Archives

2022, 2023, 2024, 2025

Hello, Johnson524. Per your request, your account has been granted temporary-account-viewer rights. You are now able to reveal the IP addresses of individuals using temporary accounts that are not visible to the general public. This is very sensitive information that is only to be used to aid in anti-abuse workflows. Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Temporary account IP viewer for more information on this user right. It is important to remember:

• You must not share IP address data with someone who does not have the same access permissions unless disclosure is permissible as per guidelines listed at Foundation:Policy:Wikimedia Access to Temporary Account IP Addresses Policy.
• Access must not be used for political control, to apply pressure on editors, or as a threat against another editor in a content dispute. There must be a valid reason to investigate a temporary user. Note that using multiple temporary accounts is not forbidden, so long as they are not used in violation of policies (for example, block or ban evasion).

It is also important to note that the following actions are logged for others to see:

• When a user accepts the preference that enables or disables IP reveal for their account.
• Revealing an IP address of a temporary account.
• Listing the temporary accounts that are associated with one or more IP addresses (using the CIDR notation format).

Remember, even if a user is violating policy, avoid revealing personal information if possible. Use temporary account usernames rather than disclosing IP addresses directly, or give information such as same network/not same network or similar. If you do not want the user right anymore then please ask me or another administrator and it will be removed for you. You may also voluntarily give up access at any time by visiting Special:Preferences. Happy editing! Sohom (talk) 15:58, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Sarcoma Foundation of America.webp. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:50, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your good article nomination of the article Daughters of Mary, Mother of Our Savior has passed; congratulations! See the review page for more information. If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Darth Stabro -- Darth Stabro (talk) 19:45, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

		The Deletion to Quality Award
		For your contributions to bring Daughters of Mary, Mother of Our Savior (prior candidate for deletion at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daughters of Mary, Mother of Our Savior) to Good Article status, I hereby present you The Deletion to Quality Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 15:18, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Darth Stabro: Thank you so much!! I couldn't be more happy with what the page has become 🙂 Thank you for everything, and cheers! Johnson524 23:55, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget to resubmit for DYK! ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 18:52, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Johnson524, thanks for participating in the talk page discussions on the Syrian civil war, it is much appreciated. For the image discussion right now on the page, since my suggestion of not placing images directly doesn't seem to be working, it is possible then to place the images in another page so that everyone may be able to see the images without having them disrupt the talk page discussions? I see that you have been greatly involved with the images discussion previously, and most are referencing from a previous talk page section, but it's inconvenient for others and it's also not the best since it might involve editing a previous section. So I'm thinking if you would mind opening up to a sandbox for this purpose? If not, what do you think would be a better idea? Thanks! TeddyRoosevelt1912 (talk) 20:16, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@TeddyRoosevelt1912: I think that sounds like a great idea! I hate to be that guy though, but could I ask you to make it? I'm leaving for a field exercise at Camp Lejeune soon and won't be back until Sunday, and with how much progress is being made on the talkpage now, that feels like too much time to be unresponsive when the mock collage will likely change pictures quite frequently.

Oh, and while you're here, I cannot express how appreciative I am for all the work you've done 😀 Each of your messages have been not just well-worded, but clear in logic and respectful to whoever your talking with: inviting cooperation, and ultimately leading to the rough consensus we have now. It's because of your work we've finally gotten rid of that map, so a million thanks. I see on your userpage that you're enrolled at UNC, and as someone enrolled at NC State, I wish you nothing but the best from the gross^{[citation needed]} red school from across the Triangle! Johnson524 00:24, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnson524 Thanks for letting me know, and thank you for your service! I'll say NC State definitely isn't gross, especially compared to the other one in the area haha. Yeah I can open my sandbox, of course it's no problem, I just thought you might have more options to keep up with the discussion. Thank you also for seeing the work it takes to moderate discussions, and of course thank you for participating, your work here are just as remarkable! TeddyRoosevelt1912 (talk) 01:06, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nominations | February 2026 Backlog Drive
February 2026 Backlog Drive: On 1 February, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number and age of articles reviewed. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talk page.
You're receiving this message because you have conducted a good article review in the past year or participated in the previous backlog drive.

-- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:00, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Phase 2 of the January–February 2026 NPP drive. During Phase 1, we reviewed 16,658 articles and 4,416 redirects, and there is currently a backlog of 16,475 articles and 23,782 redirects in the queue. Fantastic job! Completing 22,502 patrols in the first phase made a significant dent in the backlog. Let's keep our foot on the gas for Phase 2, and I hope we can achieve even more reviews than Phase 1. Best of luck!

You are receiving this message because you added your name to the participants list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:21, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Johnson524, I hope you are doing well, Can you review articles on request? There are a few articles I created and they’ve been unnoticed for a long time possibly due to the backlog. Zuck28 (talk) 08:11, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Zuck28: I'm not aware of anything against that, so... sure! 🙂 Just so you know, however, I ofc reserve the right to come to no conclusion and keep an article in the queue or nominate it for deletion. With that said though, what page(s) did you want looked at? Johnson524 15:16, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for responding! Here are some articles I would like to get reviewed for now. Mohan Segal, Vinod Ganatra, Vikash Nowlakha, and Kramik Yadav. Zuck28 (talk) 15:30, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Zuck28: Sorry for the delay! For Mohan Segal, right off the bat, his article only has two citations. One good baseline for notability I like to look for is an article's ability to pass WP:THREE, which states in essence there must be three secondary, neutral citations entirely (or in-depth / primarily focused on) about the subject for it to be notable. The reason for the underlining was because I did not understand this part myself until my article for Draft:Durrr Burger was rejected, which currently stands at 30k bytes and 46 citations and still does not meet notability! I only say this to show you I learned the hard way on what meets WP:GNG so hopefully you don't have to, and also so you can feel more confident your articles will be accepted when reviewed (who doesn't want that!) 🙂 Here's my breakdown with WP:THREE in mind:

• Mohan Segal: 2/3: only two citations, but the two that are there are really good! Can you find one more?
• Vinod Ganatra: 1/3: citations 1 and 2 are good, citation 1 only includes press release information about the subject, citation 2 is good, and citation 3 is primarily focused on Harun-Arun and not Ganatra. Also, there are several pieces of information in the lead that are not mentioned in the body.
• Vikash Nowlakha: 0/3: citation 1 is non-neutral as it's published by an advertising company, citation 2 is an interview about himself which is a form of a primary citation (see WP:IV), citations 3 and 4 are primarily focused on Dhurandhar, and citations 5 and 6 cite his awards, which are good on an article with already-established notability, but don't demonstrate notability themself.
• Kramik Yadav: 3/3: citation 1 is a self-proclaimed press release piece which is non-neutral (see WP:PRSOURCE), citations 2 and 3 are good, and skipping ahead a little bit as most of these sources are 50/50 about an award he's winning as much as Yadav himself, citation 11 is good. There are a few bits of information like his height in the infobox which would be nice if they were cited in the body, but nothing that would stop the article from passing guidelines. Happy to approve!

Now I'm not positive as I haven't looked myself, but I'm pretty sure each of these individuals I couldn't approve now can still meet GNG if just a few more good citations can be found and issues addressed, but for now, I'm sorry I can't in good consciousness approve them. Hope this was helpful, and feel free to reach out if you have any more questions. Cheers! Johnson524 15:14, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Johnson524, Thank you so much for your detailed response and feedback.

I have expanded Mohan Segal and Vinod Ganatra, with additional sources, on your suggestion.

For Vikash Nowlakha,the notability is already established per Wp:ANYBIO with his notable award, and wp:CREATIVE with his work in multiple notable projects.

For Kramik's height, I found some sources, but not sure if they are reliable enough to include in Wikipedia.

Thanks again!

Zuck28 (talk) 20:53, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Zuck28: Hmm, I'm not sure you entirely understand THREE yet. Citation 3 you added on Segal's page is primarily about Rekha and Sharmin Segal, with only passing mentions of Mohan, and citation 4 is primarily about Amitabh Bachchan, again, with only passing mentions of Mohan as part of a larger story. There are similar concerns with Ganatra's page: with what-is-now citation 1 including only press release information about Ganatra which still doesn't count per PRSOURCE, citation 2 is fully a press release, and citation 3 has the same exact issue as citation 1. To show you what I mean, read the final few paragraphs of citations 3 and 4, they're virtually identical! Despite being from two reputable sources, press release information just that, a short blurb copied and pasted by the press when doing a piece on someone/something, making it neither independent or neutral. Going back to my personal example with Durrr Burger: more citations does not necessarily equal notability, only a citations with quality in-depth coverage of the topic as it's main focus does. (WP:AKON is a nice essay on this if you're interested)

Even though I still can't approve either of these articles rn for these reasons, please don't stop trying! I'm still learning more about the ins and outs of policy myself everyday, and THREE took me longer to understand than any other one by far 😭 These men really do seem influential in their fields, I'm just not entirely comfortable putting my name behind an article that can't produce three in-depth citations, which shouldn't be too hard if the topic really is notable (as seen with Kramik). I'll take another look at the articles if you find a source which meets these guidelines, but until then, I'm going to keep them in the queue. Thank you again for all your work on icons in Indian culture. Johnson524 01:46, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think about Giorgia Andriani ? Zuck28 (talk) 07:22, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your good article nomination of the article Eric Tolt is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of A.Cython -- A.Cython (talk) 19:36, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your good article nomination of the article Eric Tolt has been placed on hold, as the article needs some changes. See the review page for more information. If these are addressed within 7 days, the nomination will pass; otherwise, it may fail. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of A.Cython -- A.Cython (talk) 01:34, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your good article nomination of the article Eric Tolt has passed; congratulations! See the review page for more information. If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of A.Cython -- A.Cython (talk) 16:04, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I see that you have worked on topics of the Bible or Christianity before.

I started a topic on Gospel of Mark looking for input on how one could create a citation to back up a claim that a specific passage of Mark is unique to Mark. Is this something you might be able to help with?

Thanks!

Talk:Gospel of Mark#Passages Unique To Mark Motorizedtrees (talk) 06:50, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]