User talk:Justiyaya

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 75, May–June 2026

• New partnerships: The Telegraph, Marg, The Tribune newspapers
• Tech tip: Expired partnerships

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team – 14:44, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Joseph Hall --Jojo8908 (talk) 23:40, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi Jojo8908, just so that you are aware, this feature is intended for wikipedia related questions. All questions submitted are posted publicly on this webpage, accessible to everyone. If you don't want your username associated with your own name, you should request an oversight. Justiyaya 21:16, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Hey there! I'm trying to expand the Product releases list for verykool, but they've released 149 phones and I think it'd just bloat the article if I listed each one. Should I only list the "notable" ones or just list them all? --Carlosfruitcup (talk) 20:54, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello @Carlosfruitcup, welcome to Wikipedia. Your intuition is probably correct! I suspect that the creation of a stand alone list may be warranted here (like List of Apple printers). However, I would recommend getting a second opinion at the teahouse before you start making one (you could also ask me to post a thread there). I'm not sure about the exact details about the selection criteria, but I believe it's common to include all products rather than just the products that are notable. The common selection criteria page does mention both as possibilities. Justiyaya 21:13, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll go ask over at the Teahouse, though I'll probably try working on a standalone list as it sounds fun enough. Thanks again though. Carlosfruitcup (talk) 02:06, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello, mentor. An article I have been monitoring for changes (Juicy Drop Pop) has been proposed for deletion by another editor. I agree with the proposed deletion. When and where could I appropriately discuss the proposed deletion of the article? --GreatWhiteEditor (talk) 22:37, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello @GreatWhiteEditor, the proposed deletion process is meant for uncontroversial deletions. If the template is not contested (via removal) within 7 days of its addition, the proposed deletion goes through and an uninvolved administrator will delete the page. Since you agree with the proposal, you could simply do nothing and continue to monitor the page and participate in or start further discussions if it is contested. Alternatively, you could endorse (or second) the proposal by adding the template:

{{PROD2|Optional rationale here}}

Please feel free to post additional questions below or ask for clarification. Justiyaya 05:04, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello again. Quick follow up question, Wikipedia:SECOND says I need to add that template to "a [Prod] tag" on the article. However, I could not find a tag in visual or source editor. Where might it be located on the article? GreatWhiteEditor (talk) 21:27, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

hello @GreatWhiteEditor, tags are specific templates on (mostly) articles that mention issues or notifies other editors of a potential deletion. So like "PROD tagged" is commonly used when an editor placed a proposed deletion template on the page. It is certainly a bit confusing. If you are using the visual editor, I would click "insert paragraph" below the red proposed deletion template at the very top of the article and paste the above in with the optional rationale substituted with your reason for supporting the change. Justiyaya 23:18, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Ok. I have inserted the template titled "PROD2" in visual editor. It inserted a box under the proposed deletion notice saying that "another editor" (me) has also reviewed the deletion, blah blah blah, and agrees. Thanks for the help! GreatWhiteEditor (talk) 00:00, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Vertex Holdings on a "Economy, trade, and companies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

SodiumBot (botop|talk|contribs) 03:31, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:List of antisemitic incidents in the United States on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

SodiumBot (botop|talk|contribs) 03:31, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

मुझे पुरस्कार ऐप मे खाता जोड़ना है --Anjali labhadur Sharma (talk) 08:58, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello @Anjali labhadur Sharma, this feature is for asking questions about editing English Wikipedia. Please direct unrelated questions elsewhere. (Translated with google translate)

नमस्ते @Anjali labhadur Sharma, यह फ़ीचर अंग्रेज़ी विकिपीडिया पर एडिटिंग से जुड़े सवाल पूछने के लिए है। कृपया इससे अलग सवाल कहीं और पूछें। (गूगल ट्रांसलेट से अनुवादित) Justiyaya 15:02, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:C. K. Raju on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

SodiumBot (botop|talk|contribs) 10:31, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Aja sanno wave --Aja sanno (talk) 21:02, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Wave --Aja sanno (talk) 21:03, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Note: Splenkid GodofVibez's mentor Choucas is away.

I need guidelines to edit and upload my biography source code on Wikipedia --Splenkid GodofVibez (talk) 10:39, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello @Splenkid GodofVibez, writing autobiographies are strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. Most attempts to write one are fruitless and the draft on your userpage has no indication that it will be different. I would suggest doing something else instead. If you wish to contribute to Wikipedia, start with the task center. Justiyaya 10:47, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

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

Administrator changes

• MCE89
• Staraction

• Danaman5

CheckUser changes

• dbeef

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, the 30-day requirement for extended-confirmed status now begins after an account's first edit instead of its registration (T431060).

Technical news

• Inactive editors can now be removed as mentors at Special:CommunityConfiguration/Mentorship automatically.
• The Suggested Edits' Revise Tone feature is now enabled. It encourages editors to identify and revise non-neutral language in articles.

Miscellaneous

• The Unreferenced articles August 2026 backlog drive is underway. Help to add references to 47,000 articles.
• The Articles for creation August 2026 backlog drive is under way. Help to review 4,500+ drafts.

Hello, thank you for message. I am have written a page for a prominent member of the Scottish civic and merchant community in Edinburgh in the Georgian and regency period. I would love to submit it but seemly cannot until a number of days has passed. I am a sincere student of history and have sourced and sighed all of my findings. Is there a way of expediting the process. Thank you for your consideration --Florencealma (talk) 13:05, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Florencealma, we appreciate new articles on Wikipedia! I think you are referring to an inability to create articles directly as a new user. You should still be able to submit a draft via articles for creation (AFC), which we typically recommend for all newer article writers to do. Creating an article as a newer user is difficult, and AFC is a gentler space in terms of feedback. The most frequent issue drafts suffer from is a lack of notability. For most biographies, subjects need to have multiple reliable secondary sources providing in depth coverage to them (additional criteria apply, like subjects listed in a national bibliographical dictionary). Sources can be paywalled or only in print. AFC is doing a backlog drive right now so your draft should be reviewed quite quickly. If you don't want to wait, I could certainly take a look if you drop me a message after putting a draft there. Happy editing! Justiyaya 14:31, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

I have submitted a draft for approval, it states that it may take up to two months for approval. I am trying to fill in the gaps of the history of the Scottish civic service. William Calder, Lord Provost of Edinburgh not having a page is a significant gap. The page is full sourced and done will full historical rigger. Can this 2 month period be expedited for such a significant gap? --Florencealma (talk) 20:02, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Florencealma, it seems the draft was accepted a few minutes after submission. Again, drafts submitted this month will be reviewed quite rapidly due to the ongoing backlog drive. The article is at William Calder, Lord Provost of Edinburgh. It's great that you were able to figure out how to use our infoboxes and templates this quickly. I'm looking forward to what you write next and ask for help if you need anything! Justiyaya 02:08, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:William_Calder,_Lord_Provost_of_Edinburgh --Florencealma (talk) 20:02, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

I am very sad to see my page on William Calder has been taken down as someone has claimed I am an Ai bot or something to that effect? This is very distressing as I put a huge amount of effort into making an accurate and useful article for the community. I have sourced very claim and spent my own money with the Scottish National Archives to fill in a gap in the history of the Lord Provosts of Edinburgh. The community is much poorer for not having the resource I created. It seems wrong that one person can take down factual and informative post because they suspect it to be AI. This is very distressing and does not motivate me to invest huge personal time into contributing. Please can you help --Florencealma (talk) 13:24, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

pinging Gurkubondinn who draftified. I was questioning whether this was AI or not when I first read the accepted draft as well and (knowing that I was hilariously bad at AI detection) put it into the GPTZero tool and got a high likelyhood that it's human written. Theroadislong appears to concur with Special:Diff/1369356701. That being said, @Florencealma is quite a new user who wrote an unusually well formatted article. Are the automated tools not as effective as Wikipedia:AI or not quiz would suggest? Looking at the wikitext that were edit filtered the articles does seem quite unusually written (with {{s-start}} :{{s-civ}} :{{s-bef|before=[[William Coulter (Lord Provost)|William Coulter]]}} :{{s-ttl|title=[[Lord Provost of Edinburgh]]|years=1810–1811}} :{{s-aft|after=[[William Creech]]}} :{{s-end}} }} instead of a template as well as the  :{{reflist|refs= ...} style in Draft:Dugald Rankin). Thanks for your AI cleanup work! Justiyaya 13:51, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

This is more of a behavioural judgement, as they submitted AbuseLog/44876203 the next day, which wrapped in a codeblock from a chatbot. Not a comment on your AfC review or the notability of the subject. I think that the user should give an account for this and explain their AI-usage before we can decide if this draft should be moved back. ‑‑gurkubondinn 14:09, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this mistake to my attention. I have given you my word it will not be repeated. The information, I hope will take a president over this mistake. If you view my page you will see I have been focused on filling in the gaps of the history of the Lord Provosts of Edinburgh. I saw Calder did not have a page so invested my time and money to ensure there was a more complete history. The prose or copy for want of a word, is my own and the research all done by myself, with historical rigger. I was not familiar with wiki text, having only just started and did not intend any hard or deliberate breaking of a rule. Your comments bought it to my attention. I thank you. As you now have my word, may I ask for help to rectify the situation and ensure the community is not poorer for my mistake. Regards Florencealma (talk) 15:07, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Okay, but can you explain why it looks like you pasted chatbot output into the draft, if that was not what you did? If that is what you did, I would much prefer that you just say so, and then we can simply remove the generated text and get your own text in there. ‑‑gurkubondinn 15:12, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

I hope my response to your other message clarifies. I appreciate your time is valuable and we may be starting to go around in circles and I do not wish to waste your time. You have my word that it will not happen again. To ensure no further time is spent on this point, I would be grateful if you would help me to make the corrections. I will study them and implement them myself for the next article. Kind regards, Josh Florencealma (talk) 15:25, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

@Florencealma I think it's best to give a detailed step by step description of how you used AI in this draft. What was your work and what was the LLMs? What did your workflow look like and what prompts did you use? I think we need that before we could start to help the draft. Justiyaya 15:47, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

I used Claude’s incognito mode as a matter of principle. I do not have access to that information as I have since close that chat and moved on. According to the detector you used, the content is 94% human. There may be something I am not understanding here. What’s is the 6%, I assume this is very clear to contributors as experienced as yourselves? Please may you assist with the removal of the 6%. This one of the most important roles in Scottish history and your help placing it in the public domain, where it belongs, its greatly appreciated. Florencealma (talk) 15:55, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

@Florencealma Thanks for your response. Could you still give an account of what you asked the AI to do and what you put into the LLM? Justiyaya 16:01, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

I do not have an exact recollection as I was asking it ad hoc questions. For your reference, I looking at other pages to see how to write it and when it was not working in the preview I would ask why. This is my whole account and I hope we can move to the articles resolution. I fear we are going to keep an important piece of information buried if we perpetuate this conversation. May you consider helping me republish Florencealma (talk) 16:10, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

To clarify, I conducted 100 % of the research and wrote the prose myself. I paid for the Scots records to source it accurately. This is a gap in the history of the Lord provosts of Edinburgh. One of the most important roles in Scottish history. I am a first time poster and asked for some formatting assistance. Simply as I wanted to ensure the sincere historic research I had conducted was formatted in the best and most legible way. Please may you place this accuracy and historical importance over any formatting discrepancies. Thank you as I understand it is people like yourself who protect the community. I hope you can understand my passion is historical fact and making sure everyone has access. I have taken all of your comments on board and would be grateful for your assistance to re publish an article that I assure you is accurate and written by a well intentioned participant. Florencealma (talk) 19:33, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

@Florencealma Just to make sure I understand, you have written the prose yourself but prompted an AI for the Wikitext and formatting? How did you get the citations for the article? I don't think you did anything particularly wrong. New users are unfamiliar with Wikipedia policies and guidelines and it's normal to make mistakes like these, especially if you're coming from a environment where AI use is more common. It's just that I'm a bit concerned how to move the article forward if I don't know exactly what's done by a human and what's done by AI, which is why I'm asking a bit more questions than usual about AI usage. The 94% figure is (from what I understand) the probability of human writing given by the (ironically AI) tool we use to determine how "human" the writing sounds. In other words, your prose seems very human to the tool that we are using.

Also, you should probably never spend money on sources for a Wikipedia page. We have a page dedicated to sharing sources and an online library (but access is only given to users with a bit more edits). Justiyaya 05:09, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I will provide the whole context to ensure you are presented with the whole information. As you may have seen from my profile, I have set myself the task of filling in gaps in the history of the Lord provosts of Edinburgh and in time, Scotland as a whole. In doing so, I came across the list of lord provosts of Edinburgh page and saw that William Calder had no information at all. I then set out to find the correct information to put together a page for him. While I may be mistaken, my understanding was that for the Scottish archives in particular, many sit behind a pay wall. I thought it was worth an investment by me, as I wanted my first article to be absolutely accurate. His date of death was previously listed as 1829 for example and I saw from another source, Woods book on the lord provosts of Edinburgh that was published in the 1930s with the likeness and a description of each of the provosts listed his death as 1824. To ensure the record was accurately presented, I purchased William Calder´s last will and testament. This was a rich recourse as it corrected the false date of death that had been sated, it provided an accurate picture of Calder´s business affairs at the later stages of his life. I then purchased his marriage certificate to ensure this was the same William calder and as this would allow me to date his occupation at the time of marriage. I then purchased his daughters marriage certificate as it was her name listed as the contributor of the painting of Calder in woods book, I confirmed that one of his daughters did take the married name Marshall as stated in woods book. I then took all my findings and wrote all of the prose myself. I am not familiar with Wikitext and did not want to publish something with poor formatting or with things no linking with other pages etc.., so I asked for assistance with that and that alone. 100 % is my writing, I may sound 6% like a robot but I can assure this is my work and mine alone. The data is sound and I believe the prose done to a solid level. As this is all my work and first had research. With your permission and guidance, I would like to re-publish it Florencealma (talk) 06:11, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

For final context, please see the message to my Justiyaya: I hope that the full context of this discussion has bought you to the understanding that I concluded this research myself and I am the author of the prose on this page, all of it. I also, on reflection, believe I was made to admit something that I had not actually done. I did not get an LLM to write my prose and the percentage probability of a human author being 94% quite clearly indicates that. I am very honest, so when asked had I interacted with an LLM in anyway, I said yes, thinking at the time that if it was for help on learning Wikitext not on the prose or the research, then it would be within the spirt of the rules and community. Though through what I can only describe as a relentless questioning, to someone who is not yet fully acquainted with Wikipedia and has just joined, I now know that even this is strictly forbidden. Thank you for clarifying. This does not change the fact that the label of `This article may incorporate text from a large language model´ is not a fair and accurate representation of the facts. No text in there was written by an LLM. I have since re-submitted it for review as I stand by the work I have done and think its value to British and World history is far more important than this rather unfortunate situation. While I am sure everyone involved in this is well intentioned, however it may seem, to some, myself included, a quite over blown case. In my view, a kind word from an editor asking how much of the prose and research was my own and then to bring the AI guidelines to my full attention. Ask me, if any, what is me and what is an LLM and help get a very important page back up. This would have taken a fraction of everyones time and avoided something that has distressing and very unpleasant. I have been told about a community expression to BITE a new an well intentioned participant, this feel like it may have strayed into that ground when all context is considered Florencealma (talk) 14:49, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

It is now been established that this post is not an AI generated post and it has subsequently had the additional comments of adding more secondary sources have been implemented. Why have you left the tag on the page ? This is not justified and certainly not in the spirt of the guidelines. This is not intended as a permanent tool and should not be used as such, I have created my own prose and done my own work and then taken all comments on board and implement them. The page should now be in the public domain and untainted by your false accusation it was done by an LLM. My challenge to the other editor stand to you. If you want to invest the time, buy the will and testament, it will not solve the claim of lacking in secondary sources, not your claim and one that has been resolved. Yours is that it was AI generated prose and research. You have been indefatigably proved as incorrect. To show me and the community this is not an ego lead, target attack, on a new member sincerely trying to help and participate in good faith please explain why the AI generated content tag persists when other experienced editors have conceded this is not the case, quite clearly. Florencealma (talk) 17:46, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Can you show us the text that you wrote yourself? Diff/1369534454 ‑‑gurkubondinn 17:55, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

I have made my position on your relentless questioning clear. Your peers agree with me so you not dropping this shows that your intention is not constructive. I have given you the full account and made the required changes to the document. Justify why it is still tagged as AI generated as I can assure you that your self appointed gatekeeper skills of what YOU think is AI and what quite clearly is not AI is deeply lacking. So no. I will not participate in your very unpleasant behaviour. You have a behavioural issue not me. If you care at all about being perceived as fair and reasonable, look at my edits and fully explain why you are persistent in blocking this very sound piece of work. The burden is on you as the person who tag it as AI to clearly prove this was AI prose and research and if you can not, it should be removed. Florencealma (talk) 18:05, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

No, the WP:ONUS is actually on you to explain the edits that you want to make. ‑‑gurkubondinn 18:08, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

And I have extensively responded and added sources. And once this has been done, it is on you to take the communities comments on board, along with my openness and willingness to improve the page, and not act as self appointed chief of AI. If you think there is a mistake or the information is incorrect, tell me, if not you are proving that your goal is not the spreading of accurate knowledge. It is being very accusatory and pedantic. Florencealma (talk) 18:15, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

@Florencealma, you've been repeatedly posting threads here and adding a lot of text. Please take a bit of time off this discussion (like a week) and (if you still wish to contribute) you can certainly work on another task in the task center during this break. We've much more welcoming tasks than making new articles for new users, which is usually regarded as being quite difficult. Justiyaya 23:15, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

This is not a sufficient response. I am being targeted and it is clear. I have been posting long messages in response to this injustice. Telling me to go away is absolutely the issue I am trying to confront. I have asked to make a formal complaint and to have new editors. Please inform me how to do this. I have proof that at least twice that editors on this have falsely and aggressively accused me of things without even checking. Wikipedia is larger than all of us and blocking this is not acceptable. Please inform me about the formal complaints process Florencealma (talk) 06:50, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

I will be seeking legal advice is this persists Florencealma (talk) 06:51, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

@Florencealma is this a legal threat? I think if you continue editing in this area, there's a significant chance you get blocked. Please step away and work on another (as I've mentioned above, the task center) for at least a week before continuing. I'm not asking you "go away", if you are here to contribute, working somewhere else both helps this Wiki and yourself as an editor. Justiyaya 09:02, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Not in the slightest. I will reiterate my comments to the other editor: I have no intention of retracting a perfectly reasonable comment. I feel that this is persistent and targeted and you are both weaponising the terms and conditions to block a perfectly legitimate page being published. My comment is based purely in the context of this discussion and its intent was to inform you that I plan to level the information playing field. My hope is that you or your co-editor do not place yourself above the terms of the site. This, is there for a matter of precisely understanding the terms of use. The only person I would find to be an authority on terms and conditions would be a professional in the space. If your motives have been uphold these terms, I see no reason you would feel threatened by it ? Florencealma (talk) 09:07, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your help so far. It is much appreciated --Florencealma (talk) 14:37, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Please can you help me. I was really hoping that the community would be welcoming and supportive and I this is experiencing has been very distressing and does naturally make me want to withdraw. Rather than helping me get the article done and offering guidance I continued to be scolded for something I have apologies for and assured I would not do again. The Ai director says it is 94% human, this is a good intentioned discrepancy for a first, and second article. If the true spirit was being upheld, I would expect help to get good work out into the community. Please may you help me get the Calder page re-instated, not for me but for others who are interested and researching one of the most important roles in Scottish history. --Florencealma (talk) 15:46, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Please may you make the edits to the William Calder, Lord Provost page to allow me to publish it again. I would be extremely grateful and will not bother you again --Florencealma (talk) 16:39, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Alternatively, please point me towards to required edits and how I could go about it. I only ask for your direct assistance as I assumed it would be as long for you to explain than to make the edit. I hope you understand the huge effort that went into this and my disappointment that the information is out of the hands of people who would be seeking it out. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:William_Calder,_Lord_Provost_of_Edinburgh --Florencealma (talk) 17:04, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

I hope that the full context of this discussion has bought you to the understanding that I concluded this research myself and I am the author of the prose on this page, all of it. I also, on reflection, believe I was made to admit something that I had not actually done. I did not get an LLM to write my prose and the percentage probability of a human author being 94% quite clearly indicates that. I am very honest, so when asked had I interacted with an LLM in anyway, I said yes, thinking at the time that if it was for help on learning Wikitext not on the prose or the research, then it would be within the spirt of the rules and community. Though through what I can only describe as a relentless questioning, to someone who is not yet fully acquainted with Wikipedia and has just joined, I now know that even this is strictly forbidden. Thank you for clarifying. This does not change the fact that the label of `This article may incorporate text from a large language model´ is not a fair and accurate representation of the facts. No text in there was written by an LLM. I have since re-submitted it for review as I stand by the work I have done and think its value to British and World history is far more important than this rather unfortunate situation. While I am sure everyone involved in this is well intentioned, however it may seem, to some, myself included, a quite over blown case. In my view, a kind word from an editor asking how much of the prose and research was my own and then to bring the AI guidelines to my full attention. Ask me, if any, what is me and what is an LLM and help get a very important page back up. This would have taken a fraction of everyones time and avoided something that has distressing and very unpleasant. I have been told about a community expression to BITE a new an well intentioned participant, this feel like it may have strayed into that ground when all context is considered. --Florencealma (talk) 12:05, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:William_Calder,_Lord_Provost_of_Edinburgh

I have made all the required changes. --Florencealma (talk) 17:56, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

I would like to make a formal complete against the two editors who have been relentlessly targeting me. I have proof of this and the chats speak for themselves. Outrageous behaviour. Totally shameful. --Florencealma (talk) 18:48, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello! Is it fine to add a phone number to a place in their wikipedia article. I'm adding some more details on the Doha Metro rail article, and I had their numbers, so I just wanna know if its fine. --Platnus4 (talk) 17:03, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Platnus4, that's a great question! I don't recall seeing a "phone number" listed on any other Wikipedia page and I suspect it might fall under WP:NOTGUIDE, where it may be considered unencyclopedic to add a phone number directly. I don't know if it is explicitly allowed or disallowed anywhere, would you like to post a thread on the Teahouse? I could also do it for you if you prefer. Justiyaya 03:14, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

can I please get a cash card limit of $1000 --Ppiipstar (talk) 08:16, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

need so help please Ppiipstar (talk) 08:17, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Ppiipstar, this feature is supposed to be for getting help editing Wikipedia. Maybe ask a local bank? Justiyaya 08:58, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

How do I create a new page for an individual --Wolffman87 (talk) 19:28, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Wolffman87, are you trying to make an autobiography? Writing autobiographies are strongly discouraged and almost always fruitless. If you are interested in contributing, I'd recommend working on another task. Justiyaya 01:39, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Updates from the Growth team on our work to improve the new editor experience.

Recent releases

Account creation experiments

Several experiments to increase successful account creation have delivered significant results.

• An updated message shown to logged-out mobile users who try to edit produced a 27% relative increase in account creation and is being scaled to all wikis. (T424595)
• A new account menu button in the mobile web header, A/B tested across five Wikipedias with nearly 8 million participants, made logged-out mobile users 25% more likely to create an account, with no significant difference in constructive editing behavior. (T428220)
• A simpler post-edit dialog for temporary account holders increased permanent account creation by 87% (relative), converting more temp editors into registered ones. (T416418)

  

• We also redesigned the account creation form itself (T409236): adding real-time username validation, a concise summary of the username policy, a "reveal password" option, and a simplified design aligned with Codex guidelines. In an A/B test on English Wikipedia mobile, users who saw the redesigned form created permanent accounts at a rate of 20.4%, compared to 16.4% for the control group (a 24.4% relative increase).

Revise Tone structured task

Revise Tone helps newcomers identify passages that may contain non-encyclopedic language and guides them through revising the tone. In A/B testing on Arabic, English, French, and Portuguese Wikipedias, newcomer task completion rates were 38.7% higher than the default Copyedit task, with no decrease in edit quality. The test ended July 9, and the feature is now available to everyone on these wikis, configurable via Community Configuration. We plan to release Revise Tone to more wikis.

Automated mentor list cleanup

Communities can now automatically mark inactive mentors as away or remove them from mentorship entirely (which automatically reassigns their mentees). Inactivity is based on edits, and talk page responses count, so mentors answering mentee questions remain active. We recommend enabling both options together; administrators can enable them via Special:CommunityConfiguration and review the mentor list at Special:ManageMentors.

Growth features for Wikidata

Growth features are now available at Wikidata, including a simplified Newcomer Homepage, Mentorship, the Impact module, Community Updates and the Help Panel.

Work in progress

Home

The Growth and Moderator Tools teams are developing Home (T419358): a unified, personalized landing page intended to replace the Newcomer Homepage. Rather than remaining a newcomer-only feature, Home will evolve with users as they gain experience, surfacing Suggested Edits, edits to review, and moderation workflows at the right moment.

Research

The Wikimedia Research team, in partnership with the Growth Team, published findings from two projects on how new editors learn and integrate into the community:

• Understanding newcomer mentorship on Wikipedia
• Successful Newcomers Survey

Growth team's newsletter prepared by the Growth team and posted by bot • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

13:17, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:BTG Pactual on a "Economy, trade, and companies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

SodiumBot (botop|talk|contribs) 03:30, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

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

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

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

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