User talk:Kowal2701

Archives

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 90 days are automatically archived by if there are more than 5.

Template at AINB

Hey, I saw your use of the {{admin help}} template at AINB. I definitely support this general approach, but prefer Newslinger's suggestion here [1]. I think we will have more success flagging cases at AINB for admins who are already patrolling AINB than by summoning random admins to the noticeboard. I've been out of the country for work for weeks so I haven't acted on Newslinger's suggestion, any chance you'd want to? Also I normally would have posted this directly on the AINB thread but I think you can probably guess why I didn't want to on this occasion. Thanks as always for the work on LLM stuff, I saw you going through the open cases and I appreciate it. NicheSports (talk) 18:57, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks (I'm just moral support tho lol). I wonder whether we could have something similar to Template:@ITNA. It doesn't really work for ITN because they get too many pings, but maybe for AINB it'd be good? I could have a go at editing {{AIC status}}, but it's probably safer to ask @Chaotic Enby Kowal2701 (talk) 19:13, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely support the idea, go at it! It does actually work decently well for ITN, as I manage to filter out the pings that matter to me me (blurbs that I'm not already involved in) and tune out the others (RD and/or blurbs I already !voted on). Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:16, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've created Template:@AINBadmins and its documentation, no clue if it works (we can speedy delete if people prefer other options). Pinging @Gnomingstuff and Fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four: for their thoughts? Kowal2701 (talk) 21:33, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Added myself, feel free to try it out! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:35, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Admins willing to patrol AINB: chance would be a fine thing, a fine thing indeed Kowal2701 (talk) 21:44, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It works, neat! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 05:30, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather make ANI reports if only for visibility. It's beneficial to have constant and very public displays showing that this LLM issue isn't getting better on it's own, it'll continue to shift editor sentiment and make it easier to address the problem. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 02:42, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We can still do that, no problem. And some cases have to go to ANI no matter what. It will be good to have another option though. Some of us are getting ANI fatigue, and sometimes (such as with Hmlarson, which still needs action on perms) it's best to do it in a lower visibility place anyways. NicheSports (talk) 05:12, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Made an announcement at WT:AIC, so we can continue the discussion elsewhere than on a user talk page. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 05:30, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Starting RfD

Hello Kowal,

I closed the merge request on Holocaust survivor Palestine advocacy despite merge consensus in order to allow for an RfD as you requested. Do you plan to initiate it or should I?

Best, NorthernWinds (talk) 09:19, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, we’re still discussing on the talk page, it looks like we’re going to go with a scope change (ie. an WP:RM) instead Kowal2701 (talk) 12:09, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good NorthernWinds (talk) 13:11, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Monomotapa

Yeah you can't remove those images they've been here since 2023 more then a year you can't remove them just because you've arbitrarily decided that they aren't important.

On Wikipedia:Image use policy

You need to acctually say what part of the policy they violate instead of just claiming it . Yepitsthatguyagain (talk) 22:03, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for discussing. WP:IMGCONTENT says The purpose of an image is to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter, usually by directly depicting people, things, activities, and concepts described in the article. The relevant aspect of the image should be clear and central.

File:1455808337AnewandaccuratemapofthesouthernpartsofAfricaREDUCED.jpg is probably the only one I'd keep in the article, but only in the body near content on the 18th century rather than the infobox because the map is very inaccurate
File:Caffers of Congo and Monomotapa.jpg, drawing by some random bloke from 1697, doesn't serve any educational purpose, and probably racist, also see Kaffir (racial term)
File:Martyrdom by strangulation of Jesuit Father Gonçalo da Silveira in Monomotapa 1561.png, 17th-century painting on Silveira's murder, it's relevant but more suitable for Gonçalo da Silveira and Portuguese Empire rather than Mutapa since it presents the Portuguese POV
File:Stefano della Bella - Monomotapa.jpg, again what purpose does this serve? Images aren't just for decoration

Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 22:37, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

see : Africa being a accurate description of the region :https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/A05331.0001.001/1:8.5?rgn=div2;view=fulltext

They give the reader a general idea of what Monomotapa looked like their are very very few sources and images on this empire so any imagery on it is welcomed

Another thing these images are so rare on the web that alot of them can now only be viewed on wikipedia, and being the only visualization for a long gone empire it is incredibly important that they stay Yepitsthatguyagain (talk) 23:14, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

See pg 24, Mutapa covered an area smaller than modern-day Zimbabwe (Mudenge has it including Butua which recent scholars don't). I don't think they give the reader any idea of what Mutapa was like. We have plenty of articles pre-photography which do fine without lots of images. All these images are on Commons, so when someone searches Google Images for any of the words in their Commons entry they come up. It isn't necessary to put them in an article. Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 00:10, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That is a revision made in 1988 which aims to discredit the legitimacy of monomotapa as nothing more then a tribal kingdom

I have already provided my sources you choosing to be coy does not invalidate that

You neither have the authourity nor liberty to make those decision on the behalf of everyone before you " I don't think " is not a valid reason for raiding a page . Yepitsthatguyagain (talk) 01:10, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What? It’s by a professional historian from Zimbabwe, it was the first and is the only comprehensive scholarly work about Mutapa. He thought the state was hundreds of thousands of km2. David Beach (historian) thought it was smaller. "I don’t think" is a perfectly good reason, you don’t own that page. Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 01:23, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Some of them appear on Portuguese-Mutapa conflicts which is also a more appropriate place for them Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 00:25, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Would appreciate your advice

Hi, just wondering if you think it makes sense for me to appeal my topic ban given that you indicated in a prior discussion that I should not be site banned. It has been 6 months. Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 01:00, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Allthemilescombined1, first off, well done for asking someone first. I think it'd be a bad idea since you had a couple blocks for violating the tban, the last being 27 November, that would probably be enough for admins to vote against. I'm not one, but I think admins are partly looking for self-discipline in following rules, and good behaviour in other topics while tbanned. I wouldn't recommend appealing until 6 months after the last tban vio, so around April 2026 (and in your appeal acknowledge and apologise for the tban vios, while also acknowledging the issues that led to the tban). Good luck Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 01:11, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 01:16, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red. February 2026: Black women

Hello, nice to meet you! I'm a participant in Candidates and I read your comment that you consider yourself a pan-Africanist, so I gathered that your activity on Wikipedia focuses on Africa. I think that's excellent and necessary. I'm member of the Women in Red project, which works to reduce the gender gap between biographies of men and women on Wikipedia. Every February, the initiative focuses on black women, so I devote my limited time to creating biographies of African women, who are underrepresented compared to African American and European women. I invite you, if you are interested, to collaborate in this month's initiative and in the Women in Red project. I'm sure that your contributions will enrich Wikipedia. Thank you and best regards _-_Alsor (talk) 21:45, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alsor97! You appear to have confused me with the commenter above mine (Coffeeandcrumbs). Sorry but I'm caught up in other stuff atm (trying to rewrite Africa#History), but I've collected some red links for African women if you're interested? Masindi Mphephu is a claimant for the current Venda kingship dispute [2], Mwenya Mukulu was a 17th-century Zambian diplomat/leader [3], and Ravelonjanahary was a 19th/20th century Malagasy religious leader of a Christian revival movement Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 22:22, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Kowal2701 ups sorry, my bad! I'll make a note of the subjects you suggest, if I have time to work on them, thanks! _-_Alsor (talk) 22:34, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Editor experience invitation

Hi Kowal2701. I've been trying to interview experienced editors about their experiences here. Feel free to pass if you're not interested. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 06:11, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I think I’m gonna pass. Interesting read Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 13:11, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for your efforts

		The Original Barnstar
		For your efforts in writing Wikipedia:Colonial sources and Africa. Awarded by Cdjp1 (talk) 21:05, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Cdjp1, ngl you're one of my favourite editors Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 21:32, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Talk:Illegal immigration § Requested move 25 February 2026

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Illegal immigration § Requested move 25 February 2026. Edittttor (talk) 20:36, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Persnickety note

Thanks for your contributions at ANI, I thought you might want to know: your comment here links to this message,[4] when I think what you're referring to is this previous message.[5]. Samuelshraga (talk) 21:37, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, fixed Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 21:40, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Flag of Darfur

I saw you reverted someone adding File:Flag of Darfur.svg to a page, very good. I am someone who has never really used Wikimedia Commons so I come to you with the hopes that you know how one might see to renaming that file as it clearly has the wrong name and is routinely added to inappropriate spots because of it. DervotNum4 (talk) 16:16, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I made a rename request at commons and changed the caption, haven't done this before but hopefully that sorts it Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 16:25, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Venda Kingdom

On 1 March 2026, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Venda Kingdom, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the association of Venda kings with mountains and subordinate rulers with pools affected the layout of a settlement? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Venda Kingdom. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Venda Kingdom), 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) 12:03, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support for Admin in closing RfC on Inclusion of Contents Ethnic Group Section (North Africa talk section)

RfC Closure - Inclusion of Content Ethnic Groups Section

@Kowal2701 I need your support for closing an RfC North Africa with administrator support.

On the talk page, there have been a series of RfC to review proposed content modifications and proposed set of images.

I have opened my RfC for 4 weeks now since it was opened on 5th February. There seems to be strong support for the proposed content amendment with scope for adjustments in light of a vocal minority.

Nonetheless, the last vote made was two weeks ago on 12 February and I think the RfC has reached a natural close. However, I cannot close the RfC as the proponent and need an administrator to close the RfC and formalise the consensus position.

Could you support in finding an admin to close the RfC ? I'm looking to de-active my account permanently after these final round of RfCs so it will be appreciated if we could resolve this decisively.

Please find the RfC here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:North_Africa#Proposed_content_addition WikiUser4020 (talk) 17:05, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

WikiUser4020, you can list it at Wikipedia:Closure requests Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 07:07, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Kowal2701 Thanks for the fast response and accessible link. WikiUser4020 (talk) 07:47, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

If you want to we can have a conversation about stuff where we both make an effort to be polite and constructive. But no more personal attacks (and I would appreciate it if you would apologize and retract them, now or after the conversation). Interested? If not just revert me. Polygnotus (talk) 20:41, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, thanks. I hope the following doesn't come off as rude, I'm trying to be direct. It's not so much that you were trolling me and voorts (though that's frustrating, and I'm sorry for venting), it's more the possibility that you could do it to someone already at the end of their tether, like you've got no idea what's going on in people's lives. Ik you just wanna have fun and I get life often doesn't deserve to be taken seriously/some people's reaction to serious situations is to see the absurdity, but there are other ways than purposely pissing people off for your own amusement. Like, it would've been disruptive in a regular discussion, let alone in a heated ANI thread with some of the site's most powerful users. It's important these guys get on, and imo it sped past the line for tongue in cheek. Re the script, ik you wrote the code, it's your choice and vision, but multiple people had raised legitimate concerns, even if you can't take them seriously at least pretend to and defer to them a bit. What worries me is that after the AE thread, your messages after receiving the warning made it seem like you didn't really understand what you did wrong? Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 21:12, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am pretty weird (ask my wife) and English is not my native language. I also come from a different background than most people on enwiki (not just geographically or linguistically). So if someone doesn't believe that I mean what I say, and say what I mean, then it is near impossible for them to accurately guesstimate my real motivation/reasoning. That is not just a problem with weird people, but with communication via text in general. You can't see my face or hear my voice, so there is no intonation or facial expressions you can use to interpret my words correctly, so its pretty damn difficult. And of course there are quite a few people on Wikipedia that are on some kinda spectrum; while I am not many of the best Wikipedians are.

I'm trying to be direct. Please continue to be direct. I will do the same.

I did the user interaction analyser thingie and it looks like I missed a message you posted. It was probably on a todolist and then I forgot about it. And after reading this I kinda lost sympathy for you (hope you can imagine that).

As you can see over at User_talk:GreenLipstickLesbian/Archive_6#Template I had a pretty long conversation in which I talked about various ways to deal with the fact that templates are giant and ugly. I proposed quite a few things to reduce the problem. Quote: If you want to put the message in the most relevant place it would be below the References section header. But again, some people decided that this is the way it should be, and we haven't figured out a new system since then. and You guys got me defending the status quo as if I like it. In reality that template was created before I was born, and article message amboxes styling was decided without me.

From my POV it is pretty bad that if you post some obvious truisms that people just insult you because they assume you are sticking up for someone they disagree with. And kinda ironic in the context of people mentioning toxicity on Wikipedia. What you describe as a heated ANI thread with some of the site's most powerful users feels like a boring and pointless squabble between people who should know better to me.

I looked at some of your contributions, and you appear to be a goodfaith user. And my entire point was that people should be allowed to make mistakes and have bad days.

Please look at MOS:ORDER. Some people, I am not really sure who or why, decided that maintenance templates are supposed to be at that location in the article. Looking at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2026_March_1#Template:Duplicated_citations I see a small consensus that we can make an exception for this template (and put it below the References header).

So if you edit MOS:ORDER to say that this particular template should be below the References header, and you mention that discussion in the editsummary, then I can change the script and then we hope no one reverts you. Am I making sense? Polygnotus (talk) 21:39, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and perhaps you should know that someone else shouted at me that the template MUST be at the top of the article and that I was an idiot for not following MOS:ORDER. So its one of those catch 22 damned if you do-type situations we all love so much. Polygnotus (talk) 22:06, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

To see things in perspective I made User:Polygnotus/data/TemplateTransclusions. I had a quick look and it looks to me that there are quite a few templates that could be placed under the References section header (many of which have far more transclusions than the measly 195 {{Duplicated citations}} has), for example: {{Full citations needed}}, {{Ibid}}, {{Page numbers improve}}, {{Page numbers needed}}. So if you want to you could take a look at the 352 other templates in Category:Article_message_templates that could also be moved to below the References section header. Polygnotus (talk) 01:01, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

you appear to be a goodfaith user, thanks lol. I know I got too hot-headed/BATTLEGROUND over pretty lame minutiae, but I felt how you dealt with mine and Bogazicili's concerns in the pump thread was disrespectful (obv that's relative to culture), and it didn't leave any constructive avenue to solve things. I think we're going to have to wait for that TfD discussion to be closed before citing it, though it's probably better to have a general discussion at VPI about such templates. I agree there's a strong argument for moving lots of others that aren't about content quality to the References section, though I'm probably not going to pursue this given how it's gone so far, and I know feck all about templates Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 13:50, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Fun facts about FAs....

(sorry, this felt waaay too off topic for the AN/I thread)

While perfection may be the goal, FAs are just articles - you can even send them to AfD! It sort of scares the closers a bit -- see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hurricane Hector (2018) (2nd nomination) -- but it's very much possible. If you're ever bored, you can see Wikipedia:Former featured articles#Meteorology and Wikipedia:Former featured articles#Sport and recreation for some interesting afd nominations/merges and subsequent delists. Alternatively, if you want to go outside the enWiki ecosystem, then I'd had to recommend you read about the Zhemao hoaxes. GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🧸 01:15, 19 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

lol, that’s bizarre. Thanks for the links Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 01:29, 19 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration Case opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Maghreb. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Maghreb/Evidence. Evidence of misconduct by parties but outside of Maghreb-related articles is welcome. All private evidence must be directed to arbcom-en-b@wikimedia.org. If you wish to add another party, please make a request on the case talk page within the first week of the case. Please add your evidence by April 7, 2026 at 23:59 UTC, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Maghreb/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Party Guide/Introduction. For the Arbitration Committee, Sennecaster (Chat) 02:24, 24 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I left a Thank You on the Talk page of Chaotic Enby for their work on WP:NEWLLM and they also said that you helped them write the guidelines so wanted to thank you too. Thank you! Jessamyn (my talk page) 03:35, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If anything, Kowal played a bigger role than me in writing the guideline (and setting up the pre-RfC discussion), while I mostly took the lead when submitting the RfC itself! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 13:49, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Naw, it was a group effort, had input from like 10 people Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 13:57, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Autopatrolled granted

Hi Kowal2701, 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.

Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! Sohom (talk) 16:18, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes!

A thanks felt a little too impersonal, but, re:[7] -- yep, I think this a good way of putting it. Thank you sooo much!! GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🧸 09:05, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

lol, thanks Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 09:17, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of proposed decision

Hi Kowal2701, in the open Maghreb arbitration case, which you have commented on, a proposed decision has been posted. You can review the proposed decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the proposed decision, see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Party Guide/Proposed decision. For the Arbitration Committee, EggRoll97 ^(talk) 04:39, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Maghreb PD discussion

Re [8], I think that's going a bit far from a response to the PD at this point and your initial idea about raising that elsewhere is probably better. -- asilvering (talk) 23:46, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, but I’ll probs just leave it, too much drama Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 23:57, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Provided no one else escalates, I’ll do a courtesy ping when the discussion's died and hopefully they self-correct for future Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 00:00, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Closing the AINB thread

Why was the thread closed? The discussion was not actually over. Several things were not addressed. Gnomingstuff (talk) 14:19, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Which things? It’s just people bickering, I’d say if there’s something needs ironing out, take it to user talk, nothing remotely constructive will come from that thread Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 14:28, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Gnomingstuff, practically everyone (at least hundreds of people), highly values the work you personally do (though ik it isn’t made clear often enough), please don’t focus on the one or two people who don’t know what they’re talking about and may have just had a bad day Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 18:08, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]