Latest comment: 1 month ago7 comments2 people in discussion
Can you look over the article Otvet, which I have made a significant contribution to? If possible, please give advice/suggestions/cleanup/issues. Also, I have adjusted the article's rating on the talk page, both for Wikipedia criteria and the project's criteria. I would appreciate if you could check there too, to see if I gave the right grade.
For the gallery, why have mode="nolines"? Also, this might be me being confused, but isn't Anti-submarine missile and Acoustic torpedo mutually exclusive as you can't have both a thruster and a propeller on something that size? As for the article rating, I'm not sure that's a C class, as I wouldn't call the content "substantial". Tenshi! (Talk page) 10:13, 15 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
for me the images were for some reason being much smaller than their outlines and whatever size I had set would apply to the frames/lines and the images would not be big enough/packed close together like I wanted them. Anti-submarine missile and torpedo are not mutually exclusive as the main corpus of the weapon its the missile; it has general directions and distances of the target, it flies in an arc, and, upon proximity to the water and a close distance to the target, the missile breaks apart and an (albeit small) torpedo is dropped via parachute, then exact target acquisition, etc. See images and links.
For the "C" class, I thought that it was based on percent of available info & quality., not total amount of content. I will add more (soon) and try to bring the article to "C'.
Not sure what to do on the images. I forgot that multi-stage missiles exist and it could do stuff like that. As for the article rating, I guess it would technically would be a C, though looking at the example articles it doesn't seem like the examples. I can't really say if it is missing important content or if it contains irrelevant info, so usually as an AfC reviewer I judge from size for Start-Stub, though I rarely mark articles as C, the only one I have done so is W.W.W. Awori. Examples from my own articles are TUYU which is a C-class, and Yuka Nagase which was initially marked as a start-class at acceptance (though in my opinion is GA-class). Tenshi! (Talk page) 18:27, 16 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
wow! didn't know there was so much up to interpretation! also, you said in an old discussion that using <references /> is better than {{reflist}} and that that was linked to AI use. I frequently use the {{reflist}} and delete the<references /> thing, is that okay? I didn't know there was a <references /> thing, and never really got flagged/reverted for adding {{reflist}}. should I change from now on, or can I keep my habit. The images are just my laziness in pictures instead of explaining in words. Thanks! Sorry for the computer code.NotRealShady7 7 7 (customer service) 19:00, 16 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
In their case, I found it weird that they replaced <references /> with {{reflist}}, to my understanding they're usually the same except in some weird case which I know one of DreamRimmer's bots is mass-replacing. The tag is the MediaWiki software's way of controlling the position of references, while reflist is a template. That and they were using AI to tell me that they were not using AI. Note that WP:CITEVAR is a thing that you should be aware of in this case. Tenshi! (Talk page) 19:13, 16 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Our pending drafts!
Hi Tenshi Hinanawi, thanks for participating in the Articles for Creation August Backlog Drive! We've done amazing work so far, dropping the backlog by more than 3000 drafts already.
We have around 1300 drafts outstanding, and we need your help to get that down to zero in the next 10 days. We can do this, but we need all hands on deck to help make it happen – if everyone who signed up to the drive reviewed just 1–2 drafts a day for the next ten days, we'd be down to zero in no time! A list of the pending drafts can be found at WP:AFCSORT, where you can select submissions in your area of interest, or you can find a random submission here. Thank you so much for your work so far, and happy reviewing! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 21 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
On 1 September 2026, a one-month backlog drive for new pages patrol will begin at a particularly important time for NPP.
The backlog has now passed 30,000 unreviewed articles, a level that has been described in current NPP discussions as exceptionally high and potentially difficult to overcome through normal reviewing alone. Backlog drives are one of the few measures that have historically produced a noticeable reduction in the backlog, so the participation of as many active patrollers as possible will matter this month.
If you can review during September, please make articles your priority. Every article that is reviewed is a meaningful reduction in the backlog. With the queue at its current size, even a relatively small increase in the number of articles each patroller reviews can add up to a substantial difference over the course of the month.
This is a hybrid drive, so redirect reviewing is still included. Redirects can be a useful way for newer patrollers to get comfortable with NPP and can help people build up to reviewing articles. However, the main goal of this drive is to tackle the article backlog, and experienced patrollers are particularly encouraged to spend as much of their available reviewing time on articles as they can.
Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled.
Each article review will earn 1 point, while each redirect review will earn 0.2 points.
Streak awards will be given out based on consistently hitting point thresholds for each week of the drive.
Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive.
If you have been thinking about doing more NPP, this is an especially good month to jump in. Whether you can review a few pages or hundreds, every review helps. And if you are already an active patroller, please consider whether you can put in some additional time during September to help bring the backlog back under control.
Latest comment: 1 month ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Hello, Mentor! I have been learning the ropes, and now would like to try improving an existing stub article. The article I have chosen, it:Epipedon, is in the Italian wikipedia, so my plan is to first translate it into English, creating Epipedon and leaving it as a stub, (using wikidata to link the two pages). The single reference link in the Italian article is broken, but I have figured out that it must be referring to this book:
https://nrcs.app.box.com/s/xi57bj6zyo601eokr7v715mkdpeaa81h/file/1148231325962
(In particular, the article seems to be based on the section "Diagnostic surface horizons; the epipedon", on p. 14.)
Then, I would work on improving the article in my sandbox, also putting a comment in the talk page of the stub about what I'm doing.
I'm no soil expert, but I think the page is justified because a dozen or so wikipedia articles use the term epipedon. What do you think? --NthTurtle (talk) 15:19, 27 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
I would advise against creating it, translating as it is with one reference would very likely be deleted. Determining when an article should be created falls under Wikipedia:Notability. The general standard that is applied in lieu of any otherwise applicable subject-specific guideline is the general notability guideline, which requires multiple reliable sources which contain significant coverage and are independent of the subject. Note that just because another article is in one wiki does not justify it in another, different projects have different standards for article notability. I'll preface this with I don't know the specifics regarding soil, but wouldn't Topsoil essentially be the same? Tenshi! (Talk page) 15:44, 27 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the helpful feedback! OK, so starting with a translated stub is not a good idea. Re: notability. First, epipedon is definitely not the same as topsoil. After your feedback, I found 2 reliable sources (textbooks by major publishers) online in OpenLibrary which explain the concept, in addition to the USDA publication https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/sites/default/files/2022-09/Keys-to-Soil-Taxonomy.pdf. Also, I have learned that "diagnostic horizon" is a synonym, and while diagnostic horizon also doesn't exist, it also is used in many wikipedia pages. I can get other soil science books from my library, which I'm optimistic will also explain the term, since every textbook I've been able to search online does. Do you still think I should be worried about notability? I can't find anything in wikipedia specifically about notability of scientific topics. NthTurtle (talk) 18:03, 27 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Hi, a Wikipedia admin/editor claims I used AI when writing some quoted texts. What can we do about this? My edits have been reverted, but I put in a lot of effort and spent many days on this. --Kotzaztzikli (talk) 13:17, 30 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
I was using it in classic mode, and the source I quoted and the words I translated are from the Pralenik|Праленик page on the Bulgarian Wikipedia. It's not AI. Kotzaztzikli (talk) 21:13, 30 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 month ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I hope you’re doing well. I’m planning to prepare a short professional biography for myself as a speech therapist in California. Before I move forward, I wanted to ask for your permission and guidance.
My intention is not to promote myself, my website, or any services. The biography would simply provide a brief professional introduction and background for the moderator/professional context.
I would really appreciate your thoughts on whether this would be appropriate and whether you would be comfortable with me proceeding.
Latest comment: 1 month ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, I noticed your TenshiBot modified my user page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Florent.cpr&oldid=1372688856 . While there wasn't any actual change, just the removal of a line break, it could potentially affect other users. I imagine a Wikipedia user wouldn't want their main user page modified by someone else.
Perhaps you could add a filter to your bot to ignore special pages like main user pages.
Latest comment: 1 month ago7 comments2 people in discussion
Hi! Believe it or not, I'm still working on the Otvet article (among other things). I have a question with the citation style thing. In my infobox, whenever I have a list of different pieces of info that are all supported by the same source, I put the citation at the end of the list. However, there are cases where I use different sources for different parts of the list, and put the citation at the end of the chunk that it supports. I did this to avoid cluttering the infobox with refs everywhere, which in my opinion looks pretty bad. I wanted to know if people (both readers and editors) would understand what the sources support and I wouldn't get citation needed spammed by by people who think that the pieces of info without a ref are unsourced. Advice?
Thanks --NotRealShady7 7 7 (customer service) 20:51, 2 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
{{center|<span style="color: #002FA7;">Thank you again and, best regards.</span> [[User:VanTucky|'''Van<span style="color:#FF4F00">Tucky</span>''']] <sup>[[User talk:VanTucky|Talk]]</sup>}}
and
{{center|<span style="color: #000000;">Thank you again and, best regards,</span> <br>Neranei}}
generate a preview warning and no output. You need to insert 1= after the pipe in {{center}}.
Second, the markups
<span style="color: #002FA7;">...thank you for your participation. I withdrew with 83 supports, 42 opposes, and 8 neutrals. Your kind words and constructive criticism are very much appreciated. I look forward to using the knowledge I have accrued through the process to better the project. I would like to give special thanks to [[User:Tim Vickers|'''Tim Vickers''']] and [[User:Wikidudeman|'''Wikidudeman''']] for their co-nominations.
<br>{{center|<span style="color: #002FA7;">Thank you again and, best regards.</span> [[User:VanTucky|'''Van<span style="color:#FF4F00">Tucky</span>''']] <sup>[[User talk:VanTucky|Talk]]</sup>}}
<br>
<span style="color: #002FA7;"><small>'''This RFA thanks was inspired by [[User:LaraLove|<span style="color: #BA55D3;">Lara</span>]]'''[[User:LaraLove/My heart|<span style="color: #00CED1;">❤</span>]]'''[[User talk:LaraLove|<span style="color: #FF1493;">Love's</span>]]'''</small></span></span>
and
<span style="color: #000000;">...for your participation, criticism, and support in my recent RfA, which succeeded with a final count of 90/1/1. I appreciate all of your kind words, criticism, and suggestions. I extend a special thanks to Acalamari for his nomination, and Dihydrogen Monoxide and Husond for their coaching and nominations. If you need help in any administrative matters, please contact me.
<br>{{center|<span style="color: #000000;">Thank you again and, best regards,</span> <br>Neranei}}
<br><span style="color: #000000;"><small>'''This RfA thanks inspired by VanTucky's which was in turn inspired by LaraLove's which was inspired by The Random Editor's, which was inspired by Phaedriel's original thanks.'''</small></span></span>
Apologies, using {{center}} rather than <div style="text-align: center;"> was me being lazy and would have avoided that. As for the html5 misnest, I didn't catch that was caused by me and thought it existed prior to my edit. Tenshi! (Talk page) 15:54, 8 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 21 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello, I haven't edited any wikipedia articles for many years. I wonder about editing a biography of an author I knew when he was alive. There are some details about my late husband, another author, who also knew him, who has been left out of the article. I also want to create a page/article for my late husband with details about his radio work, his co-author and his book. This does not currently exist. Is this a conflict of interest? thank you. --Suzette L. Davidson (talk) 17:01, 15 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 23 days ago2 comments1 person in discussion
The Invisible Barnstar
This is awarded to Tenshi Hinanawi for accumulating more than 70.5 points during the August 2026 AfC backlog drive. Thank you for sharing your time, knowledge and dedication; together, we reviewed over 12,700 drafts during the drive and brought the 3+ month backlog down to just a single week, which we couldn't have done it without you. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping>12:40, 16 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 16 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello, I have submitted my first Articles for Creation draft, “Theological accreditation in India.” I have disclosed a potential conflict of interest because I am associated with one of the organizations mentioned. Could you please advise me whether the draft meets Wikipedia's neutrality and sourcing requirements? --Aaronaarush (talk) 07:21, 22 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 days ago5 comments3 people in discussion
Hi Tenshi, just letting you know you only rolled back one TA (there were two in a row from the same IP), so the copyvio is presumably still in the article. The diffs are revdelled and I wasn't able to figure out which bit was copied from the source you linked–you or MCE will have to fix it I'm afraid. Courtesy ping MCE89 as RDing admin. Also worth noting the same TA has edited ruwiki, although it looks like all they did there is add citations. lp0onfire()12:18, 26 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
I had a look and most are okay, the edit which removing copyrighted and removing a duplicate cite param wasn't noted in the edit summary, though they did say so later on the talk page. ANI would be excessive, ideally they should note every change they do in the edit summary box, but use of the edit summary box isn't mandated by policy. Tenshi! (Talk page) 22:48, 29 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
I meant more in regard to not letting the issue go after being told repeatedly that there is no policy problem with linking to the works (that is the ‘Reprints’) or noting that the works were reprinted. (I don’t object to valid removals of links to actual copyrighted material, but the timing of those is tendentious.) But I agree that I’d rather avoid the hassle of an ANI.—Jeffro77Talk22:57, 29 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
I agree it's not good behaviour, though the question to ask is whether it reaches disruption to such an extent that they should be blocked or topic banned. I don't think it does yet, but their actions are unimpressive and they should acknowledge that. Tenshi! (Talk page) 13:59, 30 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Question from AndrewBartz (14:27, 28 September 2026)
how do i properly fix the tables here on this Wikipedia page? it seems like there are formatting issues which i have tried to fix but was unable to. Would you mind looking at it? --AndrewBartz (talk) 14:27, 28 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Yes, the Competition record section. On the web view, there’s a large blank space between the Olympic Games header and its table. Also, the Volleyball Nations League and World League tables are currently displayed side by side, even though they are separate competitions. I was wondering if the table formatting could be adjusted so that each competition is displayed separately and the spacing issue is fixed. AndrewBartz (talk) 12:36, 30 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
I looked at it and I'm not finding what is causing the space is in that table (I initially thought it might have been two tables, but it's not). Maybe ask at WP:VPT and they might be able to find it? Tenshi! (Talk page) 13:59, 30 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Everything is behaving as designed. That space is caused by the very long list of medals in the "Honours" section of the infobox. The table under "Olympic Games" is set up so that it displays to the left of the infobox, but if the browser window is too narrow, the table, which can't get narrower, drops below the bottom of the infobox. I suspect that everything worked fine in the old Vector skin, but the new Vector 2022 skin has a much narrower column for the article's content. To avoid this problem, someone tried to collapse the long list of medals in the infobox template, but the code at {{Infobox medal templates}} was not working properly. I have fixed it. Your view of the article should be better now. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:23, 1 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion
A new page TUYU on the French Wikipedia has been linked to page TUYU, which you created, via Wikidata (Q85592264).
You will not be notified in the future about new articles linked to any of the articles you have created, if you wish to opt in to receiving these notifications, please follow the opt-in instructions.
I end up re-reading a lot of my talk page and cross-referencing it in reference to other matters, though I hadn't realised that it had gotten to 134 recently, I'll cut it down a bit. Tenshi! (Talk page) 08:54, 5 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 4 days ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Tenshi Hinanawi, 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.
To copy over my rationale from the log: Bit of a IAR grant, they already have AP through GR, and are tenured enough that I don't expect contravention from our policies so I don't see why they shouldn't have it. -- Sohom (talk) 00:09, 5 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 3 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thank you for choosing to run in the October 2026 administrator elections. This bulletin contains some important information about the next stages of the election process.
As a reminder, the schedule of the election is:
October 6–7: Housekeeping phase (we are here)
October 8–12: Discussion phase
October 13–19: SecurePoll voting phase
Scrutineering phase
All times are in UTC. The first date in the range starts at 00:00, and the last date in the range ends at 23:59. So for example, the Discussion phase opens on 8 October 2026 at 00:00 UTC, and ends on 12 October 2026 at 23:59 UTC.
We are currently in the Housekeeping phase. Your candidate subpage will remain closed to questions and discussion. However, this is an excellent opportunity for you to recruit nominators (if you want them) and have them place their nomination statements, and a good time for you to answer the standard three questions, if you have not done so already. We recommend you spend this phase getting your candidate page polished and ready for the next phase.
The discussion phase will take place from October 8–12. Your candidate subpage will open to the public and they will be permitted to discuss you and ask you formal questions, in the same style as a request for adminship (RfA). You are strongly encouraged to be around on those dates to answer the formal questions in a timely manner.
On 13 Oct, we will start the voting phase. The candidate subpages will close to public questions and discussion, and everyone will have a week to use the SecurePoll software to vote, which uses a secret ballot. Anyone can see who has voted, but not who they voted for. You are permitted and encouraged to vote in the election, including voting for yourself. Please note that the vote totals cannot be made public until after voting has ended and as such, it will not be possible for you to see your vote total during the election.
Once voting concludes, we will begin the scrutineering phase, which does not have an exact end date, but typically takes a few days to a week. Once everything is certified, the results will be posted on the results page (you may want to watchlist this page) and transcluded to the main election page. In order to be granted adminship, you must receive at least 70% support, calculated as support ÷ (support + oppose), and must also have received a minimum of 20 support votes. Because this is a vote and not a consensus, there are no bureaucrat discussions ("'crat chats").
Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation as a candidate, and best of luck.
You're receiving this message because you are a candidate in the October 2026 administrator elections.
