User talk:Significa liberdade

Kindly help me by assisting. I have three doubts regarding NPP review.

First: An article on WP:GEOLAND, I feel census data is necessary to prove it as populated area. And the burden should be on creator. Am I wrong here?

Second: Even if a politician is notable per WP:NPOL is single sourced articles are acceptable to mark as reviewed?

Third: If I am interested to remove non-RS and add RS references, and if I do and someone reverts my edits, what should I do? Can I mark as unreviewed or send to new pages feed? I see there is no rule that NPP can't expand, update an unreviewed article. SatnaamIN (talk) 07:17, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for reaching out, SaTnamZIN! Here are my initial thoughts:

1. I am not as familiar with GEOLAND requirements as with others. To my knowledge, census data is not necessary, though census data is satisfactory to established notability. Beyond that, I'm uncertain.
2. Generally, I mark politicians who meet NPOL as reviewed even if they only have a single source, though I will tag with {{BLP one source}} (unless it's not a BLP, where {{one source}} is adequate). However, I will always check the source to ensure it verifies the claim and will usually do a quick Google search to see if other sources exist. In my mind, the goal of NPP is to check is new articles are suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia -- not to check perfection. If someone clearly meets NPOL, that aligns with the goal. A maintenance tag will help make sure additional sources are added. That said, if you want to add additional sources first, please do so!
3. This third point has two questions, so I'll treat it as two points. I would treat this change (reverting an edit) like any other reversion, with some caveats. First, I would check the edit history to see when the reversion was made and by whom. Sometimes, an editor (especially new editors) will be working on an article and run into an edit conflict, which overwrites the changes you made. In this case, I would just manually restore my changes (not revert, just add back the sources). Outside of this, I would bring up the issue to the editor in question either on the article's talk page or the user's talk page, depending on what makes the most sense. Calmly and kindly state that you recently replaced non-RS with RS, which was reverted, then ask if there was a reason for this. Come into this openminded and with good faith. A lot of times, the issue can be resolved quickly. If this change was shortly after you marked it as reviewed, I would follow-through on the conversation first, rather than mark it as unreviewed -- unless you don't care to bother with it or you want a second opinion. If you think the article no longer deserves to be marked as reviewed, you can mark it as unreviewed.
4. NPPers can absolutely improve articles. I do it a lot! Especially when I find an article in my subject area that could use work. If nothing else, I can add a few reliable sources before marking as reviewed. The overarching goal is to have a valuable encyclopedic resource, and NPP plays a big role in that!

These thoughts are my own and do not necessarily represent those of the NPP community as a whole. I'd be happy to hear from others if there are any talk page stalkers out there interested in responding. :) If you have any follow-up questions, comments, and/or concerns, let me know. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 08:07, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

@Significa liberdade O Z Sukriya.Best help. SatnaamIN (talk) 09:02, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

@Significa liberdade my last one for this week. Can I use my newly bought MacBook Pro for editing as well as with the Windows laptop? Will that be any violation? (Actually I had to go through lots of learning here before I do.) SatnaamIN (talk) 08:03, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

You can edit on any device you like. Just make sure you're signed into your one account. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 17:50, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

In the future, please do not draftify any pages that I create such as ÖBB Long Schlieren. That article was unfinished and does need more references (which I plan to add) but it’s not like it is too lacking in context to be a stub, or would fail a WP:BEFORE web search due to insufficient coverage existing; in my opinion the latter point matters more than the sourcing initially present in the article when dealing with something like a train, or especially an inherently notable topic like a town or species, as opposed to a BLP or company article with a sub-household-name claim of notability in the text. I don’t personally use draftification at all (apart from one time when I moved a WIP translation that hadn’t even been started); I’d like to think I’ve been here long enough to know my way around notability but if I ever do end up creating a page on a non-notable subject I’d rather have it be taken to AFD. Passengerpigeon (talk) 05:34, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Noted. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 05:36, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

I need your help RifatHasan25 (talk) 20:18, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

How can I help you? Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 22:22, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

I saw you message about restricted topics on South Asia. The delete page Rudyakanyas (Rudrakanyas - Wikipedia) is neither related to an existing caste or social group. It is purely of historical and religious and cultural significance as you can see from the content of the article. Any decisions involved relates to colonial times are not current problems. I would request an un-deletion of the page if you can do it please. Thanks. Vivekanand1863 (talk) 08:50, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi, Vivekanand1863! I have undeleted the article but kept the speedy deletion tag. This will allow a second administrator to provide input as to whether this article requires the creator to be extended confirmed. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 02:27, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Maizy Chen’s Last Chance.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. thejiujiangdragon (TJD) ^TALK/_CONTRIBS 22:41, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Women in Red | March 2026, Vol 12, Issue 3, Nos 358, 359, 364, 365, 366 Online events: March 1-31: Artists & Activists | Artworks by women | Alphabet run: countries starting with C Continuing (year-long initiatives): #1day1woman | Sports Announcements from other communities: Celebrate Women Unreferenced articles backlog drive Wiki Loves Ramadan Tip of the month: Those experiencing difficulties with new articles can follow the guidance in our essays, perhaps starting with our Ten Simple Rules. Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events and add any general ideas on developing the project. Follow us on social media: Instagram | Pinterest

--Rosiestep (talk) 09:31, 25 February 2026 (UTC) via MassMessaging

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

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

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

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

Remember that any content promoted after 26 February but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, feel free to review one of the nominations listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:57, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

I thx for your response ! i tried but stumble when i'm asked the ip network i request, as the github actions ip blocks are quite extensive. Could you guide me on the value to put ? Teo Teo-logique (talk) 20:21, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

I saw your decline on the basis that they should wait out the 31 hour block--I upped the block to indefinite based on their immediate combative attitude and zero indication that they intended to abide by ECR, so you may wish to reconsider your decision and/or advice, as they will not be unblocked automatically at 31 hours. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:26, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Ah, thank you! Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 22:29, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

		The Admin's Barnstar
		Thank you so much for your work at CAT:RFU today! It is sincerely appreciated :) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:31, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Aw, thank you, Blaster of Houses!! <3 Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 03:22, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

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

Administrator changes

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

CheckUser changes

Ks0stm

Oversight changes

Ks0stm

Guideline and policy news

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

Arbitration

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

Miscellaneous

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

Welcome, welcome, welcome Significa liberdade! I'm glad that you are joining the March 2026 drive! Please, have a cup of WikiTea, and go cite some articles.

Cielquiparle (talk) 05:31, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

This discussion has been disrupted by block evasion, ban evasion, or sockpuppetry from the following users: ~2026-13610-66 (talk · contribs · block log · spi) ~2026-13942-75 (talk · contribs · block log · spi) Comments from these users should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

I don't think Yeatglazer should be unblocked. The account continues their POV pushing on Simple English Wikipedia: 1 (they believe QAnon is "true" because of the Epstein files), 2, 3. They are apparently NOTHERE. Requesting a global lock may be a good idea.~2026-13610-66 (talk) 08:38, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know. I've added a general comment at the unblock request informing administrators to look into Yeatglazer's contributions on Simple Wiki before deciding whether to unblock. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 14:19, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

They continue making anti-trans edits as well. This is one of the examples. ~2026-13942-75 (talk) 14:45, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi. Hope you are fine. I need assistance at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prerna Arora page. I feel the nominator is WP:BLUDGEONING the AfD. Or I am wrong if I leave a note as bludgeoning? SatnaamIN (talk) 05:54, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi, SaTnamZIN! Thanks for your patience. At present, I think the comments are borderline bludgeoning, but it looks like they haven't commented in multiple days, so I'm not too concerned at the moment. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 17:13, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for confirming. SatnaamIN (talk) 23:29, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I'm ThirteenStandardJupiters, I found your page on the Disability Wikiproject. I am a new Wikipedia/Wikidata editor so forgive me if I am missing anything obvious. I was inspired by the group Positive Exposure to look into changing the photos on disability-related articles to make them more person-centered rather than the very clinical and outdated images found on many articles (especially ones about rare diseases). However, I'm not sure how to find more suitable pictures that fall under Wikipedia's licensing guidelines. Do you have any advice? ThirteenStandardJupiters (talk) 00:07, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi there, ThirteenStandardJupiters, and thank you for reaching out! I don't do much work with uploading images (aside from book covers), so I'm not as familiar with all the ins and outs of the licensing guidelines. I'll see if I can find someone who is a bit more experienced in that area. In the meantime, I recommend reviewing Wikipedia's Image Use Policy. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 17:17, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

@ThirteenStandardJupiters Images must allow commercial use and modification. This generally means you're looking for a Creative Commons license like "CC BY-SA", or something less restrictive (fewer letters) like "CC BY". CC licenses with "NC" or "ND" are not allowed. Alternatively, the image could be really old or made by the US government, which would put it in the public domain.

You can search for images on Wikimedia Commons, which is where most images used on Wikipedia are hosted. Alternatively, you can use another image search engine, like Flickr , DuckDuckGo, or Google Images, and then upload what you find to Wikimedia Commons. In each of these search engines you can filter by copyright license: On Flickr, there is a dropdown that says "Any license", which you can change to "Commercial use & mods allowed". DuckDuckGo is similar. On Google, it's under "Tools" > "Usage rights" > "Creative Commons licenses", though you'll still have to check whether it's the right kind of Creative Commons license. Some YouTube videos are also freely licensed, so frames downloaded from those are also allowed.

Wikimedia Commons also has lists of sources for free images at c:Commons:Free media resources, such as c:Commons:Free media resources/Photography. I'm not sure how helpful these are, but you can take a look.

If you find a really great image that isn't free, you can contact the creator to ask if they're willing to license the image for use on Wikipedia; this may require the help of the Volunteer Response Team.

Hopefully this didn't overwhelm you. Let me know if you have any questions. Toadspike [Talk] 09:44, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, Toadspike! Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 13:07, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello Significa liberdade, I would like to inform you that I will be ceasing my contributions to Wikipedia starting next weekend --- perhaps you are interested in continuing the entries for deceased individuals instead? With best regards, Qaswa (talk) 17:40, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for reaching out, Qaswa! I'll see what I can do. Do you have a process you typically use for tracking literary deaths? Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 13:27, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

No, I don't have such a process; I mainly look at Deaths in 2026, and sometimes I also find some obituaries by looking at cultural news outside of Wikipedia. (I only contacted you because you are the only other person besides myself who has contributed to "2026 in literature".) Qaswa (talk) 16:24, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'll keep an eye out. :) Enjoy your post-Wikipedia life, and come back whenever you'd like! Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 16:25, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Can you please fix this page with it's history check? I am not the creator but the page is showing I am the creator. I moved the article to draft after checking sources are interviews. After my draftification, user User:Realityhere (original page creator) moved the page here to there. And now it is showing I am the creator of the page which is not. SatnaamIN (talk) 00:09, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi there! Can you explain why you want the article undeleted? From the edit summary, it's clear that you are not the article's original creator, given that the edit summary is moving an article. You've also nominated the article for deletion via AfD, and the current trajectory is deletion. Is there something in the article history that you think is important (aside from authorship)? Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 11:52, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

This is the page history. I don't want it undeleted. I just wonder how Wikipedia thought I am the creator of the page.

Seems while I was on way to nominate the page for AfD, the original creator moved back to draft again and used G7 and the deleting Admin was so fast that everything happened just before I press the AfD submit button.

I also worry if editors at AfD see me as the page creator and nominator for AfD, they might be confused. I am regular AfD participant and my score is above 90%. So editors who will see my name as page creator and AfD nominator might get confused. SatnaamIN (talk) 23:32, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

I understand your concern. This happened because you moved the article to draftspace, which left a cross-namespace redirect in mainspace. This was correctly tagged for R2 speedy deletion, but the article creator recreated the article from the redirect before it was deleted. The article history clearly shows your "page creation" with the following edit summary: SaTnamZIN moved page Chandra Shekhar Natarajan to Draft:Chandra Shekhar Natarajan: Not ready for mainspace, incubate in draftspace. Reason/s: more sources needed, possible COI, custom reason. Editors familiar with how Wikipedia works should be able to look in the article history and clearly see that you did not create this article but rather that you created a cross-namespace redirect when you moved the article to draftspace. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 13:07, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello,

I previously created the draft "Draft:Deadria Farmer-Paellmann," which appears to have been deleted under the G15 criterion. The draft had been submitted to Articles for Creation and updated after corrections.

Could the draft please be restored to my userspace so that I can continue improving it and resubmit it for review?

Thank you. Deadriafp (talk) 04:11, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi, @Deadriafp! Please first read Wikipedia's guidelines regarding autobiographies. You should also read the essay on large language models (LLMs). Once you have read both, please describe below why Wikipedia discourages people from writing autobiographical articles, as well as why we discourage using LLMs on Wikipedia. Thank you! Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 17:51, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions to Post-anal tail. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing as a live article at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. I have converted it to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit the draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Mathglot (talk) 03:26, 15 March 2026 (UTC)