User talk:Aza24

Hi Aza; you had previously mentioned coming back to Bach at about this time; Gerda had some thoughts about how to start moving the article forward with your edits. Any plans for returning to the article? ErnestKrause (talk) 23:23, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Hey @ErnestKrause, yes, I am looking to put some time aside this upcoming week to work on Bach. Going to keep working on adding more content on St. Matthew and John Passion, which are currently limited to a passing mention. Aza24 (talk) 03:25, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

It looks like you are back with some edits in the article yesterday; any time table for when you might be bringing in the ten part exapansion for Music which you were putting together in your sandbox previously? ErnestKrause (talk) 00:44, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Hmm, well I'm hoping to wrap the main content additions up sometime before July, since that is when my IRL work picks up. We need to very thoroughly go through the biography and legacy sections too at some later point, but I don't think any major rewrites/additions like the music section are necessary there.

I would also like to individually reach out to a few Wikipedians to give it a read at another PR before FAC. I have some people in mind, but I'm thinking this can be done in July after the content adjustments. Aza24 (talk) 16:55, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Some restore edits from Omni today on Bach; any follow-ups at this time? ErnestKrause (talk) 00:15, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Eh, it's all kept nicely in the note, I don't mind the extra pronunciation info. By the way—how is FDR going? Aza24 (talk) 02:57, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, those updates to Bach from Omni look ok to me as well; do you have a next phase in mind for the Bach article improvements as you previously described updates you were thinking about? Separately, the FDR article still needs a few more weeks for enhancements and improvements; thanks for asking about it. ErnestKrause (talk) 12:17, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

My only plan right now is to keep working on the music section. Once that gets sorted, things will move a lot faster, since the music section is more difficult to write/edit than the bio and legacy imo. Aza24 (talk) 02:21, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Alsowukai brought in a new edit recently; is there a current update to when you might plan to bring in your edits to the Music section as you mentioned? Is there still a plan for a second peer review in July, or do your planning dates seem a little different from that at this time? ErnestKrause (talk) 02:32, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Hmm, I think mid-July is still a solid time for the peer reviews. I'll keep you updated. Aza24 (talk) 21:11, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

It looks like mid-July is about a week or so away; have you given any thought to who you would like to invite to the peer review. I'll be ready to start the peer review for it on July 15 or July 16 in mid-July as you suggested. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:54, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Will probably have to be pushed to August or mid-August. Only this past weekend I've gotten my IRL schedule under control! Aza24 (talk) 01:09, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Start of August seems to be here as you suggested in your comments above. I've noticed some edits on the Bach page and related edits in your sandbox; is the article moving closer to co-nomination by mid-August? ErnestKrause (talk) 20:43, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

No, I have to be honest with you, there is just too much work to be done on it still. I don't think you are understanding how far it is from FA status; Schweitzer and Spitta are all over the place, and the article barely uses Boyd, Geck or Williams. Bach is one of the single most written about figures in all of classical music, and every section (even sentence) I write I usually have to consult 4–6 sources (full length books, that is). These things take a lot of time, and quite a lot of motivation. At this point I'm shooting to be wrapped up in the next few months. But this August timeline just doesn't work. Aza24 (talk) 03:55, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back on this. I'm noticing that there is a new updated 2026 edition of Johann Sebastian Bach: The Learned Musician by Christoph Wolff. I'll make a short note that there is sometimes the situation of excellence upon excellence in research, which should be noted. Its nice that are willing to take a long-term view to improvements. Still, is it possible for you to get enough of your edits into the article so that an effective version of the Wikipedia biography can be submitted for Peer review within the next month or two. Scholars like Wolff are constantly presenting "new and improved" information about Bach which is an on-going process. Can you plan your improvements for within the next month or two to try to get it sufficiently close to Peer nomination nomination status; then let the Peer review process take over for adequate improvements. Tim Riley and myself will likely offer to help with proof-reading of your material in the meantime if that's what you prefer. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:20, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

That seems like a reasonable plan! Yes, I think you are right—I don't think I should bother with the 2026 edition, which is probably little changed anyways to be frank. Tim has left Wikipedia for the time being, by the way. Yes, I expect that at the absolute latest we will get this to FAC by the end of the year. A peer review in October or before then seems much reasonable. I just worry about doing a peer review now and then changing so much content later. Once I get a more set content for either the Bio or Music, I'll certainly let you know and you can have a crack at proof-reading. Thanks for working with me on this. Aza24 (talk) 19:53, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

The dates as you mention them sound fine; its Peer review for on or about October 1, and co-nomination for FAC before the end of the year. It's nice that you were able to step in for some of Tim's edits at GAN in the meantime. Let me know if any proofreading for your planned Bach edits may be needed in the meantime. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:38, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi Aza24; Its the first week of September and I thought to check in. The previous comments from you were to get back to the article this month with plans for peer review at the end of this month or start of October; is this meeting current plans? ErnestKrause (talk) 19:51, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Hey there, well I've been doing a lot of reading, but not much editing. I'll check in a week or two and we can see where possibility of the October plan lays. Aza24 (talk) 01:44, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

@ErnestKrause – hey, I don't think I'll have much time for these next few weeks on Wikipedia. Happy to circle back in late October or November, but not sure if I can promise anything more specific. Hope you're well. Aza24 (talk) 21:13, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi Aza24; Thanks for getting back on this; and Tim Riley appears to be back. Since there are several experienced FAC editors interested in seeing Bach's article move forward to FAC, then I'm sort of going to suggest making best use of the time available and go forward with at least the peer review at this time. You've made about a dozen edits to the article, and more in your sandbox, over the summer. It seems like its a question of degrees of excellence of what can be expected for a potential Bach nomination for moving to peer review. The article is likely already of sufficient quality to warrant at least doing the peer review at this time. Otherwise, the degrees of excellence issue could lead us in a less desirable direction; many would like to see the article move closer to FAC by doing a peer review at this time. Possibly Tim Riley might join in as well at peer review; could either yourself or myself start the peer review by the start of October as discussed in the past weeks in order to move forward the article at this time? ErnestKrause (talk) 11:21, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi @ErnestKrause, why don't we say a hard deadline (regardless of any improvements done before then) to start the peer review at the end of October instead. I can set a reminder to do so. Aza24 (talk) 20:41, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Sounds ok. I'm assuming you mean to fix the date for either Oct 30 or Oct 31; just let me know when you are ready. ErnestKrause (talk) 02:10, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi Aza24; End of month checking in about moving forward. Another editor, User:Frederic Y Bois, has made some edits in the middle of the month which you may have seen. Ready for moving forward to Peer review on Oct 30 or Oct 31? ErnestKrause (talk) 16:12, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

Hey there, yeah, will be ready in a few days. Best – Aza24 (talk) 21:38, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

Don't you worry, you are not.

Concerning your remark about my life, I updated the article of Inna Žvaneckaya and everything was ruined by a censorship combo here, very likely because I had to mention certain circumstances during her least years, when a German judge tried to send her to a psychiatry which automatically meant to force her to medical experiments which she was not willing to do (her father was a Jewish doctor from an Odessa dynasty of doctors, he once helped the red army during WW2, and as a person of common sense he found it a bad idea to participate in such experiments). You find on my user page the link to the fine article which was vandalised, and last year I thought that I will never write anything again here. But the article was not about the Covid period and the sad role that wikipedia played in it, it was about a Jewish girl in Ukraine whose musical talent was discovered and she did what everyone did in Russia under her circumstances: she moved to Moscow to get properly educated first as piano teacher, but also soon as a composer. Later after the fall of the wall she moved to Stuttgart in Germany and there she also died a few years ago. It is so completely grotesque (in a way that only a Nikolay Gogol' could imagine) what happened in her life. In Germany she always felt in exile, but it made the German period of her life so extremely productive (she composed more than during any other period), and then at the very end of her life this scandal happened, and she was hidden by other Ukrainians to prevent that from happening and they succeeded! There is only one thing which is even more grotesque, it is the way how certain people here have not even the stomach to face up what has happened. They tried to turn the clock back. Today Gogol' would write about wikipedians, they have so many in common with decadent Tsarist officers.

But I am not that naive to be surprised about what happened. Here (in any wikipedia whatever the language is) are many thugs from the deep state who discovered that wikipedia is perfect to wash brains. Usually with these topics you do not remark them, but they are here and you can learn from the discussion page, how to deal with them (never get involved in a real argument, because they have no arguments, do it the wikipedian way and tell them about where they find the so-called "rules", they are just scared about any real content). Just think of Larry Sanger, a lot of people who once created wikipedia with great enthusiasm, are no longer willing to contribute here, because it has become a portal of mean bullshitters, and many of the founders here have given up. You should feel important, because people like you are the real soul of wikipedia. These thugs they will destroy everything…

No, it is not that I can go back and forth. I have worked for many years to know what I know, because it is my job, and sometimes it suits better to my life to continue with Aquitanian than with Byzantine music, the circumstances which dictated that are purely coincidental. That is all! I will continue this answer on my profile. Platonykiss (talk) 16:06, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Sorry about your frustrating experience. It is probably difficult, generally, to write about Žvaneckaya, since I have not seen many sources which cover her, at least compared to her contemporaries. Continuing this on your talk page. Aza24 (talk) 03:34, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Well, wikipedia has always been an extremely frustrating place to be honest, but this time I was really glad for the stupidity they were willing to commit, because now we really got them! They are your worst enemies here, in science and humanities enemies are the most generous and most precious present you can get in an academic environment (it is a very positive thing as long as they stay enemies and they are always clever, not easy to bare for someone who has no guts), but everybody here must face the problem of hypocrisy with the strong will to erase the memory of the victims—their victims, just because they were the ones who submitted the crimes against them. That is why I call them thugs, because that is what they really are, and not by coincidence you can so easily recognise them by their manners! Platonykiss (talk) 07:19, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Here is the unshortened podcast with Larry Sanger at "System Update" (the time mark is for the beginning of the podcast, because it was streamed on 31 July 2023)

https://rumble.com/v33nemd-system-update-121.html?start=624

The oldpedia.org has 3 outdated encyclopedia whose copyright has been expired according to American law. But this is very meager!

None of those wiki platforms have citation technology of English speaking wikipedia, but I would like to inform you that wikipedians with mean propaganda intentions (obviously send by corrupt governments and paid to do this kind of job) and with usurped administrative rights are terrorising and bullying normal users at wikipedia. It is very easy to find them out, just go to certain articles about shameful information a certain government might have an interest to remove and try to discuss these articles politely and they will immediately show up.

If you remind them of certain rules established in wikipedia's guidelines (concerning smearing a living person, for instance), they will tell you, you are suppressing them and quote other rules to exclude you immediately (without any warning which is definitely against wikpedia's official rules!).

Larry Sanger also explains, how rigid censorship of the Google search engine works! This is very useful information. Nobody experienced today uses google search any longer, because its results are fishing for appalling bullshit and as such its search engine is no longer useful at all, whatever the purpose or the request is.

Obvious SPAM had never been listed as favourable in the past, but this has changed. This is precisely what made Larry Sanger sick about this company for which he had once designed wikipedia meant as a "free encyclopaedia" where the people could once share knowledge! Platonykiss (talk) 09:40, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

By the way, speaking of the community here, have you seen what certain users with obvious troll names such as "1234qwer1234qwer4" and "HazelnutYT" have done recently to the "Saint Martial school" article? I wonder what they are up to? You have the choice, if you want content, you need to face up terminology, but in fact, what I tried to describe are sources which even did overcharge the experts in their particular way they had been organised. You must decide, if you like to use the new possibilities of digitised manuscripts you have to go into detail, you should not terrorise users who have to offer you something with stupid rules (that they understand better than these ignorants), or you run that zero content-philosophy which you get in the other languages concerning the same article. Fact is, they imitate me, because even they feel that it is not good enough. Platonykiss (talk) 09:01, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

@Platonykiss, regardless of your frustrations, please don't refer to other editors as having "troll names" or being "ignorant". That is considered a personal attack and is against policy. One of the editors you're referring to is a Wikimedia steward with over 160,000 English Wikipedia edits, and a person of your tenure should know better than to violate the no personal attacks policy. Accessedgrant (Epicgenius mobile alt) (talk) 17:24, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

@Accessedgrant & Co: Thank you for enlightening me which simply confirms my observation. Just among us: I expect none whatsoever from users who decorate themselves like an army general of a former Eastblock country and seriously count that they made XXX,XXX edits. I am focussed here on quality, not on quantity. I mean that I am more interested in the kind of edits which had been done here (it is not the question, if a user does something, but more specific what a user does).

First, I am not frustrated, that wikipedia is in fact a source of frustration is well known (I quoted Larry Sanger) and that should encourage you to think more carefully and in a slightly more critical way of what you are doing here (whoever that is). Let us say it was crucial that you know that I know what you are up to. Second, I have not "insulted" or "attacked" anyone here, but who would like to be respected, depends entirely on you.

I am respected here, because my contents are translated in the wikipedia (which creates usually other problems, because it is not that simple as many here believe). So far, I assisted you here, but under certain conditions:

1) that you do not establish institutional censorship (on behalf of an unmentioned party) as a pretext to thin out, weaken or even destroy contents, after they have been improved (the history decides it, not you or me; if you revert an article to the knowledge of 1989, after I inserted later works of a composer, you are definitely not the one who is right, but under certain circumstances you might act like a censor in favour of an outdated Soviet article); it is a disgrace and you should not expect that others here will pay you respect for that (it might even have consequences beyond wikipedia), because in fact you chase away those who did much more than you could ever dream of and that also concerns the programming of this platform here (I mean those without them wikipedia would not even exist). Otherwise establish bullshitting as a "wikipedian rule", so that decent people stay away from here in the first place (Larry Sanger did so because of that, just to explain what "in fact" means).

2) that you do understand that a real encyclopædia (this entry was nicely done, if we take away the unnecessary need of self-celebration that is nevertheless a useful revelation of a certain megalomania among some wikipedians) does not avoid terms, it explains them, because that is what the word itself means (e.g. you cannot explain sex without explaining what a vulva is, otherwise it becomes dangerous half-knowledge as we do know from history)! And I wrote nothing else in the article "Saint Martial school" that even experts were overcharged by their problems to classify the sources which was a precise description of the research history (i.e. there was a meta-level to consider if that is just a terminological problem, because it is in fact confusion about what the source really is; I doubt that you get on a more "neutral" level than that). You can compare the article in English with the unified zero content in other translations and you might guess, why they will be improved soon despite of your tag abuse. Further on, one can talk to me if something needs really to be improved (in a concrete way please, not in a vague one), because that tag appeals to no-one here.

I hope that is understood and please be so kind to explain this to your "stewards" (yes, I do know the wikimedia folks, say hello to them). Please read this carefully and you will find out yourself, what your real job (and problem) is. Platonykiss (talk) 11:48, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Since we are talking here about learning, one of the most serious problems of wikipedia is its obsession with "ranking"! Certain protagonists here show what they do really understand about anything… For me, this is simply amazing, musicological disputes are usually discussing ideological problems of their own discipline, when it comes to "canonise" so-called "classical music", who is worse ore better etc. But here many seem to love it precisely for the same reason!

Just tell me in your own words, what is wrong here with you? And why it has to be done in an anonymous way? You seem to understand how embarrassing this is!

The whole nature of a real encyclopædia had been always opposed to this idea, that was its charme but also its importance in history! This discussion is now really about neutrality, but not in the usual way it has been distorted or even perverted here. Platonykiss (talk) 11:10, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

Hey Aza24, the third annual Developing Countries WikiContest is now open for submissions. The coordinators have addressed some of the queries at the last contest and we are hopeful that it'll turn out great! If you haven't done so already, please review the following:

• New to Wikipedia? Many experienced editors are part of this contest and willing to help; feel free to ask questions on the talk page.
• Got open nominations? List them at the review requests sidebar.
• Looking for a topic to work on? Check out suggested articles and eligible reviews.
• Not sure if your article qualifies? See the scoring rules for more information or contact a coordinator.
• Know someone else who might be interested? Sign-ups remain open throughout the contest, so don't hesitate to invite other editors!

On behalf of the coordinators, we hope you enjoy participating and wish you the best of luck! If you have any questions, please leave a message on the contest talk page or ask one of the coordinators: Arconning (talk · contribs), Generalissima (talk · contribs), Magentic Manifestations (talk · contribs), sawyer777 (talk · contribs), or TechnoSquirrel69 (talk · contribs). (To unsubscribe from these updates, remove yourself from this list. Sent via MediaWiki message delivery.) —TechnoSquirrel69 (talk) 00:00, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Interesting! I assume that blue colour means "countries which will never ever develop in any direction unless their own insolvence puts an end to it". The whole project is breaking my heart, because I thought that everything which needs to be said about it, was already said during the 1980s. Platonykiss (talk) 08:46, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

FYI, after a series of unfortunate events, Tim riley (one of the most productive and best content creators on Wikipedia) has left Wikipedia, so I suggest that you try to find someone who is willing to follow up on this nomination, or else just make the obvious edits yourself and mark it B-class. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:26, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

@Ssilvers, thanks for the notice! I spoke with him via email a few weeks back, so am aware of this. On the top of the nomination you'll see that Whonting had already offered to be a "facilitator" of sorts in light of Tim's departure, and I will step in if sourcing/music issues arise. You would be most welcome to assist as well. Aza24 (talk) 17:33, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Oh, good. I know nothing about Hahn, I'm afraid. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:54, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

The 2026 Developing Countries WikiContest has been running for a month now, so let's check in with the competition so far!

As of the time of writing, our top contestants are:

1. Vanderwaalforces (submissions) ahead of the pack with 715 points, with two FAs and many GAs on the monarchs of the Kingdom of Benin;
2. Simongraham (submissions) with 291 points, mostly with GAs on jumping spiders, alongside various GAN and FAC reviews;
3. Jaguarnik (submissions) with 240 points, mostly from an FA on the 1945 film Ivan the Terrible;
4. Grnrchst (submissions) with 215 points, mostly from GAs on anarchist history in various countries, alongside many GA reviews, and;
6. Vestrian24Bio (submissions) tied for 4th with 215 points, with an FL and four GAs on Indian cricket!

These competitors are in the lead, but if past experience is any indication, big shake-ups might still await us in the contest. If you're looking for a way to boost your position, we got a table of review requests from fellow participants—you can rack up a lot of points through reviews, and it might just convince others to review your own nominations! You can also look through the eligible reviews page to find other articles to review, with highlights for articles eligible for the 1.5× multiplier. The coordinators would like to thank Jaguarnik (submissions) for his work to keep this page up to date.

Thank you so much for all your work in the contest so far, dear participants, and keep on the good fight against systemic bias on our wiki! Have any questions? Leave a message on the contest talk page or send it to one of our wonderful coordinators: Arconning (talk · contribs), Generalissima (talk · contribs), Magentic Manifestations (talk · contribs), sawyer777 (talk · contribs), and TechnoSquirrel69 (talk · contribs). (To unsubscribe from these updates, remove yourself from this list. Sent via MediaWiki message delivery.) Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 05:25, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your recent edits to Franghiz Ali-Zadeh when you modified the page, you introduced unknown parameters. Specifying |some_param=some_variable does not always mean that variable will display. The |some_param= needs to be defined in the template in order to work. You can look at the documentation for the template being used, but it is also helpful to use the preview button before saving an edit; this helps find any errors that have been made and ensures that the values added are displaying correctly. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show what the page will look like without actually saving it. It is highly recommended that editors use this before saving. Note I have likely fixed the error by now so check the history of the page to see how it was fixed. If you have any questions of if I can help explain further, please let me know! You can also contact the help desk for assistance. Thank you. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:59, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

@Zackmann08, thanks for catching that. I did indeed see it in the preview but got distracting by some citations below. Aza24 (talk) 18:01, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

These things happen! Keep up the good work. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:03, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi Aza24,

There is an ongoing Request for Comment (RfC) at Wikipedia:Good article nominations/August 2026 RfC, which you may be interested in because in the past year, you have nominated or reviewed more than one good article nomination. This message has also been sent to all subscribers to the Good Article Gazette. The RfC contains many proposals (33 at the time of writing), which are split into the following categories: nominators, reviewers, reviews, volunteer roles, reviewing initiatives, and others. However, you are more than welcome to add any proposals of your own that you wish to put to the community.

By the end of September, all the proposals will have been closed by an uninvolved editor, either as a consensus for one of the options or with no consensus. At this point, editors will be invited again to develop these proposals into coherent policy and implement them.

Thank you for your contributions to the good articles project, and I look forward to your input! (in solidarity), JacobTheRox^{(talk|contributions)} 16:02, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Quick facts

story · music · places

Close

Thinking of you. I had three bios in the news section when the day began, and Jill Gomez is my favourite, - my story of course! Places are particularly bright today: for a Voces8 concert you would have loved. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:43, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Gomez is a nice read, impressive to see that she was just as comfortable with Donizetti as Webern. That Voces8 program looks incredible, what an experience! Aza24 (talk) 17:17, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

I was most amazed that the practically new sopranos blended so perfectly. They spoke a lot - the first soprano, an American, said that she had not been prepared for the long time until she saw the sun again, but it helped to study all the pieces new for her. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:01, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Ileana Cotrubaș is on the main page, also my story. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:42, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

You're invited to join the Organized Labour community editing event, a cross-wiki event taking place throughout September 2026!

The campaign brings together Wikimedians interested in improving coverage of organised labour, workers, trade unions, and labour history. We have confirmed collaborations with Wikipedia language editions in English, Dutch, Persian, Serbo-Croatian and French. If you want to add other language editions or other wiki projects you are strongly encouraged to do so! This event spans geography and languages!

This is a one-time invitation. You're receiving it because you previously signed a petition related to Wiki Workers United (WWU). We hope you'll join us!

Regards ~ Shushugah (talk) 14:19, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

September 2026 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol
On 1 September 2026, a one-month backlog drive for new pages patrol will begin at a particularly important time for NPP. The backlog has now passed 30,000 unreviewed articles, a level that has been described in current NPP discussions as exceptionally high and potentially difficult to overcome through normal reviewing alone. Backlog drives are one of the few measures that have historically produced a noticeable reduction in the backlog, so the participation of as many active patrollers as possible will matter this month. If you can review during September, please make articles your priority. Every article that is reviewed is a meaningful reduction in the backlog. With the queue at its current size, even a relatively small increase in the number of articles each patroller reviews can add up to a substantial difference over the course of the month. This is a hybrid drive, so redirect reviewing is still included. Redirects can be a useful way for newer patrollers to get comfortable with NPP and can help people build up to reviewing articles. However, the main goal of this drive is to tackle the article backlog, and experienced patrollers are particularly encouraged to spend as much of their available reviewing time on articles as they can. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Each article review will earn 1 point, while each redirect review will earn 0.2 points. Streak awards will be given out based on consistently hitting point thresholds for each week of the drive. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. If you have been thinking about doing more NPP, this is an especially good month to jump in. Whether you can review a few pages or hundreds, every review helps. And if you are already an active patroller, please consider whether you can put in some additional time during September to help bring the backlog back under control. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:49, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Quick facts

story · music · places

Close

Today's story has a sad end: Antonino Fogliani, mostly Rossini -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:12, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

Always fun to see a Donatoni student I haven't heard, and a nice addition to my "need to listen to playlist". Thank you Aza24 (talk) 01:45, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

More for the eyes: Geles Cabrera, a Mexican sculptor --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:40, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

I have two topics in today's OTD corner - check out story and music, I decided for Verdi (the conductor who said "I love all of Verdi" and conducted by heart) over Bach because that cantata sits on sort of the wrong date ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:14, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Bach composed a cantata for today's feast, performed 300 years ago. This time the main page has it on the right date. I nominated it for GA ;) - Also waiting for a review: Maureen Jones (on WP:ITNN), - someone said the article isn't good enough for the main page. We could change that! Already arrived there: Bryan Kelly and his fun Magnificat. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:39, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

The 2026 Developing Countries WikiContest has now been running for two months! We have seen tremendous improvements in the encyclopedic coverage of several underrepresented areas thanks to contributions from a wide range of editors. The coordinators would like to highlight some of the new participants this year who have been making notable contributions to the contest, including but by no means limited to:

• Kisseran (submissions) – 462 points, with a featured article (Ancient Cappadocian language) and various reviews primarily on Chinese topics
• Dragonhawk12 (submissions) – 280 points, who's well on their way to breaking the DCWC record for good article reviews and peer reviews
• Jishara (submissions) – 268 points, with a couple of good articles and a diverse selection of reviews as well
• Rainsage (submissions) – 113 points, with two good articles, notably the Jenin Horse
• Chickenpox4dinner (submissions) – 107 points, largely from their Did you know writing about Caribbean folklore
• Propitheque (submissions) – 105 points, from two good articles about Malagasy lemurs

With less than a month remaining until the end of the contest, it's time to get your last rounds of submissions over the finish line! Please consider picking up one of the review requests or eligible reviews to help out your fellow participants and earn some additional points in the process.

If you have any questions, please leave a message on the contest talk page or ask one of the coordinators: Arconning (talk · contribs), Generalissima (talk · contribs), Magentic Manifestations (talk · contribs), sawyer777 (talk · contribs), or TechnoSquirrel69 (talk · contribs). (To unsubscribe from these updates, remove yourself from this list. Sent via MediaWiki message delivery.) —⁠TechnoSquirrel69 (talk) 18:16, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Hello Aza24:

WikiProject Women in Green is holding a month-long Good Article Edit-a-thon event in October 2026!

Running from October 1 to 31, 2026, WikiProject Women in Green (WiG) is hosting a Good Article (GA) edit-a-thon event with the theme Around the World in 31 Days! All experience levels welcome. Participants are invited to work on nominating and/or reviewing GA submissions related to women and women's works (e.g., books, films or organizations created by women) during the event period — and this time, we are extending our focus to encourage more Did You Know (DYK) submissions spotlighting new GA articles about women and women's works. We hope to collectively cover article subjects from at least 31 countries (or broader international articles) by the event's end. GA resources and one-on-one support will be provided by experienced editors, and participants will have the opportunity to earn a special WiG barnstar for their efforts.

We hope to see you there!

Alanna the Brave (talk) & Grnrchst (talk)

You are receiving this message as a member of the WikiProject Women in Green. You can remove yourself from receiving notifications here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:54, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Quick facts

story · music · places

Close

Women: today Irene Butter (don't miss the short video in her story and article), yesterday Tabea Zimmermann for her 60th (I was in the audience for that concert in 2023, long video), and some day Ileana Cotrubaș again, whose article became GA today. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:13, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

More women: Martina Arroyo (I wanted a blurb for her but didn't succeed) and Marjorie Tallchief 100. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:23, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

more women: Jacqueline Van Quaille (created yesterday), Hilkka Kinnunen, died at 101, and Sofia Gubaidulina who would have been 95 today - the story is about the first, the video a love duet, and you can watch the whole piece on youtube --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:14, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

Three weeks ago, the 2026 Developing Countries WikiContest came to a close! After three months of competition, we have our winners. OpalYosutebito (submissions) comes in third with 525 points earned from a large series of good articles about pandas. Vestrian24Bio (submissions), with an immense number of submissions relating to cricket, comes in second with 1040 points. And our runner-up from last year makes their way to the top of the podium: Simongraham (submissions) takes gold with 1065 points, coming from another round of good articles about African jumping spiders!

The award for the most countries covered goes, once again, to Simongraham (submissions) who submitted articles under 30 flags! Vestrian24Bio (submissions) tops the chart for the most quality articles (23 good articles). Kisseran (submissions) and OpalYosutebito (submissions) tie for the award for most submissions under a single country; both made 14 submissions related to China. The award for most submissions related to women goes to GreenLipstickLesbian (submissions) with 12 biographies about women. We also have a tie for the most reviews! Both Dragonhawk12 (submissions) and Simongraham (submissions) submitted 23 reviews each for the category!

Multiple DCWC records were also broken! Simongraham (submissions) set the new record for the most total points, with 1100. Vestrian24Bio (submissions) set two inaugural records, earning the contest's first featured and good topics. GreenLipstickLesbian (submissions) submitted 29 In the news entries, 12 more than the previous record.

Among the participants' contributions were six FAs, five FLs, 132 GAs, and a number of DYKs, ITNs, and reviews of every kind—far more than last year! Regardless of your level of participation, every contestant can be proud to have contributed to a major step in countering the systemic bias on Wikipedia. Every year, millions of readers and editors around the globe use Wikipedia to educate themselves and communicate with others about parts of the world that often receive less attention than they deserve. Thank you for participating in the contest and contributing to this effort. The DCWC will return next year, and we look forward to seeing your contributions again! However, before that...

We need your feedback! Join the conversation on the talk page to discuss your reflections on the contest (even if you didn't participate!) and help us make it better.

If you have any questions, please leave a message on the contest talk page or ask one of the coordinators: Arconning (talk · contribs), Generalissima (talk · contribs), Magentic Manifestations (talk · contribs), sawyer777 (talk · contribs), or TechnoSquirrel69 (talk · contribs). (To unsubscribe from these updates, remove yourself from this list.) —⁠TechnoSquirrel69 (talk) 04:49, 23 October 2026 (UTC)