was a consensus in the discussion regarding the Japanese language sources mentioned by the last contributor - which is why I explicitly asked for further discussion. I don't think it would be unreasonable at all for you to respond to the keep !vote and assess the sources mentioned. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 09:49, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

I've slightlty revised my relist comment so it focusses on the second set of sources, hopefully that is clearer for others. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 10:16, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Per the limits of my topic ban, I am not allowed to make comments in XFD space after starting the nomination. That's why I brought it here. Ten Pound Hammer (they/them) • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 13:19, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi @TenPoundHammer - my apologies, I should have been aware of the topic ban. I've struck the last part of my comment. However, I'm not sure I can add anything further. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 13:24, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SelTrac

Hello Goldsztajn, First of all I'd like to thank you for your good work on this project for nearly 20 years. Yet, despite all this good work, there's one action I can't agree with: the closing of the AfD for "Seltrac".

1. I've added 6 sources, apparently that's not enough... But how many would have been enough to keep the article?
2. Per WP:XFD#CON: Consensus is formed through the careful consideration, dissection and eventual synthesis of different perspectives presented during the discussion, and is not calculated solely by number of votes. Since there was no discussion (but only voting), how can anyone get a sense of the group?
3. Per WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS: If the major stakeholders have not been notified of the deletion nomination or given time to respond, reliable consensus determinations will rarely be possible. Indeed I pinged Thryduulf as a stakeholder, resulting in e request to postpone a decision. On what grounds is this request then ignored?

I'm hoping my question don't feel like an attack, but I felt like being silent wasn't an option here. Regards, KatVanHuis (talk) 15:31, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi @KatVanHuis - your comment doesn't feel like an attack at all and I'm happy to respond (in fact as part of WP:ADMINACCOUNT I consider I have a duty to respond).

1. There's a phenomenon known as refbombing - maybe you know already - if sources are not reliable, no amount will make a subject notable. Two sources can make a subject notable, and thirty can fail depending on their reliability. Nor is an assertion that there "are plenty of sources" a strong discussion point to make (WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES). The problem with these is that a closer's job (my job) is not to assess sources (let alone sift through Google link searches), it is to assess the discussion as it appears. If I begin to assess the sources I open myself up to supervoting. It is the job of participants to assess sources, not the closer.
2. "The sense of the group" is determined not only by the !voting, but also by the nomination (its quality of analysis, coherence, alignment to policy and guidelines) and by the comments of all participants. The nomination raised three issues: first, one explicitly critical for the purposes of notability (failure to satisfy the GNG); second, a lack of sourcing (which per WP:NEXIST is not a critical issue in terms of notability); and third, FANCRUFT - which while an essay is quite explicitly grounded in WP:NOT (a core Wikipedia policy). At no point in the discussion were the two critical issues raised by the nomination refuted by subsequent discussion. Simply indicating that there are sources via a Google search link without introducing an explicit discussion around the reliability of specific sources does not allow other participants (or a closer) to assess your claim.
3. In this case, major (my emphasis) stakeholders (not any and all) would be you the article creator and, if it was the case, participants/nominators to any previous, if recent, AfD nominations on the article. As far as I can see Thryduulf isn't a major stakeholder. Their contribution explicity acknowledged that the time frame for the discussion might end before they can do anything further. And to be fair, I think my closing statement did respond to their expressed wish - redirects allow preservation of the article histories, which means recreation with reliable sources is possible. Three weeks is generally considered a long time for an AfD discussion and a third relisting is discouraged where there is not a strong sense that it could substantially alter the discussion. Perhaps explicit discussion of sources at that point may have moved the discussion towards no consensus, but my assessment of participation after three weeks did not show a substantial reason to add even further time.

Let me know if you have any other questions. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 23:33, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Hella Goldsztajn, that's a relief to know. And thank you for writing this essay, very appreciated the effort and result.

1. I didn't realise this, but I understand it now. Probably this is the key take: If I begin to assess the sources I open myself up to supervoting. – As a solution: would it have been better to announce in the discussion that I had added six sources?
2. I guess (or at least I hope) that the GNG and NEXIST issues have been solved by the six newest sources. For "fancruft": would it have been enough to have stated that I had removed words common in "fancruft"? Side note: The term "fancruft" is most commonly applied to fictional works and pop culture. so seeing it being mentioned in the first place, raised an eyebrow.
3. To me Thryduulf was an earlier participant, but let's agree to disagree.

And thanks again for the long and useful reply. Regards, KatVanHuis (talk) 15:58, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

@KatVanHuis I'm a bit of an WP:NEXIST purist - aside from articles that are in need of WP:TNT - the state of an article is (almost) totally irrelevant to me in terms of a deletion discussion. I think the best thing a participant can do in a deletion discussion who is seeking to keep an article is to explicitly discuss the sources that establish notability. For example, "Manuel Santé's analysis of the works of Basil Gesundheit appears across seven pages (pp435-442) of the Sybil Gampai-edited Archictecural Space Masterpieces of the 4th Millennium (University Centre Svalbard Press, 2026) and Polly Oolan-Kalufid's 37-page chapter in the Antecedants of Vogon Space Constructor Fleets (pp 231-268, Kigali Higher Institute of Aerospace Engineering Press, 2025) demonstrate there is SIGCOV in reliable sources for Gesundheitian hyperspace bypass design to be a notable topic in and of itself." ... forgive my plagiarism ...(s).... A closer can look at that statement and see that the contributor has made a very clear and precise summary of information available, which is verifiable and that they are reliable (albeit made up in this case!). And if no-one subsequently successfully refutes that statement (eg by establishing that the articles don't actually say what is claimed they do), it doesn't matter how many !votes come along and say Oolan-Kalfud didn't know a vent from an exhaust pipe or this cannot be notable. This is because they are not addressing the sources presented, and so a closer will have little problem making a finding for notablility. Simply put, it's ideal to avoid quantity of sources and look for quality.

Fancruft here was being used more as general allusion to any type of writing that someone with an intense interest in a topic might produce for someone else with an intense interest in the same topic. The immediate connection to WP:NOT is that Wikipedia is a body of discriminate information - the body of reliable sourcing on topic determines what is WP:DUE, not every and any source all agglomorated together.

Whether we consider Thryduulf a "major stakeholder" is moot, however, I think acknowledging that the deprodding took place almost three years ago is more relevant. And while I more often that not would classify my approach to this place as eventualist, I accept that a challenge to notability cannot be deferred (and three years is a very lenient time frame). Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 11:15, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello Goldsztajn and thanks again for an entertaining essay about the maze that Wikipedia sometimes appears to be (to me). I will try to be concise:

1. If I get it right, this is core information: the contributor has made a very clear and precise summary of information available, which is verifiable. I didn't even add many new facts; just mostly compared what was written in the WP-article with texts from the sources and then added these sources as a reference. I found more than six sources, but discarded the least reliable ones (= blogs ans primary sources). So according to my own judgement, all six sources are of decent or high quality. (But indeed I forgot to mention this in the AfD discussion)
2. The "flat earth theory" from WP:DUE is interesting and a clear example of what not to include. However, for SelTrac, I didn't find any opposing views. All sources mentioned matters similar to: initially developed by X, later developed by Y and sold since xxxx by company Z. It's plain and boring information, doesn't ring any fancruft alarm bells.
3. Indeed three years should be plenty of time. My take is that Thryduulf forgot to put this on an urgent to-do-list three years ago, and recently pleaded for a new period to be able to work on. But I understand your train of thoughts as well.

Q: could I revive the SelTrac article and (if yes) what would be the ideal procedure?

Regards, KatVanHuis (talk) 16:35, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello @KatVanHuis - there's two different issues (1) the deletion discussion and the article itself. During a deletion discussion the best thing to do is to explicitly discuss the sources which establish notability in the discussion. In general, editing the article during a deletion discussion may have an effect but *only* if the deletion discussion reaches a consensus that the changes have addressed the notability problem (see WP:HEY). This might seem counter-intuitive, but in a deletion discussion, a contributor only stating "I've added five sources to the article" is not necessarily a sign of anything *to a closer*. If someone immediately afterwards still !votes delete or redirect a closer will assume (WP:AGF, unless good reason otherwise) that have looked at the article with the changes and still decided to !vote the way they have. What will change a closer's mind about subsequent !votes is if one person states they have added new sources and explains why they are reliable with SIGCOV. A subsequent !vote to redirect or delete that does not address the "evidence" of reliable sourcing will be weighted less. The takeaway is this: closers are assessing the discussion, not the article.

If as you say it's plain and boring, is it then encyclopedic? The problem with classifying information/knowledge this way is precisely the issue that FANCRUFT addresses - marginal information and neutral point of view. Reliable sourcing assists in showing information is not marginal, NPOV assists in ensuring we are not assessing the information itself (rather than personal view; one person's mango is another person's durian etc). There's always going to be differing views on what constitutes too much detail, but the main point here is if an editor claims a topic or text does not satisfy policy or guidelines, the burden lies with the editor who added the material to show otherwise.

To revive the article - which in effect means removing the redirect, you could do the following:

• Copy and paste the last version of the article before it was redirected into your user space (create User:KatVanHuis/Sandbox to do this (see H:SANDBOX for more info).
• Work on improving it as much as possible.
• Once you've done that ping Thryduulf and myself and we can offer a view of what you've done and whether we think it addresses the issues raised in the deletion discission adequately.
• Wait at least three months since the closure of the disucsion (so not before late September) and then remove the redirect and paste the new version of the article.
• Send the article immediately to AfD as a procedural nomination to reassess the article's notability and be prepared to accept the result. Ping the previous nominator and participants to the last AfD discussion as a comment immediately below the nomination. As I am now quite WP:INVOLVED, I will not take any actions as a closer or in any administrative role in relation to the article (eg if there was edit warring), but I would be happy to take an editorial role to participate in a potential future AfD. Also, @Thryduulf: would likely be considered involved too, so think of us as editors and not admins in relation to this article. (Courtesy ping so they are aware of all this.)

Finally, do be conscious of WP:NOPAGE - just because a subject might be notable, does not necessarily mean it requires a stand alone article. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 02:13, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

There is no question that this topic is notable enough for, at minimum, a mention in an appropriate article with a redirect to it. Moving block is an appropriate article for that mention, it is mentioned there, and the majority of !votes were for retargetting, so the close was unquestionably reasonable (I think targetting the specific section where it is mentioned would be better than the top of the article, and unless @Goldsztajn objects that that would be contrary to their close I'll make that refinement as a normal editorial action.)

Whether the topic is notable enough for more than a mention is the question, and nobody demonstrated that it is. The way to demonstrate it is to find in-depth coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. I have had quick look now, and I see:

• Lots of coverage in independent reliable sources that is not in-depth - some of this may be useful in an article but do not demonstrate notability
• In-depth coverage in sources that are probably reliable but not independent - probably very useful for verifying technical aspects of the topic but again do not demonstrate notability
• [2] is going to be reliable and in-depth but I can't access it to verify either that or whether it counts as independent (probably, but it will depend on the focus). Lack of access doesn't matter for verifiability purposes (as long as someone can access it, and IEEE members can) but are not ideal for AfD.

A deeper look, especially in technical literature, may demonstrate independent notability (I wouldn't be surprised) but it hasn't been done yet. Based on what I found today, it would be possible to write a paragraph or two in an existing article with sources. However I cannot tell you whether that would be WP:DUE in the context of any specific article. Thryduulf (talk) 09:17, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks @Thryduulf, very helpful points and no objection whatsoever from me for refining the redirect target. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 11:49, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Wikimedia Foundation Bulletin 2026 Issue 11

Here is a quick overview of highlights from the Wikimedia Foundation since our last issue on June 5. Please help translate.

---

Highlights

The Wikimania program is now live!

• Community Wishlist: Weigh in on proposals and open questions on how the wishlist will operate in the future.
• Simplifying account creation: The Foundation is working on improving the account creation process to reduce potential friction for newcomers to create an account. Improvements include making "Create Account" icon more prominent on mobile, simplifying the registration form, and introducing real-time username validation.
• New U4C members elected: The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) has new members and has two remaining vacancies in Middle East & North Africa and Sub-Saharan Africa.
• Wikimania conference program: The Wikimania 2026 program is now live! Take a moment to review the program, and, if you are logged in, you can mark your "must see” sessions with a star to start building your personal schedule. Register for a virtual ticket here, if you haven't signed up yet.
• Neutral Point of View: A proposal for a baseline NPOV standard for Wikipedias that do not have one was published, with a community discussion open until July 15, 2026.

Annual Goals Progress on Infrastructure
See also newsletters: Wikimedia Apps · Growth · Product Safety and Integrity · Readers · Research · Wikifunctions & Abstract Wikipedia · Tech News · Language and Internationalization · other newsletters on MediaWiki.org

Screenshot showing the Explore Feed refresh in the Wikipedia app (from the Community tab entry point)

• App Explore feed: The redesigned App Explore feed, now called "Home", has been released to all Android users. The update introduces a refreshed feed experience along with the first set of new content modules, including Did You Know, Places of Interest, Random Article, and a new end-of-feed experience. Additional content and improvements are planned in future releases.
• Wikipedia games: The Which came first? daily trivia game is now available in the beta version of the Wikipedia iOS app in English, German, French, Portuguese, Russian, Spanish, Arabic, Chinese, and Turkish. The game uses historical events from Wikipedia’s “On This Day” content and challenges readers to guess which of two events happened first.
• Reusing references: Sub-referencing, a new MediaWiki feature that allows editors to reuse references with different details, has been rolled out to Group 1 wikis and French Wikipedia following a successful pilot phase.
• Article guidance: The Article guidance feature is being tested with some editors creating new articles on the Simple English, French, and Turkish Wikipedias. The experiment will soon begin on the Arabic and Bangla Wikipedias as well. The outlines guide less experienced editors in creating high-quality articles. A quick guide to markups used in outlines can be found on this page. Example outlines that can be adapted and instructions for how to adapt them are on this section of the project page.
• Mobile Page Previews: The Page Previews experiment on mobile web has concluded with the decision not to roll out the feature. The results showed no statistically significant impact on reader retention – the primary success metric. Page Previews, which are already available on desktop and in the apps, display a thumbnail, lead paragraph, and link to the full article when readers tap a blue link.
• Wikifunctions: You can now add images to Abstract Wikipedia and the loading and display of test results when viewing Functions has been improved.
• Wikidata: The Foundation is migrating the Wikidata Query Service (WDQS) away from the Blazegraph backend since it no longer scales efficiently with Wikidata’s growth. The migration will take place in several phases. Here is the timeline.
• Growth features: Growth features are now available at Wikidata!  Wikidata administrators are still configuring the features through Community Configuration, but this update enables access to Mentorship (if configured), Impact, the Help Panel, and a simplified Newcomer Homepage (without Suggested Edits).
• Mentors' management: The Growth team will soon provide a system to automatically suspend or remove inactive mentors from the list of mentors. Communities can already start configuring the process in the Community Configuration.
• Collaborative Contributions: If you need help setting up the Collaborative Contributions and the Goal setting features, check out these video guides. These features allow you to view which edits are made during an event and allows the group to track progress against a goal with a public progress bar. Learn more.
• Latest experiments: An upcoming experiment is testing whether we can serve readers better when a footnote click in read mode shows the full bibliographic information rather than flying them to the reference list. See all live, upcoming, and completed experiments in Product & Technology.
• Tech News: The latest highlights from Tech News week 24 and 25 include how the user interface icon library is being updated. Most of the ~300 icons have been slightly refined and ~30 new icons have been added. See also the 62 community submitted tasks that were resolved over the last two weeks.

Annual Goals Progress on Volunteer Support
See also blogs: Global Advocacy blog · Global Advocacy Newsletter · Policy blog · WikiLearn News · The Wikipedia Library · list of movement events

• Digital Safety: Join a conversation about Using AI Safely. It'll explore risks & concerns of using AI tools in personal and organisational contexts and practical strategies to reduce those risks. It will take place at 03:30 UTC & 14:30 UTC on June 26. This session is not about using AI to edit Wikipedia. It's focused entirely on safe personal and organisational use.
• Don't Blink: Read the latest developments from around the world about protecting the Wikimedia model, its people and its values. Highlights include exploring the implications that new child safety regulations have on privacy online.
• Grantmaking strategy & Affiliate model: Members of the Global Resources Distribution Committee (GRDC) and the Affiliations Committee (AffCom) met to advance two key movement initiatives: the development of a new Grantmaking strategy and a refreshed Affiliate Model. They produced initial proposals and advanced work on both initiatives ahead of broader conversations planned for Wikimania 2026.

Annual Goals Progress on Effectiveness
See also: Progress on the annual plan

• Enterprise: SimPPL Uses Wikimedia Enterprise to Map Online Conversations and Fact-Check Social Media.

Other Movement curated newsletters & news
See also: Diff blog · Goings-on · Planet Wikimedia · Signpost (en) · Kurier (de) · Actualités du Wiktionnaire (fr) · Regards sur l’actualité de la Wikimedia (fr) · Wikimag (fr) · Education · GLAM · Milestones · Wikidata · Central and Eastern Europe · other newsletters

Subscribe or unsubscribe · Help translate

For information about the Bulletin and to read previous editions, see the project page on Meta-Wiki. If you have feedback or suggestions about the bulletin, let us know at foundationbulletinwikimedia.org. For questions about the Wikimedia Foundation's work, contact us!

MediaWiki message delivery 22:38, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Question from Rishi kumsr on Template:Wikipediapools (10:41, 24 June 2026)

Withdraw payment --Rishi kumsr (talk) 10:41, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Rishi kumsr - Wikipedia is free, no payments needed. I've left some welcome links on your talk page. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 13:26, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Question from U5632 (12:15, 24 June 2026)

Hello how can I get my Wikipedia link --U5632 (talk) 12:15, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi @U5632 - I don't really understand your question. Do you want to edit your user page? Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 13:28, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of airlines of The Gambia

User:Goldsztajn I think the closure you were actually looking for was reverse merge. See WP:REVERSE.

Of course it's the same, but unfortunately your keep closure removed all templates so the article want added to the backlog. I added them back. FaviFake (talk) 19:12, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi @FaviFake - The discussion concluded in a way different than the merge proposal raised by the nomination. It wasn't really a reverse merge because List of airlines in Africa would not have ever been merged into one on The Gambia. I'm also not sure if there's been problem with the XFD closer tool since the merging of merge discussions with AfD (FYI, see here). Thanks for adding the templates. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 09:48, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

You are correct! My bad.

No worries! FaviFake (talk) 12:36, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Spreading Peace

Issac I Navarro (talk) wishes you peace!

Spread peace and goodwill by adding {{subst:WikiPeace}} to other's talk pages with a friendly message.

Thank you for your edits on the RfC at Talk:Clop (erotic fan art). I know that the subject there can be a lot. Thus, I wanted to share my appreciation for engagement in improving Wikipedia. Issac I Navarro (talk) 02:07, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

July 2026

Women in Red | July 2026, Vol 12, Issue 7, Nos 358, 359, 376, 377 Events: New: Crime & law | Alphabet run: Countries starting with M Continuing (year-long initiatives): #1day1woman | Sports Announcements, tips, participation... Announcements from other communities: Women in Red celebrates its 11 Year Anniversary on July 18! Eiffel women Developing Countries WikiContest Tip of the month: Working on a group of linked articles? Have you thought about creating a navigation box for the footer of those pages? Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events and add any general ideas on developing the project. Follow us on social media: Instagram & Pinterest

--MSGJ (talk 22:13, 28 June 2026 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Question from Irtnog01 (18:42, 29 June 2026)

Just saying "hi." I recently tried to edit a sentence on the entry for Santa Cruz de la Sierra and add a citation, and I wanted to make sure I did that correctly. I guess this is easier with the visual editor, which I ignored the first time around! --Irtnog01 (talk) 18:43, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Irtnog01 - welcome! All looks good. I often switch between the visual editor and the text editor (although I do all my editing via a desktop). I find both forms useful for working with citations, although I think I tend to use the visual editor more frequently to edit citations and will create citations in the text editor (using the citation tool). If you have a look at the citation you created, I added a little more information (ECLAC, UN) - it is good to add as much information about a source as possible because it helps a reader more quickly understand the nature of the source. CEPALSTAT might not mean a lot to most readers, but ECLAC will mean be recognised by some and the UN by most. In this way, we increase the reliablity of Wikipedia. Feel free to ask me any questions, I'll help as much as I can. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 21:27, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Check. The extra info makes sense. ~2026-37483-03 (talk) 00:06, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2026

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2026).

Administrator changes

• Chipmunkdavis
• TechnoSquirrel69

• Mlaffs
• SpuriousQ
• Lectonar
• Dennis Brown
• Hog Farm

CheckUser changes

• Giraffer
• TonyBallioni

• Dbeef
• EdJohnston

Oversight changes

• Giraffer
• TonyBallioni

L235

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment asks whether the criteria for autoconfirmed and extended confirmed should be modified.
• A request for comment proposes an addendum for the Real name section of the Username policy.

Technical news

• The special page Special:RangeCalculator has been created for any users to use to find an IP range. (phab:T268429)
• The "indefinitely" button in Special:Block for temporary accounts can be replaced with a preferred block duration stated on MediaWiki:ipb-indefinite-expiry-temporary-account. (phab:T427125)

Arbitration

• Following a series of motions, changes to the contentious topics procedure to restructure awareness have been implemented.
• The arbitration case Michael Jackson has been closed.

Miscellaneous

• The 2026 Developing Countries WikiContest will run from 1 July to 30 September. Sign up now!
• 10 candidates have been appointed to the U4C.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:07, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Question from Dauda40 (06:43, 3 July 2026)

I want to create a new article --Dauda40 (talk) 06:43, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Dauda40 - what kind of article do you wish to create? I can see an article you created was deleted. How familiar are you with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines? It might be easier to do some editing first rather than try to create an article again. Nevertheless, if you have an article you wish to write, I can look at your sources and let you know if I think they will be considered reliable. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 07:03, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

RfC

Hi @Goldsztajn, had a long back and forth on whether there's enough reliable secondary sources to include history of anti-vaccination reporting in the lead of a journalist's biography (in attributed Wiki voice, to be conservative). I think many good policies were raised about being careful here but also I felt several mainstream news sources were discounted. I raised an RfC Paul_D._Thacker#RfC_-_Thacker_anti-vaccine_reporting|RfC to get broader community input. Do you think that's the right course of action? I realize there's other admins in the discussion there too so just wanted to be careful rather than keep reverting/changing. Thanks ∞ HardScience (talk) 10:17, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

They've now accused me of being some kind of sockpuppet for raising an RfC! ∞ HardScience (talk) 13:31, 6 July 2026 (UTC) I've replied at ANI. It may be true that some of these pages have histories of promotion or controversy but that doesn't involve me.

p.s. thanks for commenting there. I realize I didn't quite follow your advice and maybe doubled down on a controversial page discussion (again!) and seemingly pissed off a senior editor who seems to be patrolling those pages for any edits. I think my issue is that I get passionate about anti-science stuff and want to protect Wikipedia from pseudoscience but maybe I'm going about it the wrong way. I thought the RfC would de-escalate the situation. Anyway, I'm happy to back off from those pages, I really have no personal interest in them, I quite enjoy anti-vandalism work at the moment and new page patrolling if that's a desirable solution until I'm a more experienced editor perhaps. Sorry for the headache! ∞ HardScience (talk) 13:47, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi @HardScience I've seen the filing and left a reply (was writing this as you commented again). Please take the following advice - don't reply any further at AN/I unless an administrator directly asks you a question. Let the discussion unfold and try not to be concerned about it (which is very hard I realise). It's frustrating because I have to treat you now as "under investigation" - for my own accountability as an admin. Unfortunately, the accusation made is very serious and I do not have the tools to prove or disprove it. At this point I am assuming good faith that the accusation is untrue; and my second piece of advice follows from that - give yourself a 1 revert rule for awhile. That is, if anything you edit is reverted, just move on. Do some gnome work on articles that need citations (Wikipedia:Citation_needed), or copy editing articles of Category:Beetles_of_Madagascar. Having strongly held views isn't actually a problem at Wikipedia - it would be unusual to find people here who don't - the skill is balancing those views with how this places works. It takes time, but there are rewards. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 13:55, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

I completely understand your position and no problem. The scale of the accusation is absolutely wild, I clearly stepped into a long-running controversy. I did try to engage the editor on multiple occasions before making edits. Anyway, the 1-revert rule is a great tip and I'll stick to quiet gnoming for now. I'll refrain from posting at ANI but if there's any evidence I can offer, happy to reply if/when asked. Either way, it's been a pleasure. ∞ HardScience (talk) 14:01, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Wikimedia Foundation Bulletin 2026 Issue 12

Here is a quick overview of highlights from the Wikimedia Foundation since our last issue on June 19. Please help translate. This edition uses the new annual plan goals for this fiscal year (July 2026–June 2027).

---

Highlights

• Wikipedia 25: Wikipedia's 25th birthday was celebrated with various projects designed to grow awareness and support for Wikipedia and the people who make it possible. This includes the virtual birthday event on January 15, which garnered 10,000 live viewers and 15,000 reactions. Find more details on all related projects and results in the program report.
• Sustainable use of Wikimedia infrastructure: A valid user-agent string will now be required for automated dumps downloads from the dumps.wikimedia.org website. Automated requests that provide a generic or empty user-agent will be blocked. This extends enforcement of the long standing user-agent policy. Access to dumps through Wikimedia Cloud Services will not change.
• Increasing account creation: The experiment providing direct access to “Create account” and “Log in” actions on mobile increased account creation by about 20% without negatively affecting edit quality. The feature will now be rolled out to all wikis on mobile web.

Annual Goals Progress on Engage
See also: Growth · Product Safety and Integrity · Tech News · Language and Internationalization · The Wikipedia Library · list of movement events · Wikifunctions & Abstract Wikipedia

With Sub-referencing editors can reuse and add details to a main reference.

• Add A Link: The Foundation deployed Add A Link as a default-on suggestion within Suggestion Mode. It is now launched on all wikis to all editors who have opted in to the Suggestion Beta Feature.
• Reusing references: Sub-referencing, the new MediaWiki feature that allows editors to reuse references with different details, was deployed to most small and medium-sized Wikipedia language versions.
• Wikifunctions: Check out the 71 new functions with implementations to get a taste of what functions have been created.
• Range calculator: The special page Special:RangeCalculator has been created. It allows users to find an IP range without needing to rely on external tools. Until now, this tool was only available to CheckUsers.
• Captcha verification: Abuse filters that are set to “require CAPTCHA verification” now also affect users with the skipcaptcha right, which includes most autoconfirmed users. Bots are exempted. This change only affects edits that trigger an abuse filter.
• Latest experiments: An upcoming experiment is testing two variations of a "thank you" badge shown to donors after a recent donation to deepen the relationship between donors and the Wikimedia movement. See all live, upcoming, and completed experiments in Product & Technology.
• Account security on private wikis: Two-factor authentication will become mandatory for user accounts on private wikis. This will protect private information from being exposed by an account with a compromised password.
• Tech News: The latest highlights from Tech News week 26 and 27 include users will now get a notification when they are blocked or unblocked from editing, or if this block changes. See also the 65 community submitted tasks that were resolved over the last two weeks.
• Team Challenges: The core organizing team for Wikimania is introducing Team Challenges, a different approach to Wikimania Hackathon. This year, Wikimedians and professionals from other fields will join forces to undertake one of the 2026 technical challenges.

Annual Goals Progress on Enable
See also: Research newsletter · WikiLearn News · other newsletters on MediaWiki.org

• Wikimedia Hackathon: A look at the 2026 edition of Wikimedia Hackathon which brought together 216 participants from 29 countries building, collaborating, and shaping the future together.
• Wikimedia Hubs: The Hub Fund will pause funding for new pilots in fiscal year 2026–2027 to align with the work on the Ecosystem of Movement Organizations and the Global Resource Distribution Committee. Existing pilots in transition will be offered an additional year of funding.

Annual Goals Progress on Protect
See also: Global Advocacy blog · Global Advocacy Newsletter · Policy blog

• Open Knowledge And Digital Rights: Wikimedians shared their reflections on how Digital Rights and Inclusion Forum reinforced the role of our movement within broader digital rights conversations.

Annual Goals Progress on Reach
See also: Wikimedia Apps · Readers

• Journalism Award: Wikimedia Foundation announced three journalists from Africa as recipients of the Open the Knowledge Journalism Awards, run in partnership with the International Center for Journalists (ICFJ). The awards celebrate the essential role journalists play in creating well-researched articles that volunteer editors can use as source materials to develop content on Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects. In total, 320 submissions were received from 40 African countries.

Other Movement-curated newsletters & news
Diff blog · Goings-on · Planet Wikimedia · Signpost (en) · Kurier (de) · Actualités du Wiktionnaire (fr) · Regards sur l'actualité de la Wikimedia (fr) · Wikimag (fr) · Education · GLAM · Milestones · Wikidata · Central and Eastern Europe · other newsletters

Subscribe or unsubscribe · Receive the bulletin by email · Help translate

For information about the Bulletin and to read previous editions, see the project page on Meta-Wiki. If you have feedback or suggestions about the bulletin, let us know at foundationbulletin@wikimedia.org. For questions about the Wikimedia Foundation's work, contact us!

MediaWiki message delivery 23:54, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Question from Jared Vinzenz (00:41, 8 July 2026)

why can't t i submit my villatuna page? --Jared Vinzenz (talk) 00:41, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Jared Vinzenz - looks like the article is in draft space. At the moment, it does not have independent, reliable sources that would make it satisfy WP:NCORP. Therefore, it cannot be in Wikipedia. Facebook or the company's website are not considered reliable under Wikipedia's guidelines. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 12:38, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

ok Jared Vinzenz (talk) 10:30, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

You're invited to the Mentorship noticeboard

Hi, Goldsztajn. You are cordially invited to the brand new Wikipedia:Mentorship noticeboard. I get the impression sometimes that we mentors are each toiling in our own cubbyhole, quietly answering mentee questions with little to no interaction with other mentors. I think we have a lot to share and learn from each other, and I know it will make me feel better just having the opportunity to interact with you and other mentors there, and I hope it will for you, too. Looking forward to hearing your feedback. Please take the § Survey when you get there! Mathglot (talk) 02:55, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 July 2026

• News and notes: An exclusive club
  Wikipedia Co-Founder Larry Sanger gets a community ban for canvassing.

• In the media: Battle for a soul – who won?
  Commissars, winners and losers, blocks or bans, a Wiki red card, social engineering on wikis, and Swift action!

• Opinion: We need to innovate with Wikimedia decision-making
  Rules we can actually read, trust and change!

• Recent research: LLMs and NPOV, 20 years of user blocks, Esperanto and Volapük Wikipedias
  And other research findings.

• News from Diff: How to host Wikicurious in your own community
  The Wikicurious team shares their approach to Wiki-event organizing.

• Community view: CUNY Newmark Wikimedian-in-Residence Quarterly Brief – April to June 2026
  Quarterly update on the activities of the City University of New York's Wikimedian-in-Residence, Richard Knipel.

• Special report: Wikipedia escapes Category 1 designation under the UK Online Safety Act – for now
  A possible future recategorization by the UK Government remains an existential threat to Wikipedia.

• On the bright side: Fatherhood, weather, and diplomacy
  Father's Day, Canada Day, and the 250th anniversary of the United States Declaration of Independence.

• Op-ed: A Layup Easy Proposal for Wikimedia at 25: Spend 25% of Donations on the Community
  If strategy priority 1.1 is supporting the community, can we not increase the support to the community? Increasing grantmaking to 25% of the budget would be a move toward equality in the movement.

• Traffic report: The grass was greener, the light was brighter
  We reached the dizzy heights of that dreamed of World Cup.

• Comix: schnozzed
  on lollerskates

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:22, 13 July 2026 (UTC)