Hey Mariamnei, I just wanted to let you know that I've left some feedback for the article creator and put this back into the NPP queue. Since you marked this as reviewed, I'd recommend you take a look through these points for future reference. I'm happy to answer any questions you night have about this! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 23:19, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TechnoSquirrel69 - Thank you for this feedback. Can you please give me some general guidance how to tell when sources are "Paid reporting in Indian news organizations"? Do you just check the specific source in WP:RSP? Does this mean that all sources from India need to be checked thoroughly against the list? Thanks and have a great day! Mariamnei (talk) 12:47, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's unfortunately hard to tell sometimes, since otherwise reliable publications tend to do this from time to time without disclosure. I don't think I can do much better than the advice in § Paid reporting in Indian news organizations of RSP. The most reliable tell, in my experience, is the vague or nonexistent byline — for example, The Times of India will sometimes use the "TOI Staff" byline for promoted content. There's more nuance to it, however, and I would recommend starting a conversation at RSN or the NPP talk page for second opinions if you're doubting a specific source. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 23:37, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TechnoSquirrel69 - Thank you for your advice. Mariamnei (talk) 10:59, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On 30 November 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Siege of Jerusalem (70 CE), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that during the siege of Jerusalem in the First Jewish Revolt, the Romans crucified prisoners in various positions to intimidate the defenders into surrender? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Siege of Jerusalem (70 CE). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Siege of Jerusalem (70 CE)), 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.

Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:02, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mariamnei. Thank you for your work on Manmohan G. Vaidya. Another editor, Pythoncoder, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

This article looks AI-generated. Sentences like "covered by multiple mainstream outlets" are a major red flag — see WP:AISIGNS.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Pythoncoder}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

—pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 16:34, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Pythoncoder - Thank you for pointing this out to me. I will try to look for these features in the future. Mariamnei (talk) 10:58, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have a care for quality and seem to know a lot about the archaeology of the southern Levant. The article on Jericho currently has problems due to a lack of sufficient sourcing in various parts of its "History and archaeology" section. I have recently noticed that the archaeologist Lorenzo Nigro, who has directed the most recent excavations at the site, has recently authored a book dealing with the history of the site up to the Islamic period (see [1]), but the book is in Italian and I have difficulty in understanding the language. I am aware that your work here focuses on the Hellenistic era through Late Antiquity while the book covers additional periods, but since you might presumably possess a native comprehension of Italian, I would like to ask if you could consult the book and tell me if you could help to improve the page. Thank you for your attention. Potatín5 (talk) 15:00, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Potatín5, thanks for reaching out! I'll be happy to help with this article. Do you happen to know where I could access a full copy of the book? Maybe through the Wikipedia Library or another archive? Mariamnei (talk) 15:34, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mariamnei: Sorry, I do not know where to find a full copy of the book online. I purchased my own one. Maybe you could find it at some public or university library. Thank you for your response. Potatín5 (talk) 20:31, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		For your work on Diaspora Revolt, I found this page was very well written and see that you were by far the largest contributor to it. DervotNum4 (talk) 18:08, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much, I really appreciate that! I've been thinking about possibly nominating it for FAC at some point in the future, so if you have any suggestions for improvements, please do let me know! Mariamnei (talk) 12:52, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please review this article. It was created last month.

Thank you. Af265 (talk) 05:22, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Paris Psalter, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Greek.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:53, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I saw your work on this which was quality work as always. Maybe you could help clean up Jewish magical papyri. It would appear that this article is a SYNTHy mess. Andre🚐 17:46, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, @AndreJustAndre. I was thinking it might make sense to move this to a broader title such as Ancient Jewish magic or Jewish magic in antiquity, and then organize the material by sub-topics: for example incantation bowls, amulets, binding spells, and papyri of course. That structure might help it eeasier to contextualize the sources and prevent over weighting any single genre. What do you think? Mariamnei (talk) 08:53, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. Andre🚐 09:16, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think this would need a formal RM, or does it feel uncontroversial enough to move ahead without one? Mariamnei (talk) 09:43, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think you can go ahead. Nobody responded to my talk page thread. Andre🚐 16:14, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this is an automated reminder as part of Global reminder bot to let you know that your permission "patroller" (New page reviewers) will expire on 00:00, 25 December 2025 (UTC). For most rights, you will need to renew at WP:PERM, unless you have been told otherwise when your right was approved. To opt out of user right expiry notifications, add yourself to m:Global reminder bot/Exclusion. Leaderbot (talk) 19:41, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

	Infinite Possibilities
	Is this real life? Yes! Is this going to be forever? No! Elvis is getting ready to leave the building and 2026 is about to be born, kicking and screaming. They say nothing gold can stay, but I say, don't listen to them, stay golden all the same. Here's to a new year of infinite diversity and beautiful combinations! Viriditas (talk) 21:52, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A beautiful way to welcome the year. Some things pass, some things stay, and hopefully we learn how to carry the gold with us. Happy New Year, dear @Viriditas! ✨ Mariamnei (talk) 10:24, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2026!

Hello Mariamnei, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2026. Happy editing, Abishe (talk) 07:54, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Abishe (talk) 07:54, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Abishe, for the kind wishes! Wishing you peace, happiness, and a great year ahead 😊 Mariamnei (talk) 10:26, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mariamnei, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the new page reviewer user right to your account. This means you now have access to the page curation tools and can start patrolling pages from the new pages feed. If you asked for this at requests for permissions, please check back there to see if your access is time-limited or if there are other comments.

This is a good time to re-acquaint yourself with the guidance at Wikipedia:New pages patrol. Before you get started, please take the time to:

• Add Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers to your watchlist to follow NPP-related discussions
• If you use Twinkle, configure it to log your CSDs and PRODs
• If you can read any languages other than English, add yourself to the list of reviewers with language proficiencies

You can find a list of other useful links and tools for patrollers at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Resources. If you are ever unsure what to do, ask your fellow patrollers or just leave the page for someone else to review – you're not alone! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:39, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

January–February 2026 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol
New Pages Patrol is hosting a one-time, two-month experimental backlog drive aimed at reducing the backlog. This will be a combo drive: both articles and redirects will earn points. The drive will run from 1 January to 28 February 2026. The drive is divided into two phases. Participants may take part in either phase or across both phases, depending on availability. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled during the drive. Two-month drive-exclusive barnstars will be awarded to eligible participants. Each article review earns 1 point, while each redirect review earns 0.2 points. Streak awards will be granted based on consistently meeting weekly point thresholds. Barnstars will also be awarded for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Interested in participating? Sign up here.
You are receiving this message because you are a New Pages Patrol reviewer. To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself from here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:22, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

		The Featured Article Medal
		By the authority vested in me by myself it gives me great pleasure to present you with this special, very exclusive award created just for we few, we happy few, this band of brothers, who have shed sweat, tears and probably blood, in order to be able to proudly claim "I too have taken an article to Featured status". Gog the Mild (talk) 14:47, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! I'm truly honored to receive this very exclusive (and self-authorized!) medal. 😊 What perfect timing, it feels like a little New Year's gift. Here's to many more adventures… and a very Happy New Year to all! 🥂 Mariamnei (talk) 13:55, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, Mariamnei! The article you nominated, First Jewish–Roman War, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) via FACBot (talk) 23:06, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats. First of many I'm sure. Andre🚐 10:54, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year, @Mariamnei: Thank you so much for the reviewing the new page I created Odd-Arne Olsen.

I have followed your recommendations and cited the article with secondary sources per Wikipedia:Notability (academics).

I am still unsure what is a proper protocol, so I hope it is ok that I ask for a follow up here (I also posted on the talk page and tried asking for help at WikiProjects Norway and other experienced editors, I am sorry if I did somethung wrong).

Is is possible for you to see if the article is now up to a standard of the English Wiki or nominate it for deletion should it fail?

Thank you!

Ak1sdew3212 (talk) 13:07, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Ak1sdew3212 - Thank you for reaching out to me. The article appears to have been deleted, so I am unable to review it at this time. Have a great day! Mariamnei (talk) 08:55, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Volten001 ^☎ 18:18, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mariamnei, and a happy year 2026 to you, relaxed and with lots of joy!

If you have the time: could you please give me your opinion on the Roman Palestine infobox? The template is far from perfect for such complex topics, but as an ardent encyclopaedia user, I'd much rather have one than not, even if it means improvising to make the template fit better. Am I the odd man out? Thank you, Arminden (talk) 09:17, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello dear Arminden, and Happy New Year!

I've just posted my response on the talk page. In short, I lean toward removing the dependency-style infobox entirely, following the approach used in comparable articles such as Hellenistic Greece, Classical Anatolia, and Greece in the Roman era, which similarly treat broad historical periods and do not use infoboxes. If there is a strong wish to retain one, perhaps {{Infobox historical era}} could be explored, though that would need a more careful look. Mariamnei (talk) 10:01, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

On 4 January 2026, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Zoninus collar, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Zoninus collar (pictured) is the only known Roman slave collar that offers a reward for returning its wearer? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Zoninus collar. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Zoninus collar), 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.

♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:02, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Brilliant work at Zoninus collar. Thank you for working in this under-represented area of Wikipedia. Morogris (✉ • ✎) 06:05, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mariamnei, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the autopatrolled user right to your account. This means that pages you create will automatically be marked as 'reviewed', and no longer appear in the new pages feed. Autopatrolled is assigned to prolific creators of articles, where those articles do not require further review, and may have been requested on your behalf by someone else. It doesn't affect how you edit; it is used only to manage the workload of new page patrollers.

Since the articles you create will no longer be systematically reviewed by other editors, it is important that you maintain the high standard you have achieved so far in all your future creations. Please also try to remember to add relevant WikiProject templates, stub tags, categories, and incoming links to them, if you aren't already in the habit; user scripts such as Rater and StubSorter can help with this. As you have already shown that you have a strong grasp of Wikipedia's core content policies, you might also consider volunteering to become a new page patroller yourself, helping to uphold the project's standards and encourage other good faith article writers.

Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! voorts (talk/contributions) 16:44, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for February 23, 2026. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 2026, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/February 2026. Please keep an eye on that page, as notifications of copy edits to or queries about the draft blurb may be left there by user:JennyOz, who assists the coordinators by reviewing the blurbs, or by others. I also suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from two days before it appears on the Main Page. Thanks, and congratulations on your work! Gog the Mild (talk) 17:23, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The Australian Open draws are beyond notable and the inline citations I gave are fine. Sure it can use more citations but when the draw is in every paper and I list two good sources how many do you want? One of WikiProject Tennis' highest priorities is to create a draw for every single Grand Slam tournament event. Asking if it's notable is like asking if the World Series players are notable. We aren't supposed to flood the lead with 10 citations for two sentences. I gave the Australian Open and a newspaper. How many newspapers do you think would be adequate. The tournament at ATP are the best source for draws and newspapers show it is a notable event. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:23, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Fyunck(click) - I am not particularly knowledgeable in tennis, but the standard for WP:NSPORT is that you need to show the notability. If it's notable enough, it should be easy to show. Mariamnei (talk) 12:49, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

And it was easy. That's why it had 3 sources when I reposted it rather than the original 1 source. And now it has 6. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:23, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. As you patrolled couple of my AfC pages, may I request you to have a look at Kamarkuchi, P. C. Haldar and Arunodoy Dohotiya and suggest me for improvement. SaTnamZIN (talk) 15:08, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Mariamnei: Thank you very much for your review and feedback.

I have added additional reliable, independent sources to the article to better establish the subject’s notability in line with WP:BIO. These sources provide significant coverage of the subject beyond routine mentions.

Please let me know if further improvements are needed. Thank you for your time and guidance. Sunootws (talk) 15:19, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Sunootws - Thank you for your comments. I will respond on the article talk page. Have a great day! Mariamnei (talk) 08:21, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The article Konfederacja Wielkopolan has already been tagged for notability by Mccapra, so I have removed your duplicate notability tag. Next time, when tagging articles using Page Curation or Twinkle, please check to make sure that you are not duplicating any maintenance tags that already appear in the article. GTrang (talk) 15:33, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@GTrang - Thank you for pointing that out. I will attempt to be more careful in the future. Have a wonderful day! Mariamnei (talk) 06:20, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Pleae make your signature attaches to your last sentence, as other Wikipedians do and not like you do. Detached signarture is inconvenient during threaded discussions. --Altenmann >talk 17:10, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Altenmann - Thank you for writing to me. The signature in the example you cited is added automatically when I use the page curation tools. I am unaware of any way to do it otherwise when using those tools. Feel free to bring it up at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers. Otherwise, I'm sorry to say that I have no way of changing it. Have a wonderful day! Mariamnei (talk) 06:26, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Re [2] I hope you saw the notoriety updates there.

Thank you for your wonderful contributions

Grazie mille. Willysbillys (talk) 18:08, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Coligny calendar, a link pointing to the disambiguation page was Colignyadded.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:51, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

On 20 January 2026, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Horvat Rimmon, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that an ancient amulet discovered in Horvat Rimmon bears a love charm in which its owner invokes angels to make another person love him? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Horvat Rimmon. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Horvat Rimmon), 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.

 — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:02, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! :) You tagged the wrong editor who created the page.

Also, I've added two more sources to The Rugrats Mystery Adventures. The five reviews should be enough. Timur9008 (talk) 08:55, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Timur9008 - Thank you for writing to me. Regarding tagging editors - I happens automatically, and it is a known problem when there was a previous redirect. There is unfortunately little I can do to avoid that. Regarding notability, I think it narrowly meets notability now, so I will remove the notability tag. Thanks and have a great day! Mariamnei (talk) 09:00, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! :) Timur9008 (talk) 09:09, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, I just looked at your user page and goodness you are a very interesting individual, it’s great to see another ancient history enjoyer (although I’m more of a Bronze Age and early Iron Age person myself as opposed to Mid-antiquity), but nevertheless those subjects you enjoy are very interesting, especially your fascination with more forgotten peoples like the Edomites who (along with their neighbour the Moabites) are highly forgotten and mysterious, which is what I like about ancient history as a whole— the mysterious nature. Have a great day and if you ever have any queries or articles you are writing about the Bronze Age or have Bronze Age links hit me up as I might be able to help. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 10:41, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. You left this notice on my talk page. It's important that you don't depend 100% on the tools because they can get it wrong. In this case, I closed an AfD 15 years ago that resulting in a redirect. Another user has recreated that page. You'll want to address your concerns with the page with them, User:Mikah Wikiana.--v/r - TP 23:20, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@TParis - Thank you for pointing this out to me. I have now alerted the relevant editor. There is a known problem with redirects going to the wrong person when there was a previous redirect. I understand that a solution in is the works, but in the meantime, there's unfortunately no way to write a review of the page without it going to the original creator, and the most I can do is copy the contents to somebody else or ping them. Have a great day! Mariamnei (talk) 12:34, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, there is no need to rely on the tools 100%. Back in the day...we did it by hand.--v/r - TP 19:55, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

		The New Page Reviewer's Iron Award
		For over 360 article reviews during 2025. Thank you for patrolling new pages and helping us out with the backlog! -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:04, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Mariamnei (talk) 06:29, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your recent edits to Trimithis when you modified the page, you introduced unknown parameters. Just because you specify |some_param=some_variable does not always mean that variable will display. The |some_param= must be defined in the template. You can look at the documentation for the template you are using but it is also helpful to use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made and ensure that the values you have added are displaying correctly. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the page will look like without actually saving it. It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. Note I have likely fixed the error by now so check the history of the page to see how it was fixed. If you have any questions, contact the help desk for assistance. Thank you. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 06:24, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! :) Team 47 GoMan now has six reviews listed in the article. Should be enough now since a minimum of three are needed per GNG. Timur9008 (talk) 06:42, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

On 25 January 2026, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Horvat Sumaqa, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the function of more than thirty grooved stone pillars at Horvat Sumaqa (pictured) remains unknown? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Horvat Sumaqa. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Horvat Sumaqa), 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.

UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 00:02, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

the independence party of Minnesota, split, the state name party is rebuilt no alliance or forward. ~2026-95474 (talk) 13:27, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chiswick Chap. Thank you for your work on Peter Forbes (author). Another editor, Mariamnei, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thank you for your work on this article. Please establish notability as per WP:NAUTHOR. Thanks and have a great day!

... no, not me. I created a redirect many years ago, and for all I know that's still the appropriate level of coverage. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:51, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Chiswick Chap - Sorry I somehow missed this message. This is a known problem with the curation tools which I understand they are working on. @TinyObjects - See the above. Have a great day! Mariamnei (talk) 09:48, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads-up, I deprodded Knees Up with a substantial expansion, including a track list (why do people often fail to do that when making articles on albums?), two reviews, and confirmation of its chart position. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:10, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@TenPoundHammer - Thank you! Mariamnei (talk) 10:51, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The article The Templar Legacy has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No sources besides book itself, no notability, previously moved to draft and restored without substantial improvements

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion based on established criteria.

If the proposed deletion has already been carried out, you may request undeletion of the article at any time.

Mariamnei (talk) 13:56, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Palazzo delle Colonne at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! CMD (talk) 13:39, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

On 13 February 2026, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Al-Qunayyah, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Al-Qunayyah, a village in Jordan, is thought to have been the site of a Roman-era sanctuary? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Al-Qunayyah. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Al-Qunayyah), 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.

HurricaneZeta^C 00:03, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your good article nomination of the article Horvat Midras 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 Michael Aurel -- Michael Aurel (talk) 05:33, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mariamnei,

You draftified the article Afro-Christian Convention a week after commenting that it lacked footnotes (fair) and didn't establish GNG (wrong imo but not the point). These were not good reasons to draftify. Per WP:DRAFTIFY The aim of moving an article to draft is to allow time and space for the draft's improvement until it is acceptable for mainspace, and neither of these reasons support draftification. Inline footnotes, while preferred, are not required to meet verifiability standards, and articles without them are not unacceptable. Not "establishing" notability is never a reason to draftify, because notability is based on all sources that exist, not all sources cited in an article at any given moment, and can thus never be "improved" pending new sources being created. If that was your concern, you should have added a {{notability}} tag or went to AFD.

I am writing this comment because I fear you may be inappropriately draftifying articles from newer editors who may not know they can challenge draftifications. Please be more considerate in the future.

Cheers, Mach61 06:25, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Mach61 - Thank you for your comments. Regarding footnotes - Simply citing three books without any more specific citations is not acceptable and quite frankly not useful for the encyclopaedia. It is not reasonable to expect somebody to read three books to verify the paragraph you wrote; at the very least, please provide page numbers. Regarding notability - The article still needs to show notability and I have no way of verifying things that are not present. I have explicitly received instructions from an admin not to draftify immediately because of notability, but that if I ask the author to make a better case for notability and they don't, draftifying is appropriate. Please feel free to follow up with any other questions and have a great day! Mariamnei (talk) 15:11, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Mariamnei If general references were literally not acceptable, a lack of inline citations would be a deletion criterion; clearly that is not true. Notability is necessary, but draftifying after the author fails to produce sources to your liking is exactly backwards. Notability is ultimately judged by if an article can survive at AFD, were participants are expected to go out of their way to find sources. Draftifying makes an article less discoverable to potential editors who could add sources, which is why a {{notability}} tag or deletion nomination is always preferable. Mach61 09:24, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think the question is: Which guideline or policy directly says that The article still needs to show notability? It's not Wikipedia:Notability. It's not Wikipedia:Verifiability. It's not Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. So if this rule exists as more than a rumor, where is that rule written down? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:56, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:NPROF before you make any further reviews or tagging of academics. I noticed that you marked Max Shepherd as reviewed, but he is not close to a notability pass. I have AfD'd him as a clear case of WP:TOOSOON (I considered a PROD.) Ldm1954 (talk) 14:36, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Ldm1954 - Thank you for your comments. Can you please explain why the awards that he won do not qualify for WP:PROF as academic awards? Thanks. Mariamnei (talk) 14:47, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Awards have to be major peer awards, not just any awards. NPROF specifically states that undergrad and PhD awards do not count, so that removes the first three. The last is a junior funding award, and all academics get awards.

Awards we consider notable are:

• Being elected to a National Academy of Science
• Being elected as a selective Fellow of a major society such as the American Physical Society or IEEE. (Some societies are not selective, e.g. Royal Society of Chemistry.)
• MacArthur or similar awards

Most of this is in the notes of NPROF, and have been discussed on the talk page. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:56, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You can also monitor Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Max Shepherd, you will see that there is (as I write) already one delete vote for the same reasons. There are others that might be relevant such as [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Juan R. Correa-Pérez] Ldm1954 (talk) 15:04, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your good article nomination of the article Horvat Midras 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 Michael Aurel -- Michael Aurel (talk) 11:34, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed comments such as this one that state or imply that everything is required to have an Wikipedia:Inline citation. For better or worse, this isn't true – not even for BLPs. BLPs require citations only for "contentious material", plus if there's no contentious matter in the article, any one source (which can be lousy) for the page to exist. Non-contentious BLP material and non-BLP material officially requires inline citations only for direct quotations, material that's been WP:CHALLENGED (e.g., a {{citation needed}} tag), and material that is realistically WP:LIKELY to get challenged. Obviously, more is better, but we also don't want to overstate what the actual rules are. (For one thing, if everyone believes there's already a "cite everything" rule in place, we'll never convince the community to actually create that rule.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:45, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@WhatamIdoing - Thank you for pointing this out to me. I am shocked that in-line citations are not required, but you do seem to be correct. Have a great day! Mariamnei (talk) 09:55, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think you can see the tricky situation we're in. We want to encourage all the inline citations we can get, but it's not technically true to say that they're mandatory for everything. I think you'll be able to come up with some creative wording to bridge the gap between our ambitions and our written rules. Maybe "It'd be better if..."? Or asking "Don't you think it'd be best if..."? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:16, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you today for First Jewish–Roman War, introduced: "This article covers the first revolt in Judaea against Roman rule, one of the best-documented wars of antiquity. The conflict had a lasting impact on Jewish history, the development of Judaism and Christianity, the history of the Levant, and Roman politics"! - Enjoy your first TFA day! -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:12, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt thank you so much! I didn't realize how excited I was going to be, but wow, it really is exciting 😊! I'm so happy to receive this recognition and to have the chance to be on Wikipedia's front page, even if just for one single day. To many more collaborations! Mariamnei (talk) 08:48, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Greco-Roman history of interactions

Thank you for quality articles around the "interactions between the Greco-Roman world and the indigenous populations", based on scientific expertise, leading to First Jewish–Roman War, Mount Gerizim Temple, Horvat Midras and Siege of Jerusalem (70 CE), for being "always open to collaborations", - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

You are recipient no. 3019 of Precious, a prize of QAI. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:45, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You're so kind! thank you so much! I'll treasure that sapphire, and I really appreciate your words. It means a lot coming from such a dedicated editor. Mariamnei (talk) 08:55, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

story · music · places

I try, and I appreciate your words. We had an edit conflict, I came to give you some more personal flowers anyway ;) - I remember my first TFA, that was a collaboration, and my part had been rather insignificant compared to the two who generously invited me. - The TFA will remain linked from below the blurb for three more days, good for a 4-digit view count on every one. - My first solo TFA was a Bach cantata, BWV 172, and I am happy that another one - also a cheerful one - is featured again OTD (On this day) today; - the 300th anniversary was last year, but OTD is slow to change, and I didn't object ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:07, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I smiled when I saw where I had "met" you before: for Thomas Johannes Mayer, now also on the main page. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:21, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

On 24 February 2026, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Trimithis, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a wealthy councillor's house in the ancient Egyptian desert city Trimithis preserves a line from a lost tragedy by Euripides? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Trimithis. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Trimithis), 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.

Launchballer 00:03, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't read my reply to you I think - check out case citation - the pages are referenced. Lawbookwriter (talk) 12:49, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Mariamnei, I appreciate your enthusiasm but please look up case citation - for law pages this is a reference, and so in Jobling v Associated Dairies Ltd [1982] AC 794 refers to the "Appeal Cases" volume of law reports. That on top of the text book is a reference. I would be grateful if you'd stop posting your messages, and perhaps concentrate on non-law articles. Lawbookwriter (talk) 12:20, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Lawbookwriter - Thank you for writing to me. I don't know where you originally wrote to me. Perhaps I am mistaken, but I don't believe that any case that is found in a case citation book is considered notable. In general, WP:GNG requires secondary coverage in at least 3 sources. If I do not properly understand the policy, please feel free to show me where in Wikipedia policy it says otherwise. Thanks and have a great day! Mariamnei (talk) 12:26, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you understand the policy, but the law is a bit obscure. Appeal Cases are the UK's highest court - and you can easily find online that the ones you've flagged are cited in hundreds if not thousands of texts, as are most House of Lords or Supreme Court cases. Hope that helps. Lawbookwriter (talk) 12:32, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Lawbookwriter - Thank you writing to me. If this is the case, please add a few more sources to each article. Have a great day! Mariamnei (talk) 12:34, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There's no requirement for 3 sources - two is good enough to be "multiple" under WP:GNG. But you're free to look up other sources and put them in yourself. Lawbookwriter (talk) 16:13, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Lawbookwriter - Although the exact number is not clear from "multiple", the accepted practice is to require at least three, and generally more is better in this regard. Have a great day! Mariamnei (talk) 07:20, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]