User talk:Sohom Datta

This is Sohom Datta's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 30 days

I'm starting my graduate classes. As a result, expect diminished activity onwiki for a while. I'll still be available on Discord and via email (and also on Phabricator and Gerrit).

Please keep discussions about AFC drafts on-wiki on this talk page. Off-wiki attempts to contact me about drafts will be rejected and you will be blocked.

This user is aware of the designation of the following topics as contentious topics: India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles They should not be given alerts for those areas.

Hello, Sohom data, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! GMG^talk 15:00, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

How do I add a source such as a birth certificate? --Simmons Family (talk) 05:08, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 23:19, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sohom Datta. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Universal cross-site scripting, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 01:06, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sohom Datta. Recently you approved the Nahid Islam page through the AfC review process, which is fine. However, Deb contacted me, as I’m the page’s creator, with a valid concern that needs to be addressed first. I plan to move the page back to draft so that these concerns can be resolved through an independent review. Let’s collaborate on this with the assumption of good faith. Charlie (talk) 15:39, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CharlieMehta (and @Deb) That's not how AFC and draftspace are supposed to work, you shouldn't be taking a notable person's biography into draftspace just because they are controversial (and conversely, AFC's goal is to provide a review on the AFD survivability of the article not to provide a GA/FA-like review).

Based on my review, the article passes GNG and I personally don't see how the article is biased since all the information appears to be sourced to fairly reliable sources. Could one of you explain what the exact concerns are and why AFC would be a good venue to resolve this? Sohom (talk) 18:11, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I could see, it was moved from draft space by User:CharlieMehta without a review. I moved it to draft and it seems like you moved it back. It's now been submitted for a review again after significant improvements were made by another editor. The history shows that a lot of SPAs and anons have been fiddling about with it and I'd suggest that, when it's passed review, it should be protected from edits by non-autoconfirmed users. I'm very doubtful whether this individual meets the notability criteria in any case. Deb (talk) 18:58, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Deb Being a adviser for the government would qualify the article as per WP:NPOL, not to mention that their actions during the protest appear to be fairly well documented (compared to others in the same movement). In any case, it appears to have been moved back into mainspace by another independent editor, in which case you could go ahead and protect it. Sohom (talk) 02:09, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not true that being a government adviser would make a person notable under Wikipedia's criteria. It's not a political office. Deb (talk) 07:59, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Deb Per my understanding, a "government adviser" in Bangladesh is definitely a political position (roughly equivalent to the position of a cabinet minister in other countries). At this point, if you are doubtful of notability, feel free to nom the page at WP:AFD. Sohom (talk) 11:43, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not correct. An adviser can be at many levels, from very high to very low indeed. Deb (talk) 16:02, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly can't tell if you are earnest or joking. Yunus ministry literally lists Nahid Islam as the minister/adviser in charge of Posts, Telecommunications and Information Technology. As far as I'm concerned, this conversation is over from my end. If you feel strongly about the non-notability of said page, feel free to WP:AFD it (as has been said before). Sohom (talk) 18:29, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Deb If the main issue is notability then talking about other issues about the article will not work. I invite you to make WP:AFD for the article. Mehedi Abedin 10:14, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 00:50, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Sohom Datta. Your recent edit to {{Str count}} broke how certain other things work (I noticed it through a page that uses {{OSM location map}} – I have a screen shot in case that's useful to diagnosing what happened. As I reverted your edit to fix it, I'm letting you know here out of courtesy – I am not sufficiently technically minded to edit your change to allow everything to work properly! MIDI (talk) 13:57, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MIDI A screenshot of how things broke will definitely be useful :) Sohom (talk) 14:15, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully File:20240820 str count error.png helps :) MIDI (talk) 15:46, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen you've made a new edit to the template; assuming it's done what you want it to do, I'll delete that image as it's not going to serve any further purpose! MIDI (talk) 19:00, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, sorry for messing up :( Sohom (talk) 19:40, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to worry about – thanks for fixing! MIDI (talk) 20:17, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

story · music · places

Thank you for improving article quality in August! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:28, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I spent this month improving Infostealer, been while since I had done a full article rewrite :) Sohom (talk) 20:36, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath -- CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 07:21, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sohom Datta I did fail your submission for GA (the bot hasn't updated it yet) however I don't want this to discourage you! If you have any questions about my review please don't hesitate to ask me (I do prefer to be pinged). I do believe that the article could meet GA criteria if you are able to work on some of the things I highlighted in my review. If you do improve on these things and decide you want to try again for GA status I would be more than happy to do another review for the article as I already put in the time verifying most of the sources and getting to know the topic. Keep up the hard work! CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 20:26, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed some of the initial criticism, I'll take a look further, and submit it once I have improved it. I'm really disappointed in the fact the text-to-source integrity of the controversy section did not match. Not sure how I messed that up. Sohom (talk) 21:37, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of the information that didn't match up seems like it is true and does make sense so I'm assuming you just forgot to add the right source. I'm really glad you're taking the time to improve the article as I do believe it could be a GA and I did really debate just putting it on hold but just felt there was a lot of work that needed to be done. I hope to see it back up for GAN soon and I'm glad my criticism didn't come off to harsh as that wasn't my intentions. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 21:48, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath Do you want to take a look at the article again ? I think I have all of your criticisms except the one about topics, I could find much RS on the exact topics being published and haven't addressed that particular criticism. Sohom (talk) 22:43, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just based off a quick look at it it does seem a lot better although I didn't source check anything. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 00:13, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. I've nomed the article for GA a second time, feel free to review it. We can hash out the rest during the review :) Sohom (talk) 01:22, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good! I'm currently in the middle of another review but as soon as I wrap that one up I'll review yours! CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 01:25, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath -- CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 20:24, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. This edit to Template:Discussion top is incompatible with the "Use a black background with green text" gadget which has been in preferences for years. It causes black text on a black background, which human beings cannot read. DuncanHill (talk) 21:26, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DuncanHill I've made a fix, lmk if the issue still persists. Sohom (talk) 21:45, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me, many thanks. DuncanHill (talk) 21:47, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I've just noticed the same at Template:Afd top. DuncanHill (talk) 21:54, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Made a fix for that as well. Sohom (talk) 21:56, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again. DuncanHill (talk) 22:01, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath -- CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 04:25, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy and Talk:IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy/GA2 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath -- CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 14:25, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy for comments about the article, and Talk:IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy/GA2 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath -- CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 22:13, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New pages patrol | September 2024 Backlog Drive
On 1 September 2024, a one-month backlog drive for new pages patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each article review will earn 1 point, and each redirect review will earn 0.2 points. 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) 17:11, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 20:30, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you help me with this question about logging in from SSH to use Toolforge tools? User_talk:Novem_Linguae#Need_help (permalink). --David Tornheim (talk) 13:31, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Replied there. Sohom (talk) 13:52, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

		The Technical Barnstar
		For your prompt, correct response to my request for help and for quickly getting Yapperbot Feedback Request Service restored. --David Tornheim (talk) 20:37, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you :) Sohom (talk) 03:22, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The fourth round of the 2024 WikiCup ended on 29 August. Each of the 8 contestants who advanced to Round 4 scored at least 472 points, and the following contestants scored more than 700 points:

• Generalissima (submissions) with 1,150 points, mostly from 3 featured articles, 2 featured lists, 7 good articles, and 13 did you know nominations;
• Arconning (submissions) with 791 points, mostly from 2 featured lists, 8 good articles, 4 did you know nominations, and plenty of reviews;
• AirshipJungleman29 (submissions) with 718 points, mostly from a high-multiplier featured article on Genghis Khan and 2 good articles; and
• BennyOnTheLoose (submissions) with 714 points, mostly from 1 featured article on Susanna Hoffs, 2 featured lists, and 3 good articles.

Congratulations to our eight finalists and all who participated. Contestants put in extraordinary amounts of effort during this round, and their scores can be seen here. So far this year, competitors have gotten 36 featured articles, 55 featured lists, 15 good articles, 93 in the news credits, and at least 333 did you know credits. They have conducted 357 featured content reviews, as well as 553 good article reviews and peer reviews, and have added 30 articles to featured topics and good topics.

Any content promoted after 29 August but before the start of Round 5 can be claimed during Round 5, which starts on 1 September at 00:00 (UTC). Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. If two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether for a good article, featured content, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. Remember to claim your points within 14 days of earning them, and importantly, before the deadline on 31 October.

If you would like to learn more about rules and scoring for the 2024 WikiCup, please see this page. Further questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges (Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs), Epicgenius (talk · contribs), and Frostly (talk · contribs)) are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:12, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to clarify for any avoidance of doubt that I was not the one who submitted the draft. I wasn't even aware that a user who isn't the author could submit a draft. Thanks for taking a look at it anyway. dyln (talk) 18:03, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ack, I think it was an IP who submitted the draft. No issues there. Regarding the state of the draft, @Dyln1 I would suggest adding non-primary (third-party) sources to prove notability. Sohom (talk) 12:48, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the advice. It's pretty difficult finding non-primary sources but there are a few podcasts the subject has been on. He's quite an evasive character but I reckon I *should* be able to present enough notability to meet WP:ENT. dyln (talk) 19:21, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 01:04, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Nicholas Carlini you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Vacant0 -- Vacant0 (talk) 11:04, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can you please assist me with this draft on whether it is notable or not? I mentioned a comment on highlighting 3 sources which may go with GNG (only issue is SIGCOV). If possible can you review the draft. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 05:01, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While the sources you mention do marginally pass WP:GNG in my opinion, I'm slightly uncomfortable taking the decision to move it into mainspace since a similar article was redirected in 1 June 2024. Toweli do you have any thoughts on this new draft's notability? Sohom (talk) 12:43, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Any new suggestions for improvement would be greatly appreciated. I will wait for Toweli's response. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 13:49, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Toweli, can you please respond to above question asked by Sohom? ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 13:57, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for not responding earlier. This draft article appears to be much better than the one I had redirected on 1 June, which was entirely unsourced. toweli (talk) 15:02, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sohom Datta, if this fits you well, you can get your time and review it. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 15:59, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let us express our sincere gratitude for the efforts the reviewer has invested in analyzing our humble draft Wikipedia page, 'Cyber privacy.' https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Cyber_privacy

We would like to emphasize that the conclusion made by the respected reviewer, that "this article needs to be completely rewritten to even stand a chance of being accepted," not only does not discourage us but instead inspires optimism and sparks curiosity about the potential of our intellectual abilities to approach the standards of the accomplished Wikipedia reviewers.

While the valuable insights provided by the reviewer are so profound that they will take time to process, we would humbly suggest further discussion if the esteemed reviewer deems it worthy of their attention. Specifically, the phrase generously offered by the reviewer, which states: "I'm still not convinced that "cyber privacy" as a neologism actually exists in the world. Non of the sources cited here actually define cyber-privacy as being any different from internet privacy or Information privacy. At best, the sources convince me that this would be a redirect to Internet privacy which appear to be dealing with this exact topic." —suggests that the reviewer holds the opinion that "cyberspace" consists solely of something digital and internet-based.

The distinction between 'cyber-', 'digital-', and 'internet-' forms the crux of the article's topic and is central to understanding why 'cyber privacy' deserves separate consideration.

We fully understand that the assumption of complete equivalence between these terms is a legitimate perspective shared by many notable scholars, including a number of Wikipedia reviewers. Indeed, the current Wikipedia article on 'cyberspace' conveys this idea, defining cyberspace solely as internet and digital. However, there exists a well-established cohort of scholars, officials, and stakeholders who adopt a broader definition of "cyberspace," underscoring that 'cyber-,' 'internet-,' and 'digital-' may occupy distinct, albeit related, spheres.

While we appreciate the feedback, the claim that 'cyber privacy' is synonymous with 'internet privacy' overlooks several authoritative distinctions in academic, legal, and industry discourse. If necessary, we are happy to provide further evidence to clarify this matter.

We are mindful of the valuable time of the esteemed reviewer and would humbly inquire whether they are interested in continuing this discussion. Should the reviewer find it intellectually engaging, we might suggest a brief exploration into the difference between "cyberattack" and "cyberspace attack," which may shed light on the concept of "cyberspace" that informed the development of the draft in question.

Once again, we appreciate the reviewer's insights and the constructive direction provided. Professorincryptography (talk) 11:15, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Professorincryptography Two questions:

• The distinction between 'cyber-', 'digital-', and 'internet-' forms the crux of the article's topic and is central to understanding why 'cyber privacy' deserves separate consideration. - Could you be more explicit about what this distinction is?
• While we appreciate the feedback, the claim that 'cyber privacy' is synonymous with 'internet privacy' overlooks several authoritative distinctions in academic, legal, and industry discourse. If necessary, we are happy to provide further evidence to clarify this matter. That's the only thing that is needed in the draft. Feel free to provide it when you can.

Regarding the rest of your message, feel free to cut out the flowery language when you next message to me, and explicitly define who "we" is. The Wikipedia community tends to discourage role account, i.e. teams editing through one account. Sohom (talk) 12:59, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am thankful for the swift and concise reply. Let me address the points mentioned.

1. This account is a single-person account, and any suspicions that it is used by someone else will be reported by me. By "we," I meant only myself. I used the author's we, but I now understand this may have been confusing under Wikipedia rules. Thank you for bringing this to my attention.

2. I am happy to provide a clearer distinction between 'cyber-', 'digital-', and 'internet-' based on reliable sources. I originally did not expand on this in the draft to keep the focus on "cyber privacy," but I can provide a summary as follows:

The distinction between "cyber-", "digital-", and "internet-" revolves around scope. "Cyber-" includes both digital and non-digital systems, encompassing infrastructures like telecommunications networks and industrial control systems, some of which may not be connected to the Internet. "Internet-" is specific to the global network, while "digital-" refers strictly to data in binary form, which may or may not be part of the cyber domain.

I am happy to share the following points with you, starting with the visual representation I’ve created based on the documents I cite below (see the attached picture). I will now provide evidence to show that this illustration is valid.

- Exhibit A: Visual depiction of the interaction between 'cybersecurity', 'internet', 'networks', etc., from ISO/IEC 27032:2023. (Necessary to open the file ^[1])

Definition: "cyberspace - whole of interconnected information processing systems, including the Internet, and of data they are processing."

- Exhibit B: A citation from NSPD-54/HSPD-23 (2008)^[2] defines cyberspace as "The interdependent network of information technology infrastructures that includes the Internet, telecommunications networks, computers, information systems, industrial control systems, networks, and embedded processors and controllers."

This definition was later used in the following documents: CNSSI 4009-2015, NIST Special Publications (SP 800-30, 800-39, 800-53). Link to this definition: ^[3].

There is, for example, a scholarly edited volume (secondary source) ^[4] that uses "cyber privacy" referring specifically to the definition of "cyber-" that originates from this document.

Similarly, authors like ^[5] use "cyber privacy," citing the development of the document such as JP 1-02 vocabulary or Tallinn Manual.

- Exhibit C: Examples of technologies that are either not completely digital or not internet-based but still fall under the "cyber-" definition of Exhibit B and are currently in use include Alcatel-Lucent 5ESS, Allen-Bradley SLC 500, Hughes HS-376, and General Electric 9070 SCADA System.

With this in mind, the use of the term "cyber privacy" in a technical article published in IEEE is relevant regarding hybrid analog/digital systems: ^[6].

- Exhibit D: Citation from ^[7]: "Whoever <...> intentionally accesses a protected computer without authorization, and as a result of such conduct, causes damage and loss <...> shall be punished." Here, and in the entire paragraph, nothing is mentioned about whether the information is digital or if access is through the internet. However, the term "computer" used in the context can refer to non-digital systems (as demonstrated by Exhibit C) while still being part of cyberspace (according to Exhibit B), thus extending beyond digital and internet-based systems.

Further clarification can be seen in the definition provided by ^[8] where "electronic communications system" is defined as "any wire, radio, electromagnetic, photooptical, or photoelectronic facilities for the transmission of wire or electronic communications, and any computer facilities or related electronic equipment for the electronic storage of such communications." This definition supports the view that "cyber privacy" need not be exclusively dependent on digital information or internet communications.

Moreover, in the article ^[9], the term "cyber privacy" is defined, based solely on laws such as these, which demonstrates that "cyber privacy" does not necessarily involve internet or digital data. The transmission of information of any kind—whether digital or analog—can still be captured under the term "cyber."

To sum up, the provided references offer distinct examples of how "cyber-" differs from "digital" and "internet," along with several secondary sources that use the term "cyber privacy" outside the scope of both "internet" and "digital." Professorincryptography (talk) 22:32, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Developing Countries WikiContest has now been running for two months, and we've seen tremendous improvement in the encyclopedic coverage of several underrepresented areas from a wide range of editors! The coordinators would like to highlght some of the newer faces who have been making notable contributions in the contest, including but by no means limited to:

• Arconning (submissions) – 386 points, with several good articles primarily relating to the Olympics
• Vigilantcosmicpenguin (submissions) – 141 points, who created multiple articles about abortion rights and laws in African countries
• TheNuggeteer (submissions) – 126 points, who has contributed to several articles associated with the Phillippines
• Jaguarnik (submissions) – 125 points, with several good article reviews and an appearance in the In the news section of the Main Page
• Averageuntitleduser (submissions) – 119 points, and has written about several Haitian topics and historical figures.

Only one month remains until the end of the contest, so it's time to make your remaining nominations! Please consider answering some review requests, particularly the older entries, as a way of helping out your fellow participants and moving up the leaderboard. Good luck!

If you have any questions, please leave a message on the contest talk page or ask one of the coordinators: Ixtal (talk · contribs), sawyer777 (talk · contribs), or TechnoSquirrel69 (talk · contribs). (To unsubscribe from these updates, remove yourself from this list.) Sent via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 22:00, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article Nicholas Carlini you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Nicholas Carlini and Talk:Nicholas Carlini/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Vacant0 -- Vacant0 (talk) 20:44, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article Nicholas Carlini you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Nicholas Carlini for comments about the article, and Talk:Nicholas Carlini/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Vacant0 -- Vacant0 (talk) 10:43, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]