User talk:Boud

I came here to drop you a barnstar, but your talk page is so immense it caused my browser to freeze for a minute or two :( May I kindly suggest you archive it? I recommend auto-archiving solutions, like the one I set up on my own talk page years ago (every year or so I just need to edit it and change the archive page number...). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:59, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

@Piotrus: Fair enough. I hadn't thought about the RAM load and frugal computing^[1], which is not yet in Wikipedia, even though degrowth already is. Boud (talk) 10:02, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Rights Georgia is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rights Georgia until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

4meter4 (talk) 21:49, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Dear Boud,

Your wiki anniversary was 7 days ago, marking 17 years (as per SUL) of dedicated service! I wanted to extend a heartfelt thanks for your amazing contributions. With over 48,696 edits, your dedication is an inspiration to the community. Wishing you all the best for the year ahead!

Use this Tool to send wiki anniversary wishes to other amazing Wikimedians.

-- : Suyash Dwivedi (💬) 17:34, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

@Suyash.dwivedi: धन्यवद् (sp?) :). But just for the record, my first logged-in pl.Wikipedia edit was on 28 August 2002 and my first logged-in edit on en.Wikipedia was in March 2003, so I guess SUL is a bit buggy, by five and a half to six years, depending on whether you count other-language-Wikipedia edits or not. Boud (talk) 11:57, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Women in Red | November 2025, Vol 11, Issue 11, Nos. 326, 327, 353, 354 Recognized as the most active topic-based WikiProject by human changes. Online events: New: Alphabet run: U, V, W | Asian women Continuing, year-long initiatives: #1day1woman | Music Announcements: Women in Red's Asian women event is part of the global Wikipedia Asian Month 2025 campaign. You are welcome to add your contributions to both event pages. Tip of the Month: Verifiability is increasingly important as AI evolves. You should ensure that every statement made is adequately sourced. There should be no less than three independent reliable sources for each biography, including at least one source for each paragraph. Progress ("moving the needle"): Statistics available via various tools: previously, Humaniki tool; currently, QLever. Thank you if you contributed one or more of the 20,473 articles created in the past year. 21 Oct 2024, 19.963% of biographies on EN-WP were about women (2,030,245 biographies; 405,305 women) 28 Oct 2025: 20.23% of biographies on EN-WP were about women (2,094,677 biographies; 423,778 women) Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help wanted! Want to apply your skills or learn new ones? Help us plan monthly events, design event logos, come up with a tip-of-the-month, and/or provide any general ideas on developing the project. Follow us on social media: Instagram | Pinterest

--Rosiestep (talk) 17:04, 30 October 2025 (UTC) via MassMessaging

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Marek Kotański is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marek Kotański until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

4meter4 (talk) 03:03, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

I saw the AfD for Rights Georgia and I agree with the other editors that the English language coverage is not sufficient to establish notability (your argument that is basically an IAR keep isn't being taken well). However, I was wondering if you searched in Georgian - I was able find some interesting coverage. I don't think it shows notability, but you might be able to add some information to Human rights in Georgia or Non-governmental organizations in Georgia (country). Katzrockso (talk) 06:23, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Oh I forgot to post the sources here, but here are some mentions and there are tons more, but I haven't checked their reliability. Unfortunately I didn't find anything that covered the NGO more extensively. Katzrockso (talk) 06:34, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

@Katzrockso: Thanks for the sources.

To some degree you're right that I was invoking WP:5P5, one of the five pillars, though with the more nuanced "interpret in the context of the overall Wikipedia goals" rather than "ignore". 5P5 is stated in the lead of WP:POLICY as Policies and guidelines should be applied using reason and common sense. It continues with Policy and guideline pages are living documents that attempt to describe the actual practice of experienced editors, but it's clear that most of the people who participated following the OP's statement and two-person discussion agreed to view the policy as prescriptive rather than descriptive. My impression is that they don't seem to be people with extensive editing experience in Wikipedia on NGOs outside of the core Anglosphere and closely related topics. That's not their fault - they made the best judgment they could based on their experience, access to sources, and views of the goals of Wikipedia. Wikipedia policy and guidelines have evolved over two decades, and they're going to continue evolving. For this particular article, I've dropped the stick. Maybe there'll be more editors on the general topic sooner or later. Or maybe not. Boud (talk) 10:45, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

I also saw a hint of WP:NEXIST there too, which isn't unappreciated. I agree there are still serious, major issues with how Wikipedia covers topics outside of the Anglosphere and how editors refuse to recognize that there are sources most editors do not have access to, but I'm not sure how to address that problem. It took me ages to find sources for Jacinto Bondanza Castro and even after the nominator agreed he was notable and the AfD was withdrawn, and the page still was erroneously speedy deleted! Katzrockso (talk) 11:03, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Dear Boud,

Thank you for your significant work on wikipedia. I appreciated your helpful (and instructive) adjustments of my edits on International Criminal Court. I recently through the wikiproject Peace on your page with great interest, and consequently made some contributions in the treaties category. While I'm considering adding my name to the list, I thought I might ask some question to you directly. It seems like all the references and external links towards peacemaker.un.org are dead or redirect to unrelated pages. Do you know why this might happen, and how this could be fixed? The waybackachive often doesnt work so well for me on UN sites. Additionalky, I was curious if wikiprojects exist seperately per wiki platform? I have limited experience there, but for peace treaties/agreements, additional contributions on wikidata or wikisource could be quite helpful.

Kind regards SarahSmithLay (talk) 10:02, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

hi @SarahSmithLay:. Glad to work together :).

Dead/obsolete peacemaker.un.org - Every now and then, typically on a 5-10 yr time scale, the sysadmins and other people who manage a website decide that maintaining the old system is no longer practical or useful. They update the system, and decide that the effort to maintain permalinks for the old system is not worth it - in link rot#Causes I would guess either the restructuring of websites that causes changes in URLs or a change in server architecture ... as the most likely reasons. Non-geeky people involved in the decisions may believe that "it's still there on the internet" and not realise the archival value of permalinks, especially to UN component organisations.

If you consider these links useful enough, you could try contacting the webmaster, or maybe search for a specific email, and propose that permalinks be created for the old content - your chances of convincing someone to do the work are probably low, but maybe not zero: UN employees know that their web pages are useful. It's quite likely that backups of the old pages are available - especially web pages whose content is just text.

There's a problem about half a year or so old where archiving of many websites or particular documents on those websites is un-archivable by Wayback due to Cloudflare or other anti-LLM-scraper software. Archive.today also has problems on some websites. Both of these popular archivers have flaws: when someone looks at a Wayback archive, it normally runs (I think) an identical copy javascript from the original website, which risks the same privacy violations as the original page; archive.today provides a static html page (without re-running the original javascript) but violates the privacy of the person archiving and the person reading the archive's privacy by going through Google captcha; although archive.today has lasted 13 years, and we can hope that the person running it has made it robust and prepared for the bus factor, that's just a hope - there's no institutional solidity backing it. The advantage of Internet Archive (Wayback) is that it's a solid nearly-three-decades-old institution. For any web page X that needs archiving, I generally try an archive both with Wayback and with Archive.today, though I only actually use one archival URL in Wikipedia/Wikidata, with the assumption that a robot can add the other one later if needed.

if wikiprojects exist seperately per wiki platform?: I agree that Wikidata and Wikisource would both be quite useful for the WikiProject Peace. The goals and methods and cultures are somewhat different but complementary on each project, and obviously cooperation is to be encouraged: it depends on whether there are people who actually do editing and effectively start working together. I see d:Wikidata:WikiProjects says do not hesitate to initiate a new one!, so seems to have a low threshold for "creating" a WikiProject; while s:Wikisource:WikiProject seems to more closely follow Wikipedia style, i.e. there's no point declaring a WikiProject to exist and hoping that people will turn up and edit together. It's something like a more organised step up from two-way or few-way chats on talk pages. A ten-way chat on user talk pages to coordinate editing would start getting messy. You're welcome to add links to your edits at User talk:Boud/Draft:WikiProject Peace in "chat" style with a signature, to help encourage others, or if you think some edits make sense at User:Boud/Draft:WikiProject Peace for people looking for what needs to be done, then go ahead and do them; there's no obligation to list yourself "officially" as a project member. Boud (talk) 12:12, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Dear @Boud,

Thank you for your considerate response! Your insights about link rot, archiving and wikiprojects are very helpful. I did some searches to get an idea of the use peacemaker.un.org. I used, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:LinkSearch&limit=500&offset=0&target=peacemaker.un.org https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=500&offset=0&profile=default&search=insource%3A%22peacemaker.un.org%22&title=Special:Search&ns0=1 and https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?search=insource%3A%22peacemaker.un.org%22&title=Special%3ASearch&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns0=1&ns6=1&ns12=1&ns14=1&ns100=1&ns106=1

Do you think this reflects the current usage across en.wikipedia? Additionally, what would be the way to handle a referencd like 17 in this article Northern Ireland, the archived link correctly refers to the agreement, but the current link redirects to an unrelated page.

Many thanks and warm regards SarahSmithLay (talk) 12:50, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

@SarahSmithLay: Those three Wikipedia and WM Commons searchlinks look correct. If you're preparing a message to the UN webmasters to try to convince them that it would be useful to restore the old links as URL redirections, you can list a few of the links that are obsolete, such as this or this that I found from your search links by arbitrarily selecting a few.

If UN techies are unwilling to do anything (or communication fails - the UN is a huge multi-organisation organisation and who is willing to respond or have time to do something is not transparent like on WMF wikis), and if the pages are actually available but at different URLs, then an alternative could be to suggest at WP:TECHPUMP that if someone wants to create a bot to replace the obsolete URLs by the live ones, then that would be useful to Wikipedia. There might be a page for putting bot wishlists - some people are good at that and might be able to do one easily.

NI ref 17 - The crude way to handle this is to remove the |url-status=live parameter (or change it to |url-status=dead). But if you look at Template:Citation#URL you'll see more nuanced options. In this case, I changed to |url-status=deviated. While the visual (rendered) effect of removing url-status totally or setting it to deviated appears identical (the "primary" link is the archive; and the word "original" links to the original URL), having the nuance of deviated stored in the source code makes it available for future possible changes in the mediawiki software and for bots, and also for humans who edit. Boud (talk) 13:49, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

I wasnt preparing a message yet, but i guess I could try reaching out. While those link that you mentioned show obsolete pages, many of the pages redirect to unrelated pages/documents. I would think restoring old links would be the solution for these pages.

For example

http://peacemaker.un.org/node/1113 is linked from Comprehensive Peace Accord

http://peacemaker.un.org/node/143 is linked from Bicesse Accords SarahSmithLay (talk) 14:14, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

@SarahSmithLay: These two are both cases of WP:EXTERNAL links in the External links section, which has a different role to inline citations. At Comprehensive Peace Accord, the obsolete link is a purely numbered URL ../node/1113, and the new one .../en/node/9215 is just a numbered link too. So my guess is that there's a fair chance that en/node/9215 might become a deviated link too, since the numbers may be generated from a list of files. Lists of files changes (additions, removals), so if CPA was the 1113th a few years ago, and is now the 9215th, in another few years it might be the 12531st. For external links sections, I think that adding {{web archive}} makes sense. This is a lot less work than creating a full citation (either in Wikidata or directly in Wikipedia) for inline citations. If you (or anyone) has the time and patience to add the source to Wikisource, then that would bypass the need to depend on non-WMF archivers, but that could be a lot of work. If UN employees and managers could be convinced to and learn how to and actually add documents directly to Wikisource - following the standards expected there and whatever WP:COI policies are in place there (I see s:Wikisource:Requests for comment/Disclosure policy - a discussion in 2014/2015) - that would make sense to me. If they see it actually happening, then they might join in.

Anyway, back to what's more practical by individual editors for the External links section, it's of course better to replace obsolete URLs by live ones, but if you don't want your effort to look confusing to a reader in 10 or 20 years' time, adding {{web archive}} is an easy step that would require the future reader to only do one extra click rather than having to use the external web site's own search engine. Wayback seems reasonably likely to exist in 10-20 years; it's anyone's guess if archive.today will still be around.

For inline citations where an archive exists and the original URL has deviated, I still think that |url=deviated makes sense; there's no need to find a new live URL for an old treaty. Boud (talk) 15:29, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Women in Red | November 2025, Vol 11, Issue 12, Nos. 326, 327, 355, 356, 357 Recognized as the most active topic-based WikiProject by human changes. Online events: New: Alphabet run X, Y, Z | Food and drink | Women who died in 2025 Continuing, year-long initiatives: #1day1woman | Music Announcements: Global Translat-a-thon 2025 06 December 2025 Tip of the Month: Lists of deaths by year is a good resource for the December / January meet-up Women who died in 2025 Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help wanted! Want to apply your skills or learn new ones? Help us plan monthly events, design event logos, come up with a tip-of-the-month, and/or provide any general ideas on developing the project. Follow us on social media: Instagram | Pinterest

--Rosiestep (talk) 22:16, 28 November 2025 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contribution(s). However, as a general rule, while user talk pages permit a small degree of generalisation, other talk pages are strictly for discussing improvements to their associated main pages, and many of them have special instructions on the top. They are not a general discussion forum about the article's topic or any other topic. If you have questions or ideas and are not sure where to post them, consider asking at the Teahouse. Thanks. Cambalachero (talk) 13:19, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

@Cambalachero: I agree that this edit was offtopic. I noticed that after saving and didn't get around to reverting it; sorry.

However, we do have a section Wikipedia:Large language models#Handling suspected LLM-generated content that currently gives advice on removing LLM-generated content, without any warning to Wikipedians that by doing so, we may be feeding data into LLMs ourselves. I don't really see the problem in raising the question about possibly modifying the content of WP:LLM at the WP:LLM talk page, although I'm not sure exactly what change to propose. I don't want to discourage people from cleaning AI slop, but I don't see a problem in thinking about what sort of support is needed for people doing this (voluntary) work. In a sense, we have social support via radical transparency (there are no NDAs for Wikipedia editing), and we use deliberative, participatory, transparent decision-making, so our situation is different. Anyway, I guess we can agree to disagree on whether it should be discussed at Wikipedia talk:Large language models. Boud (talk) 17:41, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Women in Red | January 2026, Vol 12, Issue 1, Nos 357, 358, 359, 360 Online events: New: Sports (year-long initiative) | Alphabet run - countries starting with A Continuing: #1day1woman ( year-long initiative) | Women who died in 2025 Announcements from other communities Wikipedia turns 25! Celebrate Wikipedia Day on Jan 15, 2026. Tip of the month: Consider becoming a new page reviewer to help reduce the huge backlog of women's biographies. 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

--Rosiestep (talk) 23:30, 26 December 2025 (UTC) via MassMessaging

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Multinational Force – Ukraine, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Multinational Force – Ukraine until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for listing Category:2025 Iranian protests for a renaming discussion under the proper process for that. But content cannot be preemptively filed in the redlinked Category:2025–2026 Iranian protests before the renaming process is completed — until the category has been moved, please continue to file content in the existing category rather than the new one. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 15:12, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

@Bearcat: Ah yes, the pre-emptive inclusion was my error. Thanks for the fix. Boud (talk) 15:59, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Belarus medical cases chart has been nominated for discussion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:12, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Poland medical cases has been nominated for discussion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:25, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Poland medical cases chart has been nominated for discussion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:25, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Poland medical cases by voivodeship has been nominated for discussion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:25, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Ukraine medical cases chart has been nominated for discussion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:28, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi Boud, could you please educate me on the latest notice on the top of the article? This is the first time I've seen it, and I'm not sure I understand what exactly the problem is, or if it's something I've done wrong? I attempted to fix the WP:COPYVIO that you mentioned here by paraphrasing here instead. Does this not suffice? Thanks. Ronnnaldo7 (talk) 10:22, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes, you did something wrong. You violated copyright, which is a risk for Wikipedia. Now someone has to clean it up.

Regarding your new edit, please read WP:PARAPHRASE. We should summarise key info, not rewrite sentences with superficial changes. Please read WP:SUMMARY. Boud (talk) 10:27, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Ok, sorry. And thank you for bringing it to my attention and the explanation. So in that case, it looks like the new edit doesn't suffice, right? May I ask how you would summarize the key info? Thank you, and apologies again; learning here. Ronnnaldo7 (talk) 10:32, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Actually WP:SUMMARY is not the right link here, sorry. WP:FIXCLOSEPARA is good. It's on the WP:PARAPHRASE page. Boud (talk) 10:50, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. As for the excerpt that was added here, could you please enlighten me as to how you would state it? Thank you. Ronnnaldo7 (talk) 10:58, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

The sub-topic is notable, but the first thing would be to find an appropriate section name for the topic, then find sources with that info (there is some overlap with killing of Amirhesam Khodayarifard#Government disinformation), and then summarise those several sources in that section. Please read WP:FIXCLOSEPARA. I've started a section on the talk page for seeking an appropriate section title.

Do not expect me to make a summary of some specific paragraphs of a specific source. A reasonable level of English fluency and comprehension of English is a requirement for editing the English-language Wikipedia. Minor flaws are acceptable, but not an inability to write in your own words. Boud (talk) 11:16, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Alright, I'll let you handle and add it then. And yes, I've provided my input on the talk page. Cheers. Ronnnaldo7 (talk) 11:26, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Regarding this diff

My reading of the source was that it's unclear whether it's being stated that the whole range is a minimum or only 16,500 is a minimum. So I simply quoted "at least 16,500-18000" when adding the material. Basically, my concern is that the article doesn't seem to be presenting 18,000 as the high end of an overall estimate, but as the higher end of an estimate on the minimum death toll. DiodotusNicator (talk) 01:57, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

I empathise with your concern, but I think there's a de facto Wikipedia convention to be conservative with statements of "at least", because mathematically, "at least 16,500" could mean 16,500 exactly, or 33,000, or 100,000, or 40,000,000. All four of those numbers are arithmetically greater than or equal to 16,500. Trying to guess whether the authors implicitly mean that the more likely real value is 10% higher or a factor of two higher or a factor of ten higher would require original research, unless (for a source in general) it's a statistical modelling source that presents a formally derived statistical distribution. And this particular edit is in the lead. There's more space in the body to add a sentence stating that the authors think that the real numbers are much higher, and why they think that, but in the lead it's best to put the more solid, more conservative pieces of information, rather than the more fuzzy ones. As long as there are some sentences in the body in an appropriate place mentioning the expectation (per sources, e.g. based on the internet cutoff and insufficient time to gather evidence) that all of these estimates are undercounts, then it doesn't need to be repeated for each individual estimate. Boud (talk) 02:57, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Iran medical cases has been listed for discussion, which may result in the template being merged or deleted by consensus. You are invited to comment on the proposed action at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:40, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Japan medical cases has been listed for discussion, which may result in the template being merged or deleted by consensus. You are invited to comment on the proposed action at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:41, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Singapore untraced cases has been listed for discussion, which may result in the template being merged or deleted by consensus. You are invited to comment on the proposed action at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:44, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/South Korea medical cases has been listed for discussion, which may result in the template being merged or deleted by consensus. You are invited to comment on the proposed action at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:44, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Very impressed with the table you made.

Nice work!! Perfecnot (talk) 21:26, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Women in Red | February 2026, Vol 12, Issue 2, Nos 358, 359, 361, 362, 363 Online events: New: Alphabet run: countries starting with B | Black Women | Works by women: theatre, opera, music Continuing: #1day1woman ( year-long initiative) | Sports (year-long initiative) Announcements from other communities Join Wikipedia:26 for '26 and create or substantially improve twenty-six Wikipedia articles during the year 2026, at least one for each letter of the English alphabet. Tip of the month: Our redlists are a great resource, but not every redlinked subject is notable. Be sure to research before starting a new article. 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

--Lajmmoore (talk 22:46, 31 January 2026 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red | March 2026, Vol 12, Issue 3, Nos 358, 359, 364, 365, 366 Online events: March 1-31: Artists & Activists | Artworks by women | Alphabet run: countries starting with C Continuing (year-long initiatives): #1day1woman | Sports Announcements from other communities: Celebrate Women Unreferenced articles backlog drive Wiki Loves Ramadan Tip of the month: Those experiencing difficulties with new articles can follow the guidance in our essays, perhaps starting with our Ten Simple Rules. 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

--Rosiestep (talk) 09:27, 25 February 2026 (UTC) via MassMessaging