This is a content farm/copy of a copy (rule c)1), but I won't remove this due to the immense momentum this post has. Additionally, the linked ScienceDirect paper appears unrelated.

Instead, I'd recommend one of the following high-quality sources:

https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/3351111/china-unveils-ultra-cheap-all-iron-battery-renewable-energy-storage (paywalled!)

https://advanced.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/aenm.202506734 (paywalled but has abstract, and your local library may have access) —thanks [email protected]!

sounds like we should get off telegram! (or at least the official client?)

WebP is a pretty awesome format with awesome compression, both lossless and lossy. It's only behind JXL which is not widely adopted.

Where is the headline substantiated? Where does the article say that Wales removed the relevant article content? He has not. Check for yourselves: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gaza_genocide&action=history&offset=&limit=500 It saddens me that news outlets are making false headlines like this. All he did was what the article mentioned about talking on the talk page.

A handful of outlets I thought reliable (from Al Jazeera to Jerusalem Post, both sides of the spectrum) also at least initially said that Wales blocked non-admins from editing the article. What is this nonsense? Wales has no extra permissions besides what anyone with 500 edits has. The "Founder" user right is purely decorative.

@[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] Is there something I'm missing here?

I would’ve removed this post if I saw it earlier. It’s an interesting article (that surprisingly hasn’t been posted anywhere else yet) but it documents another problem in our society, not any sort of progress or resolution. I would remove, say, “The fight to release the double-tap boat strike video” even if we didn’t have the toxic politics rule.

pinging some of the other mods for their thoughts: @[email protected], @[email protected], @[email protected]

This is a bit bordering against the rules on schadenfreude, so I hope the comments here can focus on trans, nonbinary, intersex etc. passport changes being allowed instead of the Trump administration being blocked.

This is an opinion article written by an author of the subject covered by the news article https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2026/jun/04/world-inequality-lab-equality-academics-planetary-survival .

you know what?

you've just darn saved this post from removal, my friend.

I don't think we should ban until IamNobuddy shows a pattern of continuing to post things from utubepublisher.in. They's seemingly-habitually posted these links for a very, very, very long time and their posts two weeks ago here were the reason I issued the utubepublisher.in clarification. But I think after this warning we should remove the user's utubepublisher.in posts on sight.

i'm not going to remove this since while this might be a bad post because of the OrphanCrushingMachine aspect, it still fits with the sidebar and arguably generates the emotions the community is looking for. though if you feel like a vote on whether to forbid such posts with this post (or another one) being the bar, feel free to say so and we'll set it up.

I am once once again asking for your bars—what should be the bar/criteria for removal?

I think we should ask for and respect the decision of the community instead of imposing our own judgements. And of course, we still remove personal attacks (not that your admittedly negative-ish comment counted as one /gen).

What would be your criteria for removing a comment?

The Conservative government response to a 2016–17 parliamentary petition demanding proportional representation said that "A referendum on changing the voting system was held in 2011 and the public voted overwhelmingly in favour of keeping the FPTP system."[209] Tim Ivorson of the electoral reform campaign group Make Votes Matter responded by quoting the petition's text that "The UK has never had a say on PR. As David Cameron himself said, the AV referendum was on a system that is often less proportional than FPTP, so the rejection of AV could not possibly be a rejection of PR."[210]

Could you give some examples?

This might break rule b) and I don't find it uplifting (a bit orphancrushingmachine when you think about it, even) but I don't think there's much use in deleting this at this point.

one moderator of ![email protected] here! is it fine if i make a post (and maybe even edit into the itemized-rules post) directing schadenfreuders to your commag?

i think a lot of news from months ago has quite a bit of relevance to the current day, and i haven't seen much posts about things that happened years ago. for the latter case i think it really depends on community sentiment reflected on the comments of said posts.

I think the uplifting part of this is supposed to be that more people are going for more non-perishable foods that'd last longer and give families more means to survive than measly plastic-wrapped bars. It's... a stretch, but I don't think we should remove it. Feel free to downvote the post if you don't think it's a good fit for our commag.

okay this was something I worried about. I made sure to format the list with markdown syntax that would generate HTML for accessibility but it looks like it's just made things more inaccessible. I'll see if changing to headings make it better.

Your submission in "Horror moment superyacht bursts into flames off Ibiza coast before sinking" was removed as schadenfreude. Note that this is your second time breaking the rule in three days.

added a reference to ![email protected] .