User talk:ToBeFree

Please click here to add a new message!

^{To add this button to your own talk page, you can use {{User new message large}}. It can easily be modified: Colorful examples are provided on the "Template:User new message large" page.}

Request to review ANI report

Hi ToBeFree, I filed a report at ANI. Could you please have a look when you have a chance? Thanks. AriuCH (talk) 18:40, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi AriuCH, thanks for the invitation! If I see correctly, it's about a dispute I had no involvement in, so this is probably about the lack of anyone's response so far. But it has only been a day!

Before automatic archival hits the section after 72 hours of inactivity, a single pleading "Anyone?" message might help. It will result in the thread moving slowly towards the top of the noticeboard before being archived after another 72 hours of inactivity, which then need to be taken as a sign that the issue wasn't significant enough. Chances are someone will reply before that happens, though. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:10, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

ToBeFree, Thank you very much for your response!

At the moment, I have strong doubts about two cases:

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Jellywings19/Archive
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Chilmy23/Archive

In addition, I am also concerned about the recent contributions of BroGownerd. AriuCH (talk) 20:19, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi ToBeFree, I noticed that Noordeen Al Bughuri, inactive since 3 July, resumed editing immediately after the block of BroGownerd. The editing pattern and articles created show significant overlap with BroGownerd. If possible, could you please review this activity? Relevant diffs include , , , , , , . AriuCH (talk) 20:48, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Another edit warring situation where I'm stumped

Hi, Once again at a loss... four different editors have been adding what I'd term "non-sources" to an article (using an airline's homepage to verify the routes they fly). I tried pinging the first three on the talk page, but now there's a TA (well, two TAs on the same IP) repeatedly restoring the bad sources. Given they're TAs, and I can't keep pinging them all, and to avoid going 3RR, what would you suggest? Diff - Danners430 _{tweaks made} 12:45, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello Danners430, these are not necessarily non-sources. They're published, even if their presence on the website is temporary by nature, and even a paywall would be fine. The requirements for self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves probably apply. Just as you can't get a clickable link to a physical library book, you can't get a direct clickable link to some internet sources without them automatically being unreliable. So while the edit war is disruptive and the use of multiple temporary accounts made me semi-protect the page, you may be fighting windmills there. Also, please don't rely on pings especially for temporary accounts; always (also) send them an invitation on their user talk page ({{please see}}). When the use of multiple accounts becomes a problem due to the messages not reaching the user, you can't report that problem without proof of having tried, and pings don't count (they may fail and are also not allowed as noticeboard notifications). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:08, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

The issue with these homepages is they simply don't contain the information being verified - it's literally not present on the page. Point taken with regards to the TA - what would you suggest as an immediate? Danners430 _{tweaks made} 21:12, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Danners430, have you tried, starting from the home page, to find the information the way the others insist the reader needs to do? Have you genuinely tried and failed to find the information or is your complaint limited to that result page not being directly linkable? A publicly installed sign is also a published source, and it may require people to go to specific coordinates or follow way instructions to reach it. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:15, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

The way to get to the information from the homepage is to use the airline's booking engine - and those were, to the best of my knowledge, agreed as WP:SYNTH or otherwise unreliable at an RSN discussion last year. Certainly for Ryanair and Wizzair, two of the airlines in question, I know from previously having looked at the websites when I was doing cleanup that they don't publish timetables, route lists or route maps - at least not that I've been able to find. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 21:21, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

There's a consensus about this and you haven't linked to it yet? There's the main issue.

You haven't directly answered the question, though, and in my personal opinion, even the airline's booking engine may be a reliable source. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:23, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

I've struggled to find the discussion in question in the RSN archives - tried searching for "booking engine" and for editors I recall being in the discussion, but so far no luck. Not currently searching at the moment as I'm about to log off for the night, but I'm planning to keep searching to find the discussion and link it.

It's not anything new though - removing booking engines where they were used is something mostly and many other editors have been slowly doing as part of the more broad cleanup of the sometimes poorly sourced airport WikiProject. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 21:27, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Finding that would be a game changer. At the moment, we have people voicing a few opinions. Demonstrating a clear consensus that booking engines are not properly published or otherwise unreliable sources would completely knock over the tiny local consensus building attempts. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:36, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Ryanair does have a timetable and you can get URLs that are specific to a route: https://www.ryanair.com/gb/en/lp/timetable?originIata=KTW&destinationIata=ATH verifies that it has flights from Katowice to Athens. And both there and on its homepage you can insert an origin, and then the destination box will automatically list only the routes from there. Wizzair does have a route map at https://www.wizzair.com/en-gb/flights/wizz-route-map and similarly inputting an origin will show its destinations; https://www.wizzair.com/en-gb/flights/wizz-route-map/katowice/anywhere will verify all routes from Katowice and https://www.wizzair.com/en-gb/flights/wizz-route-map/katowice/athens will verify its route to Athens. There's no reason to remove sources like these since they reliably verify that they serve the route. https://www.wizzair.com/en-gb/cheap-flights-from-katowice or https://www.wizzair.com/en-gb/cheap-flights-from-katowice-to-athens will also work. These two airlines in particular are easier to use than others since they only sell direct flights, not connections, and therefore display only the actual routes and won't show indirect destinations. Reywas92^Talk 02:24, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

I think my personal main point is that unless the accuracy of the information is questioned (and I haven't heard that once in this discussion), the debate about whether this is synthesis is mostly academic. If there is a specific hard-to-believe piece of information, that may require stronger-than-usual sources (Wikipedia:Verifiability § Exceptional claims require exceptional sources) and justify the discussion and any removals far more convincingly than a "I think the information is correct but I'm removing it because the source is not ideal" position. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 08:45, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Just for info, I've stopped responding as Reywas92 above is currently at ANI for partially related conduct reasons, which is also why I haven't looked at the linked discussion. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 09:25, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

You starting an ANI thread does not mean constructive conversation is not possible elsewhere. I am trying to be helpful here to show how airline sites can be used for reliable verification and don't always need to be removed. I've put these souces in the Katowice article now so verification should be easier. Reywas92^Talk 14:24, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Tech News: 2026-35

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Updates for editors

• The Special:CreateAccount page has been simplified as part of ongoing work to modernize the account creation experience. The panel showing project statistics no longer appears next to the form on desktop and mobile web. Multiple account creation experiments show that a simpler form helps newcomers complete registration.
• In order to improve page performance, images now load when they are viewed. This means images lower down an article will not load if a reader never scrolls to that part of the page, which may affect some image-related metrics.

• View all 42 community-submitted tasks that were resolved last week. For example, an issue where image thumbnails in Abstract Wikipedia could fail to display after the corresponding file was moved on Wikimedia Commons, has now been fixed. Thumbnails will now update correctly when files are moved.

Updates for technical contributors

• User Info card is a feature that helps patrollers see information about user accounts. So far, it has been available only in places such as page history, logs and recent changes. Now, it's possible to place it in the page content as well, using the {{#uic:}} parser function. It can be particularly useful in templates like {{Userlinks}} (or their specialized variants), as it will make it easier to see the context about a user on various noticeboard pages. The card will be displayed only to users who have it enabled in their preferences.
• Due to user security and privacy risks, we have disabled access to Special:MyPage URLs when specifically using action=raw. If you are impacted by this, consider whether you can use an alternative approach. Special:MyPage URLs can still be accessed and used without action=raw. Specified user page URLs (e.g. User:Myusername) can still be used with action=raw.
• Due to an update, the thumbnailing software has been improved. This includes upgrading librsvg to 2.60 and ImageMagick to 7, as well as resolving a number of long-standing thumbnailing bugs like rendering errors.

• Detailed code updates later this week: MediaWiki

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

MediaWiki message delivery 20:43, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Vernon Coleman again

Just letting you know that another whitewasher showed up.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 15:51, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi Skywatcher68, thanks! The article has a history of this and is now semi-protected. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:04, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Quite welcome. As one of our BLP experts, perhaps you can help ScottishFinnishRadish with their proposed rewrite?   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 20:08, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

That would be unwise of me, throwing away the ability to make administrative decisions there, and without experience in writing BLPs. I have always avoided creating BLP content due to the risks involved in doing so, including legal responsibility, more so because my identity is more-or-less public and a lawyer wouldn't have to go to the WMF to obtain my address. I trust ScottishFinnishRadish and any other experienced editors dealing with the article. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:05, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, makes sense. :-)   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 02:43, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Miss World America

You didn't give a reason for protecting Miss World America. Is there any justification for its continuing under that status? ~2026-45447-49 (talk) 13:43, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello ~2026-45447-49, the reason given is "WP:GS/PAGEANT", which (contrary to other such designations that allow administrators to take various measures) is limited to the following:

Any article on a beauty pageant, or biography of a person known as a beauty pageant contestant, which has been edited by a sockpuppet account or logged-out sockpuppet, may be semiprotected indefinitely by any administrator, citing this general sanction in the protection log.

One sockpuppet would have been enough to justify this; I guess you can pick one from the following non-comprehensive list:

• ApprenticeFan
• WilliamJE
• Emmy Expert
• Beautyqueen20132013, an AnnLivinova sock
• AnnLivinova
• Vidatafazoli, an AnnLivinova sock
• Colombiabeauty
• Evenewyear
• Ksenia2006
• Mrdhimas
• Fiiinally, an An-Apple-A-NY-Day sock
• MarkusBJoke, a sock of Judo112 and possibly Zingostar

You may say that this all has been a while ago; I'd reply that this is because all these articles are now semi-protected.

With over 200 contributions from various temporary accounts, it doesn't seem much to ask you to create a named account (you do not need to provide an e-mail address), edit the way you have been editing for a few days and you can edit such pages freely.

Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:54, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Whitewashing at Amira Elghawaby

Hey, just letting you know about the editor who has been replacing the Controversies section with apparently AI-generated promotional content.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 19:17, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi Skywatcher68, thank you very much for the notification! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:18, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

BLP issues at Jeton Zulfaj

This is an interesting one. First, Pjetër Bogdani - Renesanca (talk · contribs) shows up and indicated that somebody requested his edit then Agjasahi (talk · contribs) restored the previous editor's second edit.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 12:45, 28 August 2026 (UTC)