User talk:FOARP

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

Administrators' newsletter – February 2025

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2025).

Administrator changes

readded
removed Euryalus

CheckUser changes

removed

Oversighter changes

removed

Technical news

  • Administrators can now nuke pages created by a user or IP address from the last 90 days, up from the initial 30 days. T380846
  • A 'Recreated' tag will now be added to pages that were created with the same title as a page which was previously deleted and it can be used as a filter in Special:RecentChanges and Special:NewPages. T56145

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:27, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edit at RM

[edit]

I would think that this edit (the middle paragraph) is casting WP:ASPERSIONS and an inappropriate comment to make in the RM discussion. I would suggest that it be struck. It would also appear that you have misconstrued the meaning of scope in the context that I have been using it in the discussion. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:12, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cinderella, since presumably this isn’t just Wikilawyering, I’m happy to strike the part about that. FOARP (talk) 04:08, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GS alert

[edit]
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the Russo-Ukrainian War. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has authorised uninvolved administrators to impose contentious topics restrictions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, expected standards of behaviour, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Cinderella157 (talk) 02:14, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – March 2025

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2025).

Administrator changes

removed

CheckUser changes

removed

Oversighter changes

removed AmandaNP

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • A new filter has been added to the Special:Nuke tool, which allows administrators to filter for pages in a range of page sizes (in bytes). This allows, for example, deleting pages only of a certain size or below. T378488
  • Non-administrators can now check which pages are able to be deleted using the Special:Nuke tool. T376378

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:37, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ten-go/Kikusui move

[edit]

Hey FOARP, I guess this is really on me, but I'd like to hear your thoughts. You closed this RM as "Moved" with the rationale "No oppose !votes, no reason not to carry out the move." The nominator did not cite any sources other than Japanese Wikipedia, which is obviously not a reliable source, so I have no idea if their claims are true or not. In hindsight, I should've left a comment along the lines of "oppose until sources are provided as evidence", but I did not, choosing a softer wording instead, so your close is justified. I'm not going to ask you to undo your close, but I do wonder if you have the same reservations I have. Toadspike [Talk] 13:19, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the JP Wiki articles for Ten-Go and Kikusui (in machine translation - I lived in Japan for a while but that was 15 years ago now) and found them to be cited to a range of sources I wasn't able to review, but they do include the Yamamoto sortie under Kikusui (this appears to be cited to the official Japanese history and the testimony of ). I presume the proposed move was intended to be cited to the sources in those JP wiki articles, not the JP wiki articles themselves. Based on that I couldn't see any reason to deny the move.
I note that the JP Wiki article on the Yamato has this section:
"In his journal, Sensouroku, Vice Admiral Ugaki, commander of the 5th Air Fleet, criticized the response of Chief of the Naval General Staff Oikawa, saying that when Chief of the Naval General Staff Oikawa presented "Operation Kikusui No. 1" to Emperor Showa, the Emperor asked, "Will it be an all-out attack on the air forces alone?" Oikawa replied, "We will use the entire force of the Navy," which led to the Second Fleet's maritime suicide attack."
Which is cited to the Japanese book "Testimonies of Survivors of the Battleship Yamato" by Kurihara. It therefore doesn't appear inaccurate (unless the original source is misquoted) to say that the sortie of the Yamato was undertaken as part of Kikusui 1.
I'm happy to re-open for more discussion if requested. FOARP (talk) 13:39, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that's good, I'm glad you looked into it. I am willing to AGF on the sourcing, so there's no need to re-open the RM. Thank you for your speedy response! Toadspike [Talk] 13:52, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your article Marika Stiernstedt

[edit]

Information icon Welcome, and thank you for contributing the page Marika Stiernstedt to Wikipedia. While you have added the page to the English version of Wikipedia, the article is not in English. We invite you to translate it into English. It has been listed at Pages needing translation into English, but if it is not translated within two weeks, the article may be listed for deletion. Thank you. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 22:12, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is clearly wrong since it's written in English, I assume this is a bot malfunction. FOARP (talk) 08:53, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Close at Talk:Second Nagorno-Karabakh War#RfC on inclusion of Syrian mercenaries in infobox

[edit]

Did you look at the article and in particular, that section of the infobox in question? Perhaps you might reconsider your close if you had not. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:23, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I followed the discussion around Vanezi’s comments if that is what is being referred to here? But as far as I could see their condition (I.e., only supporting removing the mercenaries if Turkey was included unconditionally as a belligerent) was not met and so they appear to still be opposed. Otherwise I’m not sure what is being referred to.
Personally, as discussed in this past, I prefer keeping the infobox as simple as possible, but I was closing, not !voting. FOARP (talk) 15:33, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – April 2025

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2025).

Administrator changes

added
readded Dennis Brown
removed

Bureaucrat changes

added Barkeep49

CheckUser changes

added 0xDeadbeef

Oversighter changes

removed GB fan
readded Moneytrees

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:45, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Imjonseong Fortress

[edit]

Could you explain why there wasn't consensus to move to Imjonseong (removing "Fortress")? There were 5 supports for that proposal (Myceteae, SnowFire, Toadspike, seefooddiet, and myself) versus 1 or 2 opposes (Amakuru; Ymblanter didn't comment on the alternative proposal), and the reasoning was based in policy. Malerisch (talk) 13:50, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Malerisch, thanks for getting in touch.
I was focusing on the consensus of the proposed move and hadn't noticed one had formed for an alternative. I think you're right so I've update the close. FOARP (talk) 14:03, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Minor request

[edit]

Hello. Thanks for your RfC closure [1]! It's so long that I thought no one was going to read it and close it.

One minor request though, would you mind adding a wikilink for WP:PAG? It's an acronym that I don't think many people are aware of. Thanks! Bogazicili (talk) 15:20, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weliganwala

[edit]

What do you think about redirecting thus to the nearby hamlet of Selagama? Bearian (talk) 17:58, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What source says the name is anything to do with that village? FOARP (talk) 18:45, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Welinganwala is basically a suburb of Selagama. Look at the maps. Bearian (talk) 00:18, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The location in the article looks like that, but we don’t know it’s called Welinganwala. In that case it makes no sense to redirect. That’s my issue here.
All of these Sri Lankan “village” articles that Ser Nicolao created back in 2008-9 have the same issue: he went through GNS (or a similar database)making an article about every listing in it at a rate of hundreds in a day. He put a link to the Sri Lankan government website on each article but that clearly wasn’t the source used as there’s nothing on it about this. However, GNS is based on military or colonial-era maps from the 1940’s-60’s or earlier, and not very accurate, especially for whether something was populated or not. Location data was then added which was of even lower reliability.
Some of these places exist (and whenever I find they exist I usually leave them alone). Some exist but are duplicates (I normally just redirect those). Many just don’t exist as villages and it is senseless to keep them. FOARP (talk) 06:19, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notable gymnasts?

[edit]

@Sirfurboy:, @JoelleJay: as you are into removing unnotable articles: I started looking at gymnastics pages, and you might take a look at the 2014 Acrobatic Gymnastics World Championships. Stubs are created of almost every gymnast with a trivial mention in 1 primary source. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 22:28, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – May 2025

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2025).

Administrator changes

added Rusalkii
readded NaomiAmethyst (overlooked last month)
removed

Interface administrator changes

removed Galobtter

Guideline and policy news

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:01, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

[edit]

Hi FOARP. Thank you for your work on Tourist athlete. Another editor, Noleander, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Phrase " considered the last straw .." is slang. Should be improved with more professional wording.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Noleander}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Noleander (talk) 21:33, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Sulaiman Juma Al-Habsi's presence at the Olympics

[edit]

Hi, per discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sulaiman Juma Al-Habsi, he was definitely at the Olympics and competed. Also, I do see Al-Habsi's Arabic name at those two links. See for example the transcript of the official report here: [2] "Al-Habsi, Sulaiman". I have gone through hundreds (thousands?) of athletics Olympedia bios and have yet to find one incorrectly claiming that someone competed in the Olympics. Can you please relay this at the AfD on my behalf? Thanks, --Habst (talk) 13:45, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the other sources (World Athletics, Tilastopaja) both source their information independently from Olympedia, so if it were really an error, it would have to be one that was shared by both official reports and two other independent bodies. --Habst (talk) 14:01, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sulaiman Al-Habsi is not at those links, other people with the same surname are (Mohammad Al-Habsi and Shanuna Al Habsi), which is why I'm questioning whether they're really there. I also am not really sure if those are independent sources to Olympedia - they're all referencing the same information ultimately, aren't they? It's not like they recorded this information themselves. FOARP (talk) 14:05, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@FOARP, yes, all three are run by athletics historians who compile information independently. That's why Tilastopaja frequently has additional or less non-Olympic results than World Athletics and they often have different romanizations of foreign names. There's no doubt from reliable sources (I haven't worked with Oman Daily or Al-Watan as much but speaking to the others) that Al-Habsi competed. Can you ping a native Arabic speaker to mediate if there are still doubts? --Habst (talk) 14:30, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They clearly aren't attending these events and recording the results themselves, are they? If they are I would like to know where they learned the secret of time-travel from, since these databases were set up after the races they carry the statistics for. Inevitably their statistics will come from the same ultimate source.
I've asked the question on the AFD, if other people want to answer that question they can. FuzzyMagma has apparently already taken a look at the Arabic sourcing.
Regardless, the result at this point is very unlikely to be anything but deletion or redirection. FOARP (talk) 14:37, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@FOARP, in World Athletics' case, they certainly do sometimes, and their records extend far before the invention of the Internet back to 1912. Their statistics certainly don't come from the same source because there are many cases where one has more results than another.
Because the result (deletion or redirection) in part depends on this fact ("If it can be verified that this subject participated, redirect, otherwise, delete"), can you please communicate this on the AfD? Pinging User:Let'srun who wrote this. --Habst (talk) 14:44, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not even sure what exactly I'm supposed to say that isn't already apparent to everyone on that thread - that some of the sourcing says there a Sulaiman Al-Habsi attended and some of the other sourcing cited in the article does not list a Sulaiman Al-Habsi as having attended despite apparently listing all other attending Omani athletes. I think the real lesson here is: don't add sourcing that doesn't even include the name of the topic to the article, don't rely entirely on databases which may simply have reproduced the same error.
I also note that there are two different versions of the Arabic name of this athlete in the article - again, the question here is what even is the name of the athlete? How can we confirm they attended when even this doesn't appear clear? FOARP (talk) 14:53, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@FOARP, the official Olympic report wasn't linked or mentioned in the AfD, can you please just link that and say that the official report states that Al-Habsi did compete in the Olympics, and we have yet to find even one source refuting this? --Habst (talk) 15:08, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have to "refute" what primary sources say. We should ideally confirm them in secondary sources, and this is what's lacking.
Let's Run has been pinged in to this conversation already and can see everything you've written - no need for further action. FOARP (talk) 15:27, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I am thankful for your challenges and for @BeanieFan11's help citing contemporary news reports because they help make the encyclopedia better. In the case of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moustafa Abdel Naser, could you please remove "the Karel Pacák case" and leave a note because there was no indication there that Olympedia had any incorrect information on his profile? I'm not familiar with the other two cases. -Habst (talk) 14:45, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, not removing that Habst, because if they don't know where or when he died (and they don't), then they don't know that he died in Germany and shouldn't be saying that they do know that. FOARP (talk) 15:31, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response. They do know he died in Germany though, just not when or the specific city. It's responsible of Olympedia to say that; it would be irresponsible to guess a year or city if they didn't know. This is somewhat common on Wikipedia; many articles in Category:Year of death missing only list a country of death but not a city or date, see for example Franc Frakelj. I'm just confused about what you think is the specific issue? --Habst (talk) 15:44, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is not credible that they know the country without knowing either the place or even the year of death. FOARP (talk) 17:23, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why is that not credible? There are other cases like Franc Frakelj or William Fullerton (politician) where country of death is specified but not year or place. It's possible to know that someone has died in a country without knowing their city or year of death. If there was any WP:RS information that disagreed with Olympedia, I would agree that it was unreliable. But that isn't the case here. --Habst (talk) 17:31, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It definitely does raise questions, particularly because of the most likely explanation of why they’re saying Germany: WW2. If this guy disappeared in to the concentration/labour camps, or was conscripted in to the German army, then we would likely have no idea of where or when he actually died, including whether it was in Germany. FOARP (talk) 17:38, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with most of your comment, and I even agree with much of what you wrote in the AfD. But the Karel Pacák case is not an example of "incorrect information" or even an appearance of incorrect information because those are all hypotheticals. In order for information to be incorrect, it has to be, well, demonstrated to be incorrect. That's why I think that example should be struck. --Habst (talk) 17:44, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is not how it works. For something to be "correct", it must first be plausible on its own grounds: saying that you know with high confidence that you know that someone died in Germany, when you don't know when or where they died, is not plausible. FOARP (talk) 15:12, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Taking a step back here, are you alleging that Olympedia is incorrect to have listed a country of death as Germany because a year and city of death was not also listed? It's perfectly plausible to know one but not the others; some scenarios could be that they were told that by a family member or found it in a listing of deaths. I just don't see how this is an example of getting something incorrect when there's no indication of that? --Habst (talk) 18:19, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First "told by a family member" is not high-confidence information. Secondly "a listing of deaths" would almost always say at least what year. FOARP (talk) 19:12, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If Olympedia frequently did this, maybe I would raise an eyebrow, but you don't think it's possible that in this one case out of thousands, they could have known the country but not the date or city of death? There are lists of deaths that don't have dates attached for whatever reason. In general, it's possible to have one thing without having another thing even if they're usually paired together. --Habst (talk) 19:51, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced articles June 2025 backlog drive

[edit]
WikiProject Unreferenced articles | June 2025 Backlog Drive

There is a substantial backlog of unsourced articles on Wikipedia, and we need your help! The purpose of this drive is to add sources to these unsourced articles and make a meaningful impact.

  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles cited.
  • Remember to tag your edit summary with #JUN25, both to advertise the event and tally the points later using Hashtag Summary Search.
  • Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you have subscribed to the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:15, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Kąty, Dąbrowa County
added a link pointing to Brzezówka
Lechówka, Lesser Poland Voivodeship
added a link pointing to Brzezówka

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:54, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – June 2025

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2025).

Administrator changes

removed

Interface administrator changes

added 0xDeadbeef

CheckUser changes

readded L235

Oversight changes

readded L235

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC is open to determine whether the English Wikipedia community should adopt a position on AI development by the WMF and its affiliates.

Technical news

Arbitration

  • An arbitration case named Indian military history has been opened. Evidence submissions for this case close on 8 June.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:16, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

[edit]

I really agreed with what you said here (the third paragraph) about third-rail topics. I get that sense myself, though I usually do leave well alone. Carcharoth (talk) 14:35, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Caps

[edit]

It was interesting reviewing the mess around your close of the New York City Subway RM from several years back. I had forgotten that's where we had encountered each other before. Then, as now, you waded into a serious discussion while disclaiming any understanding of why people cared about the positions they were so ardently promoting. That's the kind of thing that you should leave to people who do understand why people care. I'm sure there are plenty of other ways you can contribute, as they say. Dicklyon (talk) 05:13, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would counter that capitalisation, objectively something that most users do not notice and which does not create content, is similarly objectively not worth the effort presently being spent on it. People becoming over-committed to something, and entering a disruptive battleground state against people similarly over-committed to the opposite proposition, is hardly unique to capitalisation. FOARP (talk) 07:19, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All the more reason to stay out of the ones you can't understand. As for what the effort is worth, I've made a small start on the essay I promised: User:Dicklyon/Why I care about over-capitalization. Dicklyon (talk) 06:14, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, my view was is the exact opposite. If there is an issue you care greatly about, then that is exactly the issue that you should take a break from editing in. Without over-labouring the point, I would have hoped that recent events might have highlighted the wisdom of that approach. FOARP (talk) 06:22, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see how that's related, nor opposite, to what I was talking about, which was not about taking a break, but about wading in to settle an argument without understanding why people are arguing about things that you think are not important. Dicklyon (talk) 18:09, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dicklyon, you're "topic banned from (de)capitalization", and I would assume that should be read as "broadly construed", which includes further discussing the topic here. FOARP (talk) 18:15, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you look on my talk page, you'll see that the specifically did not say "broadly construed", and the that discussion capitalization generically would be OK. But I'll leave you now. Dicklyon (talk) 16:55, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – July 2025

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2025).

Administrator changes

removed NuclearWarfare

Interface administrator changes

added L235

Guideline and policy news

Miscellaneous

  • The 2025 Developing Countries WikiContest will run from 1 July to 30 September. Sign up now!
  • Administrator elections will take place this month. Administrator elections are an alternative to RFA that is a gentler process for candidates due to secret voting and multiple people running together. The call for candidates is July 9–15, the discussion phase is July 18–22, and the voting phase is July 23–29. Get ready to submit your candidacy, or (with their consent) to nominate a talented candidate!
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:48, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

pump?

[edit]

You posted:

Personally, the next time I see an essentially-groundless petition like this, I intend to open a motion to close it. We can test then just how much people agree with this process. The idea that you just can't discuss something in a discussion about that thing is patently absurd and purest WP:BURO. FOARP (talk) 7:53 am, Today (UTC−4)

And I said Hm. Something like that might be a good check-and-balance for preventing frivolous RECALL petitions -- which obviously no one wants to see. We can't know how many people watching a petition aren't ready to sign, but don't believe it's actually frivolous and would support seeing the admin RRfA. Valereee (talk) 8:20 am, Today (UTC−4)

Do you think we could suggest a process by which anyone could add a motion to a recall petition? Maybe a motion is open for seven days and stops voting for that period. It could encourage recalls to be extremely well-thought out before being started. Valereee (talk) 20:43, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not sure whether the best thing wouldn’t be just to do it and see how it turns out when it happens. The reason I’m saying this is that a particularly bad recall proposal would be the best advertisement for the necessity of it. In contrast when discussing in abstract people are more likely to say “why is this needed?”.
Additionally, when the argument for this is based on WP:NOTBURO then it should not be something that adds to the bureaucracy of the process.
Open to suggestions, obviously. FOARP (talk) 05:12, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fine by me! Here's hoping we never will actually have that test case. Valereee (talk) 09:44, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hi I thought i would ping you regarding this discussion as you have been involved in several AFDs regarding CDPs and was deeply involved in the failed RFC regarding GEOLAND. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 17:35, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Transgender healthcare and people arbitration case opened

[edit]

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/Transgender healthcare and people. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transgender healthcare and people/Evidence. Please add your evidence by August 11, 2025 at 23:59 UTC, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transgender healthcare and people/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Party Guide/Introduction. For the Arbitration Committee, Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 06:52, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

[edit]
Precious
Two years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:16, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting redirects with disambiguators

[edit]

Hi @FOARP, I wanted to start a separate discussion about this to not derail the AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ajit Singh (race walker).

I don't think it's appropriate to delete redirects just because they have a disambiguation in their title. There are over 120,000 redirects with disambiguators categorized as such, with probably many more uncategorized. In general, any article title can also be the title of a redirect, so I think that would extend to disambiguated article titles as well. --Habst (talk) 18:15, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – August 2025

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2025).

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a request for comment, a new speedy deletion criterion, G15, has been enacted. It applies to pages generated by a large language model (LLM) without human review.
  • Following a request for comment, there is a new policy outlining the granting of permissions to view the IP addresses of temporary accounts. Temporary account deployment on the English Wikipedia is currently scheduled for September 2025, and editors can request access to the permission ahead of time. Admins are encouraged to keep an eye on the request page; there will likely be a flood of editors requesting the permission when they realize they can no longer see IP addresses.

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Wikimania 2025 is happening in Nairobi, Kenya, and online from August 6 to August 9. This year marks 20 years of Wikimania. Interested users can join the online event. Registration for the virtual event is free and will remain open throughout Wikimania. You can register here now.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:55, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]