User talk:GreenLipstickLesbian/Archive 6

Hello GreenLipstickLesbian. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Philippines v Tajikistan (2019 AFC Asian Cup qualification), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not created by a banned user, or the page does not violate the user's ban. Thank you. jlwoodwa (talk) 22:20, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I misread the usernames. Yes, this was created as a violation of ZaDoraemonzu7's block, but it has since been nontrivially edited by other users (who I don't believe are ZD7's socks), making it still ineligible for G5. jlwoodwa (talk) 22:23, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

@Jlwoodwa Your call; I personally didn't count the copyedits as substantial (slightly higher bar than trivial, imo). I respect the effort that went into this edit,[] of course, but it mostly involved grammatical fixes such as fixing the tense of verbs. Useful, of course, but not substantial. But again, your call. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 22:51, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Actually, I've taken a look again, and I really don't think I can call the copyedits substantial, so there must be other edits you see as important enough to salvage. @Jlwoodwa Could you clarify which edits made by other users that you thought were substantial? Sorry if it feels like I'm being a pain, it's just I'd really rather not spend several hours on a likely non-notable article, double checking every sentence and reference, probably rewriting half of it because they were an awful writer who introduced a lot of OR, after the community had decided that this editor wasn't allowed to make articles anymore, solely because somebody changed "hurried" to "hurrying" and added that the subject "was known as the "Miracle of Manila"." (which... okay the source doesn't even say that, and I can only find one other person on the internet referring to it as that so goodness knows what was going on there). I mean, don't get be wrong, I will spend those hours if I have to - and will be, given the fact that I came across this article from the editor's CCI - but I'm not going to pretend to be pleased about it.

On a slightly different note, how pointy would it be of me to absolute nuke the article down to the name, a couple categories and the fragments " but the Philippines managed to score a goal thanks to Stephan Schröck" and " In Yemen, the match was known as the "Miracle of Manila"" with a CN tag? Because removing the blocked editor's edits, and that's quite literally it. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 23:57, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

The series of edits you linked by Hariboneagle927 go beyond simple copyediting. For instance, tragic circumstance inside the country is changed to civil war, and an irrelevant mention of beauty pageants is removed. I would not call that an insubstantial edit, and I don't think it should be deleted under G5 unless Haribon agrees to it. I'm not opposed to a different WP:TNT approach, whether it's stubifying, BLARing, or deleting via PROD or AfD. jlwoodwa (talk) 02:23, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

@Jlwoodwa Thanks for responding and not making me invoke ADMINACCT too much on your first day. And as for the substantive nature of those edits, I disagree - those are still pretty gnomish trims and copyedits. (And yes, switching out a synonym or deleting an off-topic sentence fragment are copyedits, at least in my world and the few rare occasions where I've needed to have my work looked over by a professional copyeditor). Haribon hasn't been active since 2022, when they were warned and blocked for vandalism and harassment, so you'll have to excuse me if I don't exactly feel like reaching out to them.

To respond to your other point though, AfD and PROD really aren't great for CCI cleanup, for quite a few reasons. PROD because it can be refunded in an instant, AfD because it's primarily focused on notability, not content, and I either have to leave all the problematic content in and risk it being kept by community consensus (blanking it all after the AfD looks like sour grapes) or I have to do the blanking/rewriting first, which looks disingenuous to anybody viewing the history. BLARing is.... well, it saves the content so I really try to avoid doing that because there's a high chance of somebody bringing it back in good faith, having absolutely no idea that they're just introduced back a ton of problematic content. And then if anybody wants to delete the pointless redirect it leaves behind, they have to go through a whole dramafest at RfD for trying to backdoor delete content, or they go through a whole dramafest at AfD for restoring an article they don't believe should exist. But you've declined the CSD, so I suppose stubify it is. Are you going to watch the article now to make sure nobody puts the content back without checking it? Because people will do that, in good faith, you know, if you leave an edit sumary as vague as the one I've just had to. And I thin in this case that's quite likely to happen, given that this is literally all that's left.

Sorry if my frustration is showing through a bit; I still don't see those as substantial edits, and it's very stressful for me to have to pull out ADMINACCT over a simple "which edits are you talking about?" type question. More broadly, it puts me in a really uncomfortable position when I have to escalate to get a relatively simple answer, and that's neither natural nor enjoyable for me. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 07:34, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Before I respond to the rest: Hariboneagle927 edited yesterday. I think you might be looking at the wrong user account. jlwoodwa (talk) 07:44, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Ah, apologies - I was moving too quickly and thought we were still talking about the editor who did the copyedits. No, Hariboneagle927 corrected a colour in the table and that's it.GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 07:52, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

You're right, sorry; I think I got the diff order flipped in the tab I was looking at it in. jlwoodwa (talk) 07:56, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Sorry GLL, but while I'd have G5'd from here back, that's already stretching it, and I'm not going to G5 something that's had this level of non-sock editing done to it. I was asked for a second opinion on this earlier and was pretty surprised you'd even tried tagging it. G5s are pretty contentious even when they haven't had any meaningful edits by others. There was a huge thread about this (at AN? VP? can't recall) a little ways back. And look at this bother over a draft that hadn't been edited except to be accepted by an AfC reviewer: . -- asilvering (talk) 18:36, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

@Asilvering Yeah, know the AN thread you're talking about. What a fun, completely massive waste of time that was with no actual benefit to anybody. But I do take your point in that G5s are the weirdest CSD in that they're pretty much all controversial (but so are G12s sometimes), but there's global and longstanding community consensus for them. I think you know me well enough to know my complete and utter lack of respect for the idea that just because something is controversial or contentious, means, not just that somebody won't perform the action, but that it shouldn't be performed. And yes, am aware of that DRV which ended in pretty solid consensus that an AfC reviewer's edits, despite involving (imo) a lot more mental labour than copyedits, did not rise to the level of substantial editing. But yeah, the article is ineligible now, no matter how you spin it. Have fun with the slowking sock cases, next time you work with other SPI people on them! GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 18:35, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

I think you know me well enough to know my complete and utter lack of respect Oh, I know, and please, never change. fwiw, I think you have a solid TNT argument here, and would happily support deletion at AfD. -- asilvering (talk) 19:09, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

At this point, I'm still not sure that the article meets the criteria for G5, but I'm no longer confident that it doesn't. I've reverted my decline (as it was, in any case, based on an initial misreading of the situation) and will leave it for another admin to evaluate. Thank you for your thorough explanations; I plan to spend some time at CCI to get a better sense of the tradeoffs here. jlwoodwa (talk) 08:29, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

@Jlwoodwa I get what you were doing there, but at the point you restored the speedy tag, the article was by no means eligible for G5 anymore. I mean, I don't often mind it when articles I've substantially edited get G5-ed, but there's no way any given patrolling admin is going to know that. Have a good day. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 18:36, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

I believe that editors who support the article's deletion should be excluded from authorship for the purpose of G5; maybe "any given patrolling admin" might not agree, but I think asilvering does. jlwoodwa (talk) 18:47, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Indeed, that's the kind of scenario in which I will happily invoke WP:IAR. -- asilvering (talk) 19:04, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

We're a month into the 2025 Developing Countries WikiContest, with stiff competition at the top of the leaderboard already! Our current top five contestants are:

1. Spookyaki (submissions) – 256 points, mostly from a handful of GAs about women's history in Latin America as well as the 1991 Haitian coup d'état.
2. vigilantcosmicpenguin (submissions) – 229 points, back with a number of articles on abortion in various African countries.
3. simongraham (submissions) – 213 points, mainly from GAs on species of jumping spiders in both Africa and Azerbaijan.
4. PizzaKing13 (submissions) – 200 points, with five GAs on articles relating to Salvadoran politics, history, and griddle cakes.
5. BeanieFan11 (submissions) – 168 points from a few GAs, a few DYKs, and a few ITNs on athletes from a variety of countries.

Looking for ways to climb up the leaderboard yourself? Help out your fellow participants by answering a few review requests, particularly the older entries. Several more nominations needing attention are listed at eligible reviews, and highlighed entries receive a 1.5× multiplier!

On behalf of the coordinators, we'd like to thank all the participants for helping to combat systemic bias on Wikipedia! If you have any questions, please leave a message on the contest talk page or ask one of the coordinators: Arconning (talk · contribs), sawyer777 (talk · contribs), or TechnoSquirrel69 (talk · contribs). (To unsubscribe from these updates, remove yourself from this list.) Sent via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 03:36, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello, GreenLipstickLesbian. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 10:52, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Hey, I just wanted to thank you again for raising the discussion at ANI today. I desperately wanted to defuse the situation with SongRuyi, but I felt that any attempt to do so on their talk page would not have the desired result (having seen their previous screed in response to my plea for civility), and I was hanging back from taking it to ANI myself because I thought that would escalate things further and they would just burst from rage or something. The outcome is probably the best I might have hoped for. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 15:10, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Just a note: should you again have occasion to AFD a Featured article, please try to remember to leave a note at WT:FAR so we can avoid a lot of manual work to get the pieces in the right place: Wikipedia:Featured article review/Hurricane Hector (2018)/archive1. Thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:17, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia Sorry for the delayed response; I've spent the past couple weeks on a mountain.... speaking of which, thank you for doing that mountain of paperwork, and I'm sorry my inexperience caused you inconvenience. I'll be sure to drop a line on the FAR talk page (which oddly enough, I don't think I've ever visited before now) if I do another AfD on a FA. Thanks, and again apologies! GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 22:19, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

No apology needed -- it's not obvious! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:41, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello, GreenLipstickLesbian. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Manson's Tropical Diseases, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 00:07, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello, GreenLipstickLesbian. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Key Topics in Otolaryngology, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 04:06, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

I wanted to express my appreciation for your great work on the Sushila Karki article. I was sorry to see that so much of it was subsequently removed. Russ London (talk) 03:44, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi, @Russ London, and thank you for the kind words! They mean a lot! 💙 And thank you for letting me know about the other thing - while I'm really hopeful that someday, somebody's going to come along and write a better biography for Karki than I can, ahhh the next no longer matches up with the citations. So, again, tx for the heads up. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 07:19, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Really glad to see the restoration so much of your work – and the amicable understanding you reached with Xaloria on the Talk page ❤ Russ London (talk) 18:41, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Sorry that I went against your removal of information. If it would not be in her article, I would not read about that fascinating incidents with 1973 Royal Nepal Airlines DHC-6 hijacking and Japan Air Lines Flight 351, when well his man and others fought for similar causes as Sushila_Karki herself - worth to pin point. I have also rewritten that sentence, because that man was directly a perpetrator of that hijacking, not just "involved" - biased euphemism used before. I hope you understand. Best regards. IHaveBecauseOfLocks (talk) 04:09, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi, @IHaveBecauseOfLocks, sorry, got distracted! I have the attention span people (unfairly) attribute to goldfish. Yeah, I get that change, and I think I do prefer your choice to be clearer about his role. I'm just still struggling a bit because I also find it really fascinating - I live in the US and grew up in a post 9/11 world, so I'm very used to a environment where most people's response to airline hijacking is "terrorism". And his story is so much more than that, so naturally I started drafting a entire paragraph summary of the events (lol). Didn't end up posting it, obvs, but I ended up adding the sources to support a mention the night before Karki was officially announced/sworn in as PM here. Given that it was an active political event, I decided to wait until I was more awake before writing anything about it in. And then, when I came back... the non-newsy stories about Karki end up focusing a lot more on her husband's political affiliation than they do with the hijacking, because (afaict) the fact that she and her family were so associated with the Nepal Congress made it quite surprising that Oli appointed her as Chief Justice in the first place! And her refusal to maintain a party affiliation is also interesting, tying both into her philosophy as a judge and her public image. (I can't wait until we get sources writing about how that may, or may not, have influenced her appointment as interim PM). But, that being said, I still don't want the article to focus too much on her husband's actions. It's a personal bugbear of mine, that, when articles write more about then men in somebody's life than the actual somebody. I had a particularly frustrating moment with that last year, when writing an article about a woman mayor in Fairbanks, Juanita Helms. I found a book that I thought might be a good source, because it talked about notable Alaskans and mentioned her - but when I got my hands on it, I found that it had an entry for her father, not her, because he was notable "as the father of a mayor". Like... yikes!

Thankfully Karki isn't getting that treatment. But I still don't want her any more of her personal life section to be about her husband when it doesn't have to be. Also, that reminds me: I need to go write more about the Lokman Singh Karki, because apparently that guy tried to pretend that Shushila Karki was related to him so that she couldn't rule on his case? Her husband also alleged in his book that he kept trying to bribe her, but eventually realized that bribing the judge going after you for corruption wasn't actually the best way to avoid corruption charges. Like... what? GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 22:29, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

When will you finish this list? Min968 (talk) 03:29, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

@Min968 Soon, I hope. I can also take it offline if that makes you comfortable, but I thought you'd prefer I have it there then at WP:CCI. Or you could help. It would be quicker if you went back and removed articles as you fixed the attribution; you're clearly a very good editor so I'm pretty sure you could do it. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 03:31, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your hard work at Cat Tales. Looks like a wonderful place that does good work for these beautiful animals. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:03, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

@Magnolia677 Thank you! Yeah, it seems like a really cool place, small though it is, and the people who run it seem so passionate about helping! It's so sad, sometimes, to think of these big cats, kept in people's living rooms, and it's great that they're trying to help with that! I need to go and add so much more. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 20:28, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

In brief, I'd like to say if a thing is worth doing it's worth doing well, so if I may be so bold, is there a list of mirror sites that I can obtain online @GreenLipstickLesbian? Tokeamour (talk) 20:15, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Secondly, @GreenLipstickLesbian, it looks like you removed ^{citation needed} on accident. Tokeamour (talk) 20:23, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Of course! Hang on, known mirrors and forks are here:

• Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks/ABC
• Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks/DEF
• Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks/GHI
• Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks/JKL
• Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks/MNO
• Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks/PQR
• Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks/STU
• Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks/VWXYZ

I don't know how often these are updated; I really need to be get better at recording my findings there, for example. New ones pop up a lot. Fortunately, most websites that copy Wikipedia articles tend to write somewhere (normally at the bottom, normally in small print) that they copied from Wikipedia. Sometimes they don't, though, and if you can't figure out which came first feel free to list it at WP:CPN or ask me, if I'm around!

And oh, shoot, did I really? Let me check that before my access to Wikipedia mainspace is taken away LOL. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 20:26, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, I will do my best to keep in eye on these next time! Tokeamour (talk) 20:35, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Tokeamour (talk) has given you a doggy!
Doggies promote Wikilove and hopefully this one has made your day much better.
Spread WikiLove by placing a doggy on other user's talk pages by adding {{subst:Doggy}} to their talk page.
Happy editing!

Tokeamour (talk) 20:48, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Aww!! So precious!!! (Do I need to remove the electrical cords and shoes from the floor of my talkpage now? ahaha) GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 21:04, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Women in Red | September 2025, Vol 11, Issue 9, Nos. 326, 327, 347, 348, 349 Recognized as the most active, topic-based WikiProject by human changes. Online events: New: Alphabet run Q & R | Women writers & their works | Microstates Continuing, year-long initiatives: #1day1woman | Music Announcements: Wikipedia:Developing Countries WikiContest runs 1 July 2025 until 30 September 2025 Tip of the Month: Researching historical women writers who used pseudonyms requires careful investigation across multiple sources, as many women adopted pen names to avoid gender bias and judgment (e.g., being labeled a bluestocking) and, ultimately, to get published. Progress ("moving the needle"): The WikiProject Women in Red homepage is usually updated weekly, using the Humaniki tool. Sadly, Humaniki has been out of action since 23 June. 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) 23:53, 31 August 2025 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red | October 2025, Vol 11, Issue 10, Nos. 326, 327, 350, 351, 352 Recognized as the most active topic-based WikiProject by human changes. Online events: New: Alphabet run S & T | Women in STEM | Halloween Continuing, year-long initiatives: #1day1woman | Music Announcements: Sister wikiproject Women in Green October 2025 Good Article Edit-a-thon focuses on What Women Do Tip of the Month: Notable does not always mean admirable; you don't have to like an article's subject to make the article a useful contribution to Wikipedia. Progress ("moving the needle"): Statistics available via various tools: previously, Humaniki tool; currently, QLever. Thank you if you contributed one or more of the 6,283 articles during this period: 19 May 2025: 20.114% of EN-WP biographies are about women (2,066,280; 415,618 women) 24 September 2025: 20.20% of EN-WP biographies are about women (2,088,533 biographies; 421,901 women) 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) 18:30, 29 September 2025 (UTC) via MassMessaging

No, I did not proxy for Drbogdan, please strike your good faith aspersion. Wondering why you even put that in a post without checking with me first. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:46, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello, GreenLipstickLesbian. This message concerns the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "French's Index of Differential Diagnosis".

Drafts that go unedited for six months are eligible for deletion, in accordance with our draftspace policy, and this one has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission, and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you read this, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the draft so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! DreamRimmer bot II (talk) 20:27, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello, GreenLipstickLesbian. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Key Topics in Otolaryngology".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:51, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi GreenLipstickLesbian, N. D. Williams was created in 2006, the earliest version of https://www.peepaltreepress.com/authors/nd-williams on the internet archive is 2021 do you have a reason to think this was not copied from Wikipedia rather than copied from the source? KylieTastic (talk) 13:03, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

@KylieTastic Oh, I was wondering if anybody would ask me about these! NtheP (being their usual, brilliant self) looks like they've handled this page specifically, but for future reference, these Guyana revdels I'm requesting are for Contributor copyright investigations/20210206. The editor copy pasted a lot of material from a variety of web (possible print, too) sources, especially author descriptions from Peepal Tree Press; that in particular was documented here , back in 2011. Peepal Tree Press updated their website organization sometimes in the 20 years, which is why the URLs are all new, but I'm confident that the text is all older. I hope that's a good enough answer! GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 18:43, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, I do recognise your name and assumed you were correct - just always worth a check as none of us are immune to the odd error. Keep up the good work. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 19:08, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

@KylieTastic No worries, thanks you for making sure! Though if you see my name and assume correct, well, obviously you don't know me enough lol. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 20:00, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps we both need to apply for Wikipedia:WikiPrincess status. The next step after that is absolute monarch, right? ;-) WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:48, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

!!!! Yes, absolute monarchy is exactly the job I'm going for! Fancy staging a coup at AN/I next week? GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 07:59, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm busy next week. Maybe after the holidays? It's so hard to schedule things... WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:29, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I'd love to chat with you privately since you said you knew Balin. The tools on my talk page include how to email me, but I don't see that I can email you. Is it possible? YoPienso (talk) 19:59, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Your contributions to discussions consistently cut through the noise to offer useful insight, I know that I can always trust your judgement. You're always putting in amazing work to make this project the best that it can be. I'm delighted when your name appears in my watchlist or notifications, there needs to be more admins like you.

Taffer😊💬_(she/they) 16:13, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Ah, a goat! Thank you , I love them! And, yee gods, could you imagine if there were any admins like me? WIkipedia would be broken, lol. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 03:59, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Oh! Today is the day I learned that youre not an admin! ^LaffyTaffer💬(she/they) 04:45, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi GreenLipstickLesbian,

Thank you for removing the Copyrighted material which I had added to those pages. I did not know that I was violating Wikipedia guidelines and policies. From now on I will paraphrase everything and quote only small sections.

Thank you again and have a Good Day.Oceanbed347 (talk) 14:11, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

	The Resilient Barnstar
	I was reviewing for promotion Alex the Great (rabbit) when you promoted it. 👏 Earth605talk 06:28, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

No, thank you for putting in the effort to review AfC articles like this, and doing all the much too-overlooked stuff like dealing with incoming links <3 GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 06:40, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Two weeks ago, the 2025 Developing Countries WikiContest came to a close! After three months of stiff competition at the top of the leaderboard, we have our winners. vigilantcosmicpenguin (submissions), continuing his work on covering abortion in Africa, comes in third with 692 points. simongraham (submissions) comes in second with 763 points, largely from a slew of good articles about jumping spiders. And returning to the podium for the second year in a row, BeanieFan11 (submissions) takes the Gold Belt Buckle with a mind-boggling 946 points from his series of articles on sportpersons. Congratulations to our winners!

Amazingly, the award for the most countries covered goes to both BeanieFan11 (submissions) and simongraham (submissions), who each submitted articles under 30 flags! BeanieFan11 (submissions) also wins for writing the most quality articles (16 good articles). For submitting 16 articles related to El Salvador, PizzaKing13 (submissions) wins the award for most submissions under one country. The award for most submissions related to women goes to both Spookyaki (submissions) (7 biographies about women) and vigilantcosmicpenguin (submissions) (21 related articles). And for the second year, simongraham (submissions) wins for the most reviews, having submitted 21!

Among the participants' contributions were 2 FAs, 5 FLs, 124 GAs, and an uncounted number of DYKs, ITNs, and reviews of every kind! Regardless of your level of participation, every contestant can be proud to have contributed towards 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 with us in the contest and contributing to this effort. The DCWC will return next year, and we look forward to seeing you contribute 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), sawyer777 (talk · contribs), or TechnoSquirrel69 (talk · contribs). (To unsubscribe from these updates, remove yourself from this list.) Sent via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 16:43, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

So stumbled across you while fixing unknown params on Falls City Sacred Heart Catholic School. Literally just wanted to say awesome username! Keep up the good work finding copyvios. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:57, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Haha, thank you! My high school self was much too pleased with the wordplay of it :) GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 06:01, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Since you only wanna talk about one particular template it is probably best to do that here. The other discussion was allegedly about all Article message templates. What is on your mind? Polygnotus (talk) 20:59, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

@Polygnotus Yay, I have no word limits on my talkpage! :) To answer the first point, I don't actually think the discussion was about all article templates in general- well, it's somewhat presented like that, but it is about the more aesthetic/technical templates; sorry if this isn't the most political way of saying it, the ones that many people find annoying.

If we were to divide all the maintenance templates into a few categories, then I think we'd sort of end up going like

1. Disclaimer template: Ex: {{Close paraphrase}}, {{COI}}, {{NPOV}}, {{AI}} - broad in scope, they serve much more as disclaimers as they do a maintenance template. Important; they let the reader know that the article likely has serious flaws (or is controversial), and get solved when somebody rewrites these
2. Notability/sigcov templates - Wikipedia insider template, sort of serve as indirect disclaimer to the reader that the article has issues, but mostly seem to be assigned as a way to let the author know that somebody thinks the article should be sent to AfD. They're very much not like the other categories.
3. Specific disclaimer: {{citation needed}} is the most well known one, but there's also stuff like {{unreliable source inline}} or {{Copyedit section}}. These serve equal parts as maintenance templates as they do warnings about specific claims. I think these are the ones that people tend to find by reading the article, and are possibly the best for new editor abduction recruitment. They're small, easy to fix (especially if you're reading the article because you know something about the subject), and the Wikipedia newcomer onboarding software sends newbies to them.
4. Gnoming templates/categories: stuff that I think people tend to fix by going through the maintinence categories. {{Undercat}}, {{Duplicated references}} (sorry!) for template generated ones, then Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors or Category:CS1 errors: generic name for ones that don't have an associated, reader-facing template. Which isn't to say that other people don't trawl the maintinence categories given by other templates (See here!) or that people don't fix them as they see them on articles they're reading - but if you're not somebody who likes doing that kind of maintenance, or knows how to, then tags like these can be very annoying to scroll past. (Again, sorry!) You're not on the article to fix it, you're on it to read it - and stuff like duplicated references in particular is very much an not an issue if you're on visual editor. And, even when you're in source editor... it's a bit annoying to have duplicated references, but it's a matter of reducing clutter, not "we will accidentally give people misinformation if this tag is not fixed".

The VP discussion is about the templates I'd personally put in the last category. They introduce a lot of visual clutter, you can't fix them if you're not "in the know", and I find that people who are "in the know" tend to go a little xkcd:2501 on people who have no idea what <ref === : """ words {{{{{squiggles|maths?||a=mx+b|more squiggles{}ERRORS YOU BROKE WIKIPEDIA DEATH TO YOU AND YOUR FAMILY <ref> means. (I say this with a certain degree of self-deprecation, being one of those people). That being said, I do understand that people do find value in those - so I genuinely still don't get why putting very non-critical templates in an area where the gnomers are already going to be looking (at the bottom of the page), where they're still fully visible to people, isn't preferable to not having them at all. The people interested in making references prettier shouldn't be deterred by scrolling down to look at the references; the people who want to read the article, not scroll past yet another banner are happy. Because, right now, putting a giant banner on the article that will stick around for months because there's two references to the same citation is like cordoning off an entire street because the grass on the sidewalk has died: do it occasionally and people will just ignore you, do it too often and people just start either ignoring the cordons or writing overly broad rules to stop cordoning the streets off for anything less than a sinkhole.

I know you think the other person isn't listening to you or thinking thinks through, but there's a lot more, objectively much more urgent issues like Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors (which include articles that have citations which point to nothing!) that have been relegated to invisible categories that, not only do you have to log in to see, but you have to log in and install a script to see! If you don't go for the compromise solution, then that will happen to ones like duplicate citations, or incoming links. Maybe not today - but it will. Banner blindness is something that a lot of people care about, and as much as editor recruitment is important, the only argument I can find that you've made against moving the template to the bottom is Having some problems that are relatively easy to fix mentioned near the top of the articles is often the only thing that can convert someone from a reader to an editor. Which, for this specific class of template, relies on a few assumptions:

1. that they're easy to fix (and yet highly read articles like Houston keep the tag for months, and they're impossible to fix on Visual Editor)
2. that the readers interested in fixing that sort of issue won't scroll down far enough to see the tag (I disagree with this one)
3. that the number of editors we gain from these tags is high enough to justify the cost of having them (to which I've provided evidence that the people fixing these tags are, overall, not newbies).

GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 22:10, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Also, I saw your comment about trying to make a script - how careful is that going to be about different access dates? Especially in breaking news stories, I've seen people cite the same article at different points, and because real life facts have changed, so has the article! Merging the refs means you need to manually check every single statement cited to the source is verified by the version cited. Similarly, if the tag gets too outdated, then the reference numbering system breaks - so if you say that ref 5 and ref 10 are identical in June, then by October ref 6 might be identical to ref 27. So it misleads newer editors. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 22:38, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

It's impossible to react to so much without posting a giant wall of text so here we go:

So apparently there was a Duplicated citations template on the article Turkey. Bogazicili did not have the DuplicatedReferences script installed which could've saved them some time but they manually fixed it.

Then there were a bunch of questions that were skipped like: Did I extrapolate from a single data point and create a problem in my head? Do I understand the scale of the alleged problem? Do I understand its impact and frequency relative to other problems? Do I understand the context and background and the reason(s) why things are the way they are? There's an ugly banner on a ugly website filled with unsourced claims, spam, and misinformation. Am I sure I understand the alleged problem well enough to be so sure that this is a problem that needs urgent attention? Am I wasting someone's time, or is addressing this issue actually a priority right now? Did I think of all possible fixes? For example, one could say "if the article has more than x pageviews in the last 30 days, do not add the template but explain to the user". Or if there is only a small amount of popular articles with the template, maybe just figure out what those are and deal with those?

Thing is, topics like these get complicated fast, and it is easy to get stuck in the weeds. Note that while I have made one or two edits, I am more a reader than an editor. I read far more than I edit.

I think the first step is realizing what people are actually objecting to. The banners. What aspects are they objecting to? That they are big and that they are ugly. So why is it an ugly banner. Does it have to be? No, it is 2025 and we can make it look and act however we want, on a technical level. Does it have to be big? No, we can make it any size and make it collapse and expand on demand. Does it have to be ugly? No, some people just decided to make the article message boxes more uniform and this look was the result. Downside is that "design" in 2025 means using a lot of whitespace, which made the banners big.

I don't think the problem is this particular banner since its very rare and there are 354 templates in Category:Article message templates. How many of those do you think we actually need? Some of those are in tens of thousands of articles. So while complaining about that one particular template may not really be in proportion to how big that alleged problem actually is, it is completely possible that the underlying complaint: "these banners are big and ugly" and even "these banners get shown to people who don't need to see them" is valid.

Compare this:

with this:

If you for example look at: Template:Armenian script needed

compared to

Do you prefer

or

I can't find the link but I swear I have seen a discussion where a small group of people decided "ok this is how we want them to look". That doesn't mean they have to look that way forever. Almost all problems exist because no one has fixed them yet. Very few problems have to exist and will always exist.

I think it was newer than https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Article_message_boxes but I don't remember much about it.

We can easily halve the size of each of those 354 templates and their many thousands transclusions without losing important information. And we can combine multiple templates that are currently three lines each into a single-line template that can expand if you click on it.

I hate JavaScript, but I am pretty sure basically all devices that visit Wikipedia run Javascript. So why are we using horrible workarounds like the {{multiple issues}} template? Because the community controls what is on the page, but the WMF controls the rest of the website.

People spend an insane amount of time adding and removing all these templates, and debating them and all that. But they could be simply a set of checkboxes. And they could expand and collapse on demand. And something like {{multiple issues}} could be fully automated. And we could have a system where we experiment and track (e.g. what if we make the banners smaller, what if we collapse em by default (how many people expand them? does it take longer to fix the problem?), we could A/B test the messages and see how our readers interpret them. But the main obstacle is is that all that requires the WMF.

We need new people, and giving them a simple task on a banner near the top of an article that is low stakes may be a good idea to convert them from reader to editor. Just like the WP:NEWCOMERTASKS. We don't have the numbers to prove or disprove that, because that again requires the WMF.

Category 1 from your list is insanely controversial and wars have been fought over it. I don't want to do a blow-by-blow here, but please look at Wikipedia:No disclaimers. It might be worth considering showing a stable version or perhaps even hiding an article from view when it is tagged as AI/POV etc.

Category 2: if they are intended for the author of the article, then they should be sent to their talkpage. In my opinion they are not just for the author or authors but also for those who happen to stumble upon them.

Category 4: that I think people tend to fix by going through the maintinence categories... {{Duplicated references}} Ha! I wish! No that would truly be awesome but in reality no one does that. if you're not somebody who likes doing that kind of maintenance, or knows how to, then tags like these can be very annoying to scroll past. And that is the underlying problem, so why don't we fix that, for all article messages instead of just one? If it is annoying to scroll past such messages, or read them when you are not the intended audience, why don't we have a dedicated place for them, and a bit of JavaScript so that they can be expanded if someone wants to see them in their full glory?

The people interested in making references prettier The problem is usually not just duplicated citations. In my experience when you start looking at one thing you see three other more important problems.

The VP discussion is about the templates I'd personally put in the last category. Maybe, it got a bit confusing at some point.

so I genuinely still don't get why putting very non-critical templates in an area where the gnomers are already going to be looking (at the bottom of the page) Because that makes no sense? I put the table generated by the script under the References section header. If you want to put the message in the most relevant place it would be below the References section header. But again, some people decided that this is the way it should be, and we haven't figured out a new system since then.

What we must avoid doing is trying to figure out our preferences for a single template, and make an exception for it. It makes more sense to say: "these amboxes are relevant to the references section so we stick em under the References section header". But if we do that we are missing the opportunity to actually fix this problem in a far more definitive way. Some JavaScript nerd can easily write some code that displays those article message boxes based on preference, or if you are logged-in or not, or whatever else we want.

I know you think the other person isn't listening to you or thinking thinks through When I was young all problems were easy, but all my solutions were sledgehammers. Now that I am officially ossified I know that a quick fix is the source of a headache tomorrow.

more urgent issues like Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors (which include articles that have citations which point to nothing!) that have been relegated to invisible categories that, not only do you have to log in to see, but you have to log in and install a script to see! Yeah that is a great example of something we do NOT want. But you don't necessarily need a script, just some CSS is fine. Help:CS1_errors#Controlling_error_message_display

they're impossible to fix on Visual Editor Have you noticed that the VisualEditor... ehm.. you know... sucks? I do not understand why it is still such a mess in 2025.

The parameter |removalnotice= says (Learn how and when to remove this message) not "help fix this problem!". So of course newbies don't see it as an invitation to actually help fix the problem. There is no call to action.

The solution is not moving or removing an particular article message box, the solution is rewriting MediaWiki to differentiate between metadata and data, and since that won't happen, the solution is to use sub-referencing, have a bot that auto-deduplicates based on the dumps, have a script that autodeduplicates, and maybe have a bot that follows the eventstream.

Also, I saw your comment about trying to make a script - how careful is that going to be about different access dates? That is not necessarily relevant anymore once sub-referencing as a feature is introduced here, because you would be able to re-use the same ref with a new accessdate. In User:Polygnotus/DuplicateReferences.js around line 280 you see that "live" pages get filtered out. If you look at User:Polygnotus/GLL you'll see that we already have a form of sub-referencing (a hacky workaround, like everything else on this website). https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMDE_Technical_Wishes/Sub-referencing#wikitext

You guys got me defending the status quo as if I like it. In reality that template was created before I was born, and article message amboxes styling was decided without me. But the ad hoc creation of a new bad idea to fix a old bad idea is not the way forward. The very worst thing we can do is slap a band-aid on it with another ad hoc work-around "solution" that causes more trouble down the line. Do you not see how the entirety of MediaWiki is created like that?

Template:Improve categories should never be at the bottom of articles, and the idiot person responsible for that idea should be sent to jail (sorry not sorry). Have some compassion with the nerds who have to deal with MOS:ORDER problems! This is a great example of someone thinking they got a great solution, and inventing something horrible.

"It seemed like a good idea at the time" can be our unofficial motto. I have some things to do so consider this part 1 of 475. Polygnotus (talk) 04:56, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Note also that the real problem is that this is pushed by the DEEP STATE to censor discourse. Where is your tinfoil hat at? Polygnotus (talk) 12:04, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

My tinfoil hat is in my room will wear it later:) Jp33442 (talk) 12:25, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

They know! THEY KNOW IT ALL!!! THEY CAN HEAR MY BRAIN TALK!!!1!!21!! Polygnotus (talk) 12:27, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

shall respond to rest of this later, aka my brain is too tired to people rn, but first and most important things first - how's life working for the deep state? Can you censor anything you like or are you just limited to political stuff? Do they provide health insurance? asking for a friend. And even though I haven't yet responded to part 1, I anxiously await parts 2 through 475. Sincerely, GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 07:42, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

I don't "work" for them; they control my every action! Make sure you use this style, because the antennas amplify the beams! Polygnotus (talk) 13:46, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

@Polygnotus but.... what if the antennas are fashionable? Look at my username - I've got to live up to it! And my heels and dresses won't go with anything too flat :(

Firstly, sorry for late response - I have social anxiety so people coming to my talkpage makes me scared, and for some reason I only remember that my talkpage exists late at night, when I should be sleeping, so I'll respond to this in bits and pieces.

Firstly, wall of text away! I consider "bludgeoning" to be a slur against those of us who explain our ideas thoroughly... or maybe I'm just recovering from my highschool Spanish teacher making us write a minimum of ten to twelve sentences per paragraph if we wanted a chance of passing LOL. (Seriously, I loved that man, but he made me write two essays a week. BLAME HIM NOT ME!)

Subreferencing: Okay, wow, I *love* that. I don't quite get what it is, but anything that allows me to stop caring about access dates is lovely, maybe it's all the CCI I do, but I've learnt to be incredibly careful about checking the source on the day it was accessed, preferably at the time.

Re - our templates saying "learn how to remove" instead of "when to remove" - genuinely, if we could make the change to link a help page saying how to fix the problem, that would be wonderful. Feel free to canvass me to any discussions re:implementing it. I remember being so terrified when I was a newbie, that I'd mess something up and it would break forever... we need to be much more encouraging of new editors coming into fix stuff - but I think some the hostility is by design. Actually, mild tangent alert - David Mitchell has this really good bit on WILTY where he says that, essentially in order to save the lives of reckless children, warnings are calibrated to their safety. The result of which is that the timurous live in a state of perpetual terror. And I think this applies to all our newbie/reader facing stuff! We're so used to overenthusiastic newbies, or COI editors, or what have you, that we calibrate everything at them. But the average Wikipedian just needs to be told "click save, somebody will revert you if you break something" (and, in turn, quite a few people need to be told "let the babies make mistakes, revert if you have to but don't rush to block them!"... sometimes my internal monologue gets a bit more colourful than that, occasionally I write out one-woman L'esprit de l'escalier-esque plays but wait no I'm still on a tangent, back to the main point!

MOS:ORDER - but I'm scared of the MOS, can't I just go back to pretending it doesn't exist? I'll nerd out over plagiarism and the creative commons licensing requirements until the cows come home, but ahhh MOS - honestly though, I do have to admit I kind of like categories one being at the bottom. It's less scary for newbies! Big giant tags at the top are scary, small ones lower down feel friendly! I do see where you're coming from though - I mean, I disagree, but I do understand.

"It seemed like a good idea at the time" - yes, our official motto. I shall join you at the barricades tomorrow as we graffiti it over the current logo.

"If you want to put the message in the most relevant place it would be below the References section header" Yes, I would genuinely support this! I know that's not what I was meant to be taking from it but... I think we need more reference clutter tags. Because then maybe people might fix issues like "these two references are the same" or "these references merged because people thought they were the same actually might be of two different editions of the same book" or "these references are all not in English, but there's ample English referencing available - replace them" - basically, stuff that doesn't feel like it justifies the large scary tag, but stuff that I would like to track to maybe eventually get around to fixing someday.'

Re- idealism about clearing maintience categories - oh goodness, don't speak to me about overlarge maintience categories that need more love! My most edited template is Template:CCIlist. There's stuff from 2011 we need to get through! 2011! That's older than Template:Duplicated citations! More seriously, no I completely get what you're going for there - our maintinence cats do not get enough love. I think that's because it's easier to tag an issue than it is to solve it... which, to a certain extent, I'm okay with. I like WP:SOLVE, I think it's got a good perspective - but, conversely, too many tags and they become a)demoralizing to some people ("urgh, if everything is broken why should i even bother fixing this one thing..." or we accidentally Prop 65 our articles. (The rice noodles I ate today are known to cause cancer in the state of California! After a lifetime of seeing that label though, do I bother to get different rice noodles? No! So, similarly, if all our articles have multiple tags on top, do I, as a reader, read all of them to see what the matter is? No, I just skip them! Should I? No!)

I'm tired and feeling myself grow more and more squirrel like, don't know how much you've picked up on that. Further response incoming, within the next two business weeks, so now's a wonderful time to WP:RTV and save yourself from me and/or the deepstate. (joke!! You're not allowed to run away, muah ha ha ha )GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 06:40, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

For what it's worth, you can use toolforge:yabbr to fix these. — Qwerfjkltalk 11:48, 18 October 2025 (UTC)