User talk:S0091

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

The Chinese-Japanese name IS cited on the number article.

[edit]

Haven't you seen the infobox?! 69 (number) Pнp13333332 tαlk\edıts 17:49, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Php13333332 ooops! I missed it, sorry about that. If you were not already aware, you can create redirects yourself. It's easy, see HELP:REDIRECT. If you want to try to create this one, let me know and but of course I don't mind doing it. S0091 (talk) 17:58, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I know. I only look for approval to see if it can be made Pнp13333332 tαlk\edıts 21:52, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Recent G5 declines

[edit]

Hi, S0091, just wanted to drop a note here that I've declined a series of your G5 nominations on redirects e.g. Moral economics, and wanted to give you a (not-so-)brief explanation why. I believe you nominated them due to the redirect requests made by a now-blocked sock, but I declined the requests because those socks didn't actually create or edit the redirects; in my reading, if someone else accepts and implements an edit request, they assume responsibility for the edit. This is based on the language Editors in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned or blocked editor (sometimes called proxy editing or proxying) unless they are able to show that the changes are productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits. Editors who reinstate edits made by a banned or blocked editor take complete responsibility for the content, from WP:PROXYING (emphasis mine). In my view, since redirect requests, as with any edit request, can be declined, they are subject to the editorial decisions of those reviewing, and so implementing an edit or redirect request meets this threshold and becomes an edit unto itself. So, based on that, these don't qualify for G5, as they are the responsibility of the creating editor (e.g. Sksatsuma or Agent VII).

Sorry for the legalese, I know that's not a terribly interesting way of applying Wikipedia policy. But as you know, CSD are intended to be interpreted narrowly, to reduce admins' discretion for deleting pages without further community discussion, so I feel that in this case, the mental hoops are worth jumping through. Regardless, thanks for doing the dirty work here, even though I ended up declining the final result. Cheers, Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:25, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Writ Keeper thanks for to taking the time to provide an explanation. The way I interpret that clause is it applies if the editor knows they are carrying out an request or restoring edits made by a banned or blocked editor. Had the redirects been created after the editor was blocked, I think that meets the bar but none of these were. At the time for all they knew they were carrying out requests made an WP:AGF editor, not on behalf of block evading sock, thus were not consciously taking responsibility for the sock's edits. I say this as an editor who also carries out requests at AFC/R and I would never knowingly approve a sock's request so am fine with G5ing them when that happens (and it has happened). With that said, I understand admins are allowed some discretion so my argument is not that you should delete these redirects; only that I think policy allows for it. S0091 (talk) 16:05, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's a fair point; it's definitely a reasonable interpretation of policy. I'll stand by my declines for now, but I certainly won't object to you continuing to tag pages with G5 under that principle. :) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:42, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We have a deal @Writ Keeper! Not that I have requested that many G5s for AFC/R created redirects but outside of these, so far they have been deleted. However, I think the other instances had the additional nuance of them being by a sock farm who uses AFC/R as a backdoor to create articles so I'll just stick to those unless there is some other compelling reason for G5. Thanks again. S0091 (talk) 17:20, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate request

[edit]

Sorry for the duplicate request, I didn't see that my original request was still there... Giorgio Bicchiere (talk) 20:44, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Giorgio Bicchiere no need to apologize. It has been sitting for a while and I did take a look but am uncomfortable because of WP:BLPCRIME. I am not sure she should be mentioned by name in the article so will not personally approve the redirect though someone else may. S0091 (talk) 20:52, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK @S0091, thanks for letting me know! Giorgio Bicchiere (talk) 22:28, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shaheed Shashi Prasad Singh

[edit]

Declining it to be published was not understood.I researched about this man and he deserves a page and the world deserves to know him. I added all the references from govt wrbsites to book citations. Praj9289 (talk) 21:01, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Praj9289 do take the time to read WP:Your first article and follow the instructions and guidance there. S0091 (talk) 21:09, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

September 14, 2025 outbreak help

[edit]

This, [[1]], needs help. 159.48.94.69 (talk) 17:28, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Answered at the AfC help desk. S0091 (talk) 17:33, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just reformatted it according to MOS, changing it to the usual format that I see. You can thank me for the massive clarity difference, since I wasn't rushing this time. We can add tornado ratings later, since the NWS hasn't done surveys yet. 159.48.94.69 (talk) 19:56, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Formatting is not the issue. The issue is meeting WP:NEVENT. S0091 (talk) 20:01, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Technical issue displaying a tornado image at the bottom of the page (Luna) 159.48.94.67 (talk) 13:49, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Declined Submission

[edit]

I’m confused about the chatGPT comment. I’ve never used it to write or do anything. I don’t use AI. Now for the references I used the reference utility inside this site. Please let me know what I can do to get this published. Thank you and thank you for your help! RugbyRecords (talk) 18:02, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@RugbyRecords it has some weird formatting code like {{#tag:tabber which is indicative of LLM use. I suggest going through the draft and removing that code. S0091 (talk) 18:17, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh ok…I was going by how to format the section off of this site. Like where it says “personal Life” “discography” etc. I thought that’s how you format it. I’ll remove it. Thank you so much! RugbyRecords (talk) 18:26, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TheToolx.com - Toolx

[edit]

Hi @S0091

The page has now been properly created. I’ve removed promotional content, fixed errors and grammar issues, and added references and citations from reliable sources. The article is written in-depth, not just as a brief mention or routine announcement. All sources are reliable, secondary, and strictly independent of the subject. Please review the article again, and if you find any issues, let me know and I’ll work on fixing them. Thank you!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:The_ToolX Iamnilesh0321 (talk) 11:24, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Iamnilesh0321 click the blue Resubmit button and another reviewer will take a look. S0091 (talk) 13:41, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@S0091 I just wanted to check from your side if anything is still missing. I’ve already added reliable sources from government websites and also included a YouTube video from a popular creator who covered this site. Iamnilesh0321 (talk) 14:23, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Foundation Bulletin 2025 Issue 17

[edit]
Here is a quick overview of highlights from the Wikimedia Foundation since our last issue on August 29. Please help translate.

Upcoming and current events and conversations
Let's Talk continues


Annual Goals Progress on Infrastructure
See also newsletters: Wikimedia Apps · Growth · Product Safety and Integrity · Readers · Research · Wikifunctions & Abstract Wikipedia · Tech News · Language and Internationalization · other newsletters on MediaWiki.org

Cybersecurity
A better way to protect Wikimedia from malicious bots
  • Better bot detection: How we are improving bot detection and replacing our CAPTCHA.
  • Temporary Accounts: Temporary accounts are now deployed to almost all wikis except the last 11.
  • User Info: This new feature displays data related to a user account when you tap or click on the "user avatar" icon button next to a username. It's meant to be useful for different users with extended rights as well as newcomers.
  • Newsletter highlights: The latest Readers Newsletter is now available. It includes considerations about Wikipedia's declining pageviews in the recent years, how the Foundation and communities may work on addressing this together, and the formation of two new teams — Reader Growth and Reader Experience.
  • Activity Tab Experiment: The Foundation launched an experiment testing a new Activity tab in the Wikipedia Android app to our beta testers. Instead of only showing editing activity, this tab also surfaces insights about reading and donation behavior.
  • Search Suggestions: To make it easier for users to find articles, logged-out users on both desktop and mobile will see suggestions of articles for further reading on English Wikipedia beginning the week of September 22. All non-English wikis received this update in June and July.
  • Paste Check: The Foundation is working on a new check: Paste check. This check informs newcomers who paste text into Wikipedia that the content might not be accepted to ensure it is aligned with the Movement's values. This check will soon be tested at a few wikis.
  • CampaignEvents extension: The CampaignEvents extension has been enabled for all Wikisources. The extension makes it easier to organize and participate in collaborative activities, like edit-a-thons and WikiProjects, on the wikis. To request the extension for your wiki, visit the information page.
  • Structured Task: The Add a Link Structured Task has been fully released at English Wikipedia. This release is an important step in making editing more accessible for new contributors, especially on mobile.
  • Tech News: Read more updates from Tech News week 36 and 37.
  • Wikifunctions: Wikifunctions is now available on 65 Wiktionaries and has a new capability to copy function calls from one Wikipedia to another.
  • Multilingual Contributors: The Language and Product Localisation team is launching a CentralNotice campaign to attract multilingual contributors to specific Wikipedias. The campaign will feature regionally targeted banners to reach potential native speakers.


Annual Goals Progress on Volunteer Support
See also blogs: Global Advocacy blog · Global Advocacy Newsletter · Policy blog · WikiLearn News · list of movement events


Board and Board committee updates
See Wikimedia Foundation Board noticeboard · Affiliations Committee Newsletter


Other Movement curated newsletters & news
See also: Diff blog · Goings-on · Planet Wikimedia · Signpost (en) · Kurier (de) · Actualités du Wiktionnaire (fr) · Regards sur l’actualité de la Wikimedia (fr) · Wikimag (fr) · Education · GLAM · The Wikipedia Library · Milestones · Wikidata · Central and Eastern Europe · other newsletters

Subscribe or unsubscribe · Help translate

For information about the Bulletin and to read previous editions, see the project page on Meta-Wiki. Let askcac(_AT_)wikimedia.org know if you have any feedback or suggestions for improvement!


MediaWiki message delivery 01:04, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Books & Bytes – Issue 70

[edit]
The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 70, July–August 2025
  • New collections:
    • Times of Malta
    • Africa Intelligence
    • Intelligence Online
    • La Lettre
    • Glitz
  • Spotlight: Wikimania
Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team – 13:16, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Twin towns are sister cities

[edit]

You seem to have been the one to reject all my proposed redirects that were of the form "List of twin towns and sister cities in ...", while accepting the ones that only say sister cities. I can understand why you think twin towns aren't necessary as they aren't mentioned in said articles, but in reality twin town is an accepted synonym of sister city, regardless of the settlement's size. The reason the format "List of twin towns and sister cities in ..." is useful is because that is the format used for every country outside the US, so assuming the US and their states follow that same logic is an easy assumption to make.

My redirects of that format of states with their own pages were already accepted, so keeping consistency with the other states also makes sense. Plus, the United States also already had a redirect of that format too, once again showing how consistency.

If I've convinced you, I ask you to tell me if you could undo your rejection or if I have to sumbit the redirects again, please. Diegonals (talk) 18:05, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Diegonals thank you for the note and explanation. I see where you are coming from and am taking your word similar were previously approved. I can't easily undo the declines (and honestly not sure that's possible when the request contains more than one redirect and part was approved) but I also don't think you should have to go through the effort of creating new requests. Let me tinker but worse case is I do them manually which will take some time.
On separate note, given you are WP:auto-confirmed you can create redirects yourself so there's is no need for you to use WP:AFC/R. Is there a reason you do? S0091 (talk) 18:37, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I didn't know I was allowed to create redirects myself, thank you for informing me too. Diegonals (talk) 00:57, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Diegonals see HELP:REDIRECT for instructions. It's easy. S0091 (talk) 14:19, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have created the town and city ones I previously declined. You can see the original requests at WP:Articles for creation/Redirects/2025-09. S0091 (talk) 14:35, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:GoFormz

[edit]

Hi, GoFormz page was rejected because of the sources used. But other similar pages are uses the same published sourced. Why is mine being rejected? Dmorin GoFormz (talk) 23:50, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dmorin GoFormz As far as other articles, see WP:OTHERSTUFF. There are tons of poor articles that likely should be deleted but exist for various reasons. Also, sources like press releases might be ok for WP:verifiability so you will certainly see them used in existing articles but they do not help with establishing notability because they are WP:primary sources and not independent as they are what the company says about itself. Read WP:NCORP for the notability guideline. S0091 (talk) 15:10, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

[edit]

I just updated the page. I know I'm an anonymous user, but I'm not vandalizing the page at any point. On the contrary, all the edits I made during this time were just updates I made. TV Globo is a Brazilian broadcaster, and I'm also Brazilian. I know the network and know very well what programs it broadcasts. Your reversal was completely unfair, unnecessary, and utterly ignorant. I know your revert was arbitrary; you didn't read my updates and reverted because of your inflated ego. And I even removed the question marks from some times (hours and/or minutes) of programs. Let people edit, you don't own wikipedia. 2804:5758:0:5A1C:1873:F5C3:7F53:A566 (talk) 22:07, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This recent edit I made proves that I didn't include false information. It only contains truthful information. So your reversion was unfair, and you should admit that you were wrong. 2804:5758:0:5A1C:1873:F5C3:7F53:A566 (talk) 22:18, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Re: The River Mansion Article

[edit]

Hi S0091,

Hi,

I drafted the article about the River Mansion and would like some advice about meeting the notability requirements. The building itself is landmarked by the NY Landmarks Preservation Commission, along with the district it's in. It's included in the AIA guide to New York City. It's been featured in numerous local and national media sources, many of which describe it as "famous." Its residents have been notable in their own right, with many of them having wikipedia pages of their own. It's been featured in history books of the area. All of these sources were included in the draft.

Is the rejection a reflection of the article I drafted or of the notability of the house itself?

I just added these two to the article:

https://robbreport.com/shelter/homes-for-sale/river-mansion-new-york-robert-kohn-1235608352/

https://www.ilovetheupperwestside.com/famous-riverside-drive-mansion-sells-for-less-than-half-of-original-asking-price/

Already in the article:

https://observer.com/2023/05/historic-nyc-mansion-lists-for-24m-the-most-important-townhouse-on-the-market/

https://nypost.com/2023/05/05/sherry-bronfmans-nyc-mansion-to-list-for-24m/

Thank you UnDeuxTroisCatsSank (talk) 20:20, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @UnDeuxTroisCatsSank, you have resubmitted it so another reviewer will take a look. S0091 (talk) 17:52, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! UnDeuxTroisCatsSank (talk) 18:40, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

'Wasting Time On The Internet' Redirect

[edit]

Thank you so much for correcting my suggested redirect! A much better version now. I'm still learning to contribute to Wikipedia so I really appreciate your help. ParkPoetry (talk) 03:57, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ParkPoetry No problem! You were not wrong to request it but Social media or Wikipedia for that matter could also be plausible. :) S0091 (talk) 17:51, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Locked page" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect Locked page has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 September 25 § Locked page until a consensus is reached. 65.93.183.181 (talk) 02:23, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rejected Redirect for St. Pierre's Sushi

[edit]

Hi S0091,

I hope you are doing well. I recently suggested a redirect for Costa and Perry Katsoulis and you have rejected it. They are both owners of the St. Pierre's Sushi company so I thought a redirect would be helpful. If someone is going to search up a founder of a company (if they don't have their own Wikipedia articles), then it should redirect to their respective company. A couple of days ago, I had their brother, Nicholas 'Nick' Katsoulis, another founder of the company, approved to be redirected to St. Pierre's Sushi Wikipedia page, so why shouldn't other co-founders be added?

Here are some sources mentioning the involvement of Costa and Perry.

Official Page from the Company's Website: https://stpierresmagazine.com/2010/08/31/our-history/

Article mentioning Perry Katsoulis and Costa Katsoulis as a Co-Owner: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/st-pierres-opens-drive-through-sushi-at-historic-hastings-petrol-station-site/AMZO7U6B3VHGDIGYONWYPEAYEI/

P.S. I am new to Wikipedia so I hope this is the place to publish my counter-argument.

Thank you for your time,

Ebalia Nux

Ebalia Nux (talk) 04:44, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ebalia Nux neither one of those sources are the ones being used to support ownership so please update the article with those sources. Once you do that, I can make the redirects. S0091 (talk) 16:23, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
I added a (better) source and names to the article reflecting who established the company. Ebalia Nux (talk) 07:56, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ebalia Nux Perfect! Redirects created. S0091 (talk) 14:41, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: Bay Alarm

[edit]

Hello, @S0091,

I'm reaching out regarding Draft:Bay Alarm. The block on my account was recently removed, and I wanted to inquire about resubmitting the draft for review. I appreciate your taking the time to review the draft and would greatly appreciate any guidance you might be able to offer. Thank you! Greatjonesguy (talk) 13:52, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Greatjonesguy first read WP:NCORP form top to bottom. I also strongly suggest removing all the trade publications such as Security Sales and Integration and the like along with the related content. Stick to mainstream publications and summarize what they say about the company. Once you do that, I suspect you will have a very short article which is ok and may or may not meet notability. S0091 (talk) 20:27, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Anil C.S. Rao

[edit]

Hello @S0091


I have read through the guideline and will abide by it. 2600:4040:B27F:DA00:85D3:38F:9332:4991 (talk) 20:18, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the Thanks

[edit]

hi @S0091, Sometimes even the smallest things bring the greatest happiness. I will always remember who gave me my very first thank here.Khagendrawiki (talk) 16:20, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Khagendrawiki I'm glad it brought a smile to your face and thank you for thanking me for thanking you. :) S0091 (talk) 17:01, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ForumPay draft rejection

[edit]

Hi S0091, you recently reviewed my draft for a new page on the company ForumPay. I used several credible sources such as Vanity Fair and Business Insider, but unfortunately it seems these are not reliable enough? Are any of the sources I used suitbale for a Wikipedia reference?

Thanks all the same for your time. Best wishes, Bluesky2049 (talk) 15:25, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bluesky2049 The Vanity Fair article is a regurgitated press release filled with promotional fluff. I also note it is Vanity Fair Germany which has different ownership than Vanity Fair (magazine) (FMG Group not Conde Nast), does not have any editorial information and everything looks to be written by Kate Jane so not a WP:reliable source. I don't see Business Insider cited in the draft but if you mean this, it is also a press release and this has no named author along with several other issues so not a reliable source. S0091 (talk) 16:06, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Foundation Bulletin 2025 Issue 18

[edit]
Here is a quick overview of highlights from the Wikimedia Foundation since our last issue on September 13. Please help translate.

Upcoming and current events and conversations
Let's Talk continues

  • CEE Meeting: Wikimedia CEE Meeting 2025 will be held in Thessaloniki, Greece, September 26-28.
  • Learning Clinic: The next Let's Connect Learning Clinic will talk about "Mastering the Capacity Exchange (CapX) Tool" and will take place on September 30 at 13:00 UTC.
  • Big Fat Brussels Meeting: The tenth in-person gathering of Wikimedians enthusiastic in free knowledge advocacy, Big Fat Brussels Meeting, will take place on October 3-4.
  • Wikimedia Research Showcase: "Celebrating 13 Years: Wikidata’s Role in Learning and Culture" will be the featured theme for the next research showcase taking place on October 15 at 16:30 UTC.

Annual Goals Progress on Infrastructure
See also newsletters: Wikimedia Apps · Growth · Research · Web · Wikifunctions & Abstract Wikipedia · Tech News · Language and Internationalization · other newsletters on MediaWiki.org

Wikifunctions now available on 123 Wiktionaries

Annual Goals Progress on Volunteer Support
See also blogs: Global Advocacy blog · Global Advocacy Newsletter · Policy blog · WikiLearn News · list of movement events

Annual Goals Progress on Effectiveness
See also: Progress on the annual plan

Board and Board committee updates
See Wikimedia Foundation Board noticeboard · Affiliations Committee Newsletter

Foundation statements

Highlights from other Movement curated newsletters & news
See also: Diff blog · Goings-on · Planet Wikimedia · Signpost (en) · Kurier (de) · Actualités du Wiktionnaire (fr) · Regards sur l’actualité de la Wikimedia (fr) · Wikimag (fr) · Education · GLAM · The Wikipedia Library · Milestones · Wikidata · Central and Eastern Europe · other newsletters

Subscribe or unsubscribe · Help translate

For information about the Bulletin and to read previous editions, see the project page on Meta-Wiki. Let askcac(_AT_)wikimedia.org know if you have any feedback or suggestions for improvement!


MediaWiki message delivery 16:26, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Submission decline for Draft: Ivan Mbakop

[edit]

Hello @s0091 and thank you for reviewing this draft. Can you please explain what more you need or are looking for? According to Wikipedias policy for Entertainers the person needed to have a significant role in a notable television show. This actor was in a leading role position on AMC+ in a six episode series. He was in all episodes. His cast mates have similar experience if not less but have Wikipedia pages. I've listed three to demonstrate.

Would it help if I listed all his film and television projects into a table and attach his IMDB page?

Wikipedia policy noted below (link share): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)

Entertainers

For guidelines on musicians, ensembles, composers, and lyricists, see Wikipedia:Notability (music). This guideline applies to actors, voice actors, comedians, opinion makers, pornographic actors,[12] models, and celebrities. Such a person may be considered notable if: The person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, notable television shows, stage performances, or other notable productions; or The person has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.


Similar Wikipedia pages that have been approved.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arica_Himmel

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zackary_Momoh

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Femi_Oguns — Preceding unsigned comment added by Armaniari23 (talk • contribs) 15:26, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russell_Hornsby&wprov=rarw1 Armaniari23 (talk) 23:34, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Armaniari23 see WP:OTHERSTUFF regarding existing articles and also please note not all articles have been "approved". This is especially the case for articles created years ago as the processes Wikipedia has in place now did not exist and even today articles get by when they should not. In addition, the guidelines have changed over time so what was acceptable at some point in time, might not be today. As far as WP:NENTERTAINER, it states "may be considered notable"; not that they are notable. Most WP:SNG's exist to provide indicators a topic is likely to meet WP:GNG. More and more the community expects topics, whether or not they meet an SNG, to meet GNG and those that do not, are routinely deleted at WP:AfD. S0091 (talk) 16:42, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 2 October 2025

[edit]
This time "not merely negative".
Wickedpedia wrangles post-truth politics.
Unexpected news!
Fifty hot topics from fourteen noticeboards.
Policy, politics, icons, captchas, and LLMs.
And other recent publications.
When to walk away.
Rest in peace.
Celebrities, deaths and software.
All invited!
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:52, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You for your help and advice

[edit]

Hello Soo91 or is it S0091 ? I am a registered editor from many years back when I completely overhauled the John Mason (colonist) page, which was minimal back then - I made it extensive, comprehensive and balanced. I am a relative who for the past 40 years has been protecting his historic legacy, statues and educating people about what really happened back in the 1600's. I am a Mason descendant and although I do not have any degrees, I am considered a scholar on the Pequot War, John Mason, Uncas and his Mohegan Tribe. I have been very successful in my efforts but have learned that this mission will really never end. I hope to find the time to greatly expand the page for Masons Island next year. Would you consider adopting me and guiding me with these efforts ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.61.77.202 (talk) 08:08, 2 October 2025 (UTC) Autosigned by SineBot[reply]

Hi IP, I am not sure I will make a good mentor for you but you should read WP:EXPERT (a guide) and WP:Original research (a policy). For the most part, a Wikipedia article should summarize what intellectually independent (i.e. not affiliated with the topic nor relying on what those affiliated have said/written), seconday, WP:reliable sources have written about a topic and presented with a WP:Neutral point of view. Taking a brief look at John Mason (colonist), I think it currently fails Wikipedia's core policies. S0091 (talk) 19:35, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]