Viola abbreviata, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been accepted!
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions. Feel free to further improve your accepted article.
Future articles
Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without submitting a draft for review. However, you may continue submitting drafts to Articles for creation if you prefer.
Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
Running from October 1 to 31, 2026, WikiProject Women in Green (WiG) is hosting a Good Article (GA) edit-a-thon event with the theme Around the World in 31 Days! All experience levels welcome. Participants are invited to work on nominating and/or reviewing GA submissions related to women and women's works (e.g., books, films or organizations created by women) during the event period — and this time, we are extending our focus to encourage more Did You Know (DYK) submissions spotlighting new GA articles about women and women's works. We hope to collectively cover article subjects from at least 31 countries (or broader international articles) by the event's end. GA resources and one-on-one support will be provided by experienced editors, and participants will have the opportunity to earn a special WiG barnstar for their efforts.
Latest comment: 1 month ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I wish to submit a dratt bio to wikipedia
I have been contacted by numerous freeelance wiki writers inviting m to hire them to create a bio but I prefer to do so myseff. I have drafted a bio using the required format and now wish to submit my draft --Russell Lansbury (talk) 06:36, 27 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 month ago2 comments2 people in discussion
@Wikipedian12512, I appreciate all the thanks you've sent my way over the past two days … but why not hold off on any more for me and spread them out among your many other Wiki colleagues who are also doing helpful things?
I try to give them abundantly to people I see helping in the history, and especially so to people helping me, though spreading more cheer is a thing I have a hard time doing consistently. Anyways, thanks so much for copyediting it! I was really worried that someone else would read it and understand nothing, so I’m glad that you both minimized that chance and understood it.
Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The administrator elections process has officially started! Qualified editors are encouraged to find at least one experienced nominator. Self-nominations are also allowed. Please review instructions at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2026/Candidates.
Here is the schedule:
September 29–October 5: Nominations phase (we are here)
October 8–12: Discussion phase
October 13–19: SecurePoll voting phase
Please note the following:
The requirements to run are identical to RFA—a prospective candidate must be extended confirmed. However, in practice, few candidates succeed without ~10K edits, some content creation, no recent behavioral issues, and a nominator.
The process will have a seven day call for candidates phase, a two day pause, a five day discussion phase, and a seven day private vote using SecurePoll. Discussion and questions are only allowed on the candidate pages during the discussion phase.
The outcome of this process is identical to making a request for adminship. There is no official difference between an administrator appointed through RFA versus administrator elections.
Ask any questions about the process at the talk page. Later, a user talk message will be sent to official candidates with additional information about the process.
If you are interested in the process, please make sure to watchlist the appropriate pages. A watchlist notice will be added when the discussion phase opens, and again when the voting phase opens.
You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.
Latest comment: 1 month ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Greetings, I noticed that you've become pretty popular among other Wikipedians. You're partially blocked from Wikipedia, and I know that. But the thing is, you're getting messages from admin elections, and your block only affects ANI, while mine affects any Wikipedia-namespace pages. So, how do I become popular? SH360! (Must edit!Must chat!) 03:56, 1 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
I don’t understand what you mean by “popular”. I see editors, help them as best I can, and the next time I see that editor, it’s a familiar face. It’s something you can’t really do at ANI.
It doesn’t really matter what your block affects, because the real work happens in the mainspace. If you want to participate in the admin elections, maybe you can work something out. Maybe request an unblock for the duration of the elections, with ANI blocked, and tell them that during that time, you won’t do anything stupid?
I think the best course of action for you doesn’t involve anything in the Wikipedia namespace though, at least for now. Try making a GA! Get a project to work on! The WP is your oyster!
On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Milhist reviewing award (1 stripe) for participating in 1 review between July and September 2026 Hawkeye7(talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 02:45, 3 October 2026 (UTC)Reply Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space
On 13 Oct, we will start the voting phase. The candidate subpages will close to public questions and discussion, and everyone will have a week to use the SecurePoll software to vote, which uses a secret ballot. You can see who voted, but not who they voted for.
Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.
You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.
October 13–19: SecurePoll voting phase (we are here)
Scrutineering phase
In the voting phase, the candidate subpages close to public questions and discussion, and everyone who qualifies to vote has a week to use the SecurePoll software to vote, which uses a secret ballot. You can see who voted, but not who they voted for. Please note that the vote totals cannot be made public until after voting has ended and as such, it will not be possible for you to see an individual candidate's vote total during the election. The suffrage requirements are similar to those at RFA.
Once voting concludes, we will begin the scrutineering phase, which will last for a few days, perhaps longer. Once everything is certified, the results will be posted on the results page (this is a good page to watchlist), and transcluded to the main election page. In order to be granted adminship, a non-recall candidate must have received at least 70.0% support, calculated as Support / (Support + Oppose), and a minimum of 20 support votes. Recall candidates must achieve 55.0% support. Because this is a vote and not a consensus, there are no bureaucrat discussions ("crat chats").
Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.
You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.
Latest comment: 23 days ago4 comments2 people in discussion
I noticed that here you said your arm hadn't fully recovered yet - are you alright? Don't press yourself if you don't think it's a good idea. (I'll take a look at the comments soon BTW)
Also, if ever you need extra comments at FAC or peer review, feel free to ping me and I'll see what I can do:) --not-cheesewhisk3rs ≽^•⩊•^≼ ∫ (pester) 19:54, 14 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
I’m fine. I fell down about a week ago and broke my left arm (Walter Harris type two fracture). I’m going to an appointment to see when I can get the cast off in two days, and possibly it’ll be fine then with a sling. I’m basically just typing with my right hand, though my left can hit a few rows. I can play Celeste still (figured out that about three days in, where there’s a will, there’s a way).
Hope you finish recovering swiftly! It's surprising how minimalist Celeste controls can get, although if you were using your left hand that must have been quite difficult. --not-cheesewhisk3rs ≽^•⩊•^≼ ∫ (pester) 21:49, 14 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 20 days ago8 comments3 people in discussion
I just had the idea to work towards bringing Celeste to FA status. This is actually something I've thought of before, but disregarded it because I didn't have the time (the article's over 4500 words of prose!). However, if you're interested, it would be a collaborative effort and overall a lot more doable. What do you think? In case you are interested: this doesn't have to be a time-consuming project if it's managed properly. I have some ideas for how to approach it.
In an idea world the article would be TFA on 25 January 2028 for the 10th anniversary of Celeste, but the world doesn't have to be ideal. --not-cheesewhisk3rs ≽^•⩊•^≼ ∫ (pester) 13:51, 16 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
Sure! I haven’t done either an FA or a collaboration before, but both are things I’d love to do! I was even planning to reach out to you for a similar thing (great minds think alike), but didn’t know what to work on.
I’d love to hear your ideas and work with you on this! I have some knowledge on long projects (around 4 months on Malta).
Go through the list of suggestions in the failed GAN, see what still needs improvement, mostly to find major issues
In a userspace draft, copy the current article's sources and try to find more sources to add to it. If possible, keep only sources reliable per WP:RSP and WP:VGRS (which also has a list of source recommendations). There's a source in the {{refideas}} on the talk page as well.
In the userspace draft, structure the article following more or less the same structure as WP:VG's featured articles, then write each section (again, following current FAs' structure)
There may not be enough high-quality sources to write a FA on Celeste, but I hope there is. I haven't taken a proper look yet. --not-cheesewhisk3rs ≽^•⩊•^≼ ∫ (pester) (FAC) 20:02, 16 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
I know, but in doing so you also helped by allowing it to truly be said that the stub was expanded, since it’s now a C-class. Γ+2 (talk) 01:04, 22 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
Sure, but can you please elaborate on what it means to “become” a GA reviewer? Are you trying to say you’ll see if my article meets the requirements for GA, or that you’ll help improve it to a GA article by expanding the quality even further? Γ+2 (talk) 11:38, 22 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Munronia assamica, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been accepted!
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions. Feel free to further improve your accepted article.
Future articles
Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without submitting a draft for review. However, you may continue submitting drafts to Articles for creation if you prefer.
Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
Latest comment: 8 days ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Hello, thank you very much for the quick review of my draft (Draft:Steffen Klamt). Unfortunately, it was rejected. The reason given was “unreliable sources.” Can you point out exactly which sources this refers to? How can I improve them so that my draft is more likely to be accepted? Ebel at Mpi-m (talk) 10:19, 22 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
Hey Wikipedian12512, thank you for taking the time to put down cn tags!
I've revised the draft and added sources to the sections you highlighted. The sentence “Overall, Klamt’s research combines approaches from biology, mathematics, computer science, and engineering to analyze and engineer complex biological networks” (the last one you highlighted) serves here as a concluding summary of all the points listed previously. If this sentence alone leads to a decline of the entire draft, I would omit it to make a positive revision as likely as possible.
Zahrazamedahmedi has given you some caramel and a candy apple! Caramel and candy-coated apples are fun Halloween treats, and promote WikiLove on Halloween. Hopefully these have made your Halloween (and the preceding days) much sweeter. Happy Halloween!
'"On Psych, A USA Network TV series Episode 8, The Tao of Gus, Season 6, Shawn refers to pumpkins as "Halloween Apples" because he thinks all round fruits are a type of apple.
Latest comment: 8 days ago9 comments2 people in discussion
Hello, I am very sorry for taking so long; I have made several major improvements to Eulophia graminea but I am unsure if it is ready to be nominated for GA. You don’t need to review it right now, in fact you can just tell me what you see at a quick glance and then let me know if I can nominate it for further review. Γ+2 (talk) 17:18, 24 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
I will attempt to add more information, although most Google search results for this orchid seem to be social media posts and other unsuitable sources. Γ+2 (talk) 18:49, 24 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
I’ve added a little more information a while ago before you sent that message, although at this point most of the sources and publications related to this orchid that I haven’t added any information from are extremely niche (focusing on subjects such as tissue culture and medicinal uses) although I’ll still try implementing them, but probably tomorrow. Although I heavily doubt that this could reach 10x its size, since the subject is so niche (I know, orchids are popular, but I don’t know anybody interested in orchid-weeds). Γ+2 (talk) 00:31, 25 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
I’m not saying that 10x is the size it should be (though it would be nice, sorry for the miscommunication), I’m saying that’s the size at which it’s too large. Having a small bit (maybe two paragraphs) for the niche bits is about right. Also currently having my first orchid DYK, and having a crisis at it being the wrong one. Cheers, In solidarityWikipedian12512 (Talking is fine|contribs) 00:34, 25 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
I will try adding more small improvements for now. Also even though I can’t exactly relate, I find it rather ironic that the species epithet just so happened to be “confusa”. Γ+2 (talk) 00:44, 25 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
Hello, I am currently still working on improving the page Eulophia graminea, but I noticed something else. Pistia is a long, detailed article, probably similar in quality to Eulophia graminea, yet it’s still only ranked Start-class. I would suggest you reassess it, however I am unsure if I am missing anything when it comes to topics like this. Γ+2 (talk) 21:55, 29 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 days ago12 comments4 people in discussion
On 25 October 2026, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Neottia confusa, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a species of orchid was named for having a smaller lip than others in its genus? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Neottia confusa. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (Neottia confusa), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to nominate it.
ALT1 and ALT1a were subject to a lot of back and forth about the proper phrasing. Rather than risk an ERRORS report, I went with ALT0, which was approved as presented.—Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:18, 25 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
Congrats on your first DYK. I was very surprised when I saw that this much content was written using four references. --not-cheesewhisk3rs ≽^•⩊•^≼ ∫ (pester) 09:14, 25 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I saw that you brought Martin Luther King Jr. to GAR, because of missing citations. I see 6. Couldn't you perhaps find a simpler way to deal with that? Find them yourself? Make a note on the article talk page what needs a ref? Ask projects for help? -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:21, 26 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Following 2019 Kilogram Redefinition
Dear Wikipedia Editorial Team,
I am writing to bring to your attention a nuance regarding the reported masses of mountains on Wikipedia that may benefit from clarification or updating.
Prior to 2019, the kilogram was defined by the International Prototype of the Kilogram (IPK)—a platinum–iridium cylinder stored in France. Copies of this standard were used worldwide for scientific measurements. Over time, the mass of the IPK and its copies drifted slightly (on the order of tens of micrograms per kilogram).
In 2019, the kilogram was redefined in terms of Planck’s constant, making it an absolute, reproducible standard independent of any physical artifact.
While this change is essentially invisible for human-scale measurements, it has measurable implications for large-scale mass estimates, such as the mass of mountains, reservoirs, or other geological bodies.
For example, Mount Everest, with a mass on the order of 10¹⁴ kilograms, would see a numeric shift of hundreds of thousands of kilograms if the historical measurements are referenced to the old IPK versus the new definition. While the physical mountain has not changed, the numeric value reported in kilograms could be slightly “off” relative to the fixed, modern definition.
Since most mass estimates for mountains are derived from volume × average rock density, and rock density measurements were historically calibrated to the IPK, a uniform correction factor could be applied to bring all reported mountain masses in line with the modern kilogram definition.
I recommend that Wikipedia consider adding a note or reference regarding the 2019 kilogram redefinition in articles that report mountain or large-scale geological masses, to ensure clarity and maintain scientific accuracy.
Thank you for your attention to this issue. --L wolf's head (talk) 03:16, 27 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 3 days ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi! Thanks for taking the time to review the Vern Kousky article and for your helpful feedback!
I've made quite a few changes since your review, particularly expanding the section on critical reception. I also took your point about some of his books potentially being notable, so I've tried to better establish his notability as an author through the coverage his work has received over the years.
I've resubmitted the article and hope the changes address your concerns. Of course, I'd appreciate any further suggestions you might have.
You are receiving this message because you created or are tracking these pages with the NervousBot template. To stop notifications for an article, remove it from the template; to stop notifications about pages you created, add {{User:NervousBot/subscriber|created=no}} to the template.
You are receiving this message because you created or are tracking these pages with the NervousBot template. To stop notifications for an article, remove it from the template; to stop notifications about pages you created, add {{User:NervousBot/subscriber|created=no}} to the template.
Question from CorrieStAnt (16:44, 5 November 2026)
Latest comment: 22 hours ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Hi! Thanks for being out there willing to help. I have submitted an article for creation. I got in a bit of a mess trying to submit. It is currently identified as "draft: David McGill (Artist)" which I can access via a link in my sandbox. While this is ok while the link exists, I'm not sure if I should try to change things so that I can access it directly with my own user name? Is this even possible or desirable? Any advice would be gratefully received. Thanks, RICHARD --CorrieStAnt (talk) 16:44, 5 November 2026 (UTC)Reply
It’s fine there. The page was moved to an after the move to namespace. I can tag it for deletion if you want, or you can keep it. As for the draft, there are some things before it can be accepted. I’ll review it now. Keep in mind that creating articles is one of the hardest things to do. Cheers, In solidarityWikipedian12512 (Talking is fine|contribs) 20:09, 5 November 2026 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the reply. If the article is safely saved where it is then I am happy to leave it be. It would be great for you to review my article to see if it will be suitable for wiki one day. Any notes and advice would be great. Thanks. ~2026-58700-33 (talk) 09:14, 6 November 2026 (UTC)Reply