This is an archive of past discussions with User:ToadetteEdit. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hello, and welcome to the first newsletter of 2025! In this edition, we’ll walk you through the exciting updates, experiments, and improvements made to the Wikipedia mobile apps during December, January, and February.
We released the improved version of the Year in Review to all users, now available in multiple languages and for both logged-in and logged-out users. While donation rates were lower than our goal, we saw great engagement with the feature & it brought in a higher share of first-time donors and a higher average donation compared to banner campaigns.
Notably:
97.4% of survey respondents rated the experience as neutral or better.
We saw a 74% increase in new accounts, with 368 new editors actively contributing as a result.
Most users asked for more personalized stats and a better summary of their reading journey.
We’re excited by the results and are already thinking ahead about how to improve it further next year. Want more details? You can check out the full analysis on the project page on MediaWiki.
Our 60-day alternative text experiment has ended. While users showed interest in the task, quality was a challenge—especially for newcomers. The experiment helped us understand how we can guide editors better when writing alt text and which improvements to focus on next.
Some key takeaways:
Completion rates were decent (28% for newer editors), but the quality of the alternative text needed improvement.
Many users wanted clearer guidance and better context for writing alt text.
Many users expressed interest in a dedicated feed for image-related tasks.
We’re not making the alternative text suggested edit permanent at this time. If we decided to focus on this task again, we would invest in improved guidance for writing alternative text, and make improvements to the user flow.
We kicked off discovery and design work for adding tabs to the iOS app—one of the most requested features! Based on user feedback and inspiration from other apps, we’ve created a prototype and started user testing. Stay tuned as this exciting feature continues to evolve!
Bug Fixes & Developer Contributions
Thanks to volunteer contributions and internal efforts, we fixed several bugs including:
Search results overlapping with the status bar.
Crashes while editing specific articles.
Incorrect day shown in “In the News.”
Improved handling of italics and language variants.
We released the Wikipedia Game to production in German Wikipedia and began work on WikiTrivia using “On this day” content. User feedback from initial testing is helping shape both features.
We wrapped up our donor recognition experiment in France and the Netherlands. While overall donations were lower than expected, user feedback was clear:
81% of surveyed users want the dashboard to exist on multiple platforms.
39% of users who saw the donor icon feature chose to personalize their app icon.
Many users prefer automatic updates to their donor stats without manual input.
Rabbit Holes
To improve reader retention, we tested two approaches: suggested articles in search and personalized reading lists. Results showed strong engagement:
93.3% of feedback was positive or neutral.
Pageviews were significantly higher for users who engaged with the feature.
Users preferred reading lists over suggested search results.
We've started migrating our Android layouts to Jetpack Compose to modernize the app and improve performance long-term.
Other Fixes & Enhancements
Fixed bugs related to offline article loading, push notifications, and language variants.
Enhanced language support in captions and local language display.
Looking Ahead
From improving editing tasks to adding new ways to discover content and expanding personalization—this quarter was packed with learning and progress. Your feedback continues to shape where we go next.
Make sure you’re subscribe to this newsletter to stay in the loop, and thank you for being a part of this journey with us!
Hello ToadetteEdit, I'm not fully sure about the etiquette of deprodding but I thought it was more polite to say something than nothing -- I noticed your prod of Trevor Hoppe because I was watching the creator's talk page; I don't disagree about NPROF or GNG, but I think there's a case to be made for WP:NAUTHOR since all three books pass WP:NBOOK. Based on that argument, I thought it was ambiguous enough to merit an AfD for consensus before deletion. Thanks for your patrolling work. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 20:48, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
@LEvalyn, I did review the NAUTHOR before prodding, so I have no issues. But it seems that notability I'd dubious based on the two books that the subject wrote, since there are several reviews that make the author notable per criterion #3 of NAUTHOR. I will check this article late to see whether it should be deleted or not. ToadetteEdit (talk) 11:35, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
Wikimedia Foundation Bulletin 2025 Issue 7
Here is a quick overview of highlights from the Wikimedia Foundation since our last issue on April 4. Please help translate.
Upcoming and current events and conversations Let's Talk continues
Wiki Workshop 2025: Register for the 12th annual Wiki Workshop taking place on May 21–22. It brings together researchers and scholars from around the globe who are interested in or actively engaged in research and development on Wikimedia projects.
Learning Clinic: The upcoming Let’s Connect Learning Clinic is focusing on "Understanding and Navigating Conflict in Wikimedia Projects (Part 1)" and will take place on April 29 at 14:30 UTC.
Community Resilience and Sustainability: Quarterly Conversation hour taking place on April 24 at 18:00 UTC to discuss Trust and Safety, the Universal Code of Conduct, Committee Support, and Human Rights.
Edge Uniques: Introducing Edge Uniques, a technical approach which consists of privacy-preserving first-party cookies that will enable usability testing of features through A/B testing, more accurate counting of site visits, and a way to stop distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) with better precision.
Tech News: The Design System Team is preparing to release the next major version of Codex (v2.0.0) on April 29; Last week, the default thumbnail size was increased from 220px to 250px. This changes how pages are shown in all wikis and has been requested by some communities for many years, but wasn’t previously possible due to technical limitations. More updates from Tech News week 15 and 16.
Developer Satisfaction Survey: The results of the Developer Satisfaction Survey (2025) are available. Thank you to all participants. These results help the Foundation decide what to work on next and to review what they recently worked on.
Community Resilience: To better support community members when they are facing challenges while contributing to Wikimedia projects, the Trust and Safety team worked with the Arbitration Committees to create Project Maps of communities.
For information about the Bulletin and to read previous editions, see the project page on Meta-Wiki. Let askcacwikimedia.org know if you have any feedback or suggestions for improvement!
I think I was confused on that, given that I just made so before you posted, so let that be the last comment that I make. The unblock condition did not imply that I could discuss projectspace anywhere on the network. ToadetteEdit (talk) 17:04, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
Glad to hear you understand and will not comment further. Blocked from project space means you are not allowed to participate in those discussions. Period. That includes discussing them in other spaces. StarMississippi17:36, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
Wait! But the decision that I can not make comments related to projectspace is not mentioned (or discussed) at all in the thread so maybe this decision has been taken out of nowhere and immediately applied in action.
Irrelevant of this section, is there any way to avoid reading projectspace. It is like every day I open a Wikipedia: page. Yesterday, an RfA opened, and I can not even forget that. I just get the impression to return to the community engaging with them, but I am facing a barrier that prevents me from doing so. This way, I could pay more attention to content and maintenance tasks and not focus on any talk archives. I will attempt to return by the end of this year if everything goes well from today on. ToadetteEdit (talk) 17:21, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
@ToadetteEdit @Voorts' unblock said An indefinite topic ban from Wikipedia: and Wikipedia talk: spaces, broadly construed, with the following exceptions, which are to be narrowly construed: this means you are not allowed to be a part of wikipedia space with the exceptions of limited situations. Discussing an RFA which you are not allowed to participate in is included in the restriction without any doubt.
I would not recommend even reading project space until much closer to when you think you will make a successful request to lift your restrictions, but obviously that cannot be restricted. Please focus on content, which is why we're here. StarMississippi17:31, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
Oh, I understand, I must have forgotten this piece of policy: discussions or suggestions [...] anywhere on Wikipedia, [...] but also including edit summaries and the user's own user and talk pages I will rather focus on the front side of Wikipedia and return if I have the feeling to. ToadetteEdit (talk) 06:47, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
To be honest, I do not agree with the folks over at Wikipediocracy, just talking crap and joking around over topics on Wikipedia and other sites in the Wikimedia network. In this case, one user linked this thread, and also linked another Wikipediocracy thread that highlighted the orcp thing and the subsequent block/unblock situation. I am absolutely surprised by this, and I wish if these folks would rather not talk about me for a while until probably months later.... ToadetteEdit (talk) 16:06, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
@ToadetteEdit: I just strongly suggest you ignore the folks over at Wikipediocracy. They don't look for friendly discussion and try to make users as miserable as possible via doxing and harassment, usually after they are talked about. Asking them to stop will just make them want to do it more (it's called the Streisand effect); I find that ignoring them and ignoring the "www.wikipediocracy.com" domain as a whole works really well. — EF516:10, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
Hello. I have never heard of cases of doxing and harassment there, but I get your point. I am well aware of the Streisand effect, so there is no point in mentioning it. On the other hand, the website is really fun to read, but I am not interested in them anyway. ToadetteEdit (talk) 09:42, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
┌───────────────────────────┘ They usually take down threads once people are doxed to avoid getting in trouble. You can read more about it here and here. But yes, just stay away from there. — EF5(questions?)13:47, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
Yeah, I understand. But the two sources that you provided are Tl;DR (the Medium one says that it takes 21 minutes to read the whole article from beginning to the end). Also, if I remember correctly, one member of arbcom got their status as an arb removed due to some off wiki activity, most likely on that site. But that was two years ago or so. ToadetteEdit (talk) 16:10, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
I have followed your page since this interaction [1], which was slightly baffling to me. I am unconnected, and this is unsolicited, but perhaps your responses here and elsewhere have been slightly uncivil and it may be worth moderating this approach. ElENdElA (talk) 16:33, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
I have been trying to be civil all the time, so if my comments were not appropriate, I apologize for that. I will try to be more civil than before. ToadetteEdit (talk) 18:15, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
I’m a graduate researcher focusing on artists’ archives and legacies in New York. I’ve contributed articles about artists I’ve encountered through my academic research and fieldwork, using only published, verifiable sources. My intent has been to write with the tone and rigor of peer-reviewed scholarship.
In some cases, I’ve cited my own academic writing or documentation—something that’s common practice in the academic work I’ve published. Despite this, several of my contributions have been flagged, and I’ve been advised to add a paid editing disclosure. This has been discouraging, as I’ve worked carefully and have not received any compensation.
That said, I recognize that some of this work could, in the future, support research funded by a grant, artist, or institution—such as a digital archive for an artist’s estate. None of that is planned, and it’s entirely speculative. Would it be appropriate to list those possibilities in a disclosure, or should I simply add the paid editing tag?
I’d appreciate any guidance on how to move forward in line with Wikipedia’s standards. I believe artists with strong sources and exhibition histories deserve representation—especially those historically excluded—and I want to ensure their stories are shared in a way that meets Wikipedia’s expectations. --Rachelmward (talk) 13:43, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
@ToadetteEdit, could you please provide diffs of these disclosures? I am not seeing where the editor has disclosed your [their] employer, as required by the terms of use regarding paid editing. Netherzone (talk) 13:30, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
Oh, I haven't realized that they did not disclose that they edited for pay. It was just an assumption based on what they wrote. ToadetteEdit (talk) 15:18, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
@ToadetteEdit if you are mentoring this editor, you really should check things out. Sorry if that sounds harsh, but it is better not to make assumptions regarding COI an UPE. Netherzone (talk) 15:37, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
@Rachelmward, re Would it be appropriate to list those possibilities in a disclosure, or should I simply add the paid editing tag? You may add those possibilities in the disclosure. But you must add the paid editing tag per the terms of use. ToadetteEdit (talk) 16:00, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
Wikidata mix-ups
Hello ToadetteEdit. Thank you for connecting Wikidata items to new articles. However, you should be really careful with towns with the same or similar names. For example, here you connected a new English article for a town with 5,528 people with a different Chinese town with the same name except with 70,305 people. JTtheOG (talk) 23:56, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
@JTtheOG, hello. Thanks for putting this up to my attention. I was playing the Wikidata game and did not notice the population difference. I just assume that the entries were the same. ToadetteEdit (talk) 06:46, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
@ToadetteEdit no, because that would be proxying and that is exactly the skirting the edge of your block I mentioned above if not actually flaunting it. IGNORE Project space entirely. You are not eligible to participate. StarMississippi19:28, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
re not eligible to participate. How?!! This means that I would not get varnstars at the end of the drive. Yes, I can mark pages as patrolled. Yes, I can draftify articles. Yes, I can start an AfD if appropriate. Aside from WT:NPR, no participation in backlog drives?! Honestly enough, I do not have enough time to edit recently and will probably not have time to patrol articles to reduce the enormous backlog. And there's no text or requirement that suggests my eligibility status. I think there should be an exception that should be discussed either on the talk page of the backlog drive or WT:NPP. ToadetteEdit (talk) 07:28, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
You are not eligible to edit in project space, and asking someone else to edit for you is Proxying.
You are welcome to file an unblock request to edit your conditions on your talk page. You may not edit project space or ask someone else to do it on your behalf until that is granted.
Per wp:PROXYING, [banned users] are able to show that the changes are productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits. Registering in the sign up page, for an event that is not related to the space, is a valid independent reason, and the edits I believe are productive enough (i.e., it will not cause much disruption and is meaningful). Honestly enough, I might reconsider appealing for the exception at WP:AN since it is not smart enough to simply put an {{unblock}} template here. Even though I can remember that six months before appealing...... ToadetteEdit (talk) 16:00, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
Several admins have spent significant time carving out exceptions to your original blanket WP-space ban. Some were worried you were going to constantly skirt around the edges of the exceptions to the ban; this is what you are doing now. You are making it increasingly likely that an admin is going to come along, and reinstate the WP-space ban, with no AFC or other exceptions. Or possibly just site-ban you. Do you understand that a site ban is currently more likely than an easing of restrictions? I'm surprised you think an appeal at AN will help your cause; have you not noticed that many AN/ANI regulars are significantly less patient than Star Mississippi has been? Based on my experience, I very, very much doubt that an AN thread will go your way.
Constantly having to police your adherence to the ban takes up time and energy of other editors, and we do not owe you that. I would really suggest just taking several steps back, and doing only what you agreed to do, if you want to continue editing at all. Floquenbeam (talk) 16:19, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
re possibly just site-ban [me]. Is it really possible that an admin would site ban me again?? I currently have one pending GA nom, and I want to participate in the backlog, but I am currently blocked by the ban. The only way to do so is to open up the thread to make this exemption. I tried to avoid doing so, but something says so. I do not know the fact that the noticeboard regulars are less patient, nor the fact that I am most likely facing an indef block, which would rather discourage me from contributing. ToadetteEdit (talk) 18:12, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
I can't predict the future, but yes I think it is a real possibility. I'd really recommend ONLY doing stuff explicitly allowed in the crafted exceptions to the topic ban, do those for 6 months, and ONLY THEN asking to expand the areas you work in, or remove the topic ban. I know there are some things you want to do but can't... but you agreed to the topic ban. By it's very nature, it's going to feel constraining. Floquenbeam (talk) 19:00, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
I have just seen the closure of the AN thread and I just wanted to say that, I will try to heed the advices given above and below and elsewhere. I am quite disappointed by how I am ineligible for the backlog drive, and potentially future ones as well, just because I am stuck in a barrier like this. Hopefully I've dodged another bullet but I should rather be more careful of what I say. I currently have an article in the draft works which I will expand later today, as well as expand the other article that is a pending GA nom. This should demonstrate that I am here to make positive contributions. And I should ignore anything that happens to be in the project space, whether discussions or not, with a few exceptions of maybe XfDs. I should generally avoid disclosing my identity to the public, but to give out a bit of it, I am actually a teen, and I was told that I have autism which I can not confirm so. I am busy with various activities, at home, at school, at church and elsewhere. I only edit using my mobile phone which I upgraded several months ago. As a young person who lack the judgment to make decisions, it is rather painful to go through the mishaps and the sanctions that I faced through my two-year history. But honestly I will overcome such mishaps and will return strong. But only if I focus on the content side on the project and be more of an "exopedian" than a "metapedian".
Through my two-year history, I have learned a lot, from only undoing vandalism back in 2023 to patrolling pages today. I should continue to grow up as an editor and heed all the advices and warnings given. If you have any more questions, I am always available to help. ToadetteEdit (talk) 09:00, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
Some unasked for advice
Feel free to delete this or ignore this, you are not under any obligation to take any notice of this.
You have been given some excellent advice from editors with nearly 40 years experience between them all, in two of the threads above.
This advice, from the experienced editors, is there because the project is still willing to try and help you as an editor. You've ignored their advice, as you are entitled to do, and put yourself in the position of bringing your inability to take advice on board to the forefront. This might be tough to read. You have put yourself in that position. I believe (and I might be wrong here) that you are heading for a complete block. The experienced editors don't want that. Other editors have said, you have been a benefit in some areas of Wikipedia. I think you are now heading towards a net negative for this project if you continue to ignore advice.
I've said before, other editors don't usually invest so much time in helping an editor unless they think it is worth it for the project.
This is now down to you what you do next. You and I have looked after each other when we were reverting vandalism. We've offered words of encouragement to each other. I don't want to see you blocked, your behaviour is your responsibility. As I said, please feel free to ignore, delete, or ban me from your talk page. I won't offer any more advice. I would like to see you stay. Knitsey (talk) 16:12, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
An RfC was closed with consensus to allow editors to opt-out of seeing "sticky decorative elements". Such elements should now be wrapped in {{sticky decoration wrapper}}. Editors who wish to opt out can follow the instructions at WP:STICKYDECO.
An RfC has resulted in a broad prohibition on the use of AI-generated images in articles. A few common-sense exceptions are recognized.
I was just reading the comments and am about to reply, but it unexpectedly got closed. I apologize to the community for qasring your time. Yes, I can create content, but I feel that the community wants to kick me out for something that is not related to mainspace, and because of that I am so stressed out of having sanctions placed against my account. It appears that I have been accused of CIR even though I am not... I feel that I cannot take the advice to mind, and I might also keep myself away from the hot location only for myself to return to these pages. I am not done yet.... ToadetteEdit (7M articles) 15:54, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
Floquenbeam gave you very good advice in the AN closing and you should listen to it. The last time Floquenbeam did so, on April 25th, you didn't listen to it at all and immediately started a thread that he warned would not go well for you. The community doesn't have it out for you, but you have a way of being your own worst enemy. Just work on articles; pretend the various drama boards don't even exist.
At the end of the day, you have agency, you have choices. If you get INDEFed, it will be completely as a result of the choices you made. If you feel physically ill and compelled to do things on Wikipedia, then you seriously need to consider if being involved in the project at this time is healthy for you. It's a big world, with a lot of things to do, and a lot of laudable movements to aid, and you might find something that fills your obvious desire to do good without the problematic parts. In any case, I wish you nothing but the actual best. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 16:28, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
@ToadetteEdit: hey there, I have great respect for you as my CVUA instructor and an experienced contributor to Wikipedia, so rest assured that competence in editing is definitely not the problem - but competence in discussions maybe is as, per many others, you unfortunately just stirred up more drama with your actions despite (as I'm sure) your genuine intent to positively contribute. You definitely don't deserve all this, and I hope that you will take everyone's advice into account, because it would be a terrible loss for all sides if the community reaches a consensus that additional, even indefinite, restrictions are necessary for you. Additionally, I don't know if you've noticed, but you've been removed from the list of CVUA instructors. I believe that this is unfair as I have experienced zero issues with you as my instructor and you have given constructive feedback throughout the process, so I am ready to argue for you reinstatement on the list once I graduate as proof that you are capable of mentoring others, which - as I happened to notice - was raised here as an issue. Courtesy ping Twistedmath as a fellow student of Toadette. Wishing you the best of luck with your future Wikipedia career, it'slio! | talk | work21:08, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
Honestly enough, I admit (and also regret) that it is all my fault. Because of the recent events, I decided to retire from mentorship. Mentorship requires trust, and someone who is sanction should not be mentors. And to @Elli: who did the removal from the training section of the academy, I am thinking as to whether it was a trust issue or not. I will evaluate the final exam and will suspend the other open course as part of my retirement from the area. Thank you for that. @Twistedmath:; if you want to continue, please select another trainer from the list. I am deeply depressed by the state right now. If the only way is an INDEF, let it be, and I will return in six months. I will only focus on creating and expanding content. ToadetteEdit (7M articles) 10:02, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
I respect your decision and willingness to manage your responsibilities. Thank you for taking matters into your own hands, and I'm sure most people would be happy to see that you are trying to be a net positive (which you already are) to Wikipedia. Thanks, it'slio! | talk | work15:13, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
Wikimedia Foundation Bulletin 2025 Issue 8
Here is a quick overview of highlights from the Wikimedia Foundation since our last issue on April 18. Please help translate.
Upcoming and current events and conversations Let's Talk continues
Tech News: Event organizers who host collaborative activities on multiple wikis, including Bengali, Japanese, and Korean Wikipedias, now have access to the CampaignEvents extension. Also, admins in the Wikipedia where the extension is enabled will automatically be granted the event organizer right soon. More updates from Tech News week 17 and 18.
Learning Clinic: The recent Let's Connect Learning Clinic was about "Exploring Diff Blog: Sharing your story, & understanding Technical Implementation" and took place on May 6 at 12:00 UTC.
World Press Freedom Day: We will be advocating for Wikimedia's model and speaking about "Information as a Public Good in the Age of AI" for UNESCO's World Press Freedom Day event in Brussels.
Annual Report: The Foundation published the Annual Reports for both the Wikimedia Foundation and the Wikimedia Endowment. These reports highlight the impact of work done by our global community of volunteers, staff, and donors over the past year.
Board and Board committee updates: The Board met in in March to hold its quarterly business meeting and joined other meetings as part of the Wikimedia Foundation's annual strategic planning. See the most recent actions and updates on the Board Noticeboard.
For information about the Bulletin and to read previous editions, see the project page on Meta-Wiki. Let askcacwikimedia.org know if you have any feedback or suggestions for improvement!
Greetings, ToadetteEdit. You are receiving this notification because you've agreed to consider endorsing prospective admin candidates identified by the process outlined at Administrators without tools. Recently, the following editor(s) received this distinction and the associated endearing title:
Oh, hello ToadetteEdit! I went to the WP:AFCHD and asked about it (my template), but Ca said it was well made and maybe you can clarify, sooooo. But Hey, I'm not forcing you or something, or whatever but whatever (yeah). Maybe (I'm just to nervous to say this but) tell me what's wrong with it⟨⟨Beastboy-𝕏-Talk!⟩⟩05:56, 15 May 2025 (UTC) Not in a bad way
Hello @BeastBoy-X. It is okay for welcome templates to stay in your userspace. Others have done that as well. So, it is probably unwise to submit the template for AfC when it is basically a welcome template. As for me, I do not have any concerns; I thought that your submission was intended to be an article, so I rejected it. But I see that the AfC templates were removed, so no offense on me. ToadetteEdit (7M articles) 09:12, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
@ToadetteEdit and Robert McClenon: Robert and ToadetteEdit, I am at fault here because I failed to explain the question with sufficient context about why I asked it. OK, so users Robert McClenon and Shirt58 know what "SCOTUS" means without to having to look it up - it's the Supreme Court of the United States. Here's what I should have written, but did not: ToadetteEdit, without looking it up, and please be honest here - what does the abbreviation "SCOTUS" mean? If you don't know, perhaps you shouldn't be assessing articles for creation about Supreme Court of the United States cases. Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 10:47, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
Hello. The term "SCOTUS" is an abbreviation for the Supreme Court, as Robert said. Google searches also show up as the correct name. Maybe I am missing something. ToadetteEdit (7M articles) 20:52, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
Revolutionary Communist Party (UK, 2024)
Good evening,
Please could I ask you to reconsider your decision to accept the aforementioned article as meeting acceptance for creation. I've just gone through the material added by what I suspect to be a SPA user who submitted it for review, and the majority of the material they added looks to have been an attempt game the system. I've removed the questionable material (namely sources in contravention of WP:ABOUTSELF, WP:PRSOURCE, WP:OVERCITE, and even an instance of claiming mention in a source from half a year before the organisation existed).
As a result I believe it still does not meet criteria for mainspace and therefore should be moved back to draft.
The article is now in the mainspace after a technical move request that I filed(?). It has since been marked as reviewed, and maintenance tags have been added.
I can clearly see the changes that you made. Currently, I see this source as contributing to notability, nothing more, nothing less in the current page. Previously, there were three sources that I believed would contribute to notability.
As I feel that the subject might as well not contribute to notability, and that I feel that draftification is not appropriate in this case, I will start a deletion discussion about the subject. ToadetteEdit (7M articles) 07:19, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
Declined review
The nature of Nigerian media is people get a lot less coverage, so we used the limited media coverage available Rackeem02 (talk) 20:19, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
you should have checked the remaining sources for more details as I said earlier the nature of Nigerian media coverage Rackeem02 (talk) 20:33, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
I check all sources in this draft only. I diid not consider the sources on Google. If I would, the results would be different. But IMO it is outside existing guidelines. ToadetteEdit (7M articles) 20:35, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
Wikimedia Foundation Bulletin 2025 Issue 9
Here is a quick overview of highlights from the Wikimedia Foundation since our last issue on 6 May. Please help translate.
Upcoming and current events and conversations Let's Talk continues
Content Translation: A decade of consistent improvements to the Content Translation tool yields over two million Wikipedia articles.
Charts Extension: After successfully deploying the extension on Italian, Swedish, and Hebrew Wikipedia, we are moving forward with the next phase of deployment. Please consult our page to discover when the new Charts extension will be deployed on your wiki.
Tech News: The “Get shortened URL” link on the sidebar now includes a QR code. Wikimedia site users can now use it by scanning or downloading it to quickly share and access shared content from Wikimedia sites, conveniently. More updates from Tech News week 19 and 20.
Topical Lists: Read about the important role of topical lists in supporting campaigns and editing, as well as strategies for the future development, implementation, and sustainment of list-building support.
Two-factor Authentication: From May 20, 2025, oversighters and checkusers will need to have their accounts secured with two-factor authentication (2FA) to be able to use their advanced rights. In the future, this requirement may be extended to other users with advanced rights. Read the announcement.
Mobile Apps: The iOS app team is experimenting with an "Activity Tab" on Turkish, Spanish, French, and Chinese Wikipedias to see if inviting new editors to add images through Suggested Edits increases engagement. This insight will guide future improvements to the app experience.
Learning Clinic: The next Let's Connect Learning Clinic will be about "Communication and Cultural Sensitivity in Conflict Resolution - Best practices (Part 2)" and will take place on May 27 at 13:00 UTC.
UCoC Updates: The Universal Code of Conduct 2025 annual review concluded, with community voting approving the proposed changes to the UCoC Enforcement Guidelines and U4C Charter.
For information about the Bulletin and to read previous editions, see the project page on Meta-Wiki. Let askcacwikimedia.org know if you have any feedback or suggestions for improvement!
