DYK for Nathalie Drach-Temam
On 6 July 2026, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Nathalie Drach-Temam, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that, under Nathalie Drach-Temam's presidency, Sorbonne University opted out of the Times Higher Education rankings? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Nathalie Drach-Temam. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (Nathalie Drach-Temam), 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) 00:04, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
Can't Swim image
Hello - thank you for adding that image of Can't Swim to their page! I was wondering if it would be OK for me to move that image to the infobox? Just wanted to ask before making that move. Thanks again :) Afddiary (talk) 21:45, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
- Hi! Thanx for writing. I was about to do that and got sidetracked, but I took care of it now. Have a good one :) ScottyNolan (talk) 05:22, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for July 10
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Iron Dome, a link pointing to the disambiguation page Drone was added.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:13, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
Cliola, Illinois AfD
I'm reaching out to everyone who voted "Keep" at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cliola, Illinois with a gentle reminder to please check the article and its sources thoroughly when participating at AfD. This place never had any sourcing whatsoever (aside from WP:GNIS) that described it as a ghost town, unincorporated community or populated place of any sort, and the multiple editors who pointed this out were ignored. This necessitated the time and effort of a second AfD to finally put the matter to bed. I understand the desire to save any populated place, no matter how significant, but in the future please make sure that the article you're saving is actually about a populated place. –dlthewave ☎ 03:36, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
July 2026
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly reverting content back to how you think it should be, despite knowing that other editors disagree. Once it is known that there is a disagreement, users are expected to collaborate with others, avoid editing disruptively, and try to reach a consensus – rather than repeatedly reverting the changes made by other users.
Important points to note:
- Edit warring is disruptive behavior – regardless of how many reverts you have made;
- Do not engage in edit warring – even if you believe that you are right.
You need to discuss the disagreement on the article's talk page and work towards a revision that represents consensus among everyone involved. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution if discussions reach an impasse. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to engage in edit warring, you may be blocked from editing.
Note that not listed at WP:RSP does not make a source reliable. The Ku Klux Klan is not listed as unreliable. O3000, Ret. (talk) 10:45, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
- Do you honestly think that the closest analogy in Wikipedia policy for a fairly prominent Jewish news organisation is the KKK? what brought you to reach for that comparison? ScottyNolan (talk) 05:44, 30 July 2026 (UTC)
- Also-
- Per WP:RSPMISSING, on what to do if a source isn't specifically listed at WP:RSP:
- If a source is not listed here, it only means that it has not been the subject of repeated community discussion. That may be because the source is a stellar source, and we simply never needed to talk about it because it is so obviously reliable,[a] or it could mean the source is so obviously poor it never merited discussion. It could mean that the source covers a niche topic[b] or that it simply fell through the cracks.
- A source's absence from the list does not imply that it is any more or less reliable than the sources that are present. Absence just means its reliability has not been the subject of serious questioning yet. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. ScottyNolan (talk) 05:47, 30 July 2026 (UTC)