Regarding two of your recent TRYUNPROT trials

I think it would probably be a good idea to set pending chances on Elton John and McDonald's. Those two have a pretty high daily view count. Giovanni Potage (talk) 00:24, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Some context on my recent lifting of very old protections. We don't protect just because of high page views: we want to see empirical evidence of high vandalism, and empirical evidence of high vandalism nearly 20 years ago doesn't mean that much today. While for some articles like Fuck there's no need to even attempt the experiment, a lot of very high page view or potentially very controversial articles aren't protected, because we want to balance the chance of vandalism with the chance of constructive edits from new users. I'm watching everything I've unprotected for the next month, so if regular vandalism resumes I'll reprotect. (McDonald's is an interesting case, actually, there's been several attempted vandal edits but all of them so far have been caught by the edit filter. Doesn't bode well for the stability of the article but I'll wait it out and see.)

I'm ambivalent between re-protecting as semi or with pending changes in these cases, so in the case of Burger King I just restored to the status quo. If you think it should be swapped to pending feel free to put in a request at WP:RFPP if you want a second pair of eyes on this. Rusalkii (talk) 00:34, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for responding! So that explains why no reverts appear in the recent history of McDonald's. I agree that Wikipedia admins have an unfortunate tendency to over protect pages, even though I wouldn't have TRYUNPROT'd those two pages if I were in your shoes. What particular filter was triggered if you're OK with sharing that? Giovanni Potage (talk) 00:42, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes, that was perhaps overly optimistic, but we'll see. If the experiment for this batch goes poorly I won't unprotect these kinds of high-visibility pages in the future.

3, 30, and 644; if you can see them on the filter page then I assume it's not private information. Rusalkii (talk) 01:13, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Just a heads up, one of the people caught by the filter is Diddy is in your walls. It's clear from their username what their intentions here are, and it's definitely not to constructively contribute to Wikipedia. I'm also pretty sure their username is a violation of one of our guidelines. Giovanni Potage (talk) 07:09, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Our friend of the dubious username has been blocked for hitting edit filters, and McDonald's unfortunately reprotected due to resumed vandalism. Mixed feelings about this given that one of the edits since protection was actually a very helpful edit by a user that now can't edit the article again (exactly the harm of indef protection on articles that don't necessarily need it), but several independent vandals in two days probably trump one helpful editor.

Elton John seems to be doing okay still.

You may also be interested in User:Rusalkii/Candidates for unprotection, I threw together a bot to collect some likely indef-protected articles instead of stabbing blindly at the main protection list. Rusalkii (talk) 20:16, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Are you comfortable with giving McDonald's another round? I think the disruptive was a little too recent to accurately predict if it would remain persistent enough to justify a full TA block. After all, the page was able to survive three days without issues (kudos to the edit filter), and there was – as you previously noted – one productive anon edit. Fully locking such a high-profile page because of a few bad apples after several days of silence scares away potential good faith contributors. Giovanni Potage (talk) 01:22, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

On a side note, it would be great if you restored the old full move protection. As per WP:MOVEPROT, the page receives a great deal of traffic and is unlikely to ever be moved. Giovanni Potage (talk) 01:35, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

I've restored ex-confirmed move protection, full is probably overkill here but I can't imagine a constructive move by a non-ec editor. I am not thrilled about the idea of unprotecting it again but if you feel strongly about it we could try a pending changes trial. Rusalkii (talk) 21:25, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

@Rusalkii Sure, I wouldn't mind lowering the edit protection to a temporary PCP (preferably with an expiration date of 1-3 months) for another WP:TRYUNPROT trial. I will watchlist the page and report to you when I think disruption becomes too cumbersome. Giovanni Potage (talk) 23:51, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Done. Rusalkii (talk) 00:42, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! Hopefully, the edit filter does its job. Giovanni Potage (talk) 00:45, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

I know this may not be the time, but I have a pending request at WP:RFUP you might be interested in. Giovanni Potage (talk) 00:46, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Eh, I have no strong opinion there. Rusalkii (talk) 00:48, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Fair. I requested it because I think it's unfair to leave a page extended-confirmed protected for years over a one-off attack by a sock vandal with a shelf life of a week. Per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Manyu Sanghavi, their last confirmed sock was spotted shortly after Canada was ECP'd. Giovanni Potage (talk) 01:02, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

@Rusalkii, I'm unhappy to report that PCP isn't working. While things were quite at first, beginning from the 19th, the page has been hit with vandalism on a daily basis. There has been zero productive TA/non-autoconfirmed edits in the week since unprotection to even out the trolling. Giovanni Potage (talk) 16:34, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for reprotecting! By its very nature as a globally recognizable iconic brand, McDonald's page here will always remain an attractive target for trolls. The fact that vandalism was still a problem even after a nearly 20-year-old protection was lifted perfectly demonstrates why indefinite protection exists. Giovanni Potage (talk) 22:31, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

NCRET Delete

I haven't seen a NCRET Delete before the close done at WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 July 14 § Sea beard. How is deletion justified under NCRET, as it is supposed to be an ATD? Jay 01:55, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

I suppose I was using NCRET as a general synonym for a bartender close, which I have seen used for delete at least occasionally (e.g. Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2026_January_6#Mothra_Leo). Probably should have been more precise there. My judge of the consensus was that it was listing rather anemically towards deletion, and it didn't feel right to close as retarget given one weak retarget with no supporting argument (though I assume it carried the implicit argument of "these are obviously similar terms just stylized differently"). I also didn't want to relist given two previous relists and no comments after the most recent one.

That being said, I went spelunking through old RfD logs and I agree that NCRET/BARTENDER closes as delete are very rare and if I was going to do one I should've justified it more at minimum; I'll be more careful with these in the future. Happy to reopen this and leave to another closer if you'd prefer. Rusalkii (talk) 20:12, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Pangram (AI detector)

Hello! Your submission of Pangram (AI detector) 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! Andrew🐉(talk) 16:19, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Question from MoonknightPP34 (15:19, 16 August 2026)

Hey Rusalkii. Quick question regarding editing. It seems as though I am on a short string in regards to editing as of right now which is understandable. I was told I need to seek help regarding sourcing, so if I wanted to make an edit do I need to get approval from you beforehand regarding the sourcing? and how would I go about that? --MoonknightPP34 (talk) 15:19, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

No, you don't need to get approval from me beforehand. My advice to review any feedback you've gotten about sourcing + the relevant guidelines, and then edit very carefully and check with me about any edit where you're not sure if the sourcing is appropriate or not. Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources are the primary guidelines, but I'd say the very short version is that if you are adding any new information you should also be adding the source where you got that information, and in most cases the source should be independent (not affiliated with the subject) and professionally published (so a newspaper, book, academic journal, etc, not social media or some random website). Rusalkii (talk) 16:57, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

New category

Good day. I am DayakSibiriak temporarily unable to log in to the Wiki and create new pages. Please create a Category:Religious belief systems founded in the Soviet Union like Category:Religious belief systems founded in the United States or Category:New religious movements in the Soviet Union like Category:New religious movements in Russia. For the time being, I have placed articles such as Ivanovism into the category:Religious organizations based in the Soviet Union. However, not all articles about movements and teachings fit the definition of an "organisation." Once you create the new category, either you or I can update the categorization for several articles regarding Rodnover and other movements established during the late Soviet era. Many thanks in advance. ~2026-41516-21 (talk) 02:22, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, I think you might have me confused with someone else, I have no context on this and do not work in categories. Rusalkii (talk) 02:25, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Clear ~2026-41516-21 (talk) 04:51, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Bookmarks

Hello. I notice you have a User:Rusalkii/bookmarks.json page. Lately, the bookmarks tool has not been working for me. Has it been working for you? Please also see my comment at User talk:Sportzpikachu/bookmarks. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 04:10, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

You know, that would explain why I haven't seen them lately. Rusalkii (talk) 21:32, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 August 2026

DYK for The Rise and Reign of the Mammals

On 24 August 2026, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article The Rise and Reign of the Mammals, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that, in Steve Brusatte's book The Rise and Reign of the Mammals, humans are given "about the same attention as horses and whales and elephants"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Rise and Reign of the Mammals. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (The Rise and Reign of the Mammals), 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.

Zzz plant (talk) 12:03, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

New pages patrol September 2026 Backlog drive

September 2026 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol
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. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:49, 24 August 2026 (UTC)