User talk:WikiDan61

Thanks for taking a look at the National Registry of Exonerations page. I saw you restored an earlier version and mentioned the loss of citations and wikilinks. Could you let me know which parts you found most concerning or what specific changes caused the rollback? I’m part of the Registry’s research team, and I want to make sure our updates follow Wikipedia’s sourcing and linking standards. I’d really appreciate any advice or examples of how to fix what went wrong so the edits can stay up next time. Chiararignot (talk) 21:26, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

@Chiarignot: A side by side comparison might be useful:

You'll note that the text is essentially identical (apart from some minor wording changes) but that all the wikilinks as well as the citations have been lost. That is why I reverted those edits. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:10, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Dear @User:Wikidan61 I thought i might send a message regarding the your 2019 change of Radio Azerbaijan to radio in Azerbaijan. In my opinion the article describes a singular state company and not reflect the (repressive) radio landscape. Im a newer editor so I thought i might reach out before requesting anything. The page currently linked in the azerbaijan articles template as (radio). Possibly replacing the template link with a link tomedia freedom in Azerbaijan would be an improvement? I'd be curious to hear your thoughts. Kind regards SarahSmithLay (talk) 17:21, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi WikiDan61,

Thank you for your feedback — much appreciated. Since I have a potential conflict of interest, would you be willing to consider adding the edit yourself? The contribution is based on a peer-reviewed publication (PMID: 41034580) and is supported by verifiable evidence, so ensuring it’s accurately reflected helps maintain the integrity of the scientific record and the research group’s reputation. JamesFant75 (talk) 01:54, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

@JamesFant75: As I've mentioned, Proteotoxic stress response drives T cell exhaustion and immune evasion is not a reliable source for medical related information because a) it is primary research (meaning that these findings have not yet been reproduced by other researchers) and b) Dr Li has declared a conflict of interest regarding this research. Because of this, I will not add the material to his page. You are free to make a request at Talk:Zihai Li and see if other editors have a different opinion. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:06, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for your work. I saw you undid my contribution on the Null coalescing operator page. i was in doubt if adding the Julia part, then i saw that in Rust there is the same problem: there's no coalesce operator, but there are functions in the standard library that do that. Do you think it would make sense to delete both subsections, or to keep both? Thanks. Alessandro Bertulli (talk) 14:18, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

@Alessandro Bertulli: Yes, I do agree that the section on Rust doesn't belong either. If we go down that path, we'll end up describing how to implement a function that looks like a native null coalesce operator in every conceivable language. I believe only languages that implement this construct natively should be described. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:42, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

@Alessandro Bertulli: On second thought (having read the page's description of Rust's unwrap_or() operator, this does appear to be a native construct that functions quite similarly to the coalescing null operator, so I would not remove that. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:44, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

@WikiDan61 thank you. in Julia, this is not as idiomatic as `unwrap_or()`, but the functions `coalesce` and `something` are part of the standard library, so technically the two are closer? i agree we can cut off the example with the closure Alessandro Bertulli (talk) 14:47, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

@Alessandro Bertulli: I'm not versed enough in this esoteric comp. sci. field. I recommend you take the discussion to Talk:Null coalescing operator and see if the rest of the community agrees with your reasoning. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:35, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jon Kowalyshen, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jon Kowalyshen until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors December 2025 Newsletter Hello, and welcome to the December newsletter, a quarterly digest of Guild activities since September. If you'd like to be notified of upcoming drives and blitzes, and other GOCE activities, the best method is to add our announcements box to your watchlist. Election news: The Guild's coordinators play an important role in the WikiProject, making sure nearly everything runs smoothly and on time. Editors experienced in drives or blitzes and in good standing (unblocked and without sanctions) are invited to nominate themselves or another editor (with their permission, of course) to be a Guild coordinator until 23:59 on 15 December (UTC). The voting phase begins at 00:01 on 16 December and runs until 23:59 on 31 December. Questions may be asked of candidates at any stage in the process. Elected coordinators will serve a six-month term from 1 January through 30 June 2026. September Drive: 43 of the 63 editors who signed up for the September Backlog Elimination Drive edited 693,541 words in 265 articles. Barnstars awarded are here. October Blitz: 14 of the 15 editors who signed up for the October Copy Editing Blitz edited 75,108 words in 31 articles. Barnstars awarded are here. November Drive: 38 of the 65 editors who signed up for the November Backlog Elimination Drive edited 590,816 words in 240 articles. Barnstars awarded are posted here. December Blitz: The December Blitz will begin at 00:00 on 14 December (UTC) and will end on 20 December at 23:59. Sign up here. Barnstars awarded will be posted here. Progress report: As of 01:49, 8 December 2025 (UTC), GOCE copy editors have completed 293 requests since 1 January, and the backlog of tagged articles stands at 1,730 articles. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators, Dhtwiki, GoldRomean, Miniapolis and Mox Eden. To stop receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:26, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

January–February 2026 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol
New Pages Patrol is hosting a one-time, two-month experimental backlog drive aimed at reducing the backlog. This will be a combo drive: both articles and redirects will earn points. The drive will run from 1 January to 28 February 2026. The drive is divided into two phases. Participants may take part in either phase or across both phases, depending on availability. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled during the drive. Two-month drive-exclusive barnstars will be awarded to eligible participants. Each article review earns 1 point, while each redirect review earns 0.2 points. Streak awards will be granted based on consistently meeting weekly point thresholds. Barnstars will also be awarded for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Interested in participating? Sign up here.
You are receiving this message because you are a New Pages Patrol reviewer. To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself from here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:23, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello @WikiDan61. Happy New Year! Wishing you a year filled with knowledge, collaboration, and meaningful contributions. Thank you for your dedication to building free, reliable, and accessible knowledge for everyone around the world. May the new year bring you inspiration, successful edits, respectful discussions, and strong community spirit. Here’s to another year of improving Wikipedia together! Warm regards, — A fellow Wikipedian

Thanks! Happy editing! New Years 🥳🎄 (Iluziya7 (talk) 04:50, 28 December 2025 (UTC))

Editing thanks! (Iluziya7 (talk) 05:10, 28 December 2025 (UTC))

I notice that you have declined my submission. I need you to understand that this is more than just an article. Cody is the spirit of the small town of Howard, Pennsylvania, and we are so proud of him and his accomplishments. Unfortunately, Cody is very very sick right now, and I really want people to hear the legend of Cody Park. Also, what's the harm in more knowledge in the world. Badger2678 (talk) 17:42, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

@Badger2678: I appreciate your dedication to this task, but Wikipedia is not a memorial site; we don't create articles about people just because they're going through a hard time right now. Have you considered other places where you might write about your friend? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:39, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

This article is about a very large topic, Belly Fat. Belly Fat is a small component of Ballyfat (talk) 19:07, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

@Ballyfat: Your draft does not add anything useful to the content already written at abdominal fat. More to the point, your article reads like a how-to article, and contains a fair number of spammy links as citations. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:10, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I am part of the brand team at this university. I would like to know how a scenario will be dealt with wiki. We had a concern that, someone purposefully spread negativity on our college and did PR for it. Since it is considered an independant article, they added it to our college wiki using that PR source as proof. But it is intentional and we also have other articles which take a positive tone about the same issue. However, since this is already added to wiki and it has a link source as proof for it, we are unable to change it and it is damaging our brand reputation.

How do we address such false information and intentional student's negative reviews to not affect our wiki page.

It will be of great help if you can comment on this. Thank you in advance. ~2026-74371-1 (talk) 07:13, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-74371-1: Reviews of your college that have been entered in various college review sites are not considered reliable sources and should not be used as citations at Wikipedia. But if negative articles have been published in legitimate news sources that are subject to editorial review, then presumably someone took the effort to verify that the negative information is correct. If that is the case, there is little you can do about that. Cleaning up the Wikipedia article will not erase the fact that the negative information exists in the world. The only thing to do about that is to have the college work to improve their reputation. If you could specify which Wikipedia article you are referencing, I could check to see if the writing there is truly neutral and based on reliable sources. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:04, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your response — I appreciate it.

For the same issue, there are also positive articles from legitimate news sources that clearly contradict the negative claims. In such a case, Will the Wikipedia article retain the negative aspects too, or can it be removed if later we submit reliable coverage disputes and outweighs it?

Given that the negative PR is temporary but Wikipedia content is long-lasting, I’d like to understand how Wikipedia evaluates in this scenario... Do you consider that such information still deserves inclusion?? ~2026-74371-1 (talk) 11:23, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-74371-1: If there are articles available in reliable sources that contradict information in the article, your best plan of action is to open a discussion on the article's talk page and present the refuting article to see if you can gain consensus to change or remove the negative information. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:35, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for taking out time and helping me with the queries :) ~2026-74371-1 (talk) 05:50, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

can you tell me reason why you deleted my post Pratik1122 (talk) 18:55, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

@Pratik1122: I did not delete your draft; Deb did that. And she explained why on your user talk page. Perhaps you should read her comment there. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:20, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

I have spent some time over the last two days editing the page of Antoine Guisan, following Wikipedia guidelines, because the current page was not only misleading and incomplete, but absolutely appalling for a researcher of that standing. You deleted all my work. May I ask who you are to have that authority? If you are an employee of Wikipedia, what was the reason for deleting my edits? Vincentsavolainen (talk) 07:22, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

@Vincentsavolainen: You already have a response from Snugglebuns. That answer is as good as any I could give you. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:00, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

I am fully aware of Wikipedia’s policies regarding sourcing and citations, and I intended to add the appropriate references. However, my edits were reverted by WikiDan61 within minutes of being completed, before I had the opportunity to finalize the citations.

I find it discouraging that while I am frequently approached by bad-faith actors offering questionable editing services through fake accounts, a genuine contributor acting in good faith has their work reverted so quickly. This experience does not reflect the collaborative and constructive spirit that Wikipedia strives to uphold as a global, community-driven resource.

I respectfully request that my changes be restored so that I may properly add the necessary references and ensure the content meets Wikipedia’s standards.

Thank you Vincentsavolainen (talk) 09:11, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

@Vincentsavolainen: You are free to restore the changes yourself, but understand that you made eight edits to Antoine Guisan without adding a single citation. This gave the impression that you were not, in fact, aware of Wikipedia's policies. In general, it is better to add your citations as you edit the article rather than after, so that this type of confusion does not occur. I would recommend that you a) use the revert feature to restore your version, with the edit summary reverting with plan to add citations, and then immediately edit the article to add your citations. Wikipedia's Biographies of Living Persons policy is quite strict about requiring citations to verify facts about living people. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:03, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, that's very helpful Vincentsavolainen (talk) 14:25, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

i've just done first edits, i hope that's what we're looking for? thanks Vincentsavolainen (talk) 08:34, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

@Vincentsavolainen: You've based your edits almost entirely on Guisan's university profile, which is not considered an independent source. Better sourcing would be desirable. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 10:55, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Ok, I've added the ORCID reference that say the same Vincentsavolainen (talk) 11:02, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

@Vincentsavolainen: ORCID data is largely generated by the researchers themselves, and so is still not an independent source. I really recommend you read Wikipedia's guidelines on reliable sources. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:59, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks I have Vincentsavolainen (talk) 15:33, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jeppiaar Institute of Technology is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeppiaar Institute of Technology until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Filmssssssssssss (talk) 15:58, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi Dan, as you may gather I'm all new to this and learning as i go, regarding the Underground zero page, yes we are all still together as a band and still recording ( i guess that was the important bit that i left out of the statement ) we are active of facebook on a regular basis, i have reverted the edit but with the statement that we are still a recording band, unfortunately we are all in our 60s and 70s gigging is physically tough for us now. wishing you all the best ... Karl Dawson ( underground Zero) DitchburnJukeboxMuseum (talk) 16:04, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

@DitchburnJukeboxMuseum: As you have identified yourself as a member of Underground Zerø, I should warn you about Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy. Basically, you should not be editing articles about topics in which you are personally involved. Read the guideline to understand further. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:32, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Trailblazer101. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Flowervale Street, but you didn't provide a reliable source. On Wikipedia, it's important that article content be verifiable. If you'd like to resubmit your change with a citation, your edit is archived in the page history. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Please see WP:FRUIT for why sources regurgitating what an unreliable source says cannot be used. World of Reel is a self-published blog, and cannot be used per WP:SPS. MSN is an aggregator and does not count as its own source, per WP:NEWSAGG. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 20:35, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

@Trailblazer101: We don't consider MSN^[1] a reliable source? Since when? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 10:40, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

MSN is just reporting an article from Fortress of Solitude, which is not reliable, so WP:FRUIT applies there also. MSN itself is not reporting anything here. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 14:11, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Maryland Film Festival, a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dawn Porter was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:47, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Traditional Thai clothing, a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vogue was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 21:56, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Foor the second time my edits to First Unitarian Congregation of Toronto have been rejected, and I still have no idea why. Is there any way for you to tell me specifically what is wrong? Naciap (talk) 20:26, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

@Naciap: Your most recent edit at First Unitarian Congregation of Toronto (at least the last one that I reverted) added the following statements to the lead of the article. Here I provide my rationale for reverting them.

The congregation is a diverse, intergenerational community of people from across Toronto who come together seeking answers to their questions about life, healing for their hurts, and inspiration to live into their best selves within a complicated world.

This language is inherently promotional and has no place at Wikipedia.

Founded in 1845, First Unitarian is governed by a nine -member volunteer Board of Directors who are charged with focusing on the “Big Picture”, i.e., policies relating to the overall vision, goals and health of the congregation.

This information is found elsewhere in the article; including it in the lead is redundant.

There are five part-time staff members and a large roster of volunteers. A religious education program for children, youth and adults is led by the Director of Lifespan Religious Education.

This information is not supported by any reliable sources, and also does not belong in the article lead.

-- WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:07, 6 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)

Hello WikiDan61,

Backlog update

At the time of this message, there are 15,282 articles and 32,951 redirects awaiting review.

After the January–February drive the article backlog was reduced to 15,179 articles and the redirect backlog to 19,053 respectively. Great job! However, both queues are growing rapidly and any additional reviews are highly appreciated.

2024 and 2025 NPP Awards

JTtheOG was selected as the NPP reviewer of the year for both 2024 and 2025, for reviewing the most articles amongst all reviewers.

Hey man im josh and MPGuy2824 won the Redirect Ninja Master Award for 2024 and 2025 respectively, for reviewing the most redirects.

Overall in 2024, one Platinum, two Gold, eight Silver, 12 Bronze and 45 Iron Barnstars were awarded. Additionally, 66 reviewers got the NPP barnstar for doing more than 100 reviews through the year. In 2025, one Platinum, ten Silver, 13 Bronze and 38 Iron Barnstars were awarded. Additionally, 38 reviewers got the NPP barnstar for doing more than 100 reviews through the year.

BoyTheKingCanDance, Rosiestep, SunDawn, and Vanderwaalforces were inducted into the NPP Hall of Fame for having two separate years of 2,000+ article reviews.

January–February backlog drive

The experimental two-month long backlog drive concluded with 183 reviewers patrolling over 27,761 articles and 35,309 redirects, earning over 36,836 points. Congratulations to JTtheOG, who achieved first place with 6,484.6 points in this drive.

May backlog drive

An article-only backlog drive is currently underway. We are hoping to make a big dent in the backlog. You can read more about it or join at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/May 2026.

PageTriage

An attempt was made to get the New Pages Feed to sort by date marked as reviewed instead of date created. However we had to revert it due to bugs. We may try again in the future. You can subscribe to the Phabricator ticket if you're interested in following along.

Reminders:

• You can access live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord.
• Consider adding the project discussion page to your watchlist.
• To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:38, 14 May 2026 (UTC)