Question from GS2026 (20:22, 16 March 2026)

Hi! I'm a new mentee assigned to you. I've made many, many small grammar and style edits before but am new to large-scale substantive contributions.

I suggested several edits on the talk page for a page with whose subject I have a conflict of interest, and following further research into the cited sources, I reached the conclusion that the subject is not notable and therefore nominated the page for deletion. The page is Gatestone_Institute, visible on the March 14th Articles for Deletion log.

I've been getting some responses from other editors that feel hostile, particularly accusing me of having used an LLM to generate either my nomination or my edit suggestion on the talk page or having made the nomination in bad faith. I've written everything using my own words without using any LLM, and I made the nomination in good faith. Clearly, the page will be kept, and that's fine. I recognize the potential weaknesses in the argument that the subject is not notable.

But how would you recommend I proceed? I'd prefer to have friendlier and more productive interactions with other editors, especially given my efforts to comply with WP:COI. I'd appreciate any advice you have. --GS2026 (talk) 20:22, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello GS2026, and welcome to Wikipedia! I'm sorry to hear it hasn't been fully smooth so far. We do get so much LLM-generated spam here that I'm afraid you're likely to bump into some folks who have gotten burned out on it and react badly to editors with a declared COI, and anything written in a sort of "corporate" prose style (which can read as LLM-generated even when it's not) rather than Wikipedia's rather dry, terse style. AfD nominations, for example, are usually just 1-2 sentences. In this case I think the strongest argument within your post could have been said in one sentence as The institution itself fails WP:NCORP, because it's primarily a platform and notability is WP:NOTINHERITED from its authors. (Though I think the sources in the AfD rebut that argument.) Some of your other points, about the usefulness of the page in its current state, are also rebutted by the policy that WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP.

It takes time and lurking to learn cultural norms, but Wikipedia does document everything exhaustively and maintain substantial archives, so my main advice is, before trying something, read as many policy documents and essays about that area as you can, and find an example of someone else doing the same thing which you can observe to see how the process goes. In your case you may also find it helpful to read WP:AGENDA and WP:NPOV. For now, you don't need to do anything else regarding the deletion discussion -- it will resolve on its own. Let me know if you have further questions, and happy editing! ~ le 🌸 valyn (talk) 00:03, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Question from 0xskepticep (16:48, 19 March 2026)

Hello Evalyn! I'm a general FOSS enthusiast but have never contributed to Wikipedia before. I noticed discrepancies between https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon_Go 's claims regarding locations in the U.S. and what Amazon themselves claim at https://www.justwalkout.com/locations . I tried to contribute an edit (hence the creation of my account): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Amazon_Go&oldid=1344229420

but it seems to have been reverted without a given reason by another reputable user, probably due to understandable suspicions of vandalism: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Amazon_Go&oldid=1344229847

To my understanding, Just Walk Out is a part of Amazon Go technologies---although the corporation makes it rather unclear---so information regarding it should be on the wiki page of Amazon Go.

If I am mistaken and Just Walk Out is distinct enough from Amazon Go, could it be possible that a separate wikipedia page could be beneficial for it? It's briefly mentioned but not explicitly discussed in the page on cashierless stores: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cashierless_store

My apologies for any discrepancies or misunderstanding, and thank you for your time 🙂 --0xskepticep (talk) 16:48, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello 0xskepticep, and welcome to Wikipedia! It's always great to have someone keeping an eye on the details. I think your edit was probably undone for a couple reasons: first, we prefer to rely on independent secondary sources, rather than a company's statements about themselves. Second, as a formatting matter, citations should be footnotes and external links should not appear in the body of the article. And third, some of the explanation you provided would be what wikipedia considers "original research". But I can certainly see why readers may wish to know the number that Amazon reports.

If you're game to keep learning the wiki-cultural ways to improve articles, you could try adding something more like As of March 2026, Amazon's official site for the "Just Walk Out" technology listed more than 1,000 "active locations" in the United States.<ref>https://www.justwalkout.com/location</ref>. You could also try posting at Talk:Amazon Go and using {{ping|SounderBruce}} to ask the person who reverted you if they would help brainstorm about integrating this information. A common consensus-building process here is called Bold, Revert, Discuss: you boldly made an attempted improvement, SounderBruce reverted it, and now you know there's some discussion to be had.

I hope that helps -- let me know if you have any other questions about Wikipedia, and happy editing! ~ le 🌸 valyn (talk) 23:43, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Arbitration Case opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Maghreb. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Maghreb/Evidence. Evidence of misconduct by parties but outside of Maghreb-related articles is welcome. All private evidence must be directed to arbcom-en-b@wikimedia.org If you wish to add another party, please make a request on the case talk page within the first week of the case. Please add your evidence by April 7, 2026 at 23:59 UTC, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Maghreb/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Party Guide/Introduction. For the Arbitration Committee, Sennecaster (Chat) 02:16, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Thank you so much for your time and effort. Aditi.Anand.Is.A.Bear (talk) 01:51, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Arbcom evidence

As far as I am aware, M.Bitton uses they/them pronouns per their user preferences (e.g. using the {{they}} template for them results in they/them pronouns). Katzrockso (talk) 02:54, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, I was not aware of that. I will amend my evidence. ~ le 🌸 valyn (talk) 02:57, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Women in Red – April 2026

Women in Red | April 2026, Vol 12, Issue 4, Nos 358, 359, 367, 368, 369 Online events: New: Countries starting with D, E and F | Women's Works: Written works | Cascading Women Continuing (year-long initiatives): #1day1woman | Sports Announcements from other communities: CEE women Tip of the month: When creating a new article, take a moment to ensure any notable woman is redlinked. Someone might be inspired to create an article for her. 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

--Chocmilk03 (talk) 20:15, 29 March 2026 (UTC) via MassMessaging

• Hi! I noticed this, "Trying to write an article about a book? I have some advice on finding book reviews, and some advice on using reviews to write articles." on your userpage and I think it would be useful info for April's Women in Red Event #368 (Women's Works: Written works). If you feel like it, maybe share a bit about it on the Women in Red talkpage? No worries if you lack time or inclination. And P.S. thanks for what you do around here. --Rosiestep (talk) 00:06, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

  I will gladly share, and thanks for drawing my attention to that event! April is rather busy for me but I may be able to join in toward the end, and it's right up my alley. ~ le 🌸 valyn (talk) 19:25, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Reviews on Return of the Strong Gods

Thank you for catching the reviews on my article draft. I have integrated your changes! Yikes9272 (talk) 13:54, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Arbitration Case opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/SchroCat. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/SchroCat/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 15, 2026 at 23:59 UTC, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/SchroCat/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Party Guide/Introduction. For the Arbitration Committee, DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 10:35, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

January–February 2026 NPP backlog drive – Points award

		The Invisible Barnstar
		This award is given in recognition of LEvalyn for accumulating at least 10 points in the January–February 2026 NPP backlog drive. Your contributions helped review 27,750 articles and 7,050 redirects during the drive. Thank you so much for taking part and helping reduce the backlog! – DreamRimmer ■ 16:48, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Question from AbhishekGoswami 1988 (12:06, 8 April 2026)

How I can add new pages on wikipedia about myself --AbhishekGoswami 1988 (talk) 12:06, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello AbhishekGoswami 1988, and welcome to Wikipedia! We strongly discourage writing an article about yourself. You can read more at WP:AUTOBIO. If you wish to edit on another topic, I am happy to help or answer questions any time. ~ le 🌸 valyn (talk) 20:05, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Question from Jocoutz (20:21, 11 April 2026)

I created an article about my father today, and it said it was published, but I don't see it anywhere, so not sure what to do next --Jocoutz (talk) 20:21, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello Jocout, and welcome to Wikipedia! It looks like you published the article to your Sandbox, which is a place to practice the technical part of Wikipedia editing. For the article to be published publicly, it needs to go through our "Articles for Creation" process. In this case, I moved it to the right place and set it up for you; in future, if you want to make an article, I suggest using the WP:Article Wizard, which also handles the technical stuff I did.

Right now, the article isn't ready to be accepted for publication. For new wikipedia articles, the most important thing that is evaluated -- more important than any of the actual words in the draft -- is the sources being cited. There need to be multiple in-depth, "reliable", independent sources referenced in the article, and there can't be any information that doesn't have a citation to some kind of source. Wikipedia's philosophy is that we are a tertiary source, that simply summarizes secondary sources, even when that means we're limited in what we cover.

It looks like wiki-suitable sources about your father do exist -- I immediately found this article, which is excellent. The Indspire laureate bio also looks in-depth, reliable, and independent. Once the article has a citation for every sentence (which you can also accomplish by deleting sentences that don't have sources for them), and includes enough independent sources to show how he meets our criteria for a biography article, you can "submit" the draft for review and another editor will be able to publish it publicly.

I do want to point you toward some of our advice on editing with a conflict of interest and writing an autobiography (not exactly relevant but similar problems can apply when editing about a close family member), and I'll also make you aware that Wikipedia does not permit most forms of AI-assisted writing. It can be overwhelming finding your way around here, but I am always happy to answer questions, and for a speedier response you can also ask at our help forum. Good luck with everything, and happy editing! ~ le 🌸 valyn (talk) 22:12, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Oh, I've just taken a look at them, and the editors' foreword and preface to A Metaphoric Mind would also be great sources to cite for the article! I see material to write a wonderful article about your father, and I hope that you will do so. ~ le 🌸 valyn (talk) 22:26, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Oops, just realised you’d need a link to where I put the draft: Draft:Joseph Couture. ~ le 🌸 valyn (talk) 15:36, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Question from WikiVolunteer247 (09:08, 19 April 2026)

Hello sir how to make my article live ? It is in sandbox only yet. Also, please check if its good enough --WikiVolunteer247 (talk) 09:08, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Hi @WikiVolunteer247, I see you have a draft in your sandbox at User:WikiVolunteer247/sandbox. I have added a template that indicates that this article is a userspace draft - if you would like to submit it for review from a articles for creation reviewer, you can press the "submit" button. ScalarFactor (talk) 16:58, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, I have sent for review kindly please review as this is my First work. I hope I can learn and contribute to wikipedia well. WikiVolunteer247 (talk) 20:11, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Notification of proposed decision

Hi LEvalyn, in the open Maghreb arbitration case, which you have commented on, a proposed decision has been posted. You can review the proposed decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the proposed decision, see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Party Guide/Proposed decision. For the Arbitration Committee, EggRoll97 ^(talk) 04:39, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

May 2026 Administrator Elections – Schedule

• The May 2026 administrator elections are set to proceed.
• We plan to use the following schedule:
  • April 29–May 5: Candidate sign-up
  • May 8–May 12: Discussion phase
  • May 13–May 19: SecurePoll voting phase
• If you have any questions, concerns, or thoughts before we get started, please ask at Wikipedia talk:Administrator elections.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:04, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, LEvalyn. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

– LuniZunie_(talk) 20:43, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Question from HenryBuf (00:41, 23 April 2026)

Hello! Help me find some good edits about football. --HenryBuf (talk) 00:41, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, HenryBuf! Unfortunately I don't know the slightest thing about football, but if you're interested in a specific topic, checking out a related WikiProject is one way to find editing to do. Looks like we have: Wikipedia:WikiProject Football, Wikipedia:WikiProject American football, Wikipedia:WikiProject college football, Wikipedia:WikiProject National Football League, and many more...

Once you've found the right WikiProject, you can look for articles classified as "stubs", which need expansion, at e.g. Category:Stub-Class American football articles. Or you can find listings like this one which identify articles tagged with specific problems that need fixing. You should also have some suggested edits at Special:Homepage. If you have questions as you explore, you can ask me or usually get a faster answer at our help forum. Happy editing! ~ le 🌸 valyn (talk) 21:17, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

April 29: WikiWednesday NYC Salon

April 29: WikiWednesday @ Prime Produce

You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our WikiWednesday Salon at Prime Produce in Hell's Kitchen, Manhattan, with an online-based participation option also available. No experience of anything at all is required. All are welcome! Featuring this salon, a facilitated discussion on Wikidata, notability, and GLAM! All attendees are subject to Wikimedia NYC's Code of Conduct and Photography Policy. Meeting info: Wednesday, April 29 WikiWednesday @ Prime Produce (optional RSVP on-wiki). 6:00 pm – 7:00 pm (Open Hour) 7:00 pm – 9:00 pm (Wiki Salon) (Prime Produce, Hell's Kitchen, Manhattan) Also online via Zoom

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:16, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Question from Mohamed Ali Shouman (04:35, 25 April 2026)

Hi there, I want to enrich your data base by identifying one of the senior banker in the GCC. How is the way? --Mohamed Ali Shouman (talk) 04:35, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello Mohamed Ali Shouman, and welcome to Wikipedia. I'm not really sure what you mean by this. I'm guessing you want to add a mention of a specific person to our encylopedia article about one of the organizations that goes by GCC. If so, the way to add information is to start by finding a reliable, published source which has stated that information. Then you can edit the article in question, with a citation to that source. Help:Introduction has some information on the mechanics of how to do that. You should also be aware of our policies around biographies of living persons and editing with a conflict of interest. ~ le 🌸 valyn (talk) 04:56, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Good Article Gazette, Issue 13

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

Critical analysis in novel articles

Hi, I've been working on more book-related articles again recently and wanted to ask about analysis/themes sections. I'm not looking for anything like a GA review, but I was wondering if you had any input on what level of analysis/interpretation from sources is generally acceptable to put in wikivoice?

My specific (recent) examples are The Bewitched Bourgeois § Analysis and Seven Floors § Analysis. I'm used to attributing opinions for stuff like reception sections, but even then I think it comes off a bit 'clunky' sometimes. On Seven Floors I have He is essentially lead to death by hypochondria., but attributing it to the sources I have that say that seems awkward while just writing Critics say that seems a bit weasle-wordy to me, even when cited at the end of the sentence.

If you'd like another example of my writing in this area for reference, I also have a similar section in Waiting for the Fear § Style and themes, which at least passed through DYK checks and didn't get any editing to that section during its front-page run other than some copy-editing.

Thanks, ScalarFactor (talk) 19:12, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Happy to mull this over together! In general, I think using wikivoice for non-contested information makes for a clearer and more helpful reading experience. I'll definitely use wikivoice if 2+ sources state the same thing, and I'll consider using it if I know the one source on the topic hasn't been contested. (ie I primarily attribute when I am trying to present someone's interpretive argument (especially when mapping out a debate), or when someone has a really useful quote I want to include. (For an example of that latter case, I'd personally attribute in the prose or reword for "comedy of errors" on Seven Floors and for "disjointed interior states" on Waiting for the Fear.)

Maybe A Sentimental Journey Through France and Italy is a useful example. Looking at that article more closely, I also see that I am citing a scholarly introduction for a lot of the claims that are in wikivoice; since the purpose of a scholarly introduction is, essentially, to summarize the most foundational consensus about the book (as opposed to eg a journal article which attempts to defend a new and original assertion or a book review which presents a subjective opinon), I feel very confident using wikivoice for material from introductions.

Looking at the articles you linked, I think the level of attribution is basically appropriate, but I wonder if there is a way to further improve the prose flow. I also notice that Buzzati could read German, and was one of the first to produce a novel that could be called "Kafkaesque" is kind of a WP:CLOP of the source's Buzzati, who read German, was among Kafka's first readers to produce a novel in the category of the "Kafkaesque.". In my experience, CLOP and 'flow' problems go hand in hand, because the source's sentences are built to fit in to the overall structure of the source, therefore don't 'fit in' in the new structure of the wiki article. For this example, the detail about German feels really out of place... looking more closely, I don't think that specific sentence from the source really tells us anything about Buzzati and Kafka that the article hasn't already said. I'd be inclined to try to incorporate this information instead: the later tales often ... [show] a permanent insecurity about his work's value and his invisible reader's expectations. (Within these pieces lies the evidence of how he fussed over the implication that he was Kafka's follower.) Something like, According to the NYT review, several stories express some of Buzzati's own "permanent insecurity" about writing in Kafka's shadow.

That wandered pretty far from the attribution question you asked, but I hope it's helpful to see some of my thinking/writing process for converting sources into encyclopedia articles... I always love to see more folks writing thorough book articles! ~ le 🌸 valyn (talk) 00:31, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate the feedback. I don't think it's really off-topic - the root cause is essentially just that my prose isn't very good, which I'm (unfortunately) aware of. I do enjoy the reading (which is why I'm on Wikipedia and making book articles in the first place), but the writing never really came naturally to me, so it's definitely warranted advice. I've been an editor on various wikis for a long time, though not really WP before this account other than the odd IP typo-fixing, but typically more in a filling-out-infoboxes-and-templates sort of way.

I'm a little surprised I've ended up working on as many book articles as I have. I had thought I'd mostly stay in the WP:VG areas, but so many important/successful books are missing/deficient that I just naturally found myself gravitating to the backlogs in this area (especially after I got newspapers.com access through TWL and realized how many books have dozens of reviews in every major newspaper pre-2000). ScalarFactor (talk) 04:51, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I'm constantly amazed by how many useful book articles don't exist! And newspapers.com is so delightfully rich for sourcing!! As for writing elegant prose... not everybody has to master every part of writing an encyclopedia, and it's much better to have something "clunky" than to have nothing at all. But if you like prose-crafting and would enjoy tinkering to improve it, it's definitely a learnable skill: I don't think writing comes "naturally" to anyone until they've clocked in a lot of very serious practice. I personally think I got a lot better at "flow" through a class where I learned this concept (follow the link to download the PDF) and George Gopen's framework of "writing from the reader's perspective"; it may not be worth getting his whole book, but these slides seem to hit the main points. My other advice, as someone who has taught writing from time to time, is that skill-building in writing really relies on audience feedback. On Wikipedia, I found GA reviewing to be good practice, both noticing what throws me off in other people's articles and hearing from reviewers what didn't make sense to them in my own articles. ~ le 🌸 valyn (talk) 19:23, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

I do agree that it comes down to practice, yeah. It's part of why I started making some articles for books I hadn't read (as I was pretty bottlenecked by my reading speed of notable titles that don't have an article yet), though most of my more substantial articles/DYKs are still for works that I have read. The ongoing destubathon fits in for that too.

I've considered the GA process in the past, but I'm a bit wary of the whole process, as a reviewer and a nominator. I think I have a decent sense for when the writing isn't quite right (see: my initial question here), but I'd be a bit reluctant be a reviewer in a process that just ends up saying "this writing isn't up to par" but can't give any actionable suggestions on how to fix it. I know I personally would be a bit annoyed if I got a GA reviewer like that. As a nominator, I just think that a failed nomination (especially a quickfail) would be demotivating to my wiki presence as a whole (especially because "this article is a failed GA candidate" sticks around on the talk page forever until someone gets it promoted).

I'll definitely take a look at the writing advice though - thanks for that and sorry for the late reply here, got sidetracked. ScalarFactor (talk) 02:30, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

May 2026 Administrator Election – Call for Candidates

The administrator elections process has officially started! Interested editors are encouraged to self-nominate or arrange to be nominated by reviewing the instructions at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/May 2026/Candidates.

Here is the schedule:

• April 29 – May 5: Call for candidates
• May 8–12: Discussion phase
• May 13–19: SecurePoll voting phase

Please note the following:

• The requirements to run are identical to RFA—a prospective candidate must be extended confirmed.
• Prospective candidates are advised to become familiar with the community's expectations of administrators, which are much higher than the minimum requirement of having extended confirmed status. This includes reviewing successful and unsuccessful RFAs, reading the essay Wikipedia:Advice for admin elections candidates, and possibly requesting an optional poll on their chances of passing.
• The process will have a seven day call for candidates phase, a two day pause, a five day discussion phase, and a seven day private vote using SecurePoll. Discussion and questions are only allowed on the candidate pages during the discussion phase.
• The outcome of this process is identical to making a request for adminship. There is no official difference between an administrator appointed through RFA versus administrator elections.
• Administrator elections are also a valid means of regaining adminship for de-sysopped editors.

Ask any questions about the process at the talk page. Later, a user talk message will be sent to official candidates with additional information about the process.

If you are interested in the process, please make sure to watchlist the appropriate pages. A watchlist notice will be added when the discussion phase opens, and again when the voting phase opens.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:31, 29 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) 11:24, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

WikiCup 2026 May newsletter

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)

Women in Red – May 2026

Women in Red | May 2026, Vol 12, Issue 5, Nos 358, 359, 370, 371, 372 Online events: New: Countries starting with G and H | Women's scientific works | Religion and Spirituality Continuing (year-long initiatives): #1day1woman | Sports Announcements from other communities: Contest: Destubathon of the Americas Tip of the month: Struggling to find scientific works to write about? Start with review articles or textbooks, which may highlight influential studies, theories or methods by women. 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

--Chocmilk03 (talk 04:45, 30 April 2026 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Question from Joebrown2468 (18:20, 5 May 2026)

Conversation with Gemini Story about mjint1 I want upload on Wikipedia

MJINT1 MJINT1 (born Jonathan Mwape, c. 2006), also known by the moniker MJ INNIT, is a Zambian digital entrepreneur, content creator, and music personality based in Lusaka. He is best known for his work in social media brand management and his involvement in the UK Drill and streetwear subcultures within Southern Africa.

Early life and education Mwape was raised in Lusaka, Zambia. He attended Mpamba Primary School and later completed his secondary education at New Kamulanga Secondary School, graduating in 2024. During his youth, he developed an interest in digital media and fashion, which would later form the basis of his professional brand.

Career Digital Branding and "MJ INNIT" Mwape established the personal brand MJINT1, focusing on social media marketing and cross-platform content creation. His work primarily spans TikTok, Instagram, and Facebook, where he focuses on streetwear aesthetics and music-related content.

In early 2026, he expanded his brand into the fitness industry with the development of the MJ INNIT Fitness application, aimed at providing digital workout solutions. He also manages an online merchandise storefront, integrating affiliate marketing and streetwear distribution.

Music and Style Associated with the UK Drill and Grime movement, MJINT1 is known for incorporating the "Roadman" aesthetic into his digital persona. This includes the frequent use of Nike Tech Fleece, skull caps, and Syna 95 Max footwear. In 2026, he produced a notable remix of the Central Cee track "Tension," adapting the ly --Joebrown2468 (talk) 18:20, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello Joebrown2468, it looks like you want to make a Wikipedia article about yourself. It doesn't look like you yet meet our criteria to have an article. Our articles have to be based on completely independent publications, which usually means a wikipedia article happens after several major career successes, not at the start of someone career. Do also read our policies about handling a conflict of interest. ~ le 🌸 valyn (talk) 19:10, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Question from Nsieffy on Hindenburg Programme (20:25, 6 May 2026)

Please how do edited here --Nsieffy (talk) 20:25, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello Nsieffy, and we some to Wikipedia! Every article will have an “edit” button in the top left that will let you make changes. Help:Introduction has a lot more information about how to edit. Let me know if you have more specific questions as you get started, and happy editing! ~ le 🌸 valyn (talk) 20:44, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

May 2026 Administrator Elections – Discussion Phase

The discussion phase of the May 2026 administrator elections is officially open. As a reminder, the schedule of the election is:

• May 8–12: Discussion phase (we are here)
• May 13–19: SecurePoll voting phase
• Scrutineering phase

We are currently in the discussion phase. The candidate subpages are open to questions and comments from everyone, in the same style as a request for adminship. You may discuss the candidates at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/May 2026/Discussion phase.

On 13 May, we will start the voting phase. The candidate subpages will close to public questions and discussion, and everyone will have a week to use the SecurePoll software to vote, which uses a secret ballot. You can see who voted, but not who they voted for.

Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.

-- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:22, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

May 2026 Administrator Elections – Voting Phase

The voting phase of the May 2026 administrator elections has started and will continue until 19 May 2026 at 23:59 UTC. You can participate in the voting phase at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/May 2026/Voting phase.

As a reminder, the schedule of the election is:

• May 13–19: SecurePoll voting phase (we are here)
• Scrutineering phase

In the voting phase, the candidate subpages close to public questions and discussion, and everyone who qualifies to vote has a week to use the SecurePoll software to vote, which uses a secret ballot. You can see who voted, but not who they voted for. Please note that the vote totals cannot be made public until after voting has ended and as such, it will not be possible for you to see an individual candidate's vote total during the election. The suffrage requirements are similar to those at RFA.

Once voting concludes, we will begin the scrutineering phase, which will last for a few days, perhaps longer. Once everything is certified, the results will be posted on the results page (this is a good page to watchlist), and transcluded to the main election page. In order to be granted adminship, a non-recall candidate must have received at least 70.0% support, calculated as Support / (Support + Oppose), and a minimum of 20 support votes. Recall candidates must achieve 55.0% support. Because this is a vote and not a consensus, there are no bureaucrat discussions ("crat chats").

Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:10, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

New Page Patrol Newsletter - May 2026

Hello LEvalyn,

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)