I edit way more often now.^{[citation needed]}.

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 1 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present.

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2025).

Administrator changes

• Jarry1250
• Lethe

CheckUser changes

• AmandaNP
• Drmies

Oversighter changes

AmandaNP

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment is open to discuss whether AI-generated images (meaning those wholly created by generative AI, not human-created images modified with AI tools) should be banned from use in articles.
• A series of 22 mini-RFCs that double-checked consensus on some aspects and improved certain parts of the administrator elections process has been closed (see the summary of the changes).
• A request for comment is open to gain consensus on whether future administrator elections should be held.

Technical news

• A new filter has been added to the Special:Nuke tool, which allows administrators to filter for pages in a range of page sizes (in bytes). This allows, for example, deleting pages only of a certain size or below. T378488
• Non-administrators can now check which pages are able to be deleted using the Special:Nuke tool. T376378

Miscellaneous

• The 2025 appointees for the Ombuds commission are だ＊ぜ, Arcticocean, Ameisenigel, Emufarmers, Faendalimas, Galahad, Nehaoua, Renvoy, Revi C., RoySmith, Teles and Zafer as members, with Vermont serving as steward-observer.
• Following the 2025 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: 1234qwer1234qwer4, AramilFeraxa, Daniuu, KonstantinaG07, MdsShakil and XXBlackburnXx.

Hello Codename AD,

I noticed your reversion of my edit to the Donald Winnicott article regarding the antisocial tendency section. To be honest, I'm a bit confused about what aspects of my edit weren't neutral.

My contribution aimed to expand on one of Winnicott's significant theories (on which he published several papers). Other sections of the page already contain similar detailed explanations of Winnicott's various theories. I was careful to present these ideas as Winnicott's theories rather than as objective facts.

I would appreciate any specific suggestions on how I could modify the content to better meet Wikipedia's neutrality standards. Perhaps it would be better if I first shared my proposed edits on the talk page?

Thank you for your understanding and feedback.

Best regards,

Donald Vaughan Sinclair Donald Vaughan Sinclair (talk) 07:14, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For one because the source was published by the same person, it would be considered a WP:PRIMARY source, which is allowed, however, independent, third party reliable sources are preferred in this context. See WP:V. Hopes this helps. Also see the WP:MOS for more detail. Codename AD ^talk 07:18, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying. I understand the preference for secondary sources, but I'm a bit confused about the application in this case. Since this is Winnicott's biographical page, it seems appropriate to describe his theories using his own published works as sources - especially for accurately representing what he actually proposed.

The existing article already cites Winnicott's primary works in other sections when describing his theories. For consistency, shouldn't the antisocial tendency section follow the same approach?

If the concern is about providing proper context, I'd be happy to add secondary sources that discuss this particular theory's reception or significance in the field. Would that address the issue? Donald Vaughan Sinclair (talk) 07:25, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adding secondary sources would fix the issue, however they need to support the article, and be a reliable source per WP:RS. See the next section, WP:SECONDARY, which explains secondary sources. Using a primary source supported by a reliable source, that is acceptable per WP:PRIMARY#1. Codename AD ^talk 07:33, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]