User talk:MSK

Your good article nomination of the article Blue-headed hummingbird has passed; congratulations! See the review page for more information. If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Please also consider reviewing somebody else's nomination to help keep the backlog down. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Pi.1415926535 -- Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:01, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Is there a grey zone at all for Frontiers? Cheers, 🚂ThatTrainGuy1945 ^{Peep peep!} 03:12, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Frontiers does offer peer review, unlike some other journals, however they are questionable at best, and anything published in them would probably be deeply scrutinized during FAC. (See: Frontiers Media#Controversies) I am not the best source for an answer, though, WP:RSN or WP:RD/S are better forums. msk 03:22, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello, how can I create an article? --I try to edit (talk) 17:30, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Only autoconfirmed editors may create articles directly in mainspace, however anyone can create an AFC submission. I suggest you read WP:Your first article before; and make sure you are familiar with the rules on notability and verifiability. msk 19:03, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Ok, thanks! A Random Wikipedian (talk) 19:07, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello, MSK! Do you have any tips for expanding articles? I want to know more about special interests, but the article is rather short. How can I improve/expand it? --A Random Wikipedian (talk) 15:59, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

When I try to expand an article, the first thing I do is look for sources. A search on Google Scholar results in several useful papers that could help with expanding the article for Special interest (autism). (If you can't access a paper, you can ask on the Resource Exchange to see if someone else has it.) msk 17:48, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you A Random Wikipedian (talk) 18:19, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Can I go home now. --Sk106906d (talk) 14:36, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

• J.rodz01 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Gunther Fehlinger-Jahn (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am requesting to appeal the rejection of my article MSK has made on Gunther Fehlinger-Jahn because it seems bizarre to me that an article about Gunther Fehlinger-Jahn can be accepted in multiple languages of the website, but not in English. While I do not have access to the previous version of the English article so I cannot see which issues existed with it beforehand, what I can say is that the one I submitted has several independent sources not linked to the source, nor are any of them inappropriate or unsafe for work in any way. Furthermore, the sources I used were similar to the article that was accepted on the French Wikipedia article about him, to my knowledge I have noted when they are used (if I haven't then I can change that)and I have seen other pages on English Wikipedia use foreign language sources, so I doubt they would be inadequate for English Wikipedia. In addition, a Wikipedia article being rejected for lack of notability isn't necessarily final since Kyle Kulinski had his article taken down for a while due to a lack of reliable sources until Jacobin magazine published an article about him. For that reason, I am asking that you either accept the idea of an article about him (even if it requires editing the sources and/or topics) or to attempt to also delete the articles that exist about the subject on Wikipedia in other languages (web translation tools should exist to that end if you do not speak or read any of them). Seeing this subject have Wikipedia articles in multiple languages, while any draft of an English language article on the subject gets automatically rejected because of a lack of notability seems incredibly inconsistent to me.

J.rodz01 (talk) 00:32, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

I do need to correct myself & mention that I did in fact use a blog linked to the subject, simply as a source for some of his quotes.

I should also clarify that I am appealing that the submission be changed from rejected to declined rather immediately be published as is since I do realise there are some issues with the formatting of the citations. J.rodz01 (talk) 01:18, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Just because a subject has an article in another language does not mean they are notable; different language Wikipedias have different notability guidelines. Additionally, the draft does not show much difference in sourcing than what was discussed in the AfD, and I do not feel confident accepting it, as it has a slim chance of surviving AfD (which is what AfC is for). Regardless, you *can* choose to move the draft to mainspace yourself, but I don't recommend it. (Sorry about the delayed response, was busy with other stuff) msk 01:20, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification & quick response. I am surprised that other language pages of Wikipedia have different rules around notability, but I understand now that this is the case. I should probably ask which (if any) specific sources in the article were deprecated besides his blog? J.rodz01 (talk) 01:27, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello, following your review comment on the Draft:Fonds National de Promotion et de Service Social that its written by LLM, I spent time to learn and have re-written it entirely in neutral human tone. I will deeply appreciate if you could take a moment to take a look at it once again. Thank you. RollyBoat (talk) 14:02, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi MSK,

Thanks for reviewing the draft at Draft:Advances.in/psychology. I'd like to respectfully ask you to take another look, as I believe the applicable notability guideline for academic journals is WP:NJOURNALS rather than the general notability guideline alone, and I think the draft meets it.

Under NJournals Criterion 1, a journal is generally considered notable if it is included in selective major indexing services. The journal is indexed in Scopus (CiteScore 3.1), which is widely accepted at AfC and AfD as a selective indexing service satisfying this criterion.

In addition, the draft cites independent, reliable secondary coverage: Goodman, S. (2022). "Is It Time to Pay Peer Reviewers?" The Chronicle of Higher Education — discusses the publisher and journal directly. "Can journals that pay peer reviewers succeed?" (2026). Times Higher Education — substantive coverage of the journal's publishing model. Both are established, independent outlets with editorial oversight, and both discuss the journal in more than a passing mention.

I'd appreciate it if you could reconsider the draft under NJournals, or let me know specifically which elements you feel fall short of that guideline so I can address them. If there are remaining tone issues from the earlier decline by VidanaliK, I'm happy to revise further — pointers to specific passages would help.

Thanks for your time. Safa33331 (talk) 05:03, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I have a really good question, does a draft like:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Anna_Keyes_Knowlton#

Now, after I've attempted to have edit it with the recommendations, good for a person who had no books because people forgot her so you have to use primary sources?

(I have no idea if you are allowed to answer this, but it'll help me make it better) --Lily Weed (talk) 15:07, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi, this is an automated reminder as part of Global reminder bot to let you know that your WP:IPBE right which gave you the ability to bypass IP address blocks will expire on 00:54, 28 April 2026 (UTC). If your IP is still blocked, please submit a new request by following the instructions at the IPBE page; otherwise, you do not need to do anything. To opt out of user right expiry notifications, add yourself to m:Global reminder bot/Exclusion. Leaderbot (talk) 19:41, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello, how do I make a webpage on Wiki? --Turtlekit (talk) 18:28, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

The Core Contest has begun! You have until May 31 (23:59 UTC) to make eligible changes. Although you are most welcome (and encouraged) to continue working on the article, changes after May 31 will not be considered for rankings or prizes.

We are now about a week in, and it's worth sharing some issues we judges have noticed in the past:

• Understandability is extra important for big topics like these. Avoid jargon when possible; give context (and of course, citations), even for things that seem obvious; and always consider the age-old adage from Iridescent: "would a bright 14-year old with no prior knowledge of the topic understand this?"
• The source, the whole source, and nothing but the source. Instead of asking "what do I want to say in this article", ask yourself: "what do most high-quality, reliable and recent sources say about this topic?"
• Take a global perspective whenever possible. If you're writing about someone from France, consider looking at recent, high-quality sources in French. Amid language barriers, consider the careful use of an online translation tool or *shudder* a language dictionary.
• Plan, plan, plan! Make an outline, a draft TOC, or some kind of gameplan. Big articles are a different beast, and it's worth figuring out structural and logistical aspects early on.

Cheers from the judges, Femke, Casliber, Aza24. – Aza24 (talk) 00:08, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

If you wish to start or stop receiving news about The Core Contest, please add or remove yourself from the delivery list.

Note: Jinsansk's mentor Seawolf35 is away.

Oky --Jinsansk (talk) 20:26, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Do you have a question? msk 20:31, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

no Jinsansk (talk) 20:33, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

I am a new editor, and "Mau, Amethi" was the first page I edited. I am interested in contributing more to the platform. Am I eligible to create new pages specifically focused on history or military-related topics? Any guidance on the requirements for starting such pages would be greatly appreciated. Zalli.mb (talk) 11:47, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:00, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Note: Jinsansk's mentor Seawolf35 is away.

I need my access --Jinsansk (talk) 23:55, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

What is your question? msk 01:32, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

May 2026 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol
On 1 May 2026, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each review will earn 1 point. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:24, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

The second round of the 2026 WikiCup ended on 28 April. As a reminder for contestants who just joined or are unaware of recent changes to our round-points system, good article nomination reviews now receive 10 points, an increase from 5 points in the previous year, as per a consensus at WT:CUP. 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 2 will advance to round 3 unless they have withdrawn or been banned. No other changes to the round-point system have been made for this year.

Round 2 was competitive. Three contestants scored more than 1,000 round points; nine scored over 500; and fourteen scored over 300. The top seven contestants had at least one featured article (two of them with two apiece). The following competitors scored more than 800 round points:

• MCE89 (submissions) with 1,333 points, mainly from good and featured articles about Australian people and geography
• Generalissima (submissions) with 1,169 points, mainly from good and featured articles related to shipping ethics controversy in fanfiction, waterways, and Gu Yanwu
• Bgsu98 (submissions) with 1,149 points, mainly from good articles, featured articles, and featured lists about figure skating, along with many article reviews and two good topics
• Olliefant (submissions) with 830 points, mainly from good and featured articles about television shows, episodes and media, along with nearly four dozen good and featured article reviews
• Gommeh (submissions) with 827 points, mainly from good and featured articles related to Genshin Impact and Honkai: Star Rail

The full scores for round 2 can be seen here. During this round, contestants have claimed 12 featured articles, 13 featured lists, 2 featured-topic articles, 106 good articles, 22 good-topic articles and more than 40 Did You Know articles. In addition, competitors have worked on 3 In the News articles, and they have conducted over 200 reviews. The tournament points table has been updated.

Remember that any content promoted after 28 April but before the start of Round 3 can be claimed in Round 3. 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) 14:49, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello, MSK. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect and move subpages when moving the parent page(s).

Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving a redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.

Useful links:

• Wikipedia:Requested moves
• Category:Requested moves, for article renaming requests awaiting action.

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:07, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi MSK,

Regarding your closure, I think you made one error. You said Concerns have been raised if these lists are undue weight, however, quoting Danners430, whether these lists are appropriate has already been discussed at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Airport destination lists 2, and no consensus was found for their removal - so this is very much out of scope for this discussion.

However, as that close was "no consensus", it cannot be used to forestall other discussion of the same topic. BilledMammal (talk) 07:13, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

it cannot be used to forestall other discussion of the same topic, however whether it is undue or not to include the list at all is not in the scope of the discussion, which is about the sourcing requirements if the list is included. Cheers! msk 16:15, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

I noticed that your draftification was reverted based upon the article existing in another language (which is not attributed from what I can see). I only rarely review companies, but this one looks like a plausible AfD. Ldm1954 (talk) 16:19, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing my recently created article CSIRO Marine Research - it is appreciated. Best regards from Australia... Tony 1212 (talk) 05:05, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello, MSK. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Battle of Czernowitz (1916), 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) 10:09, 5 May 2026 (UTC)