User talk:Staraction

On 19 December 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Lobster emoji, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a U.S. senator advocated for the lobster emoji (pictured)? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Lobster emoji. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Lobster emoji), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to nominate it.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 24,420 views (1,017.5 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of December 2025 – nice work!

GalliumBot (talk • contribs) (he/it) 03:28, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2026!

Hello Staraction, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2026. Happy editing, Abishe (talk) 08:16, 25 December 2025 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Abishe (talk) 08:16, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words! Wishing you a wonderful 2026 as well. Best, Staraction (talk · contribs) 22:35, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Brush Traction, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dutton.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:57, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

Hello, I hope you are enjoying 2026 thus far! I'm reaching out to you since you signed yourself up as a participant of Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Vital Signs 2026. To get the ball rolling on this project, I'd like to invite you to help fill out the progress table. If you (like me) have a hard time figuring out tables, I'd suggest editing it in the visual editor to make it easier. Just chose any article from the table and check for the following:

1. Sources - are they recent (last 10 years, in accordance with WP:MEDDATE)? Are the sources from a reliable source (I personally use the script User:Headbomb/unreliable to aid in this)? Is there an over relliance on WP:PRIMARY sources?
2. Coverage - Does the article cover the main aspects of the topic? Sometimes it can be helpful to check the article template for the topic to see if there is any major gaps in information (Special:PrefixIndex/Template:Article_templates). WP:MEDSECTIONS also provides an easy overview to the various sections. Are there areas where the article goes into too much detail?
3. Accuracy - This one ties into the last two and mostly checks for WP:DUE weight as well as factual errors. Keep an eye out for primary sources such as case studies or extremely old sources being used to support something that is phrased as a fact.
4. Prose - Can be a bit tricky to judge at first but I'd recommend not getting too hung up on this one. Simply focus on if the articles wording is readable and can be understood. If you find that the way something is written gives you a headache then the prose is probably needing some work.
5. Images and infobox - Is there some images included in the article to aid in understanding? Are there tables with unclear information?
6. Understandability - Is the WP:LEDE understandable to a casual reader or does it require in depth knowledge of the topic? Is the easiest to understand information presented first with details given later on?

After that you just need to copy and paste the current assessment rating. You can also sign yourself up as a volunteer to help improve the page and add any notes that may help others. Feel free to to tackle as many or as little of these articles as you would like, and if you only feel comfortable assessing some of the criteria that's okay too, any bit helps!

If you're looking for some articles that need some love the following articles are assessed as C class: addiction, allergy, anemia, autism, bipolar disorder, borderline personality disorder, COVID-19 vaccine, cancer, cataract, diarrhea, enteritis, health effects of tobacco, kidney disease, mental disorder, and stroke.

Feel free to ask question on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Vital Signs 2026, my talkpage, or in response to this message! IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 18:05, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Franco Nero, a link pointing to the disambiguation page UPI was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:03, 10 March 2026 (UTC)