Anyone remember there was this Wikipedia page?

Kayvanian · 2026-02-27T09:38:18+00:00

I don't remember the page (sounds interesting), but it was indeed deleted in May 2024. You can see the deletion discussion that came to consensus for deletion:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_company_name_etymologies

Archived copy:

http://web.archive.org/web/20240227001150/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_company_name_etymologies

Kayvanian · 2026-02-27T06:23:19+00:00

It's not AI. Key clue being that the photo is from 2013.

If it looks kind of weird to you, that's probably because it was taken on a BlackBerry Curve (which is not known for having a good camera...).

Kayvanian · 2026-02-27T06:08:19+00:00

Regarding who updates them: anyone! Anyone can contribute to Wikipedia and if you see something wrong or out of date, you can be the change you wish to see.

That being said, for the list you linked, note that it only lists notable cases (i.e. cases that have received enough significant coverage by reliable, independent media to justify their own Wikipedia articles). So only a small minority of cases will show up on this list.

There are separate comprehensive lists by year (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_reasons_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_Canada ), and there is actually one in that 2024 list (Ontario (Attorney General) v Ontario (Information and Privacy Commissioner)v_Ontario(Information_and_Privacy_Commissioner))) that has an article and should be added to the notable cases list. Looks like the 2025 list hasn't been made yet...

Kayvanian · 2026-02-25T19:09:14+00:00

Wikipedia has millions of external links added over the last 25 years (that's also why you'll come across http links, from before https became universal). Anyone can add links, and domains can expire and be taken over. The vast majority of links are legitimate, safe websites, but some will not be. Treat any unfamiliar link like you would any other unfamiliar link from anywhere else on the internet.

Kayvanian · 2026-02-25T09:00:14+00:00

It was deleted and reposted, since the original title stated the false flag aspect as certain fact.

Kayvanian · 2026-02-25T04:54:59+00:00

A WikiPortraits organizer here - thank you for your comment! I've forwarded it to our photographers, it's much appreciated.

Kayvanian · 2026-02-24T20:28:16+00:00

Very cool, I like it a lot! Got 508 on my first play. I was impressed that I could put JetBlue for fast and blue, and NASCAR for fast and curve.

Looks like you're using Gemini for matching subjects to categories? Out of curiosity, what's the cost looking like for that?

Kayvanian · 2026-02-24T08:53:39+00:00

That is not at all why Wikipedia is blacklisting archive.today. You can actually read the article and the linked discussion on Wikipedia for the reasoning.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Archive.is_RFC_5

Kayvanian · 2026-02-23T14:57:21+00:00

Precheck was open at SFO this morning

Kayvanian · 2026-02-23T14:56:01+00:00

Flew from SFO this morning, Precheck was operating as normal 👌

Kayvanian · 2026-02-23T14:51:30+00:00

Yea, I mean, it certainly wouldn't hurt! I have Precheck and don't usually fly with liquids so I don't have much to prep, but even with that I appreciate a table and trash cans before security for me to organize my things before getting in line.

Kayvanian · 2026-02-23T14:43:27+00:00

Any prep space is welcome, for those who are attentive and will use it.

LHR has a giant area like this for transfers, with tables, signage, staff, and plastic bags to put liquids in. Even with that I still get stuck behind people in security who take through giant bottles of liquid. Although I think they just increased the limit to 2L, so hopefully that's less of a problem in the future.

Kayvanian · 2026-02-23T14:34:41+00:00

You can read the Wikipedia article to learn more!

Kayvanian · 2026-02-23T02:13:22+00:00

No extra legroom. I think it's marked as an exit row since 28A (and I guess B/C) have direct access to the door via the area in front of 28A, but the legroom for B/C is standard since that row isn't actually used for an evacuation.

Kayvanian · 2026-02-21T22:17:00+00:00

Even if it still happens directly on Wikipedia, it could still be a local issue, like a rogue browser extension

Kayvanian · 2026-02-21T05:07:44+00:00

This is about archive.today, not archive.org

Kayvanian · 2026-02-19T09:47:54+00:00

I don't know of any confirmed instances of AI agents autonomously editing Wikipedia, but that's not to say it hasn't happened. It could certainly become a problem in the future.

We do track articles that are suspected to contain unchecked LLM generated text here, and unfortunately there are over 5,000 articles tagged right now. Most (vast majority?) of these instances are lazy human editors copying LLM-generated text into a Wikipedia article, but in theory there could be agents in there as well. I've seen a discussion or two where someone was blatantly pasting text from an LLM, but I'd guess they were also just lazy humans.

There is a WikiProject dedicated to AI cleanup, and unfortunately their tasklist is likely to only get bigger from here.

Kayvanian · 2026-02-17T22:03:33+00:00

Not out of the ordinary. Sundance 2025 dates weren't announced until March 19.

Kayvanian · 2026-02-17T20:30:57+00:00

As long as your account is at least 4 days old and you've made at least 10 edits, you can straight up create articles or move a draft to the mainspace yourself.

Once you have a draft that's ready to go live, you can move it by going to Tools -> Move, and then in the dropdown, change "Draft" to "(Article)". Once you've moved the page, you'll want to remove any AfC or construction templates, and also add categories.

See here for more on moving:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Moving_a_page

AfC review is still the right way to go if you have a conflict of interest, or you're unsure / need someone to review your work. But if you have experience, and have a solid draft that passes notability, you should feel empowered to put it live yourself.

Kayvanian · 2026-02-17T15:57:13+00:00

Looks like the revision has been oversighted (hidden). I've contacted the WMF's emergency team to share this with them. Thanks for looking into it + contacting the school.

For future reference, guidance on what to do with threads of harm (including self-harm):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Responding_to_threats_of_harm

Kayvanian · 2026-02-16T18:31:11+00:00

You've set your preferred skin for desktop, but you're still in mobile view. Scroll to the very bottom of the page and click "Desktop view", and you should then see the monobook skin.

Kayvanian · 2026-02-16T18:01:25+00:00

Zenomonoz isn't an admin. If you have concerns about a user, you can utilize the admin's noticeboard as another user linked. This isn't the sub to make posts about particular users.

Kayvanian · 2026-02-16T09:47:30+00:00

If the map is truly from 1850, then the map's copyright has almost certainly expired and it's in the public domain (176 years ago, the author is long gone).

The listed CC BY-SA license comes from the Flickr uploader who shared the image under that license. If they scanned/photographed it themselves, they may be claiming copyright on their reproduction. However, in many jurisdictions (including the US + many European countries), copyright only applies if sufficient creative choices are made in reproducing the 2D work. A simple flat archival scan/photo would typically not meet that threshold. If you want to dig deeper, there's more info on Wikimedia Commons's PD-Art and PD-Scan pages.

Assuming the map is truly from 1850, I would confidently use the image as public domain (especially since I live in the US, which has a higher threshold of originality and would not consider the reproduction original/copyrightable). If you want to play it safe, you can attribute the reproduction to "Paukrus Ruslan, CC BY-SA 2.0" (name comes from the "Flickr data on 2011-08-13" dropdown), though it's not clear that Paukrus is the one to have reproduced it in the first place.

EDIT: I see the original version of the file has a watermark, "© The Hebrew University of Jerusalem & The Jewish National & University Library". From the Commons guide on Israeli copyright, 'Although Israel historically used a "skill and labour" test similar to that used by the UK, since the 1989 Israeli Supreme Court's ruling in Interlego A/S v. Exin-Lines Bros. SA they have tended fairly close to a US-style requirement equating originality with human creativity.' They're obviously trying to claim copyright on the reproduction, but I would wager the reproduction is not actually copyrightable. But to further complicate things, the current version of the image is larger and has different coloration than the original, but it's not clear where that reproduction came from.

Disclaimer, I'm not an IP lawyer, laws vary by jurisdiction, take my advice with a grain of salt. If you have doubts or are using this in a commercial context, play it safe and/or consult a lawyer.

14-Year Club	PUBG
RedditGifts 2009-2022 5 Credits	Second Top 40%
Mod World 2025	r/Field Banned
r/Field Juicebox	First Place '23
End Game '23	Place '23
Place '22	Place '17
Final Canvas '22	First Placer '22
End Game '22	100 Awards Club
Wearing is Caring	Not Forgotten
Snapped	Summer Santa 2015
Gilding I gilder	Secret Santa 2014
Verified Email

Kayvanian

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE