User talk:Fermiboson

Hi Fermiboson, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the new page reviewer user right to your account. This means you now have access to the page curation tools and can start patrolling pages from the new pages feed. If you asked for this at requests for permissions, please check back there to see if your access is time-limited or if there are other comments.

This is a good time to re-acquaint yourself with the guidance at Wikipedia:New pages patrol. Before you get started, please take the time to:

• Add Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers to your watchlist to follow NPP-related discussions
• If you use Twinkle, configure it to log your CSDs and PRODs
• If you can read any languages other than English, add yourself to the list of reviewers with language proficiencies

You can find a list of other useful links and tools for patrollers at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Resources. If you are ever unsure what to do, ask your fellow patrollers or just leave the page for someone else to review – you're not alone! Sohom (talk) 17:33, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Fermiboson (talk) 17:34, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi Fermiboson,

Thank you for getting back to me. This is my first time setting up a wikipedia. I was planning on doing a few on public figures but thought I'd start with my own. I appreciate your comments. I did want some clarification. What do i need to do in order to get this accepted? I understand i have to declare a COI but how do i do it the correct way? Also, were there specific blogs that you didn't like? Lastly, does that mean I have to remove them? What about links to youtube of the music videos uploaded on the artist's page with my name in the description? If you're able to, please let me know what I need to do to get this approved.

Thanks again! Lukaslennon (talk) 01:05, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for reaching out. Blogs, in general, are self-published content and therefore not reliable sources. Neither is Youtube of any sort. Unreliable sources cannot be used to cite facts on Wikipedia because they're, well, unreliable. You must declare a COI if you decide to resubmit your draft, which you can do by adding a comment using the AfC submission tool (or if you don't know how to you can put it on the talk page). In general, you want to meet WP:GNG to demonstrate the notability of the article subject, which requires at least two independent, primary and reliable sources with significant coverage. See WP:YFA for some more detailed and specific advice on making an article that is more suitable for Wikipedia. Fermiboson (talk) 01:13, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Hey, thank you so much for this! I believed I cleaned it up. Let me know what you think. Lukaslennon (talk) 01:24, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2025).

Administrator changes

• Chaotic Enby
• Rjjiii

Valereee

• Fathoms Below
• Tamzin

CheckUser changes

Spicy

Technical news

• Starting on November 4, the IP addresses of logged-out editors are no longer being publicly displayed. Instead, they will have a temporary account associated with their edits.
• Administrators will now find that Special:MergeHistory is now significantly more flexible about what it can merge. It can now merge sections taken from the middle of the history of the source (rather than only the start) and insert revisions anywhere in the history of the destination page (rather than only the start). T382958

Miscellaneous

• The December 2025 administrator elections are scheduled from Nov 25 – Dec 15.
• An Articles for Creation backlog drive is happening in December 2025, with over 1,000 drafts awaiting review from the past two months. In addition to AfC participants, all administrators and new page patrollers can help review using the Yet Another AFC Helper Script, which can be enabled in the Gadgets settings. Sign up here to participate!

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Panties. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Meters (talk) 09:39, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi, at Draft:Guyviaud Joseph, you commented " GNG fail. In order: churnalism, non-RS, routine coverage, primary source". For a newcomer such comments are word salad: meanings of acronyms GNG and RS, especially when unlinked, are wiki-jargon not understandable for AfC users who are usually newcomers. The relation of "routine coverage, primary source" towards notability guidelines is also unclear for newcomers—consider linking them to relevant help pages or better yet, explain them. Ca ^{talk to me!} 14:00, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi, yeah, agree entirely and thank you for the reminder - I'm usually better at comments than that but I was on a flight... Fermiboson (talk) 15:23, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello Fermiboson,

Thank you very much for your feedback on my article. I thought I understood Wikipedia's notability standards, but I guess I do not. Could you provide more information for me on why my article was not a notable subject? His work has been covered in detail, so I am just a little lost. I truly appreciate any information or feedback you have, and thank you! Chelsea GriffinWink (talk) 19:37, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, am away from computer at the moment - mind linking me to the draft in question? Fermiboson (talk) 21:08, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

No worries, thanks for getting back to me! Here is the draft: Draft:Ronald J. Kendall Chelsea GriffinWink (talk) 21:42, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Short answer is that notability is not inherited - research he’s involved in may well have been covered extensively but the person himself has not. You can distinguish this by looking at to what degree the secondary sources cover his life instead of his work (which is very little). Fermiboson (talk) 08:45, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi User:Fermiboson,

I sincerely appreciate the detailed feedback. You clarifying the WP:MEDRS is helpful, and I totally get that without the secondary reviews, a standalone medical article cannot get a pass under Wikipedia's current guidelines.

Regarding the WP:FRINGE concern... While I understand the perspective given the current sourcing landscape, the device's recent FDA clearance suggests the science is moving into the mainstream. The lack of secondary sourcing is often less about "fringe" science and more about the economic reality of non-pharmacological research.

Given your username, I suspect you might appreciate the analogy here: We feel a bit like Peter Higgs in 1964. His initial paper on the boson was rejected as "of no relevance to physics," and it took 48 years (and the Large Hadron Collider) for the Standard Model to finally catch up to what the math had already predicted.

Right now, Neuro-Electric Therapy is in that "theoretical wilderness." We have the signal (FDA clearance, 98% efficacy in primary studies), but we haven't built our LHC yet to generate the "5-sigma" data required for a Wikipedia entry.

As noted in the Cochrane Review regarding sponsorship bias (Lundh et al., 2017) and investigations by the Center for Public Integrity, device-based therapies often lack the recurring revenue models required to fund the volume of secondary literature that pharmaceutical interventions generate. This creates the "David vs. Goliath" dynamic, the central theme of the documentary The Final Fix, where established players have significantly more capital to generate the "gold standard" literature required by MEDRS. These independent film makers took it upon themselves to shed light on this themselves.

There's a parallel here to how acupuncture was viewed decades ago when it was dismissed due to a lack of Western clinical trials, but eventually integrated into institutions like the Mayo Clinic as the data caught up. We believe Neuro-Electric Therapy is at that same crossroads right now in transitioning from anecdotal success to rigorous validation.

We are currently in active discussions with a research team at Harvard Medical School regarding an independent review of the technology. When that data is published and generates secondary coverage, do you see that as the type of material that would satisfy the MEDRS threshold to revisit this topic?

I will hold off on the draft for now and leave the existing redirect to Meg Patterson in place. Thanks again for your time, it's been really helpful to get a clear sense of the standard required.

Thanks! User:OpiateFreedom — Preceding undated comment added 23:24, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

You bring up acupuncture - this is an excellent example of how Wikipedia tends to deal with such treatments (the lede of Acupuncture mentions that it is considered a pseudoscience). Not being a medical professional, I’m not going to attempt to make medical statements on the efficacy of the treatment, but even taking everything you have said as the ground truth, then this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. I appreciate that this may be frustrating to hear and such labels are often associated with accusations of bad faith; do be assured this is not what I’m accusing you of here, but Wikipedia is not a place for unaccepted original research. Yes, if Wikipedia existed in 1964, AfC would reject Higgs’ article too. To be clear this also doesn’t mean your research is equivalent to Higgs’; I’m sure you’ll appreciate that the majority of things outside the mainstream remain so. Thank you very much for remaining collegial and complying with our COI editing rules. Fermiboson (talk) 08:53, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Greetings! Thanks for posting at BLPN about a draft with clear BLP problems. And thank you for cleaning it up; that showed a clearer picture of the draft's nature. When a clearer picture indicates it's just a vanity or promo-piece, please keep in mind our WP:CSD metrics. I nominated it for a speedy deletion, and Deb did the honors. I closed out the BLPN discussion after deletion, but I look forward to working beside you at AFC and BLPN in the future. High five. JFHJr (㊟) 01:10, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks - I’m generally more conservative with CSDs in draftspace than most people since in the past I’ve had a few G11/U5 misfires back when U5 was a thing but certainly will keep it in mind. Fermiboson (talk) 08:40, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

Home network keeps getting caught up in proxy blocks, would like IP block exemption if possible. Fermiboson (talk) 19:46, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

I'll cut out the middleman and direct you to WP:IPECPROXY so you can contact a checkuser. 331dot (talk) 20:07, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Understood, thanks! Fermiboson (talk) 21:37, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello Fermiboson. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Draft:BLUUDUDE! All you need to know, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not unambiguously promotional. Thank you. asilvering (talk) 19:01, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi Fermiboson,

Thank you for getting back to me. This is my first time setting up a wikipedia. I wanted to share more on the Singapore's cybersecurity industry (Draft:Singapore's Cybersecurity Industry). Can I please check how can I go about improving it? Regarding the independent sources, I was thinking would it be better to remove the column on notable achievements and instead, just link the respective company website to it, so that readers can explore and see what they do on their own? Would that be better?

Looking forward to your reply! Fuggyholic (talk) 03:40, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

The latter is definitely not it, see WP:EXTERNALLINK - we don't include them unless there is a very good reason. You should not write the article first then find sources on it; rather you should first find reliable, secondary sources that talk about the topic as a whole and then summarise those sources in the article. Academic sources would be the most risk-free in this case as a lot of other sources can be infected by paid advocacy and other such things. Above all, DO NOT use AI in your article-writing. Fermiboson (talk) 04:13, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Fermiboson, thank you for this! Ive did some minor edits, it this slightly better? I have also refrained from using AI for content writing, mainly for spelling checks and grammer. Hope this clarifies. Fuggyholic (talk) 09:28, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! I wanted to let you know that I have declined your G11 speedy deletion nomination of Draft:J. E. Edjeren. Although the article has a promotional tone, it does not contain blatant advertising. Especially when articles are in the draftspace, I recommend refraining from nominating articles for G11 speedy deletion unless they contain unambiguous advertising. Editors using the draftspace are much more likely to be new editors who may not fully understand Wikipedia's policies regarding tone--not to mention that learning how to successfully write in a neutral point of view is challenging! As such, I suggest practicing restrain when coming across promotional content in the draftspace as nominating a new editor's first edits for speedy deletion can be very bitey. Thank you for your understanding. Please let me know if you have any questions. Take care, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 02:40, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know and your advice. Will take note in the future. Fermiboson (talk) 02:45, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello, again!! I wanted to let you know that I've declined your G15 speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Tina & Trina. In your deletion rational, you stated that the article included "nonsensical references". However, the article does not currently include standard references, and all the external links provided target what they are intended to target, meaning they are not nonsensical. As such, this article does not qualify for G15. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 03:10, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2026!

Hello Fermiboson, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2026. Happy editing, Abishe (talk) 09:14, 25 December 2025 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Abishe (talk) 09:14, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

I can make improvements, but I want to stress that this wasn’t generated by any machine—no large language model could have written this article. Going forward, any criticism needs to be specific and detailed, not just vague or conceptual. Accusermanager (talk) 11:02, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

A finance professional spent two full days of the Christmas holiday researching and drafting a finance-focused article, only to have it dismissed as machine-generated within minutes by someone outside the field. That is deeply frustrating and entirely unacceptable. Accusermanager (talk) 11:22, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

January–February 2026 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol
New Pages Patrol is hosting a one-time, two-month experimental backlog drive aimed at reducing the backlog. This will be a combo drive: both articles and redirects will earn points. The drive will run from 1 January to 28 February 2026. The drive is divided into two phases. Participants may take part in either phase or across both phases, depending on availability. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled during the drive. Two-month drive-exclusive barnstars will be awarded to eligible participants. Each article review earns 1 point, while each redirect review earns 0.2 points. Streak awards will be granted based on consistently meeting weekly point thresholds. Barnstars will also be awarded for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Interested in participating? Sign up here.
You are receiving this message because you are a New Pages Patrol reviewer. To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself from here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:22, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Fermiboson.

Could you please help me understand this revert? Why did you remove the citation needed templates that I added to unsourced info? And I'm especially confused by your edit summary: "Rv pov". How can adding "citation needed" to unsourced statements be considered pov that should be removed? It's not even on a subject that I have a pov on, or that is somehow controversial for anyone to have a pov on to begin with. It's simply unsourced info.

Thanks and good tidings, User:غوّاص العلم (Ghawwas) (talk) 15:16, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Oh, I looked at the page history again, and I guess that you mostly intended to revert the person who edited before me? Is that right? User:غوّاص العلم (Ghawwas) (talk) 15:21, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Ah, yeah… sorry that I didn’t check carefully enough. Feel free to readd your tags and sorry for the trouble. Fermiboson (talk) 15:57, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

All good :) Thanks for clarifying.

Happy editing and good tidings, User:غوّاص العلم (Ghawwas) (talk) 08:20, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The 2026 competition has just begun and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. Even if you are a novice editor, we hope the WikiCup will give you a chance to improve your editing skills as you go. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here, and a bot will set up your submissions page within one day, ready for you to take part. Any questions on the scoring, rules or anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page.

For the 2026 WikiCup, the highest-ranking contestants will receive tournament points at the end of each round, and final rankings are decided by the number of tournament points each contestant has. This is the same scoring system that we had last year. If you're busy and can't sign up in January, don't worry: Signups are open throughout the year. To make things fairer for latecomers, the lowest-scoring contestants are no longer eliminated at the end of each round.

The first round will end on 26 February. The judges for the WikiCup this year are: Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email), Epicgenius (talk · contribs · email), Frostly (talk · contribs · email), Guerillero (talk · contribs · email) and Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs · email). Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:38, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi Femiboson,

Happy New Year!

Since, as far as I see, it was you who declined the latest version of this article, I am addressing you – please correct me if I got this wrong.

I noticed on top of the article draft it says now “This article may have been created or edited in return for undisclosed payments”. This note appeared in December, immediately after I mentioned once again that my editing of the article is paid work. I think this is hardly a coincidence.

I had already disclosed this fact in several places, beginning with my user page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ulrich_Eberhardt

I therefore find the claim that there is a possibility that I may have violated Wikipedia’s terms of use highly unfortunate. Please remove this note.

Paid editing in Wikipedia is generally legitimate as long as it is properly disclosed:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Paid-contribution_disclosure

Here it says: "You must make that disclosure in at least one of the following ways: a statement on your user page (...)" which I have done (see above). I also mentioned it in at least one of the discussions about the article.

Thank you very much!

Uli Eberhardt Ulrich Eberhardt (talk) 10:45, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2025).

Administrator changes

• Epicgenius
• Left guide
• LEvalyn
• MPGuy2824
• The4lines
• Yue

Fathoms Below

• BaronLarf
• Firefly
• kelapstick
• Opabinia regalis
• Pbsouthwood
• Sethant
• UtherSRG
• Whouk

CheckUser changes

• Giraffer
• HouseBlaster
• SilverLocust

• Liz
• Worm That Turned
• Z1720

Oversight changes

• Asilvering
• Giraffer
• Girth Summit
• Guerillero
• HouseBlaster
• Izno
• SilverLocust

• Liz
• Worm That Turned
• Z1720

Guideline and policy news

• All general sanctions imposed by the community may now be enforced at the Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard (WP:AE) as a result of a recent RfC.
• Due to the result of a recent RFC, the administrator recall process is amended to extend the deadline for a re-request for adminship to 30 days or the next administrator election, whichever is later.
• Changes to the Access to Temporary Account IP Addresses Policy's disclosure rules include broadening the consecutive-blocks exception to cover all admin actions and removing the requirement to revision-delete permissible disclosures once they become unnecessary (instead requiring only their removal). See WP:TAIVDISCLOSE for more information.

Arbitration

• Following the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been elected to the Arbitration Committee: Aoidh, Asilvering, Girth Summit, Guerillero, HJ Mitchell, HouseBlaster, Izno, Sdrqaz, SilverLocust.
• The arbitration case Pbsouthwood has been suspended.

Hi, this is an automated reminder as part of Global reminder bot to let you know that your permission "patroller" (New page reviewers) will expire on 00:00, 31 January 2026 (UTC). For most rights, you will need to renew at WP:PERM, unless you have been told otherwise when your right was approved. To opt out of user right expiry notifications, add yourself to m:Global reminder bot/Exclusion. Leaderbot (talk) 19:41, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Welcome to Phase 2 of the January–February 2026 NPP drive. During Phase 1, we reviewed 16,658 articles and 4,416 redirects, and there is currently a backlog of 16,475 articles and 23,782 redirects in the queue. Fantastic job! Completing 22,502 patrols in the first phase made a significant dent in the backlog. Let's keep our foot on the gas for Phase 2, and I hope we can achieve even more reviews than Phase 1. Best of luck!

You are receiving this message because you added your name to the participants list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:21, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

How can I edit my information --Emmanuel Yaw Anderson Arthur (talk) 18:32, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi. If you are the subject of a Wikipedia article, please read WP:COI and follow our conflict of interest policy; in particular, please do NOT edit your article directly and use edit requests. If you want to write a Wikipedia article about yourself, please read WP:AUTOBIO as well and be advised that this is generally an unwise thing to do. If you want to add information about yourself to your Wikipedia account, the publicly facing way to do this is through your user page which is at User:Emmanuel Yaw Anderson Arthur; you can click on this link to create the page. Keep in mind any information you add about yourself to this page will be preserved forever in the page history. Fermiboson (talk) 21:12, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi, im new to Wikipedia editing. You are not a bot right. Also, is there a regulations page for me to go through before starting out? --C S de silva (talk) 06:15, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Correct, I am a human. Wikipedia has lots of policies, guidelines, community norms and essays, a lot of which is best learned about by watching other people apply it. But the core content policies that we have are WP:Verifiability, WP:Neutral point of view and WP:No original research. You may also want to read WP:Reliable sources to distinguish which sources you can cite on Wikipedia. You may also read WP:NOT for a concise list of common pitfalls caused by misunderstanding the purpose of Wikipedia. Otherwise, if you have a specific area you are interested in, I will be able to point you to more specific pages about that area. There's lots to do around here - for example patrolling recent changes, copyediting, or contributing content in one of our WP:WikiProjects. Fermiboson (talk) 10:51, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I am struggling with starting copy edits because I'm not sure of what I should correct and I don't want to get any information wrong also, I was trying to revise the Wikipedia page for Dominic Salvatore Gentile, the article uses a lot of praise such as "Captain Gentile immediately attacked the enemy formation and by extremely courageous flying and skillful gunnery" but since he worked in something respectable are some articles able to use praise? I considered removing the word 'extremely' from it since it was courageous but I'm not too sure how much praise you should use whilst editing.

Thank you have a great day. --Nathan213243 (talk) 15:28, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for your question. The main guideline concerned here is WP:NPOV, which means that we do not attempt to make any subjective judgements on the merit of something not explicitly supported in a source. In this case, you are correct in pointing out the use of peacock/promotional language being used. In general, articles should not contain massive amounts of language such as "X courageously did Y", "A perfidiously attacked B", etc. so if you're thinking that the article consists of a lot of praise (or criticism), it is likely fine to remove it. The one and only exception is when one is quoting something directly from the source. For example, if an award citation states "Captain XXX behaved courageously in the face of enemy fire", it may be appropriate to write According to the citation for his Victoria Cross, Captain XXX "behaved courageously in the face of enemy fire". See also WP:Peacock. Fermiboson (talk) 17:51, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi Fermiboson 😊 I am new to Wikipedia, and as such, I have a few questions regarding sources for citations. Are websites of educational institutions or museums, such as the Smithsonian Institution website, considered appropriate sources for citations?

Also, when I went through some of your previous conversations, I came across the abbreviation “COI.” What does this mean?

Thanks in advance!! --Jeanjubin1108 (talk) 15:51, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi, welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for your question. The relevant policy is WP:RS - in general, such websites may be reliable sources for general factual claims. A lot of these websites however have a popular science inclination and would hence fall foul under WP:SCIRS - if you're writing about a scientific subject it is generally better practice to refer to the literature of the subject. (If you want to write about physics, which is my domain of expertise, you can also ask me if something looks right!) Particularly important is if any such websites make a claim about a medical subject (e.g. XX medicine/treatment is more effective than YY), it is very important to stick to WP:MEDRS, which is a set of much stricter standards for sources about controversial medical claims, and museum websites generally will not be reliable under those criteria. It is also important to distinguish between publications hosted on the server of a university, which are usually reliable primary or secondary sources, and material posted for public consumption which can often suffer embellishment. In my experience, aside from WP:ABOUTSELF claims, museum websites or websites of pre-tertiary institutions can usually be replaced by a better source, although it is not strictly wrong to use them.

COI means WP:Conflict of interest. If you are editing about something which you have a conflict of interest over, which can include but is not limited to a group or organisation you belong to, something relating to a strongly held belief of yours, someone you know, and especially if you have a paid relationship with the subject of the article, it is very important to declare it and not to make direct edits to the subject or publish an article about it to mainspace yourself, but to make a WP:Edit request or go through the WP:Articles for creation process. Undisclosed COI editing is looked on incredibly unfavourably by the Wikipedia community, and in particular undisclosed paid editing can and will lead to a block. Fermiboson (talk) 16:17, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you so much!! Jeanjubin1108 (talk) 17:02, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

cara mengubah nama halaman --Jhonkylee (talk) 16:58, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

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

Administrator changes

Vacant0

• Crisco 1492

• Deepfriedokra
• Hbdragon88
• Karl Dickman
• Worm That Turned

CheckUser changes

Daniel Quinlan

Vanamonde93

Mkdw

Oversight changes

Daniel Quinlan

Arbitration

• Due to the result of a recent motion, a rough consensus of administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard may impose an expanded topic ban on Israel, Israelis, Jews, Judaism, Palestine, Palestinians, Islam, and/or Arabs, if an editor's Arab-Israeli conflict topic ban is determined to be insufficient to prevent disruption. At least one diff per area expanded into should be cited.

Miscellaneous

• Voting in the 2026 Steward elections started on 06 February 2026 at 14:00 (UTC) and will end on 27 February 2026 at 14:00 (UTC). The confirmation process for current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.

Hello Fermiboson, what should I make an article about?? --Nico Robin69 (talk) 17:40, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello. How do I publish an article that I edited? Where's the publish button? --Skyblue9ja (talk) 19:02, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm contacting the members of WikiProject AI Tools because there is a related discussion about creating help pages on using such tools on Wikipedia. You are invited. It's at Wikipedia talk:Help Project#Planning help for AI workflows. See you there!    — The Transhumanist   14:34, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Write in detail the classification of fire base on fuel types and fire fire ting --Prince Haidar (talk) 16:45, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Write in detail the classification of fire base on fuel types and fire fire ting --Prince Haidar (talk) 16:47, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

The first round of the 2026 WikiCup ended on 26 February. As some of you may have noticed, good article nomination reviews now receive 10 points, an increase from 5 points in the previous year, as per a consensus at WT:CUP. This point increase has been retroactively applied to all good article reviews for which competitors have claimed points in this round. Peer reviews, which continue to be worth 5 points, are now listed in the same section as featured article candidate reviews, rather than with good article reviews. Everyone who competed in round 1 will advance to round 2 unless they have withdrawn or been banned. No other changes to the round-point system have been made for this year.

Round 1 was competitive. Three contestants scored more than 1,000 round points, and the top 16 contestants all scored more than 300 round points. The following competitors scored more than 800 round points:

• Bgsu98 (submissions) with 1,467 round points, largely gained from 1 featured article, 5 featured lists, 15 good articles, and 42 FAC and GAN reviews;
• Olliefant (submissions) with 1,246 round points, largely from 4 featured lists, 9 good articles, 2 featured topic articles, 4 did you know articles, and 75 FAC and GAN reviews;
• Generalissima (submissions) with 1,095 round points, largely from 3 featured articles, 6 good articles, and 5 did you know articles;
• MCE89 (submissions) with 848 round points, largely from 1 featured article, 8 good articles, 1 did you know article, and 32 FAC and GAN reviews; and
• Rollinginhisgrave (submissions) with 838 round points, largely from 1 featured article, 8 good articles, 1 did you know article, and 14 FAC, GAN, and peer reviews.

The full scores for round 1 can be seen here. During this round, contestants have claimed 7 featured articles, 16 featured lists, 2 featured-topic articles, 168 good articles, 13 good-topic articles and more than 50 Did You Know articles. In addition, competitors have worked on 14 In the News articles, and they have conducted nearly 700 reviews. The tournament points table will be updated within the next few days.

Remember that any content promoted after 26 February but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, feel free to review one of the nominations listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:56, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

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

Administrator changes

• Brendanconway
• Calmer Waters
• Hut 8.5
• Joe Roe
• VersedFenrir

CheckUser changes

Ks0stm

Oversight changes

Ks0stm

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, the web archival service archive.today has been deprecated; links to the site should be removed.
• A request for comment is open to discuss retiring CSD criterion R3 in favour of handling such redirects through RfD.

Arbitration

• Following a motion, remedy 9.1 of the Conduct in deletion-related editing case has been amended to limit TenPoundHammer to one XfD nomination or PROD per 24-hour period.
• Following a motion, the Iskandar323 further POV pushing motion has been rescinded.
• The Arbitration Committee has passed a housekeeping motion rescinding a number of outdated remedies and enforcement provisions across multiple legacy cases. In most instances, existing sanctions remain in force and continue to be appealable through the usual processes, while some case-specific remedies were amended or clarified.

Miscellaneous

• Following the 2026 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: A09, AmandaNP, Barras, Count Count, M7, SHB2000, Teles and VIGNERON.
• An Unreferenced articles backlog drive is taking place in March 2026 to reduce the backlog of articles tagged with {{Unreferenced}}. You can help reduce the backlog by adding citations to these articles. Sign up to participate!

Hi Fermi, I often see a word in wiki that when I hover over it with my cursor, a box pops up with like further clarity or definition, and if you click on it, it takes you to another page for even more information. How can I create such when I am editing? Thanks --DouglasGregoryJohn (talk) 13:33, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi and welcome. This is a WP:Wikilink, which you can create by using two square brackets around the title of an existing article, like this: [[Calculus]] shows up as Calculus. Fermiboson (talk) 14:20, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks so much. I will give it a try. DouglasGregoryJohn (talk) 14:54, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi --Prettyself (talk) 14:46, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi, how can I publish my article...? And contribute. --Mdongwase (talk) 04:11, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi, please see WP:Your first article. Writing an article on Wikipedia is not an easy task for new editors. In particular, if you have a WP:Conflict of interest and especially if you were paid to write an article, you must declare it. Writing an article about subjects you have close connection to, such as yourself, your family, your place of employment or a political stance you have strong opinions on, is strongly discouraged.

For general ideas to contribute, there are many places you can start. WP:Copyediting and WP:Recent changes patrol are some places that you can get yourself familiarised with how Wikipedia does things. Feel free to ask me or ask at the WP:Teahouse if you have more specific questions about what to do. Fermiboson (talk) 12:45, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

مرحبا كيف. اشغل حسابي. وصفحتي --Abdissamad (talk) 06:10, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

How my profile show when someone search --Krishna Mishra India (talk) 13:13, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not there for you to promote yourself. If you are a notable person, you must not write an article about yourself directly, but rather if you choose to do so (which is strongly advised against) you must do it through the WP:AFC process. See also WP:AUTOBIO - most likely, someone else will write the article about you if you are truly notable. If you are not, you must not attempt to promote yourself on Wikipedia especially when (/as) doing so is unencyclopaedic; persisting in doing so is disruptive and will get you blocked. Fermiboson (talk) 19:59, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

There is plenty of time remaining to meet the goal of 26 new articles representing each letter of the alphabet, to be made in the year 2026. Let me know if you're looking for ideas. Cheers! BD2412 T 00:35, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks - I am probably more lacking in time and/or energy than ideas! I do still plan to take part, hopefully soon as term break is starting. Fermiboson (talk) 10:40, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

I've correct few things related to my biography on Wikipedia --Sohaibkhan2431 (talk) 21:42, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, please note that you should not edit your article directly. You should proceed via an edit request posted on the talk page of the article, outlining exactly and specifically the changes you want to be made, with reliable sources provided. Please note that this does not mean the changes will be implemented; you do not WP:OWN your article, and any changes to the article must conform with our core content policies such as neutral point of view and verifiability, and be in accordance with consensus. Please also note that, unless you are the copyright owner of an image and upload the image specifically according to the copyright rules of Wikipedia permitting free use (which you should find in the image upload process), or the copyright owner otherwise does so, we cannot use that image. The image being of you does not automatically make you the copyright owner (in fact it is quite unlikely given someone else probably took the photo). Fermiboson (talk) 10:44, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, how do you get it to count how many times you edited because it doesn’t seem to be doing that and every time I attempt to edit something it seems to be logged out --Will Norwood (talk) 12:25, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Well, yes But I’m trying to get my edit mark‘s up to 10 so after four days, I can edit semi protected articles That is my goal. --Will Norwood (talk) 17:44, 20 March 2026 (UTC)