Advice on Rejected Page

Hi! Thank you for reviewing my article on Betenbough Homes. Based on your feedback, I revised the article in Drafts. How can I get help with it from people who know what they're doing? JenSaysHi (talk) 20:09, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi! You can get a lot of good feedback at the Teahouse. EatingCarBatteries _{(contribs | talk)} 23:10, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Advice for Draft

Hello EatingCarBatteries, It's me, Christianhatley527. Do you have advice on what could I add to Draft:Pardon Integrity Act so it'll more likely become a true article? what I added since the rejection is the resolution name and its in 119th Congress. And if I can't think of anything, is there a way to contact other editors to help me expand the draft? Christianhatley527 (talk) 06:11, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi! Sorry for the late response.

I guess my main concern with the page is that it is about what can be considered a "run-of-the-mill" event. Much of the time, Congresspeople introduce bills only to make a statement towards leadership or their constituents. The vast majority of these fizzle out unnoticed, with little to no coverage in the press.

As a comparison, it's like writing an article on every one of Trump's controversial statements. While the media covers it, and it meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines, it's kind of ridiculous to have a bajillion articles on each one (of course with exceptions for the really big controversies). That's why we have the more centralized articles like "False or misleading statements by Donald Trump."

I think the article as it stands would be a great section in these articles:

• Don Bacon § Political positions
• Johnny Olszewski § Political positions
• Federal pardons in the United States (maybe a new section called "Reform"? you could write into different examples)

If you do believe that your draft warrants a separate page, you can get some good help over at the Teahouse. While I'm not sure how active page is, but you could also poke around the American politics WikiProject. EatingCarBatteries _{(contribs | talk)} 07:49, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello EatingCarBatteries, I have greatly expanded Draft:Pardon Integrity Act. I added background information, provisions, history, and reception, both support and criticism on it. and i added a fourth source from the Cato Institute. I think it has a better chance of being accepted, I there is one problem. It has duplicated sources. It looks like there are 28, but there are actually 4. I tried doing something, but it keeps saying "template missing". Christianhatley527 (talk) 16:44, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks man. Christianhatley527 (talk) 19:53, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Psychoplatonism

Hello, I am the founder of Psychoplatonism, I created the draft wikipedia page for it, I don't have the intention of becoming a wikipedia editor, I merely wanted to create the wikipedia page for the philosophy I have founded, what should I do to be able to get this wikipedia page uploaded? The16boxofthoughtmanishere (talk) 14:26, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for reaching out, and sorry for the late response.

Put simply, all pages on Wikipedia generally need to have been subject to significant coverage by reliable, independent sources. You can read a brief summary here.

Looking at your sources, it's very hard to make out if the archive.org sources qualify for this guideline. Doing a page search for "Psychoplatonism" doesn't show the significant coverage, and it's next to impossible to find what part of the text these sources verify, because they aren't inline and don't have page numbers. Doing a Google search for some of these books, like "The Tome Of Psychoplatonism", leads me to believe that these are self-published.

The problem here is the independent sources - if you founded this philosophy, and nobody else has written on it but you, then I'm really sorry but it can't be on Wikipedia. Wikipedia has a rule where it doesn't allow original research, or for articles to be based solely on primary sources. These guidelines are put in place so we can assure articles are balanced, reliable, and have a neutral point-of-view. EatingCarBatteries _{(contribs | talk)} 23:38, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Travel Time Africa

I have updated Abbey78336!abbey (talk) 18:35, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

can i please get a review on the travel time africa article Abbey78336!abbey (talk) 09:59, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi, you'll first have to submit the article again by clicking the blue "Resubmit' button. EatingCarBatteries _{(contribs | talk)} 20:44, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

sorry. i have just done it Abbey78336!abbey (talk) 21:03, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

article moved to Draft:Travel Time Africa Abbey78336!abbey (talk) 21:53, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

article moved to Draft:Travel Time Africa Abbey78336!abbey (talk) 16:09, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Comment on Rutgers School of Criminal Justice page

Hi there! Thank you for commenting on my Rutgers School of Criminal Justice article. You mentioned it could be ai generated, and I was wondering what made you say that. To be clear, I wrote all of it myself. But I don't want my article to appear ai generated at all - how can I improve the page so that it doesn't appear that way? MichaelGormanEditor (talk) 14:26, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi! Sorry for the late response, I've been gone the past couple days. It'll take me some explaining in this reply, so bear with me.

I believe you if you say you wrote this yourself, but I do still think at least part of the article was written (or at least formatted) by an AI model.

I flagged your article as AI because of a couple reasons:

• Titlecase in section headers. This really isn't a big deal, and newer editors do it all the time, but it is something that LLMs overwhelmingly tend to do
• Overuse of boldface. While it's not as bad as other cases, there is an excessive amount of boldface in both section headers and in the lists.
• Words commonly used by AI. Obviously words are words, and just because a computer uses them frequently doesn't mean a person can't.

The lists in the Research and Reporting section is the biggest indicator for me, and I'm almost certain that AI wrote it even if you wrote the rest. It overattributes coverage in sources and uses bold headers in each bullet. While using lists is perfectly fine on Wikipedia, the problem comes with the lack of depth that bullet points have. As an example:

• Social Media's Role in Youth Violence: Axios quoted Boxer addressing how social media played part in 1/3 of youth gun homicides in Indianapolis.[citation]

In this case, we can see the attribution (AI feels the need to hit people over the head with how their article meets Wikipedia's "notability" requirement]]), and the lack of detail. What did Boxer say? All we know from this point is that youth gun violence is a problem in Indianapolis, and Axios covered this topic. There are a bunch of similar examples throughout the lists.

----

Unrelated to AI, but Wikipedia generally isn't exhaustive. While it's great to have detailed and factual articles, you don't need to include every bit of information. In the current faculty section, you could cut that down to something like "There are X faculty at Rutgers SCJ, including <list academics that have Wikipedia articles here>. Each faculty member specializes in specific fields, such as X, Y, or Z.[citation here]." EatingCarBatteries _{(contribs | talk)} 21:52, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Draft:List of Artemis astronauts

Hi! You've marked Draft:List of Artemis astronauts as under reviewed, and the mainspace page has been G6 yesterday. Can the draft be moved to mainspace now? Thanks a lot! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 09:44, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Completely forgot about this draft. Thanks for reminding me! EatingCarBatteries _{(contribs | talk)} 01:41, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Wikifunctions & Abstract Wikipedia Newsletter #242 is out: Request for Discussion: Syntactic tables

There is a new update for Abstract Wikipedia and Wikifunctions. Please, come and read it!

In this issue, we introduce a proposal for Natural Language Generation, we introduce a page for function suggestions from Abstract Wikipedia, we inform you that there will be a presentation about Abstract Wikipedia at WikiCon Australia, and we take a look at the latest software developments.

Want to catch up with the previous updates? Check our archive!

Also, we remind you that if you have questions or ideas to discuss, the next Volunteers' Corner will be held on April 13, at 17:30 UTC (link to the meeting).

Enjoy the reading! -- User:Sannita (WMF) (talk) 13:37, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Your Articles for Creation review on List of Artemis astronauts

Hello EatingCarBatteries. This is a reminder that your Articles for Creation review on List of Artemis astronauts is still marked as ongoing for over forty-eight hours. After seventy-two hours, List of Artemis astronauts will be returned to the review queue so that other reviewers may review the draft.

If you wish to continue reviewing the draft but need more time before the bot returns it to the review queue, you can place {{bots|deny=TenshiBot}} on the draft so you can continue your review. Also, if you do not want to receive these notifications, you can place the same template on your talk page. TenshiBot (talk) 09:39, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

please review

Draft:Sharon Soloman Your initial rejection of this was for my writing style. I have since looked at the wikipedia writing styles (how to write better ...) and made a major overhaul. Please check this before I resubmit. I can of course, make more corrections. TheeCitationist (talk) 01:08, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

It honestly looks much better, very nice job 🙂

I would give it a submit, I suspect Soloman warrants her own article. I'll let someone else take a look at it, though, just in case. EatingCarBatteries _{(contribs | talk)} 02:04, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks so much. Also, how do I change the name of the title? Soloman is actually spelled Solomon. TheeCitationist (talk) 03:29, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

There's a move page button on the sidebar on the toolbar - I moved it for you. EatingCarBatteries _{(contribs | talk)} 06:53, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

You're awesome. I resubmitted it, today. TheeCitationist (talk) 15:38, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! 🙂 EatingCarBatteries _{(contribs | talk)} 18:31, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Haptosquilla trispinosa Resubmission

Hello @EatingCarBatteries,

I hope you are doing well. I was wondering if you would be able to look at my resubmission of the Haptosquilla trispinosa article that you declined. I understand your claim of potential use of LLM's, but that was just a product of lazy rephrasing for some of my citations. I have significantly cleaned up my earlier draft and I was just hoping that you would have some time to give it another look. I appreciate your time. Ahdabeck (talk) 17:14, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Nice job on cleaning it up! It looks much better than it did before, especially with the formatting issues solved. I'm going to be very busy for the next couple of days, meaning I can't get to reviewing. I'll take a better look once I'm free, if nobody else has done so. EatingCarBatteries _{(contribs | talk)} 02:26, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Wikifunctions & Abstract Wikipedia Newsletter #244 is out: Milestones; Some major issues hopefully resolved

There is a new update for Abstract Wikipedia and Wikifunctions. Please, come and read it!

In this issue, we celebrate 4000 functions on Wikifunctions and 1000 abstract articles on Abstract Wikipedia, we announce that we should have fixed some major issues with the websites, we inform you on our latest outreach activities, and we take a look at the latest software developments.

Want to catch up with the previous updates? Check our archive!

Enjoy the reading! -- User:Sannita (WMF) (talk) 10:22, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 21

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Deportation in the second Trump administration, a link pointing to the disambiguation page Axios was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Category:Junior Eurovision songs of Georgia (country) has been nominated for splitting

Category:Junior Eurovision songs of Georgia (country) has been nominated for splitting. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. ^SMason_Garrison 23:29, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Wikifunctions & Abstract Wikipedia Newsletter #245 is out: The Foundation's search for the perfect language

There is a new update for Abstract Wikipedia and Wikifunctions. Please, come and read it!

In this issue, we present an academic paper about Abstract Wikipedia, we discuss our latest Type created, and we take a look at the newest created functions.

Want to catch up with the previous updates? Check our archive!

Enjoy the reading! -- User:Sannita (WMF) (talk) 09:54, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Please stop removing underscores in anchor-names

I have restored (most? all?) of the underscores that you removed from anchor-names in antenna types. Although in principle, the underscores should be optional / extreneous, in practice, they are not. Links to anchors embedded in other articles will fail to reach the anchored point in the article if the reader is viewing the Wikipedia with Javascript disabled (prudent / paranoid web-browsing practice). With the embedded underscores in both the anchor-using link and the target anchor, the link works whether Javascript is enabled or not.
~2026-22971-27 (talk) 00:14, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

That's very interesting, thanks for letting me know and reverting my changes. This was the only page I did this edit on, as I was setting up AWB to do an unrelated task (fixing CS1 errors). It's been 4 days since I made that edit, and I honestly forget why I made it. Virtually every page I've seen doesn't use the underscores — does this mean most wikilinks are broken without JS? EatingCarBatteries _{(contribs | talk)} 00:38, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

New pages patrol May 2026 Backlog drive

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) 11:23, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Arachnids described in 1875

A tag has been placed on Category:Arachnids described in 1875 indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:25, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Wikifunctions & Abstract Wikipedia Newsletter #246 is out: Request for input: what should we count for Abstract Wikipedia

There is a new update for Abstract Wikipedia and Wikifunctions. Please, come and read it!

In this issue, we ask you what would be the relevant metrics for Abstract Wikipedia, we discuss our latest news on Composition Language v2, and we take a look at the latest software developments.

Want to catch up with the previous updates? Check our archive!

Enjoy the reading! -- User:Sannita (WMF) (talk) 12:21, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Review of Draft:All Known Little Ships of Dunkirk

Thank you for your review of Draft:All Known Little Ships of Dunkirk. I am seeking clarification on the basis for the decline.

Following the previous review, substantive changes were made to the draft. In particular, the earlier concern was that vessels were not clearly linked to Dunkirk through reliable sources. This was addressed, with entries referenced throughout using published and archival material. The content is therefore not original research, but a compilation of verifiable material already in the public domain.

I also explained that the purpose of the page is as a navigational index to support encyclopaedic articles, particularly where vessel names overlap or are ambiguous, rather than as a standalone directory. This aligns with existing Wikipedia content, where lists and categories already exist but are incomplete or selective (for example, List of ships involved in the Dunkirk evacuation, which explicitly only covers “more notable vessels”).

For context, the Dunkirk evacuation (Operation Dynamo) involved hundreds of vessels and is a major Second World War event, with over 330,000 troops rescued by a large fleet of naval and civilian craft. However, coverage of individual vessels remains fragmented, and there is currently no single structured, encyclopaedic index bringing these together from reliable sources.

Given this, I would be grateful if you could clarify why the draft was declined under “What Wikipedia is not”. The draft does not appear to fall into the categories listed (it is not an essay, personal profile, creative work, or advocacy), and the original research concern has been addressed through sourcing.

If the issue is instead one of scope, format, or list suitability, I would welcome specific guidance so that the draft can be restructured accordingly. Maritimehistorianuk (talk) 22:05, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi!

I'll admit that the decline message doesn't explain it very well - I'll request for it to be changed.

First, I want to preface that I found some other pages that are really a duplicate of you've been working on:

• List of ships at Dunkirk
• List of ships involved in the Dunkirk evacuation
• Little Ships of Dunkirk

Frankly, much of these pages should be merged together and interconnected using the Excerpt template. It seems like a good area for improvement.

Getting to the meat of this message: at Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, it says:

To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. As explained in § Encyclopedic content above, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. This does not restrict editors from citing databases; however, Wikipedia itself should not be a database.

----

Statistics that lack context or explanation can reduce readability and may be confusing; accordingly, statistics should be placed in tables to enhance readability, and articles with statistics should include explanatory text providing context. Where statistics are so lengthy as to impede the readability of the article, the statistics can be split into a separate article and summarized in the main article.

Wikipedia's purpose as an encyclopedia is to provide summary-style coverage of the topic. This is why the article List of ships at Dunkirk, is more selective. For our sake, being an encyclopedia, there isn't much sense in including around a thousand lines of ships when the vast majority of them have no information. For instance, the ship "Jean Millot (D)" has zero information about it, not even the ship type. The only thing the table provides of that ship is that the "Association of Dunkirk Little Ships" included it on their webpage - there isn't much to go off of.

If you want, you can try getting a third opinion at the Teahouse. I've found that it always helps, even as a more experienced editor. EatingCarBatteries _{(contribs | talk)} 02:31, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

I would like to clarify two key points.

Firstly, this draft is not a duplicate of any existing page. The pages referenced, including List of ships involved in the Dunkirk evacuation and Little Ships of Dunkirk, are selective in nature and focus on notable or well-documented vessels. They do not provide a structured, comprehensive index of vessels with sourced attributes. This draft is intended to complement those pages, not replicate them.

Secondly, and importantly, the current level of detail in some entries is not the end state.

I already hold further sourced information for a significant number of these vessels, including additional build details, roles, and historical context, and I am in the process of adding this material.

The draft therefore represents:

• a structured foundation, and
• an actively developing encyclopaedic resource

rather than a finished or static dataset.

Given this, I would respectfully ask:

Is Wikipedia not the appropriate place for this information to be developed, structured, and expanded?

The subject — the Dunkirk evacuation — is a major historical event, and the vessels involved are a core part of that history. At present, coverage is fragmented across multiple selective lists and individual articles. There is no single, structured, and sourced index bringing this material together in a consistent way.

This draft is intended to:

• consolidate verifiable information from reliable sources,
• provide a navigational framework for readers and editors, and
• support the creation and expansion of individual vessel articles over time.

It is not intended as an indiscriminate register, but as a curated and progressively enriched encyclopaedic list.

If the concern is about the current presentation or threshold of detail, I am very willing to:

• continue expanding entries to ensure each contains meaningful, sourced information,
• define clear inclusion criteria in the lead, and
• restructure the list to align more closely with existing list standards.

However, I would suggest that declining the draft at this stage risks preventing the development of what could become a valuable and well-sourced encyclopaedic resource.

I would welcome specific guidance on how best to bring the draft in line with expectations so that it can be improved and expanded within Wikipedia, rather than excluded in principle.

Maritimehistorianuk (talk) 07:12, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Hey, I really appreciate the message. I see that you deleted the draft and added the content to the existing article, which I think is a good idea.

I am currently asking some other editors if I am misunderstanding the rules on Wikipedia not being a database - after all, there are so many other pages that just maintain raw data with little text but still provide encyclopedic value and are allowed here. If I am wrong and you're right, I might try to shuffle around the data or perhaps recommend that original page you tried to submit be published.

At the very least, the data should be split up (maybe by letter of the alphabet, for example A-M, N-Z). The page you edited now ranks #96 on the longest pages on this website, and it still lags my computer trying to edit it. EatingCarBatteries _{(contribs | talk)} 02:30, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Draft:IT (franchise)

Could you tell me what sources I have put are not reliable please and what ones are not. DannyCutterAnderson (talk) 09:20, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi!

Digital stores (like Amazon, Audible, etc) are generally seen as unreliable because the content is self-published (especially reviews), with little oversight from the platform, and publishers/authors can remain anonymous if they so choose.

I will correct myself though - the way you are using these sources is completely fine. Platforms like Amazon can be reliable for uncontroversial basic information, such as the movie/book/game/soundtrack existing in the first place, release dates, or digital identifiers (ISBN, DOI, etc).

But an article can't rely entirely on these type of sources. One of Wikipedia's requirements for an article to exist is that it must have a few sources (typically at least 3) that each meet the following criteria:

Secondary sources that provide significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

For a franchise like IT, that won't be that hard to come by. There has been so much written about it by these kind of publications online, that it will be very easy to meet this requirement.

TLDR: Amazon/audible are reliable for uncontroversial information about the subject of the article, but an article needs other, more reliable sources as well.

Let me know if you have any questions! EatingCarBatteries _{(contribs | talk)} 23:16, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

With the bts book I put a link to the official company that published it, is that fine DannyCutterAnderson (talk) 08:57, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

References on Wikipedia can be a complicated process.

It's fine to use that throughout the article, but an article shouldn't be based solely on that. In this case, the BTS book wouldn't be independent of the IT franchise.

For an article to be published it needs typically at least 3 sources that meet ALL of the following:

• secondary
• independent
• reliable
• provide significant coverage

EatingCarBatteries _{(contribs | talk)} 18:53, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Wikifunctions & Abstract Wikipedia Newsletter #247 is out: References from Wikidata now available

There is a new update for Abstract Wikipedia and Wikifunctions. Please, come and read it!

In this issue, we announce that is now possible to pass references in Wikidata statements, we introduce the Abstract Data dashboard, we report you on the presentation about Abstract Wikipedia at WikiCon Australia, and we take a look at the latest software developments.

Want to catch up with the previous updates? Check our archive!

Also, we remind you that if you have questions or ideas to discuss, the next Volunteers' Corner will be held on May 11, at 17:30 UTC (link to the meeting).

Enjoy the reading! -- User:Sannita (WMF) (talk) 11:16, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Draft:Aux Animaux la Guerre

Hello. I submitted this for AfC review. I have the thought that the novel's English translation may be a more appropriate title for the page. This would follow the precedent of the other English-translated, title-variant work by Nicolas Mathieu in English Wikipedia: And Their Children After Them (novel). Jeffgriffinsignal (talk) 00:10, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

New Page Patrol Newsletter - May 2026

Hello EatingCarBatteries,

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) 23:37, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Wikifunctions & Abstract Wikipedia Newsletter #248 is out: A higher meaning

There is a new update for Abstract Wikipedia and Wikifunctions. Please, come and read it!

In this issue, we discuss functions creating language fragments, we present our latest news in Types, and we take a look at the latest software developments.

Want to catch up with the previous updates? Check our archive!

Enjoy the reading! -- User:Sannita (WMF) (talk) 14:36, 15 May 2026 (UTC)