User talk:Nayyn: Difference between revisions

Hello, Nayyn, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Below are some pages you might find helpful. For a user-friendly interactive help forum, see the Wikipedia Teahouse.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can’t find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! Rahio1234 11:00, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ninety-Nines has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category’s entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Gjs238 (talk) 14:44, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wesley L. McDonald Distinguished Statesman and Stateswoman of Aviation Award has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category’s entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Gjs238 (talk) 19:08, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not sure why you’ve suggested my categories for deletion. The first, of the ninety-nines, is a prominent organization for women aviation pioneers, of which there are few and their membership is notable. The second for the Wesley McDonald award, is the most prominent award for civil aviation in the United States. It is notable because it is a lifetime achievement award, that cuts across different categories so it is probably the most significant award these individuals would ever receive, hence notable. I’m not sure why you’ve put these forward for deletion, as the response seems arbitrary. These categories helped to organize these listings in aviation. Nayyn (talk) 14:03, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tenjen Sherpa, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Walung. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It’s OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, —DPL bot (talk) 06:23, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nayyn. Thank you for your work on Szilárd Suhajda. Another editor, CanonNi, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Good start. I’ve assessed it as C-class. Thank you for creating the article!

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

”'[[User:CanonNi]]”’ (talk • contribs) 03:46, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CanonNi: thank you so much for your kind note! I have continued to develop it. Nayyn (talk) 21:34, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Whirly-Girls has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category’s entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Omnis Scientia (talk) 21:27, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Yalung Kang has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for information on how to contribute your work appropriately. For legal reasons, Wikipedia strictly cannot host copyrighted text or images from print media or digital platforms without an appropriate and verifiable license. Contributions infringing on copyright will be removed. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. Broc (talk) 12:59, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A personal note as the warning might sound ominous. I found one sentence of your article that was copied from another source and removed it. Please make sure to write everything in your own words. Nice article, by the way 🙂 Broc (talk) 13:01, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please tag the category and properly format the nomination. Your post isn’t a proper nomination right now. [1] Mason (talk) 01:21, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed that you’ve made to other nominations without usng the right formatting. Please use the proper formatting for CFD nominations. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_July_6&oldid=1232873551 Mason (talk) 03:13, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Carlos Paro, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mark Todd.

(Opt-out instructions.) —DPL bot (talk) 20:50, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I’m Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Julius Perlis, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator.
Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 16:22, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Colonial families of Maryland, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Dent.

(Opt-out instructions.) —DPL bot (talk) 19:55, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Joanna Gail, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page LaSalle University.

(Opt-out instructions.) —DPL bot (talk) 07:54, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I’m Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Nick Köster, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator.
Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 20:16, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, congratulations on receiving the Autopatrolled flag! Generally, admins notify editors with a notice about this, but the admin who granted you the flag forgot. So here’s a note—please keep these points in mind:

You are now added to the Autopatrolled user group. This means that pages you create will automatically be marked as ‘reviewed’, and no longer appear in the new pages feed. Autopatrolled is assigned to prolific creators of articles, where those articles do not require further review, and may have been requested on your behalf by someone else. It doesn’t affect how you edit; it is used only to manage the workload of new page patrollers.

Since the articles you create will no longer be systematically reviewed by other editors, it is important that you maintain the high standard you have achieved so far in all your future creations. Please also try to remember to add relevant WikiProject templates, stub tags, categories, and incoming links to them, if you aren’t already in the habit; user scripts such as Rater and StubSorter can help with this. As you have already shown that you have a strong grasp of Wikipedia’s core content policies, you might also consider volunteering to become a new page patroller yourself, helping to uphold the project’s standards and encourage other good faith article writers. GrabUp – Talk 19:12, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Appreciate your acknowledgement and I will continue to do my best with new articles! I won’t let you and Wikipedia down! Nayyn (talk) 19:45, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Margarita Plavunova, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Athletics.

(Opt-out instructions.) —DPL bot (talk) 19:53, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome, welcome, welcome Nayyn! I’m glad that you are joining the November 2024 drive! Please, have a cup of WikiTea, and go cite some articles.

Cielquiparle (talk) 12:45, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ame ★ (talk) 20:45, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I’m Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Ypsilon Mountain, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator.
Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 15:29, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may be confused about the difference between launch and christening. Launch happens half way through the construction of a ship. Christening happens much later, when the ship is ready to go into service. GA-RT-22 (talk) 19:34, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for catching that! Appreciate your edits and for the clarification. Nayyn (talk) 19:37, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that this is a recent development and may only apply to cruise ships. Traditionally the christening was done at the time of launch, and I think still is for military vessels. But the cruise lines are starting to turn the christening into an event, with celebrities and TV coverage, and it makes no sense to do that until the ship is pretty much ready. GA-RT-22 (talk) 19:41, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. You will find a number of formatting inconsistencies across the different ship articles in relation to this, depending on how they are written. Nayyn (talk) 19:44, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sportspeople who died by suicide has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category’s entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jockeys who died by suicide has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category’s entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. ^SMason_Garrison 14:33, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rugby players who died by suicide has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category’s entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. ^SMason_Garrison 14:34, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cricketers who died by suicide has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category’s entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. ^SMason_Garrison 14:35, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Models who died by suicide has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category’s entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. ^SMason_Garrison 14:47, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Meigs family has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category’s entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. ^SMason_Garrison 14:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Deaths on Scottish mountains has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category’s entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. ^SMason_Garrison 01:47, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I’m Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Lianne Gonsalves, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A bare URL and missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator.
Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 23:52, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, Nayyn, and thank you for creating quite a number of biographies of women. If you intend to continue along these lines, you might like to join WikiProject Women in Red where we are trying to improve Wikipedia’s coverage of women. You can sign up under “New registrations” on Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/New members– Happy editing!–Ipigott (talk) 16:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I do take part in the different drives. Appreciate your kind words Nayyn (talk) 14:17, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As you continue to create women’s biographies with WiR on their talk pages and keep “thanking” me for reviewing and assessing them, I have taken the liberty of adding the WiR user box to your user page and including your name on the mailing list for our monthly newsletters. Please let me know if this is in order.–Ipigott (talk) 16:01, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not sure what the wikiettiquite is. I thought thanking was just general practice. Nayyn (talk) 02:42, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ukrainian sportspeople killed in the Russian invasion of Ukraine has been nominated for conversion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category’s entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. ^SMason_Garrison 15:46, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I’m Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Adele L. Rand, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A bare URL and missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator.
Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 13:28, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for helping save the article I created about Emma Curtis from deletion! You’re awesome. ThatLexingtonKyGuy (talk) 00:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

❤ I’m glad I got to meet her through your work! She sounds awesome. Nayyn (talk) 00:59, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I’m Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Carla Gaines, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator.
Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 22:35, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nayyn, I was thrilled to see you create this article! I’ve nominated it to go on the front page of Wikipedia, in the ‘… did you know?’ section. I hope that’s OK with you! Happy editing! Lajmmoore (talk) 20:27, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much, that is very kind. I’ve never had an article I’ve done nominated before, so it is very special. Thank you for reading and I greatly appreciate the honor! Nayyn (talk) 22:01, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! You might want to sign your recent comment here. Happy editing! —Another Believer _(Talk) 23:28, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

thank you Nayyn (talk) 23:46, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SL93 (talk) 00:04, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

		The Anti-Systemic Bias Barnstar
		Thank you, Nayyn, for your thoughtful efforts to address systemic bias on Wikipedia. Your contributions to the AfD discussions around non-Western topics like Paystack and Shola Akinlade made me optimistic that we are taking small steps towards fairness and inclusion in our editing community. HerBauhaus (talk) 12:33, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much, this is my first “Barnstar” and it couldn’t be more perfect. I definitely believe in greater representation of non-Western topics on this encyclopedia and I’m so happy that I can contribute to this important work in a small way. Thank you so much for this recognition. Nayyn (talk) 15:41, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Elba Soccarras, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Woodbridge Township.

(Opt-out instructions.) —DPL bot (talk) 07:56, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 02:38, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations @Darth Stabro Nayyn (talk) 13:19, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red | April 2025, Vol 11, Issue 4, Nos. 326, 327, 335, 336 Online events: Announcements (Events facilitated by others): Tip of the month: When creating biographies, don’t forget to use Template:DEFAULTSORT. Accessible from “Wiki markup” at the foot of the page being edited, it allows categories to be listed under the subject’s family name rather than their first or given name. Moving the needle: (statistics available via Humaniki tool) 24 Mar 2025: 20.070% of biographies on EN-WP are about women (2,057,083, 412,857 women) 27 Jan 2025: 20.031% (2,047,793 bios, 410,200 women) Thank you if you contributed one or more of the 2,657 articles during this period! Other ways to participate: Instagram | Pinterest

—Rosiestep (talk) 13:20, 30 March 2025 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dawie Groenewald, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Civet cat.

(Opt-out instructions.) —DPL bot (talk) 19:58, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red | May 2025, Vol 11, Issue 5, Nos. 326, 327, 337, 338 Online events: Announcements (events facilitated by others): Progress (“moving the needle”): Statistics available via Humaniki tool. Thank you if you contributed one or more of the 1,269 articles during this period! 21 Apr 2025: 20.090% of EN-WP biographies are about women (2,061,363; 414,126 women) 24 Mar 2025: 20.070% (2,057,083 bios; 412,857 women) Tip of the month: Those of you who experience harassment while trying to create or improve articles about women are welcome to bring your problems to our attention on the Women in Red talk page. Other ways to participate:

—Lajmmoore (talk 09:21, 29 April 2025 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

not implying you did anything wrong at all. that person is doing it all for the attention. Floquenbeam (talk) 20:27, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ok many thanks. just trying to help out and not sure where the right place to do things are Nayyn (talk) 20:29, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

that was the right place, no worries, just a bit of a special case. cheers. Floquenbeam (talk) 20:37, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you tagged Szymon Lenkowski with {{prod blp}} for proposed deletion. I have removed the tag from the article because it does not meet the criteria specified. The placement requirements are (a) that subject is living, and (b) that the article contains no sources in any form (as references, external links, etc., reliable or otherwise) supporting any statements made about the person in the biography. Please fully read Wikipedia:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people before tagging articles for proposed deletion. Thank you. SunloungerFrog (talk) 05:37, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Barbara Phipps Janney, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ogden Mills.

(Opt-out instructions.) —DPL bot (talk) 19:54, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, are you considering nominating the article for Did you know? ? There’s instructions at WP:DYKNOM, if you’ve not done so before, but it has to be nominated within 7 days of article creation (so by Friday). — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 12:46, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Nayyn

Thank you for being a part of Wiki Loves Ramadan 2025 — whether as a contributor, jury member, or local organizer. Your efforts helped make this campaign a meaningful celebration of culture, heritage, and community on Wikimedia platforms.

To help us improve and grow this initiative in future years, we kindly ask you to complete a short feedback form. Your responses are valuable in shaping how we support contributors like you.

It will only take a few minutes to complete, and your input will directly impact how we plan, communicate, and collaborate in the future.

Thank you again for your support. We look forward to having you with us in future campaigns!

Warm regards,
Wiki Loves Ramadan International Team 08:51, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 02:46, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yuchitown (talk) 01:38, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red | June 2025, Vol 11, Issue 6, Nos. 326, 327, 339, 340 Online events: Announcements: Who are the most overlooked and interesting Women in Red? We’ve no idea, but we’re putting together our list of the 100 most interesting ex-Women in Red. We are creating the list to celebrate 10 years of Women in Red and we hope to present it at Wikimania. We are ignoring the obvious, so do you have a name or subject we should consider? Can you suggest a DYK style hook? If you are shy about editing that page, you are welcome to add ideas and comments on the talk page. The World Destubathon, 16 June – 13 July, 2025 Progress (“moving the needle”): Statistics available via Humaniki tool. Thank you if you contributed one or more of the 1,492 articles during this period! 19 May 2025: 20.114% of EN-WP biographies are about women (2,066,280; 415,618 women) 21 Apr 2025: 20.090% (2,061,363 bios; 414,126 women) Tip of the month: Every language Wikipedia has its own policies regarding notability and reliable sources. Before translating an article from one language Wikipedia into English Wikipedia, research the subject and verify that the translated article will meet English Wikipedia’s policy requirements. Other ways to participate:

—Lajmmoore (talk 06:05, 29 May 2025 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Dorsetonian (talk) 19:08, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for nominating this article four minutes after creation @Dorsetonian!! This individual adheres to four of the criteria for WP:NGOLF so you nomination that they were “non-notable” according to WP:NGOLF was entirely offbase. As you nominated the article four minutes after creation, I’m not sure you would have had enough time to actually read enough of it, to realize this person is notable according to the notability guideline. Nayyn (talk) 20:22, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please read MOS:IMAGEREL and WP:NOTGALLERY. Several of the images you have added are just portraits of a person, and do not add significance to understanding the article beyond the text already existing. Zefr (talk) 00:39, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is a subjective take. The images added aim to present a more representative view of the subject/topic with regards to gender balance and give further context on pages that had no images at all. Nayyn (talk) 00:49, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome, welcome, welcome Nayyn! I’m glad that you are joining the June 2025 drive! Please, have a cup of WikiTea, and go cite some articles.

Cielquiparle (talk) 06:36, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads up, the album they released has a page too. Might want to check that out. The album has multiple cited reviews, and the album did indeed chart at #3 on a major Billboard chart, so I think there might be something here. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:47, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ten for pointing that out and letting me know– maybe it is better to just merge the articles? I could not find any sources while trying to do the #JUN25 uncited article drive for them. Nayyn (talk) 23:50, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On second glance, I can’t find anything beyond one AllMusic and one Robert Christgau review. There’s no coverage of this act whatsoever, even if they did chart the album. Newspapers.com gave nothing but ads, GBooks was completely silent outside a couple false positives, and worldradiohistory.com (an archive of music magazines) didn’t turn up anything at all. I’d recommend taking a look at the album’s article too, as I don’t think there’s a valid merge/redirect target. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:41, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind if I smerge this? Bearian (talk) 01:37, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

not at all, please go right ahead! Many thanks Nayyn (talk) 01:44, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I noticed you’ve been editing some pages (inter alia Lord of Balvaird), tagging Burke’s as unreliable. I wanted to better understand the reasoning behind this, as I believe most editors on the Baronage talk page have agreed that both Burke’s and Debrett’s are generally considered solid sources and WP:BURKES accepts it as reliable.^[1] Charliez (talk) 20:05, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Charliez,

I have no conflict with Burkes as a source. What I have an issues with is when editors add the source “Burkes Peerage” and link to either the Webpage with an empty search bar, or the Burkes Peerage wikipedia page. There is very lazy citation work happening on these pages and that’s just not good enough.

Look again at that source that is linked to the Lord of Balvaird page. It says: # “Search for BRIM-DEFOREST OF BALVAIRD CASTLE”. Burke’s Peerage. 27 June 2024. Retrieved 27 June 2024.

That is not a verified source. That goes to a search bar. Whatever you cite should be able to verify the text. If you can put an actual verified source there, there will be no tag there. To comply with BLP policy it is a unverified claim and should come off entirely, but I tagged it so someone could act on it. You cannot just point to a source where the information is supposed to be, and then have the reader infer from there.

If you want to use Burkes as a source, do it properly, ie add the specific reference that verifies the information. If you just link to a a general “Burkes Peerage” with no attribution, it will come down. One way you can make a proper attribution to that page is by making internet archive links with the verified content and then linking to those.

Nayyn (talk) 20:13, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was lazy too and didn’t actually check the link. I just noticed your comment, “The current source is insufficiently reliable,” and jumped to conclusions. This wasn’t my edit, so I haven’t investigated how best to link directly to Burke’s entries. Charliez (talk) 20:32, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

yeah there is a number of them like that. I didn’t remove those just tagged because someone that cares about this page will be able to find a better attribution. There are some that link to the exact page in the publication, which is also a good way to source it. Nayyn (talk) 20:37, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Page number seems like a safe option, though I believe many of Burke’s newer editions are available online only. If a direct link can’t be archived, I presume a screenshot of the record uploaded to the Web Archive might suffice.

I’ll put going through some of these on my todo list… Charliez (talk) 20:56, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Having played around with Burke’s to see what the options are, archiving direct links seems impossible and uploading screenshots would probably be a copyright violation. It is possible to link directly to a lookup for a family, though (behind paywall), rather than to just “search.php”. I personally believe a citation like this should be acceptable:

{{cite web

|title=Familia Nominis Nescii Entry – Burke’s Revised Families

|website=Burke’s Peerage

|publisher=Burke’s Peerage (Genealogical Books) Ltd

|url=https://www.burkespeerage.com/new_records.php?record=Familia_Nominis_Nescii

|access-date=2025-06-25

|work=Burke’s Peerage Revised Families

|url-status=live

|subscription=yes

}}(subscription required)

Would appreciate your input before I start using this format. Charliez (talk) 16:23, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your trying here, but I still don’t think that’s going to work as it is behind a paywall. If you look at these https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:LinkSearch/*.burkespeerage.com so many of them are broken. I’m not sure the way forward here, but if it deals with a BLP it should probably be a different source. If they are notable there should be other independent sources to verify this. Nayyn (talk) 18:30, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the issue is with all these purchased baronies that appear in the “Burke’s New and Revised Records”. I don’t know if they get printed. As with the others you can write “Burke’s Landed Gentry Scotland 2010, page 215.” Do you have access to the source behind the paywall to verify the claims that are said there for the new records?

Nayyn (talk) 18:40, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have a subscription to Burke’s, so I can verify records. Obviously, it will be a significant amount of work going through all existing “search.php” sources…

Burke’s is used by HM Passport Office^[2] to verify titles and seems to be fully accepted on WP despite being behind a paywall. Being behind a paywall does not exclude it from being a WP:RS. While I agree it doesn’t in itself prove notability, notability is not required for someone to be included in another article (e.g. on a list or in a genealogy context). I think, if the link is a direct one as I suggested above (rather than just a link to the search box), it should be acceptable. I know it’s not ideal that it is behind a paywall, but at least it is directly clickable for anyone with a subscription. Charliez (talk) 18:53, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think as long as you clearly state the reference — ie where in Burkes it is supposed to be found, such as the “Burke’s New and Revised Records” that makes it better.. but it would be something to ask at Reliable Sources Noticeboard or to put in the Talk page of the article in question Nayyn (talk) 19:08, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I will edit these “search.php” links as I come across them, to state the right edition of Burke’s and add a direct link. It is at least an improvement on what is currently used. Charliez (talk) 19:12, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red | July 2025, Vol 11, Issue 7, Nos. 326, 327, 341, 342, 343 Online events: Announcements: Progress (“moving the needle”): Statistics available via Humaniki tool. Thank you if you contributed one or more of the 1,514 articles during this period! 19 May 2025: 20.114% of EN-WP biographies are about women (2,066,280 bios; 415,618 women) 23 Jun 2025: 20.130% (2,072,236 bios; 417,132 women) Tip of the month: A nuanced article is more useful than a shiny pedestal. Readers can find hope in your subject’s survival or achievements, but they can also learn from your subject’s mistakes and limitations. Other ways to participate:

—Lajmmoore (talk 09:21, 30 June 2025 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

I’ve seen some of your work for the unreferenced stubs drive, and you did good work. Please keep at it. Bearian (talk) 09:09, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

thank you so much @Bearian! This is so kind of you to reach out, I really admire what you do here !! Nayyn (talk) 09:53, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Same! Bearian (talk) 10:04, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya, Nayyn, it’s nice to meet you! Yesterday you tagged this article with the non-free tag. I’m looking this over and I’d be grateful if you would help me understand what you’re referring to. And thank you for being so careful with the stories of people’s lives. Oona Wikiwalker (talk) 22:45, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Oona Wikiwalker, I was trying to find a source for the material as it was untagged, and I found much of it came from https://global.museum-digital.org/people/220341. I don’t think it is a wikipedia mirror. The similarity report shows the extent there. Hope this helps! Nayyn (talk) 22:52, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, @Nayyn, the date on the global museum’s page is 2023, but the date of the text in question was added to Wikipedia from 2006. Is there some way I could be wrong about the museum’s webpage? It doesn’t show up at Internet Archive or Archive today.

No matter what we find out about the article, I found a version of the painting in the article that includes the artist’s signature. It’s Mr. Tarnow’s and since he died in 1933, the painting is in the public domain and can be used on Wikipedia, so it was great you brought this up! Oona Wikiwalker (talk) 23:45, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I’m still learning, and the painting may not be in the public domain. Either way, it’s a good thing you brought this up! Oona Wikiwalker (talk) 00:38, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for looking into it @Oona Wikiwalker! Was not sure what to do about it, but could not find any sourcing on this individual at all when I was looking at the time. Nayyn (talk) 16:00, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Nayyn, smee again! I looked up copyrights in Germany and here. German copyrights expire 70 years after the creator’s death. US copyrights applied before 1978 lasted 28 years but could be renewed once. So, assuming it was renewed (to be on the safe side), the copyright duration would have ended in 1989 in the US. So the painting IS in the public domain. I’ll port it over to Wikimedia Commons. Good on ya for this. Oona Wikiwalker (talk) 07:17, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your detective work @Oona Wikiwalker! Excellent find! Nayyn (talk) 08:07, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, @Nayyn! Looking even deeper, I don’t know if it is or it isn’t. This is one of those “hot Wikipookia messes” that we don’t paid enough to touch. I’m just gonna walk away from it. If someone more qualified than me cares about it, they can deal with it. Oona Wikiwalker (talk) 17:06, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) The museum-digital initiative was founded in 2009. So if the content in question was on enwiki in 2006, then the museum entry almost certainly copied what was on enwiki. This search shows that quite a lot of entries are sourced from various wikipedias. I guess this one didn’t get the proper attribution. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 05:02, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

thanks @SunloungerFrog for sorting that out for us! I wasn’t sure what to do here. Does it need attribution or any sort of action? I could not find any sources to verify the claims in the Wiki page when I was doing the #JUN25 challenge. Thats when it came up for me. Nayyn (talk) 15:59, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the only thing to do is put {{Backwards copy}} on Talk:Rudolf Tarnow with the relevant information. Then future editors won’t have to spend time going through the same investigation process. Probably someone should contact museum-digital and say “Oi, please will you attribute enwiki properly” but I’m not sure who that someone is. Of course, now https://global.museum-digital.org/people/220341 can’t be used as a source. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 16:27, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll contact them. I’ll bet they’ll be really nice about it. Oona Wikiwalker (talk) 07:08, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nayn, thank you for the warm welcome and the helpful links. I appreciate it. Digiexpert79 (talk) 01:40, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

I came across this edit[2] which appears to be a pretty clear solicitation of paid editing. The user has been warned for possible COI before, and I came across their page because of some suspicious edits they made elsewhere. They haven’t edited since the warning, so didn’t think it needed urgent attention at ANI. But still think action might need to be taken? Wasn’t sure and thought I would ask here. Thanks for assistance. Nayyn (talk) 21:42, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
—Nayyn (talk) 21:42, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree what they said was a bit naughty, although it’s not entirely clearly how they’re offering to help. In any case, that was two years ago, and seems to have been a one-off, so even if it was actionable at the time, I don’t think it is anymore. Feel free to keep an eye on this and report to ANI if it happens again. Thanks, —DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:44, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Nayyn.

I hope you’re doing well. I just saw the notability tag you placed on the Stefano Centini article, which I recently created. I’m a bit surprised, as I believe the subject meets notability guidelines, especially given his work in facilitating auteur-driven co-productions between Asia and Europe.

I also referenced the Fran Borgia article when structuring the page, as both individuals seem to have made comparable contributions in similar contexts. That’s why I’m a little confused by the notability concern and would truly appreciate it if you could elaborate further on your reasoning.

I’m more than open to feedback and happy to revise any areas that may be problematic. And of course, if the subject genuinely doesn’t meet the criteria, I’ll take responsibility and nominate the article for deletion myself. Repsjared (talk) 14:38, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Repsjared As you are developing those pages, please keep WP:BLP and WP:GNG in mind. Please have a look at the sources you use and make sure they are providing WP:SIGCOV.

The article on Stefano is quite extensive but the sources included are largely generally passing mentions and at my initial assessment I couldn’t find anything that would be considered significant coverage of them as an individual. Thats why I tagged it for others to weigh in on.

When you are making a BLP article like this, just because someone has been mentioned in independent sources, its important that they adhere to WP:ANYBIO.

With BLP articles it is often more effective to have an article that is shorter and better sourced/thus easier to verify, to demonstrate the subject passes GNG and to avoid citation overkill, a tactic often used by COI editors or those that are trying to embellish articles that may not be notable.

You’re welcome to disagree that’s why I tagged it so others could contribute. This is why this conversation would be better suited for the article’s talk page to keep it all in one place. Hope this helps explain my rationale there. Nayyn (talk) 19:31, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Nayyn,

Thank you so much for your informative response. I truly appreciate you taking the time to explain your rationale, and have learned new things from it.

That said, I do find myself wondering: how can a subject not be considered notable when the works they’ve created or helped bring to life are notable? It’s a bit puzzling at times to separate the value of a person’s contributions from their individual profile, especially in collaborative or behind-the-scenes fields.

The more I learn about Wikipedia’s notability guidelines, the more I realize how much this platform, perhaps unintentionally, leans toward visibility and publicity over actual contribution or impact. While Wikipedia:PRODUCER emphasises that “person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work”, Wikipedia:GNG feel more aligned with media presence and external coverage—something that’s often more accessible to individuals who actively pursue or can afford public relations support.

I also found it interesting that there’s even an article on “citation overkill.” It seems there’s a tricky balance: one can be flagged for insufficient sourcing, but also for citing too heavily. In that sense, someone who invests in PR might appear more “notable” under the guidelines, even if their actual contributions are less impactful than those of someone who simply focuses on their work and avoids the spotlight.

I don’t mean this as a criticism of the system, but rather as a reflection. I completely understand that Wikipedia needs standards to maintain quality and consistency—it’s just been enlightening to see how that intersects with visibility in the public domain.

On the matter itself, the subject is clearly notable as per Wikipedia:PRODUCER, but I don’t know if I have the energy for the back and forth, so I’ll take some time to consider what to do next. Again, I really appreciate your response. You are really kind. Repsjared (talk) 23:47, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

—Rosiestep (talk) 14:50, 30 July 2025 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Hi there! For ones like this, in future please just report to WP:UAA instead of warning. It’s a rather egregious username violation as a promotional username. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 23:18, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TheSandDoctor thanks for the note, I was reporting them to UAA, but I received the feedback that I should not do so unless they had made any edits. So I started leaving the warning so they would change the UN before editing. I’ll submit to UAA again. Thanks for letting me know Nayyn (talk) 07:42, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You’re welcome. I hear you. I think that there is a general philosophical difference between admins on this one. If a username “implies the intent to…advertise on…Wikipedia”, UPOL states that it should be “immediately blocked upon discovery”. That of course is compounded if actual promotional edits are spotted (then it might become a hard block). A username like the example above would fall under that plus WP:ISU and WP:CORPNAME, which state with additional clarification that the username would be considered promotional (= “implies the intent to…advertise on” in my books) and therefore should be immediately blocked.

You can also always drop me a line any time if you have any questions or whatnot. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 09:01, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks @TheSandDoctor — will do I will begin to report those names once again, as well as issue the warning. Very best Nayyn (talk) 17:30, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As WP:UAA says: Do not leave a username warning on a user’s talk page and also immediately report them here. Do one or the other, and not both simultaneously. jlwoodwa (talk) 18:39, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya, could you please create a discussion section at Talk:Documenta 12 for the merger with Documenta 12 magazines, and add your rationale? Thank you! — HTGS (talk) 20:59, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! I wanted to let you know that I declined your G4 speedy deletion nomination of Keith Johnson (author) because the article is not sufficiently similar to the one deleted via discussion in 2017. If you think Johnson still fails to meet Wikipedia’s notability guidelines, feel free to nominate for deletion via AFD. Thanks again! Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 14:47, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Significa liberdade thanks for letting me know. Its frustrating as I could not see the previously deleted version, so I’ll send to AfD as the comments brought up in the deletion discussion are the same as those that apply to the page today. Nothing has changed or improved since the previous deletion. Nayyn (talk) 17:32, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reports to Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention. For names that appear to represent organizations, we usually wait until the user edits before taking any action, so the reports were premature. Once the user edits, we know how to proceed: whether it’s just promotional, or someone representing the company trying to follow our COI rules. Either way, the username is problematic, but we may block in the first case, and discuss with the user in the second case. There are other variations as well, but it’s best to wait to figure out how best to approach them. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:39, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I was doing this, I was not reporting them, just warning, but then I was advised by @TheSandDoctor to report clear company names to USAA. So I changed my approach. I guess I’ll stop reporting them. I’m just trying to help here. Nayyn (talk) 18:43, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I recommend not warning them either, as it then becomes confusing when we have to intervene, as we try to either warn or block, not both. Just wait until they edit, then report to WP:UAA if the username is a problem. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:47, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll just step away from doing this as it doesn’t seem like I can get it right. Nayyn (talk) 18:49, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think what rsj meant was to not report and warn simultaneously as jlwoodwa was saying as UPOL advises against doing both simultaneously. I would say just go back as you were and forget I said anything; it’s simpler that way. Sorry this is turning out so convoluted. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 18:57, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Its ok, I know that everyone is trying to help here– the issue I had before is I would report them, and then an admin would remove the report I made with the edit summary “Discussing on talk page” where they would put the exact same warning on the page that is now being pointed to as poor practice.. I thought I was saving everyone the trouble by preempting that. I’ll just edit elsewhere. Nayyn (talk) 19:01, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you put the warning on the page before reporting, it puts the admin in a bit of an awkward spot if they want to block the user, as the user then gets conflicting advice between the warning and the block notice.

That reply by the admin meant that your report was useful and appreciated. Leave it up to the admin to figure out how best to address the issue, but you do help by highlighting the issue in the first place. Just know when the right time is to report, which is after the user in question starts editing. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:22, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I made some edits to César Parra’s live page, but I saw you reverted them, saying they weren’t neutral. Honestly, I spent over three hours working on that article to get it right and added information I thought was important. I made sure to include reliable sources for all the information I added, and I carefully read everything before adding it. But I’m not an expert, so maybe I made some mistakes that’s why I included a note in the edit summary.

No problem at all! Could you please guide me on how to proceed if I want to edit the page again? Should I try making another attempt with the same information, supported by reliable links, but written in a more neutral, non-promotional way? Or would it be better to leave the page as is? I already have all the info I added last time, and if I rework it to be more neutral, would you be willing to review it again? I just want to make sure I’m following the right approach and not causing any frustration.

Thanks so much! Jelloindream (talk) 00:34, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jelloindream and welcome to Wikipedia. I know it can be frustrating when edits are reverted. Please don’t take things personally as there are many different policies and it is only natural that sometimes editors might disagree with certain editing decisions of others.

On Wikipedia, BLPs are taken quite seriously so it is great that you endeavored to find a lot of links to support the claims. However, the text that you added, appeared to be non-neutral, portraying Parra in ways that could be read as a subjective take on him.

As your edits before reaching the Parra page were introductory ones, it does give me some concerns about the nature of your interest in editing the page of this individual, especially as this page that has a long history of COI edits, and whom the subject of the page has quite a controversial backstory. You do not want to give the impression that you have a WP:FAN POV or are not here for the right reasons.

As you referred several times to how much time and effort you spent editing this page, and how keen you appear to continue to edit it, it brings up some suspicions that you may have a conflict of interest with the subject of the page. Similarly, in your edit summary you appeared to plead that your edits would not be reverted, which did give the indication that you had a indication that they might be.

That being said, all editors here are volunteers (or should be volunteers unless disclosed otherwise) and it is likely that editors may disagree on the application of these policies from time to time. When it comes to major edits on a page as contentious as Parra’s — use caution before doing so. It would be prudent to ask for suggestions on the article’s talk page before making an epic 3-hour editing session, and to keep track of your edits in a sandbox or elsewhere. The article’s talk page is a good place to start.

I’ll share some helpful editing tips on your talk page, but in the meantime when editing the pages of living persons without be sure to take into account the WP:NPOV policy, as well as the policies on reliable sources. I hope that is helpful and again welcome to Wikipedia and happy editing. Nayyn (talk) 14:34, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I understand what you said. I don’t have any conflict of interest regarding the page or the person. I’m leaving the page and won’t make any further edits to it, as I understand it could affect my account. I’ll focus on editing other pages that Wikipedia recommends. Thanks again. Jelloindream (talk) 19:02, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My name is Tatiana Cooper and I work with Vicky Ward as her communications assistant. I had previously edited Vicky’s article, without disclosing my connection to the article. I did not know or understand the rules of conflict of interest. I edited from this account as well as once from User:VickyWard. In all cases I tried to add relevant sourced information; however, I see now that my editing was promotional. I also put back information after it was removed by the community, and I apologize for that too. My goal now is to disclose my conflict of interest, rebuild trust with the community, and help improve the Vicky Ward article only through accepted community channels. I will not edit the Vicky Ward article directly again, ever. Tatianacooper16 (talk) 16:38, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message about my contributions. I am new to Wikipedia and wanted to be as transparent as possible. I have created a user page and will look closely at the guidelines.
thank you again

BBallAU Editor (talk) 21:23, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@BBallAU Editor this is very cute, thank you for the kitten. Welcome to wikipedia! Nayyn (talk) 21:24, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I noticed the deletion tag on the Scott Alldridge page, which I created. I wasn’t aware that certain links, like the MSN links, were considered PR-related. When I initially created the article, those MSN links contained relevant information, but now they’re showing as dead links. A few days ago, they were still online, but now they no longer work.

To address this, I’ve updated the article by shortening the draft and turning it into a stub. I’ve also removed the dead and PR-related links. As of now, the page has over 10 active references remaining. I believe I can find additional sources if needed.

I’m reaching out to inform you that I’ve removed the deletion tag, as I’ve made substantial changes to the article. However, if you feel the tag should remain, please feel free to re-add it. I just wanted to clarify the situation and let you know the updates I’ve made.

Thanks for your time! Jelloindream (talk) 00:45, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Twice now, I have seen you treat users who create accounts to improve their reading experience as if this is somehow opposed to Wikipedia’s purpose (U5, UAA). Please keep in mind that Wikipedia exists for its readers. jlwoodwa (talk) 20:52, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m sorry this was not in any way a critique of a users reading experience. The notices were done in good faith for an admin to review because they appeared to me that they violated the policies of this site.

If they were done incorrectly I have appreciated when an admin has let me know that I have made the wrong call.

In no instance was there any suggestion, that I was making a judgement of how the new editor was using the encyclopedia to improve their reading experience.

This did not cross my mind at all.

I’m not sure how one could come to this conclusion of my supposed intention here without some significant assumptions made. Nayyn (talk) 21:16, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A reader created a common.css page so they could change the background colors while reading Wikipedia; you tagged it for deletion as something “not closely related to Wikipedia’s goals”. Another reader created a userpage where they said they would do basically nothing except reading. i registered the account to change the wiki skin away from the absolutely awful Vector 2022; you reported them as “not here to build an encyclopedia”. It does not take “significant assumptions” to see the issue here. jlwoodwa (talk) 21:23, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The first was a mistake, I did not understand the syntax of the css page, and my interface reported a warning that it could contain malicious code, so I reported it for safety. The second one, if you look at the editing history the user wrote, they said they created the page “with malicious intent”. That was the rationale for my comment on this one. Nayyn (talk) 21:25, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jlwoodwa could you please respond to this please.

How do my actions assume readers are the enemy? For the CSS page if you read my response to the admin who denied the close, you will see my intentions clearly. The other page was speedily deleted and then recreated with an edit summary that gave a clear indication the editor was WP:NOTHERE. Are there other issues that you wish to raise here? Nayyn (talk) 22:24, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Biting newcomers in good faith is still biting newcomers. Please treat them better. That is all I want to say. jlwoodwa (talk) 22:30, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Now I’m biting newcomers and treating new editors poorly? I really don’t think that’s fair to say. You can’t just throw that out there especially after not responding to the response made above. Assuming good faith goes both ways. Nayyn (talk) 22:34, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jlwoodwa and the title of this discussion, “Readers are not the enemy” makes a rather large assumption that I can only read as denying good faith on my part. This insinuation does not square with my editing history and feels somewhat of a personal affront. Could you further explain how you came to these specific conclusions? Nayyn (talk) 21:22, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Nayyn, if you’re feeling personally affronted because someone thought you were being bitey and told you so, I’d say that’s a really, really good sign that you were being bitey, and should take the time to step back and reflect, especially if you think that doesn’t align with your typical editing. I’ve needed this kind of reminder myself recently, and it certainly didn’t feel very good, but I was grateful for it. We’re all guilty of getting in too deep sometimes, no matter how committed we are to kindness and good faith, and having someone point it out to you is a gift, even if it never feels like one at the time. For one thing, it’s a good defense against becoming jaded. For another, it means someone else thinks you could do better and that you’d want to do better – it really is an expression of good faith, not bad faith. I hope you can reconsider and take it as one. — asilvering (talk) 00:02, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering I have no problem acknowledging mistakes, but @Jlwoodwa‘s initial accusation was “Readers are not the enemy” makes a sharp and alarming assumption of my conduct. The cases they cite, a deletion request I made in error 10 days ago, which I already owned up to and responded to the declining editor, and an UAA that admins took action on, did not seem to square with the seriousness of Jlwoodwa’s accusation. When I asked for clarification, they said I was “bitey”, did not give any evidence, and instead escalated things to an uninvolved admin. Nayyn (talk) 20:39, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To quote your UAA report, you said Does not appear to be here to build a wikipedia, see edit summary of contributions. when the user’s userpage explicitly called out basically nothing except reading. i registered the account to change the wiki skin away from the absolutely awful Vector 2022., I think Jlwoodwa’s biting concerns were well founded in this context. Imagine, you were you were a person who did not know much about Wikipedia, you create a user account to change the color of your interface (OR) change your skin, how would you react to somebody immediately assuming that you were here to disrupt/inject malicious code into Wikipedia? Sohom (talk) 21:15, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red | September 2025, Vol 11, Issue 9, Nos. 326, 327, 347, 348, 349 Recognized as the most active, topic-based WikiProject by human changes. Online events: Announcements: Tip of the Month: Researching historical women writers who used pseudonyms requires careful investigation across multiple sources, as many women adopted pen names to avoid gender bias and judgment (e.g., being labeled a bluestocking) and, ultimately, to get published. Progress (“moving the needle”): Other ways to participate:

—Rosiestep (talk) 23:54, 31 August 2025 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Dear @Nayyn,
I’m writing to express my gratitude for your recent revisions to the “Suparma” article. My name is Andilebahganteng, but you can call me Andi. I’m an Indonesian who is enthusiastic about sustainable manufacturing, and I discovered the “Suparma” article on Wikipedia, which at the time stated that the company was a sustainable paper and tissue company. Unfortunately, this information keeps disappearing due to revisions from other Wikipedia contributors, including you. I want to make sure I get the most accurate information about Suparma. So, can you please tell me what you think is wrong with the current “Suparma” article and what needs to be added so that the information doesn’t keep getting deleted?
Thank you, and I look forward to hearing from you. Andilebahganteng (talk) 08:53, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I recently made an error while attempting to edit the Pizza Inn article, which led to it being flagged as “created or edited in return for undisclosed payments.” My intention was only to make a small change that would have filled in some history for the past 5 years, but I understand how it may have raised concerns. To clarify, I was not paid to make these edits and honestly you can probably tell that by how amateur my edits were lol.

With that being said, I now realize that citing a press release was not appropriate. As someone editing Wikipedia for the first time, I genuinely thought I was adding relevant information, but in hindsight, I recognize that my approach was misguided.

I kindly ask if you or another editor could review the edits and, if appropriate, remove the tag. You are, of course, welcome to roll back or adjust my contributions as needed. (I will say that the updated store count is correct but I don’t care if it gets changed.)

Please let me know if you need anything further from me! NwadeInfo (talk) 23:29, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red | October 2025, Vol 11, Issue 10, Nos. 326, 327, 350, 351, 352 Recognized as the most active topic-based WikiProject by human changes. Online events: Announcements: Tip of the Month: Notable does not always mean admirable; you don’t have to like an article’s subject to make the article a useful contribution to Wikipedia. Progress (“moving the needle”): Statistics available via various tools: previously, Humaniki tool; currently, QLever. Thank you if you contributed one or more of the 6,283 articles during this period: 19 May 2025: 20.114% of EN-WP biographies are about women (2,066,280; 415,618 women) 24 September 2025: 20.20% of EN-WP biographies are about women (2,088,533 biographies; 421,901 women) Other ways to participate:

—Rosiestep (talk) 18:31, 29 September 2025 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]