Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14
This page has archives. Topics inactive for 7 days are automatically archived 2 or more at a time by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 5.

MediaWiki message delivery 21:51, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, you recently deleted a page I created based on this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Speedy_deletion#A7

Is it because the length is too short and not credible? If that's the case, I'm about to recreate the page and will finish editing the page. Smartasyrup (talk) 15:58, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Smartasyrup I suggest doing the article first in your sandbox or in the draft space first. Just one sentence with no references do not cut it for the mainspace. Please be aware of WP:NBIO and WP:GNG guidelines. Note that if you are angling for politician notability, this is generally for those who have been elected into office. – robertsky (talk) 16:05, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I want to contribute to wikipedia. Could you please help me get started with learning the ins and outs of what makes a good edit/contribution to an encyclopedia of knowledge? Examples of good and bad articles and edits would also greatly help. --Thewishfulrodent (talk) 19:24, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Thewishfulrodent I have dropped some links to tutorials which you can get started with on your talk page. There are plenty of 'bad' articles, however, for good articles, I suggest going through Category:Good articles and check the articles in there. Good articles are articles which has been reviewed to meet a set of standards which we aspire all articles get to. For making first edits, your homepage contains certain suggestions on some editing tasks to get you started. – robertsky (talk) 02:28, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For the impressive collective quantity of content in Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Archives/2026-05-22 generated by a large number of people for a single Signpost issue, and which was published on time. ↠Pine (✉) 04:28, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2026).

Administrator changes

• Asukite
• Bobby Cohn
• Bonadea
• Ca
• Drm310
• Reconrabbit
• Sammi Brie

• Tamzin
• TonyBallioni

• Ezhiki
• Queen of Hearts

Bureaucrat changes

• WereSpielChequers

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, the "persistent usage of large language models" has been included as a common reason for a block.

Technical news

• Mandatory 2FA for bureaucrats: Bureaucrats without two-factor authentication (2FA) enabled have already lost access to their advanced rights on 26 May. Those who do not enable 2FA may be automatically removed from the groups in mid-June 2026, and from that point onward, new members must have 2FA enabled before they can be added. (T423119, T423120)

Arbitration

• The arbitration case SchroCat has been closed.
• The arbitration case Michael Jackson has opened. Evidence submissions in this case closes on 1 June.

Miscellaneous

• Voting for the 2026 Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) election closes on 1 June.

---

MediaWiki message delivery 21:07, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, robertsky! I wanted to address your posting of the ITN nomination for Magnifica Humanitas, as it will soon scroll off the page.

First, significance is not something that can be objectively measured. Therefore, even though we're not a democracy, a closure against the opinion of a majority of editors should be viewed with scrutiny. You gave four reasons as to why the blurb was added against consensus. These were:

1. comments stating because it is "Catholic news" and variation are largely downweighted because it is generally centric on particular group of people which is an argument to avoid.

   I don't believe this is what the opposition is saying, though. They mean that, while this might be notable if the main page were dedicated to covering catholic news, it isn't, and the encyclical isn't significant enough to appear on its own.

2. question of notability is the remit of AfD, not here. on the quality of the article, it has expanded to a sufficient length which would qualify for any other blurbs.

   According to Wiktionary, significance is a synonym of a hypernym of notability, i.e. they're basically the same thing, except on Wikipedia. When editors, some of which may not be the most experienced with Wikipedia terminology, bring up notability in a topic where notability is irrelevant, the closer should assume they mean significance.

3. question on significance is addressed by the alt blurbs.

   I don't believe it is. Telling the reader what the encyclical was about doesn't change the significance. Additionally, this wasn't included in the original discussion.

4. on comparison with SOTUA, throne speech etc, it is also argued that popes had not been doing so regularly. My understanding of those supporting is that this is likely an irregular one as well.

   The comparisons here are about the nature of the event (that is, an influential figure disseminating their agenda, an action they take somewhat often), not whether the events are equally spaced.

I know determining consensus on ITN can be a difficult, thankless task. However, I feel your closure didn't fully consider the opposing concerns with the thought they deserve, and leaned into supervote territory. I also believe that, if you need to reason your way towards a consensus using your own arguments, there probably isn't consensus for something as subjective as ITN significance. I'd just appreciate it if you could be a bit more cautious with deciding whether to post ITN blurbs. Thanks, Feeglgeef (talk) 06:47, 2 June 2026 (UTC).[reply]

@Feeglgeef thanks for reaching out. The insinuation that is a supervote is misplaced. I would say that I am one who make my discussion closures according to the discussion rather than my personal preferences, and I don't close discussions that I don't think that I can't do so and be objective about it.

I largely stand by my analysis of the discussion. When I gone through the discussion, entries that just said "this is not Catholic news" and the likes, in contrast with the counter argument that it is widely reported, there is also this conclusion that this widely reported item should not be posted because it is Catholic in nature. I would say that a better articulation than just "this is not Catholic news" etc would have make a stronger case. The comparison in the discussion to SOTUA, etc was on the routineness of the event, not nature of the event. It was established that what the Pope did was not a regular event, even by his predecessors.

On the significance, this was addressed in at least 3 comments in the discussion ([6], [7], [8]).

Nonetheless I thank you for your feedback and additional point of view. It is precisely I know such closure will invite scrutiny that I elaborated my closing rationale instead of just putting 'Posted' with no or minimal reasoning, as that would really be supervoting.

Note: While it is not stated anywhere, for ITN in general, if there have been to a lot of negative reactions to the posting, I or any other admins (as I have seen it done so before) would have pulled the entry down before long. I wouldn't hold it against any admins for reverting, wheel warring notwithsanding. – robertsky (talk) 10:23, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team – 10:35, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(This message was sent to User:Robertsky and is being posted here due to a redirect.)