User Talk: EatingCarBatteries

Server-side rendered snapshot of this editor's Wikipedia talk page discussions.

{{talk header}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
| algo = old(90d)
| archive = User talk:EatingCarBatteries/Archive %(counter)d
| counter = 1
| maxarchivesize = 400K
| archiveheader = {{Archive}}
| minthreadstoarchive = 1
| minthreadsleft = 4
}}

please review

Draft:Sharon Soloman ↗ Your initial rejection of this was for my writing style. I have since looked at the wikipedia writing styles (how to write better ...) and made a major overhaul. Please check this before I resubmit. I can of course, make more corrections. TheeCitationist (talk) 01:08, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

:It honestly looks much better, very nice job :)
:I would give it a submit, I suspect Soloman warrants her own article. I'll let someone else take a look at it, though, just in case. EatingCarBatteries (contribs ↗ | talk ↗) 02:04, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
::Thanks so much. Also, how do I change the name of the title? Soloman is actually spelled Solomon. TheeCitationist (talk) 03:29, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
:::There's a move page button on the sidebar on the toolbar - I moved it for you. EatingCarBatteries (contribs ↗ | talk ↗) 06:53, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
::::You're awesome. I resubmitted it, today. TheeCitationist (talk) 15:38, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
:::::Thank you! :) EatingCarBatteries (contribs ↗ | talk ↗) 18:31, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Haptosquilla trispinosa Resubmission

Hello @EatingCarBatteries,

I hope you are doing well. I was wondering if you would be able to look at my resubmission of the Haptosquilla trispinosa article that you declined. I understand your claim of potential use of LLM's, but that was just a product of lazy rephrasing for some of my citations. I have significantly cleaned up my earlier draft and I was just hoping that you would have some time to give it another look.
I appreciate your time. Ahdabeck (talk) 17:14, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

:Nice job on cleaning it up! It looks much better than it did before, especially with the formatting issues solved. I'm going to be very busy for the next couple of days, meaning I can't get to reviewing. I'll take a better look once I'm free, if nobody else has done so. EatingCarBatteries (contribs ↗ | talk ↗) 02:26, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Wikifunctions & Abstract Wikipedia Newsletter #244 is out: Milestones; Some major issues hopefully resolved

There is a new update ↗ for Abstract Wikipedia and Wikifunctions. Please, come and read it!

In this issue, we celebrate 4000 functions on Wikifunctions and 1000 abstract articles on Abstract Wikipedia, we announce that we should have fixed some major issues with the websites, we inform you on our latest outreach activities, and we take a look at the latest software developments.

Want to catch up with the previous updates? Check our archive ↗!

Enjoy the reading! -- User:Sannita (WMF) (talk) 10:22, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 21

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Deportation in the second Trump administration ↗, a link pointing to the disambiguation page Axios ↗ was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Please stop removing underscores in anchor-names

I have restored (most? all?) of the underscores that you removed from anchor-names in antenna types ↗. Although in principle, the underscores ''should'' be optional / extreneous, in practice, they are not. Links to anchors embedded in other articles will fail to reach the anchored point in the article if the reader is viewing the Wikipedia with Javascript disabled (prudent / paranoid web-browsing practice). With the embedded underscores in both the anchor-using link and the target anchor, the link works whether Javascript is enabled or not. ~2026-22971-27 ↗ (talk) 00:14, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

:That's very interesting, thanks for letting me know and reverting my changes. This was the only page I did this edit on, as I was setting up AWB to do an unrelated task (fixing CS1 errors). It's been 4 days since I made that edit, and I honestly forget why I made it. Virtually every page I've seen doesn't use the underscores {{--}} does this mean most wikilinks are broken without JS? EatingCarBatteries (contribs ↗ | talk ↗) 00:38, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Review of Draft:All Known Little Ships of Dunkirk

Thank you for your review of Draft:All Known Little Ships of Dunkirk. I am seeking clarification on the basis for the decline.

Following the previous review, substantive changes were made to the draft. In particular, the earlier concern was that vessels were not clearly linked to Dunkirk through reliable sources. This was addressed, with entries referenced throughout using published and archival material. The content is therefore not original research, but a compilation of verifiable material already in the public domain.

I also explained that the purpose of the page is as a navigational index to support encyclopaedic articles, particularly where vessel names overlap or are ambiguous, rather than as a standalone directory. This aligns with existing Wikipedia content, where lists and categories already exist but are incomplete or selective (for example, List of ships involved in the Dunkirk evacuation, which explicitly only covers “more notable vessels”).

For context, the Dunkirk evacuation (Operation Dynamo) involved hundreds of vessels and is a major Second World War event, with over 330,000 troops rescued by a large fleet of naval and civilian craft. However, coverage of individual vessels remains fragmented, and there is currently no single structured, encyclopaedic index bringing these together from reliable sources.

Given this, I would be grateful if you could clarify why the draft was declined under “What Wikipedia is not”. The draft does not appear to fall into the categories listed (it is not an essay, personal profile, creative work, or advocacy), and the original research concern has been addressed through sourcing.

If the issue is instead one of scope, format, or list suitability, I would welcome specific guidance so that the draft can be restructured accordingly. Maritimehistorianuk (talk) 22:05, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

:Hi!
:I'll admit that the decline message doesn't explain it very well - I'll request for it to be changed.
:First, I want to preface that I found some other pages that are really a duplicate of you've been working on:
:* List of ships at Dunkirk ↗
:* List of ships involved in the Dunkirk evacuation ↗
:* Little Ships of Dunkirk ↗
:Frankly, much of these pages should be merged together and interconnected using the Excerpt template ↗. It seems like a good area for improvement.
:Getting to the meat of this message: at Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not ↗, it says:
:{{quote|To provide encyclopedic value, data ↗ should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. As explained in § Encyclopedic content ↗ above, merely being true, or even verifiable ↗, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. This does not restrict editors from ''citing'' databases; however, Wikipedia itself should not ''be'' a database.}}
:----
:{{quote| Statistics that lack context or explanation can reduce readability and may be confusing; accordingly, statistics should be placed in tables to enhance readability, and articles with statistics should include explanatory text providing context. Where statistics are so lengthy as to impede the readability of the article, the statistics can be split into a separate article and summarized in the main article.}}
:Wikipedia's purpose as an encyclopedia is to provide summary-style coverage of the topic. This is why the article List of ships at Dunkirk ↗, is more selective. For our sake, being an encyclopedia, there isn't much sense in including around a thousand lines of ships when the vast majority of them have no information. For instance, the ship "Jean Millot (D)" has zero information about it, not even the ship type. The only thing the table provides of that ship is that the "Association of Dunkirk Little Ships" included it on their webpage - there isn't much to go off of.
:If you want, you can try getting a third opinion at the Teahouse ↗. I've found that it always helps, even as a more experienced editor. EatingCarBatteries (contribs ↗ | talk ↗) 02:31, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
::I would like to clarify two key points.
::Firstly, '''this draft is not a duplicate of any existing page'''. The pages referenced, including List of ships involved in the Dunkirk evacuation ↗ and Little Ships of Dunkirk ↗, are selective in nature and focus on notable or well-documented vessels. They do not provide a structured, comprehensive index of vessels with sourced attributes. This draft is intended to complement those pages, not replicate them.
::Secondly, and importantly, '''the current level of detail in some entries is not the end state'''.
::'''I already hold further sourced information for a significant number of these vessels, including additional build details, roles, and historical context, and I am in the process of adding this material.'''
::The draft therefore represents:
::* a structured foundation, and
::* an actively developing encyclopaedic resource
::rather than a finished or static dataset.
::Given this, I would respectfully ask:
::'''Is Wikipedia not the appropriate place for this information to be developed, structured, and expanded?'''
::The subject — the Dunkirk evacuation — is a major historical event, and the vessels involved are a core part of that history. At present, coverage is fragmented across multiple selective lists and individual articles. There is no single, structured, and sourced index bringing this material together in a consistent way.
::This draft is intended to:
::* consolidate verifiable information from reliable sources,
::* provide a navigational framework for readers and editors, and
::* support the creation and expansion of individual vessel articles over time.
::It is not intended as an indiscriminate register, but as a curated and progressively enriched encyclopaedic list.
::If the concern is about the current presentation or threshold of detail, I am very willing to:
::* continue expanding entries to ensure each contains meaningful, sourced information,
::* define clear inclusion criteria in the lead, and
::* restructure the list to align more closely with existing list standards.
::However, I would suggest that declining the draft at this stage risks preventing the development of what could become a valuable and well-sourced encyclopaedic resource.
::I would welcome specific guidance on how best to bring the draft in line with expectations so that it can be improved and expanded within Wikipedia, rather than excluded in principle.
::Maritimehistorianuk (talk) 07:12, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
:::Hey, I really appreciate the message. I see that you deleted the draft and added the content to the existing article, which I think is a good idea.
:::I am currently asking some other editors if I am misunderstanding the rules on Wikipedia not being a database ↗ - after all, there are so many other pages that just maintain raw data with little text but still provide encyclopedic value and are allowed here. ''If I am wrong'' and you're right, I might try to shuffle around the data or perhaps recommend that original page you tried to submit be published.
:::At the very least, the data should be split up (maybe by letter of the alphabet, for example A-M, N-Z). The page you edited now ranks #96 on the longest pages on this website, and it still lags my computer trying to edit it. EatingCarBatteries (contribs ↗ | talk ↗) 02:30, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Draft:IT (franchise) ↗

Could you tell me what sources I have put are not reliable please and what ones are not. DannyCutterAnderson (talk) 09:20, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

:Hi!
:Digital stores (like Amazon, Audible, etc) are generally seen as unreliable ↗ because the content is self-published (especially reviews), with little oversight from the platform, and publishers/authors can remain anonymous if they so choose.
:I will correct myself though - the way you are using these sources is completely fine. Platforms like Amazon can be reliable for uncontroversial basic information ↗, such as the movie/book/game/soundtrack existing in the first place, release dates, or digital identifiers (ISBN, DOI, etc).
:But an article can't rely ''entirely'' on these type of sources. One of Wikipedia's requirements for an article to exist ↗ is that it must have a few sources (typically at least 3) that each meet the following criteria:
:{{quotebox|Secondary sources ↗ that provide ''significant coverage'' in ''reliable sources ↗'' that are ''independent ↗ of the subject''.}}
:For a franchise like ''IT'', that won't be that hard to come by. There has been so much written about it by these kind of publications online, that it will be very easy to meet this requirement.
:{{br}}
:TLDR: Amazon/audible are reliable for uncontroversial information about the subject of the article, but an article needs other, more reliable sources ↗ as well.
:Let me know if you have any questions! EatingCarBatteries (contribs ↗ | talk ↗) 23:16, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
::With the bts book I put a link to the official company that published it, is that fine DannyCutterAnderson (talk) 08:57, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
:::References on Wikipedia can be a complicated process.
:::It's fine to use that throughout the article, but an article shouldn't be based solely on that. In this case, the BTS book wouldn't be independent ↗ of the IT franchise.
:::For an article to be published it needs typically at least 3 sources that meet ALL of the following:
:::* secondary ↗
:::* independent ↗
:::* reliable ↗
:::* provide significant coverage ↗
:::EatingCarBatteries (contribs ↗ | talk ↗) 18:53, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Draft:Aux Animaux la Guerre

Hello. I submitted this for AfC review. I have the thought that the novel's English translation may be a more appropriate title for the page. This would follow the precedent of the other English-translated, title-variant work by Nicolas Mathieu in English Wikipedia: And Their Children After Them (novel) ↗. Jeffgriffinsignal (talk) 00:10, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Black Rooster

Why did you reject my article? I just wanted to spread knowledge. Your own user page says we should all just be nice to eachother, so help a guy out. :(, and also suas leis a' Ghàidhlig. DUInEsAmbIth (talk) 06:54, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

:Like the decline message says, Wikipedia has relatively strict requirements on what can and can't be on Wikipedia.
:Knowledge is awesome, but we require multiple reliable sources ↗ in order to provide a more balanced article that is free from bias, factual errors, and has enough to write about. EatingCarBatteries (contribs ↗ | talk ↗) 07:03, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
::kk you should go to BR. It lives up to it's reputation. It's pretty niche. Have a nice day sir/madam/other honorary title. DUInEsAmbIth (talk) 07:16, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
:::I'm so sorry you live in America so you'd have to go very far. You're missing out significantly. Please get some sleep tho, it's too early for you. (1:03 AM is crazy.) DUInEsAmbIth (talk) 07:22, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
::::I'm a night owl -- thank you :) EatingCarBatteries (contribs ↗ | talk ↗) 17:30, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
:::::No problem. Stay safe man. DUInEsAmbIth (talk) 17:32, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Declined Draft

I'm sorry but i'm confused about the declining ? These are everything there is about her lol she's a minor character <nowiki>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Soft_Serve_(Marvel_Comics)</nowiki> Belloclives157 (talk) 05:29, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

:Hi, the reason why I declined your page is because it doesn't meet Wikipedia's relatively strict inclusion criteria ↗.
:Generally, articles require (1) significant coverage ↗ in (2) reliable sources ↗ that are (3) independent ↗ of the subject.
:The sources your page has aren't independent, as they're either directly from the comics or from the creator of the superhero. As a side note, because Twitter is a user-generated platform ↗, it's generally seen as unreliable. There is an exception for this case because it is from Bob Quinn.
:You can still keep these sources, as they can provide valuable information, but you'll need a few sources that ''meet all three'' of those requirements I listed. EatingCarBatteries (contribs ↗ | talk ↗) 02:37, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Draft:DR. AHMED BABATUNDE POPOOLA

Hi @EatingCarBatteries! Thank you for commenting on the Dr Ahmed Babatunde Popoola profile. You mentioned it could be ai generated, and I was wondering what made you say that. To be clear, the profile was by Dr Ahmed assistant and approved by Dr Ahmed. Everything written are true and original. But I don't want the profile to appear ai generated at all - how can I improve the page so that it doesn't appear that way? DixonFola (talk) 06:19, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

:Hi!
:While I can't see anymore why your draft was declined (due to it being deleted for being very promotional for him ↗), there are four main things I look out for when I am looking to see if a page is AI-generated (all of which are covered in the page Wikipedia:Signs of AI writing ↗). The ''vast'' majority of AI content I see on this site has at least one of these problems:
:* Communication to the user (as an example, placeholders in citations ↗)
:* Overuse of certain words to highlight and puff up the importance of the subject (see WP:AITREND ↗)
:* Overuse of boldface ↗
:* Obvious problems in the page's wikitext ↗, which Wikipedia uses to format pages. Because wikitext is relatively niche and can be hard for beginners, I typically give it a pass, unless it is clear that the editor didn't even give their page a read-through before they submitted it.
:EatingCarBatteries (contribs ↗ | talk ↗) 02:28, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
::Hi
::Thank you for replying me, please is there a template I can follow, so that I won't make same mistake.
::Thank you again DixonFola (talk) 07:11, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
:::I don't really know if there is really a "template" that you can follow, because articles vary in structure, but the best way to learn how to write articles is to see how other articles are laid out.
:::Wikipedia has an article assessment system, which promotes articles to "good" and "featured" articles. Those are articles which other people decided meet Wikipedia's core standards. Here are two examples of Indian scientists:
:::* Sunil Kumar Verma ↗
:::* Narinder Kumar Mehra ↗
:::Of course, these articles are more fleshed out because there is more information about them. But as long as the article meets Wikipedia's inclusion criteria for academics ↗, is written in a neutral point of view ↗, and whose content is verifiable ↗, you're good.
:::LMK if you have any questions! EatingCarBatteries (contribs ↗ | talk ↗) 20:17, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Draft Support

Dear @EatingCarBatteries, could you provide more details on what the main issue is with the draft:BlackFemalesinArchitecture. The details about the interviews are noted, but if you could provide more details on why is didn’t pass the mark that would be helpful. Lesanimas17 (talk) 10:38, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

:Wikipedia has inclusion criteria, also known as notability ↗, for a page to be published as an article.
:In short, a page needs to be covered by multiple sources (typically around 3) that are '''all''' the following:
:* independent ↗
:* reliable ↗
:* secondary ↗
:* provide significant coverage ↗
:Don't worry, an article doesn't have to be based ''entirely'' off of these kinds. So long as you have a couple that meet the following, you can then include different kinds of sources (such as from the organization (primary), in-significant coverage, etc), as long as the source is reliable.
:If you want to know why exactly this is a thing, there's an essay at {{slink|Wikipedia:Notability#Why_we_have_these_requirements}}. In short, the inclusion criteria was established so that articles can follow Wikipedia's key principles ↗ and whose quality is high.
:So going one by one:
:# This source doesn't provide significant coverage, as it only lists BFA along with a list of 6 others
:# The content in this source says it is from blackfemarc.com, so it isn't independent
:# ☆ The Architectural Digest article is an example of a good source! It's independent of BFA, is reliable, and provides significant coverage. Sure, there are a couple of quotes here and there, but there is substance here than isn't straight from the organization's mouth.
:# Same deal as source 2 (no sig. coverage), it doesn't provide anything about BFA other than saying they provide support & such
:# This source doesn't mention BFA at all
:# This source doesn't provide significant coverage
:# This source provides a little bit of stuff, but again, it's not that much and might be taken from their website
:# Even though Digest Milk appears to provide significant coverage and is reliable, it's not independent because this is ultimately an interview - anything about BFA in here comes from the organization
:I know that it might seem like I'm being ridiculous and nitpicky, but this is ultimately a form of quality control. I'm sure your article qualifies, it's just a matter of finding the right sources. EatingCarBatteries (contribs ↗ | talk ↗) 07:10, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
::Thank you for this response. I will work on this to meet the criteria. Lesanimas17 (talk) 16:09, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Wikifunctions & Abstract Wikipedia Newsletter #249 is out: Annual plan 2026-2027

There is a new update ↗ for Abstract Wikipedia and Wikifunctions. Please, come and read it!

In this issue, we present you the current draft of objectives for Wikifunctions and Abstract Wikipedia in the WMF Annual Plan 2026-2027, and we take a look at the latest software developments.

Want to catch up with the previous updates? Check our archive ↗!

Enjoy the reading! -- User:Sannita (WMF) (talk) 09:48, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Draft: Ghost Jr

Hi, My most recent application to release an article was declined because of the use of ai. and yes i used ai but to translate what i wrote myself, english is not my native language and that is why i used ai... as they are far more accurate in translating than a google translate for example. please review my article again, if you have any more suggestions or changes that should be made then please let me know. teamwork makes the dreamwork. Oscarhimself (talk) 10:18, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

:Hi, sorry for the late response. While I agree that translation is generally a good use of AI for most purposes, it poses risks on Wikipedia due to the issues of false information and not-neutral language. In the meantime, you can always add to your language Wikipedia ↗ or ask someone that is listed at Wikipedia:Translators available ↗.
:Regarding your draft, there is one more thing I'll say is that at least on the English Wikipedia, you need more references. Articles need to have significant coverage ↗ in ''multiple'' reliable sources ↗ (typically 3) that are independent ↗ of the subject. This is kind of strict, but it's a form of quality control so that articles meet the the key principles ↗ of Wikpiedia.
:Your reference to ''Het Laatste Nieuws'' is good, but the other one to Ground Control Agency wouldn't be independent.
:Let me know if you have any questions! EatingCarBatteries (contribs ↗ | talk ↗) 04:57, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Untitled

Review my article about being you path organisation it is not personal i simply got so much inspired thought to write about them — Preceding unsigned ↗ comment added by ISimran786 (talk • contribs ↗) 12:31, 1 June 2026 (UTC) 

:Hi, what article are you talking about? I'm looking at your edit history and I don't see anything. EatingCarBatteries (contribs ↗ | talk ↗) 05:02, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Draft - Dr. Yoram J. Kaufman

Hi, my brother and I are the adult children of deceased climated scientist Yoram Kaufman (I disclosed the relationship). We used Claude to put together info we sourced, help explain scientific concepts, and find additional information. Then we gave the draft to his NASA colleague and long-time collaborator, Dr. Lorraine Remer, to review. I understand the draft is still not perfect - could you tell me how to proceed in order for it not to be rejected? If I take the existing draft and re-writre it using my own phrasing, would that help? Thank you! Draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Yoram_J._Kaufman DaphnaRebecca (talk) 08:16, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

:I'm sorry for what you're going through.
:For a draft to be accepted, its text is ''generally'' required to be written by a human; Wikipedia is very cautious when accepting texts from LLMs, with some of the rationale listed here: WP:LLM ↗.
:Additionally, we need to consider the amount of public information (e.g., press coverage) about a subject, whether they're from trusted/reliable outlets ↗, and if they're plentiful enough for an article to reference. (See WP:N ↗ for guidelines on how to argue for a subject's notability.)
:From my quick glance, I personally support the idea of having an article for Kaufman, if only as a short, stub ↗ article. We just have to write the article down by hand and manually make sure the references support what the text is claiming. 海盐沙冰 / aka irisChronomia / Talk 08:36, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
::Thank you - I will try to condense and rewrite. I am assuming the current version will remain as a draft on Wiki until I submit changes DaphnaRebecca (talk) 08:55, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
:::Yes. Your drafts will stay there; drafts will only be removed after not being edited for six months, and its draft creator will receive a notice some one month before removal.
:::You may, however, keep a copy of the draft (or just edit directly) in your own sandbox. You can reach it by clicking this link, or by typing <code>User:DaphnaRebecca/Sandbox</code> into Wikipedia's search box. Stuff inside your sandbox will typically stay untouched.
:::You may also use other page names than "Sandbox". Typing <code>User:DaphnaRebecca/MyDraft1</code> in search box will create you a user page named "MyDraft1".
:::(You may check Help: Sandbox ↗ and Wikipedia: User pages ↗ for more info.)
:::iris 8:10p 海盐沙冰 / aka irisChronomia / Talk 12:11, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

reviewing my submission regarding Umesh Chandra Shukla.

Hello,
Thank you for reviewing my submission regarding Umesh Chandra Shukla.
I noticed that the draft/edit was declined. I would be grateful if you could provide some guidance on the specific issues that need to be addressed for the article to meet Wikipedia's standards.
The subject has over three decades of experience in Hindi journalism and has held editorial positions in multiple cities. I have also included references related to the KCK International Award received by the team under his leadership. If additional independent reliable sources or improvements to the article's structure are required, I would appreciate your suggestions so that I can revise the submission accordingly. ~2026-29922-50 ↗ (talk) 03:46, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Ref errors

I appreciate you removing generic names from many references - however, you are often leaving the names of the purported "author2", which in turn leads to one fix and one new referencing error. See Mannara Chopra ↗ for an example. Please consider using the "Preview" function before submitting. Best regards, ''' Mr.choppers | '''✎  02:31, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

:Yes! I noticed this a little too late when I was in AWB. I manually corrected some of them towards the end of my queue, but I know I missed some. I was planning on working on that. Thanks for the heads up! EatingCarBatteries (contribs ↗ | talk ↗) 05:20, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
::Thanks! Also, <nowiki>{{cite tweet}}</nowiki> is pretty useful. ''' Mr.choppers | '''✎  19:02, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Draft:Wings Bank (Cambodia) Plc. resubmission

Hello,

Any update on the resubmission? Taufiq91 (talk) 12:09, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Wikifunctions & Abstract Wikipedia Newsletter #252 is out: Improved loading and display of Test results

There is a new update ↗ for Abstract Wikipedia and Wikifunctions. Please, come and read it!

In this issue, we present you an improvement in loading and display of Test results, we talk about our next events, and we take a look at the latest software developments.

Want to catch up with the previous updates? Check our archive ↗!

Also, we remind you that Denny will lead a discussion on the new NLG types ↗ in the next '''Natural Language Generation Special Interest Group meeting''', that will be held on '''June 16, at 16:00 UTC ↗''' (link to the meeting ↗).

Enjoy the reading! -- User:Sannita (WMF) (talk) 15:29, 12 June 2026 (UTC)


== May 2026 NPP backlog drive – Points award ==
{| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align:top;" | 160px ↗
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: bottom; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar '''  
|-
|style="vertical-align: top; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | This award is given in recognition of EatingCarBatteries for accumulating at least 10 points in the May 2026 NPP backlog drive. Your contributions helped review 14884 articles during the drive. Thank you so much for taking part and helping reduce the backlog! – '''Dream'''Rimmer ■ 15:58, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
|}

A Toyota Camry ↗ for you!

{| style="background-color: var(--background-color-success-subtle, #fdffe7); border: 1px solid var(--border-color-success, #fceb92); color: var(--color-base, #202122);"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | 100px ↗
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | ''''''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | Thank you for your effort on reviewing (and catching) those drafts! Especially since I battle so hard with promo content both on recent changes patrol and logs for those articles. This is for you, YOUR car and more car batteries!  – SimpleObjects-9 ↗ei 🏖️/☀️/🥵 (🌎 CentralAuth ↗) 16:17, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
|}

:Thank you very much! :-) EatingCarBatteries (contribs ↗ | talk ↗) 00:19, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Wikifunctions & Abstract Wikipedia Newsletter #253 is out: The or not the, this is (the?) question

There is a new update ↗ for Abstract Wikipedia and Wikifunctions. Please, come and read it!

In this issue, we present you a delicate question regarding grammatical framework, we talk about our next events and about the results of our latest online meetings, we discuss news about Types, and we take a look at the latest software developments.

Want to catch up with the previous updates? Check our archive ↗!

Enjoy the reading! -- User:Sannita (WMF) (talk) 12:34, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Draft: Userstyle

Thank you so much for reviewing my draft (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Userstyle) so quickly! I have made substantial changes to the article following your feedback, primarily with the inclusion of more and (I hope) more reliable sources to substantiate the content. There is also more general content describing userstyles and related subtopics. I would appreciate a re-review if possible but no worries. Thanks again! uncenter (talk) 04:14, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Wikifunctions & Abstract Wikipedia Newsletter #254: Working on Functions, together

There is a new update ↗ for Abstract Wikipedia and Wikifunctions. Please, come and read it!

In this issue, we report on new collaborative patterns emerging in our community, we discuss news in Types, we share some events that relate to Wikifunctions and Abstract Wikipedia at Wikimania 2026, and we take a look at the latest software developments.

Want to catch up with the previous updates? Check our archive ↗!

Also, we remind you that if you have questions or ideas to discuss, the next '''Volunteers' Corner''' will be held on '''July 6, at 17:30 UTC ↗''' (link to the meeting ↗).

Enjoy the reading! -- User:Sannita (WMF) (talk) 09:58, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Gyula Mayer - response to rejection.

Hello. Thanks for your reply. All references that have been generated are real. I know they are real because i uploaded the copies of these articles, documents myself to a language model and used it to transcribe the articles / text/ documents. I checked what was transcribed against the original scans. In turn the language model helped me generate the right format for references as I'm not a professional. I can confirm that all the inforamtion is true and I can actually show you scans of all the documents and how they relate to the information within the text.
I am Gyula Mayer's daughter and as such, i have reviewed in detail all the information in this document against the documents I uploaded to make sure that the information is true. I reworded just about everything so the paragraphs I submitted were not generated by the language model. The language model howerver did help me with the formatting required for this and gave the syntax. I'm happy to answer any questions you have. I can show you scans of all the primary sources etc... and I can show you the links to books that reference my father... all of which I've confirmed. I have tried to be as objective as I can and everything references a fact in the documents I have.

I'm not sure how all the messaging works so I also sent a reply against my page.

With many thanks, Kwakwaka (talk) 21:33, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

:Hi! I'm very sorry for the late reply.
:I don't know if you saw my comment on the page, but I specified a little bit more for my decline reason. I doubt the references are fake (although it would be easier to verify them if there was some identifier like ISBN or a URL), but the main reason I declined was because of the formatting.
:I agree that the syntax can be complicated at first, and AI can be a good starting point. The issues is that AI models tend to have "tells" in their writing style ↗. In this case, the page heavily relies on bulleted lists to the point where it is no longer necessary.
:I see that you did an edit here ↗, which is a step in the right direction. If you do that, converting more sections into prose ↗ and using lists more sparingly, I think it would be much better.
:Let me know if you have any questions! EatingCarBatteries (contribs ↗ | talk ↗) 06:25, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Wikifunctions & Abstract Wikipedia Newsletter #255: Integration on test wiki and annual plan

There is a new update ↗ for Abstract Wikipedia and Wikifunctions. Please, come and read it!

In this issue, we discuss integration of Abstract Wikipedia in Test Wiki and our objectives for the new Wikimedia Foundation Fiscal Year, we remind you of the Wikifunctions and Abstract Wikipedia events at Wikimania 2026, and we take a look at the latest software developments.

Want to catch up with the previous updates? Check our archive ↗!

Also, we remind you that if you have questions or ideas to discuss, the next '''Volunteers' Corner''' will be held on '''July 6, at 17:30 UTC ↗''' (link to the meeting ↗).

Enjoy the reading! -- User:Sannita (WMF) (talk) 08:22, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Wikifunctions & Abstract Wikipedia Newsletter #256: Moving toward our first Abstract Wikipedia integration milestone

There is a new update ↗ for Abstract Wikipedia and Wikifunctions. Please, come and read it!

In this issue, we discuss further our objectives for the new Wikimedia Foundation Fiscal Year, we show the latest community tool, we remind you of the Wikifunctions and Abstract Wikipedia events at Wikimania 2026, and we take a look at the latest software developments.

Want to catch up with the previous updates? Check our archive ↗!

Enjoy the reading! -- User:Sannita (WMF) (talk) 09:43, 9 July 2026 (UTC)