User talk:Nick Moyes

• Show all user sub-pages

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29

This page has archives. Sections older than 291.5 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 50 sections are present.

Hi Hi mentor !!! You are in Mentor prog.

So you can be mine if you want to :) MumQuin (talk) 22:51, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MumQuin It's more the case that you're welcome to just drop by with any question about how to edit. I'll help you if I can. If I'm not around, you're also welcome to seek help at the Teahouse if you need it. Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:11, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thx. :) I will. :) MumQuin (talk) 14:27, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is this normal here people just delet comments you did in a dabate and tell you they "BELIVE" it was not constructiv? See on my talk page. Very friendly behavior here :) MumQuin (talk) 00:27, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there @MumQuin. I assume you mean this edit you made to the Vector 2022 discussion. I do know that page has attracted a huge amount of heated debate - sometimes from very new users who've just come to complain, so it's important to have contributions that take the discussions forward. I don't think yours was especially helpful (more hot air and annoyance than helpful comments). BUT (and it's a very big 'but'): I believe you made it in good faith because of your views, and that I don't think you deserved one of our low level templated notices left by one of my fellow administrators. It's very easy to be irritated by these impersonal templated messages, but please appreciate that it's a huge task ensuring that this encyclopaedia is kept running smoothly and sometimes we make mistakes. I know I do - even after 11+ years here. So, my advice is to try to see it from the other person's viewpoint, whilst considering how useful any particular comment is to take forward any debate. I might probably also have removed it with an edit summary saying 'not really very helpful', but wouldn't have left a message on your talk page. However, it could be argued that explaining to you (via a templated message) what I had done, it would at least have communicated clearly what my actions were and why. You might otherwise have wondered what happened to your edit. So, it's a balance thing.

I don't mean to be rude, but I suspect that English may not be your first language, and so it can be hard for people like me to see past the unintended blunt words to the intended contribution behind them (I know when I go to German speaking countries I must sound terribly rude at times because I only have a tiny vocabulary and limited knowledge of how to say things correctly. I certainly can't write in German.)

I hope this explains things. Bottom line: don't take this issue to heart. Wikipedia can seem like a harsh environment for new editors. My view is that new users are best advised to stay away from contentious areas like using WP:AFD and WP:PROD until they have more experience of creating content. Nick Moyes (talk) 12:34, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

	The Citation Barnstar
	Thanks for fixing the citations in my draft! QuickQuokka [⁠talk • contribs] 13:35, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi , good day, how to create hyperlink on Sandbox and how to save what I have written on my first time creating a page? --Shashi Dharan TP (talk) 04:02, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Shashi Dharan TP, and a warm welcome to Wikipedia. I have just placed a welcome message on your talk page with a very useful link to get you to learn about editing.

Every edit you make is visible on the internet - whether it's on your userpage, your sandbox, or in an article. So the blue 'Publish' button is really just a 'Save' button. Click that, and whatever you've written will be saved on that page.

We have two types of hyperlink on pages. One is called a 'wikilink' and that is simply a link to another Wikipedia page. You can either click the 'chain' icon in the editing tool to add a wikilink, or you can place two square brackets around the correctly spelled word. Both do the same thing - just like this link to the article about the Earth.

The other way to use a link is to use it within a citation to a reliable source. When you click the 'Cite' button in the editing tool, you will see a box into which you can add that hyperlink to a non-Wikipedia page. The little magnifying glass next to it allows you to try to get the software to auto-fill the rest of the reference for you, based upon that link. But it doesn't always work perfectly, although it helpfully cuts down on the amount you have to manually add to make a really good reference (citation).

It is a bad idea to try to create a completely new article when you've only just arrived here - we have many rules and guidelines that must be followed. Our advice is always to start small, and gradually learn the basics. When I train people, I first get them to edit their userpage, saying just a little about themselves and their interests in wanting to edit Wikipedia. (Don't reveal personal details as anyone can see it, and it's not necessary).

I then get them to fix errors or add small, verifiable bits of information to an existing article and to support their edits with a WP:CITATION to a Reliable Source. For a new article about something, you would need to read and understand our Notability Criteria, and then find three or more independent sources that talk about that topic in some detail. You can get more advice on that by carefully reading this advice page. Good luck! Nick Moyes (talk) 09:27, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions § AutoWikiBrowser. After our lovely discussion at WT:AWB, I went to check your account and noticed you're an administrator. I still want AutoWikiBrowser rights to make redirects, so can you please review my request to see if I can get these rights? QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 22:32, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@QuickQuokka I'm afraid I'm going to stand aside for that request for two reasons. Firstly, I don't feel I'm experienced enough in AWB to say 'OK' and let you loose on it and, secondly, I worry that you're making a whole load of unnecessary redirects based on minor variant spellings. I'm not convinced this is appropriate or necessary (multiple redirects to Spank and some spiderverse page seems like trivial examples for me to cite), so your use of the incredibly powerful AWB could potentially be an issue. That's not to say I don't trust you or your motives- more that I don't trust myself to give you that right and to justify doing so. I'd prefer a more experienced admin to decide. Sorry. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:23, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick Moyes: Hey now! I don't just make redirects about spankings and Spider-Man! I also made Cum gutter!

But in all seriousness, I understand and respect your decision to not give me the rights. --QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 23:33, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

	The Civility Barnstar
	For your help at the aforementioned WT:AWB QuickQuokka [⁠talk • contribs] 22:33, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I think your call not to block is totally inside admin discretion, offensive usernames in particular are a very grey area. I created {{UAA-no edits}} as an educational tool for responding to these premature reports. My personal thought process on these things is also memorialized at User:Beeblebrox/rough guide to username blocks. Maybe it is time for broader discussion of how we handle the really nasty stuff? Beeblebrox (talk) 23:53, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I'll take a look at what you wrote later. I often ask myself whether, by blocking a no edit offensive username, I'm encouraging editors to report unecessarily. So when I don't, rather than simply add the 'wait' until they edit notice which the reporter probably won't see, I try to ping the reporter so they get alerted to my decline and appreciate the reasons wI/e make our decisions. (I'd be happy to block every offensive username if the guidelines encouraged that. Last time I read them I felt they didn't)

.

BUT...I do think it's time for that broader discussion. I really do think that now that Wikipedia has come of age, we/WMF should permanently delete from view all those blocked usernames which don't have any edits to their name, yet are of a deeply sexual or offensive nature. Leaving them on show for all the world to see serves no purpose other than to meet the perverse aims of those who created them in the first place, and it brings us into disrepute, I feel. It would only take one article in a popular tech journal of major newspaper to really show how easily we allow offensive terms to proliferate in view of anyone who went looking for them. (In the early days of the 'Reply' button they were showing up in the username look-ups, but I've not seen that lately) Should there ever be a broader discussion on this topic, count me in, or feel free to quote what I've just said. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:12, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You really think it's COI? I have AGF so far, and it sure looks to me like nothing more than a dedicated fan. Is there anything I missed? 〜 Festucalex • talk 15:43, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Festucalex it might be - hence my question to give them a chance to answer - it's the images they've uploaded to Commons that concern me. Yes, it could be a fan. But the images could be that of someone connected to this person. The image used on page 14 here goes back to 2017, and this user has (let me AGF) taken it and supplied it to Connor (see here on Instagram), or has acquired the full version from another social media space and uploaded it to Commons. Asking the question about COI seemed the best thing to do under the circumstances. Certainly many other images are copyright and should not have been uploaded in the first place. Quite an impressive actor though, even if not yet notable! Nick Moyes (talk) 16:47, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I myself have tagged the image used in the draft for deletion over at Commons. I still think this editor found the images online and fundamentally misunderstood what the CC0 license is. A paid editor would have had permission to use the images, I think. 〜 Festucalex • talk 17:07, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nick,

I'm trying to update the performance section of the Ethereum page - it starts off kind of weird ("the problem arises" with no context) and is factually incorrect.

I wanted to add more context on the current state of Ethereum - the roadmap has moved away from the sharding concept mentioned in that section to something dubbed a "rollup-centric" roadmap. I cannot really figure out when exactly that happened, so I am basically unsure how to source it:

On Ethereum.org (https://ethereum.org/en/roadmap/#what-about-sharding), this is mentioned:

"Sharding is splitting up the Ethereum blockchain so that subsets of validators are only responsible for a fraction of the total data. [..] layer 2 rollups have developed much faster than expected and have provided a lot of scaling already, [..] This means "shard chains" are no longer needed and have been dropped from the roadmap."

Can I cite this as a source? How would I put it in a sentence? Most of the sentences are like "As of [year]", "In [year]", but there is no specific year. The best I could find is https://ethereum-magicians.org/t/a-rollup-centric-ethereum-roadmap/4698

Generally - are there good guides on here on how to cite different types of sources, e.g. undated ones?

Thanks Nick --Nordbjerg (talk) 12:37, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Nordbjerg. Gosh, I feel out of my depth in trying to understand what your question is about. Firstly, I'd say you should never use or cite discussion fora. They cannot be treated as Reliable Sources because they are user-generated (just like Wikipedia is, and we never cite ourselves here, either)

If it were important to find when a website first made some statement, you could go through the archived version on The Wayback Machine to find the earliest mention and cite that link. If you're uncertain whether a particular statement is a widely held view, or just one perspective from a wideer range of good sources, there might be a way of stating that one particluar website stated "XYX". The citation would include an access date to at least pin it down in time a little bit. e.g. According to Ethereum's own website, sharding is defined as meaning "xyz" [ref to Ethereum website].

Now this is too technical for me to comment on in detail, or to offer a form of words you could deploy, but it's often best not to charge in and change an article in a major way of you're not sure you've interpreted something correctly. Instead, it's often best to raise the issue on the article's talk page. Explain what your concerns are, what sources you're relying on and what you would like to change it to. Leave the thread open for a week and watch for any comments. We work by consensus (rather than assertiveness), so wait and see what comments you get back. If, however, either no response after 7 days, you could WP:BEBOLD and simply change it with a clear edit summary and await what happens next. If it's reverted, you could discuss with the reverting editor their reasons and your hopes on making improvements to the page.

I'm not really sure I've fully answered your questions, but let me know if it's helped or not. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 14:39, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nick, I'm presuming that you didn't mean to post a Teahouse welcome on Illusion Flame's user page, as opposed to their talk? I have reverted the edit. Thanks, Schminnte (talk • contribs) 21:12, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Schminnte Thanks. Dealt with. (It's been a long and tiring day of cleanup and very repetitive editing!) Nick Moyes (talk) 21:14, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Understandable. Thanks for all your help with newer editors (including me not that long ago it seems! I knew I recognised that username). All the best, Schminnte (talk • contribs) 21:16, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I was copyediting this article about Vanessa Peters, the musician, and the original author put two spaces after every period. I know some people prefer this, but should I copy this style as well? Thanks --Soccerpuppets (talk) 04:56, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Soccerpuppets. Great question! Double-spacing is a gradually diminishing habit, especially amongst North American editors. See MOS:DOUBLESPACE which explains that if anyone does type double spaces into an article, they render on the page as single spaced. Therefore, that tells me that single spacing is the correct approach to use.

BTW: I noticed in a recent edit you changed 'both sides of the Atlantic' to 'globally'. Whilst I take your point, I would suggest that "in North America and Europe" would have been much more appropriate in that situation, as it's probably not referring to including China, Russia, Asia, Africa and South America etc. But it all depends what the cited source says.

Another PS: your username might draw attention to yourself as it tends to suggest a cynical use of a new WP:SOCKPUPPET account to avoid a block. You might like to address that issue by saying something on your userpage about your rationale and motives for wanting to contribute to Wikipedia, and why you chose that name. Best wishes, Nick Moyes (talk) 10:47, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks for the answer for single-spacing and "globally" word choice. This is very helpful in my journey to learn how to edit wikipedia pages effectively. Also, I understand your point about my username. I watched a video about long-term abuse yesterday which inspired to start helping out on wikipedia, and I felt choosing a satirical username would remind me of why I started. I did not know about the user bio, I will update that as soon as possible. Thanks again. Soccerpuppets (talk) 17:24, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi please teach me how to begin editing because i am not able to find arti le with any grammatical mistake --Parthenon646546 (talk) 07:13, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there @Parthenon646546. Thanks for your question and welcome to Wikipedia. I will leave an automatic welcome message on your talk page which includes a very helpful link to help you learn how to edit. (We have two different editing tools you can switch between, if you find one is not to your taste)

If you have good English language skills, and want to improve the readability of articles here, you might wish to follow the guidance at WP:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors which focuses on improving the wording of articles.

In desktop view, you will see you have a Tab next to your user page and talk page, called 'Homepage'. That offers you tailored suggestions for editing to help get you started. These are always small edits which are perfect for learning. I see you're on a mobile, so look for the very small link at the bottom of every page. It lets you switch your phone from mobile editing mode to 'desktop' editing mode. (It's something I always do on my tiny iPhone screen. Mobile view is great for reading articles, but not so useful for making edits to improve a page.)

You might also like to visit WP:Task Center for ideas of the type of editing you might like to do. Let me know if this helps and how you are getting along. Learning to edit Wikipedia is a bit like learning to drive a car. Start slowly and move off gently until you've mastered the basic controls before you drive at high speed. Obviously, knowing where to go is important at whatever speed, so I hope my reply has been of some help to you. Good luck! Nick Moyes (talk) 11:03, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The removing of so-called coatracks has made the article unorganized...Work as a theater producer is now under Music Work. Please remove the edits if possible. Starlighsky (talk) 21:53, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Starlighsky The WP:COATRACK content was veering off-topic. I only removed one sentence and a supporting citation to Wikipedia, which is not acceptable. The rest of my edits were simply logical headings and sub-headings, and very wording minor tweaks. TBH: I doubt this person is notable by our standards, but keep working on it and digging out better sources of info on him. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:09, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you saying. However, it put theater work under the heading of music work. I can fix it as entertainment industry work, but it damaged the article when the so-called coatracks were removed.

All in all, I understand what you are saying and will keep working on it. Starlighsky (talk) 22:16, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw you fixed the issue, thanks Starlighsky (talk) 22:17, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @Starlighsky OK, thanks. I was trying to be helpful and supportive for you! Nick Moyes (talk) 22:18, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Starlighsky (talk) 23:35, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

hello how can i create an article --A C006 (talk) 15:29, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there @A C006:, what would be the subject of your article, and what published sources do you have to base it on, please? I can probably help you better if you give me some idea what it's about. But, fair warning, trying to create a brand new article from scratch is extremely difficult if you've never spent any time getting to understand the basics of Wikipedia editing. Making small edits on existing articles and learning to add citations to support new content is a very good way to learn.

I'll leave a welcome message on your talk page with links to learning to edit. Best wishes, Nick Moyes (talk) 20:34, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Nick! I would like to create/edit Wiki pages for Companies. I feel that a lot of information related to companies is a little dated. Is that ok to do?

Terrance --TerDevor (talk) 01:31, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, TerDevor. Creating articles about companies is a task fraught with many difficulties. First off: Wikipedia is not here to serve as free promotion for them. If you either work for, or are being paid to write about businesses, you have a Conflict of Interest. Paid editors are obliged by our policies to declare who is paying them, or they get blocked. See WP:PAID for advice on this.

We reject all articles which fail to meet our Notability Criteria for Businesses. This is the bar you have to get over in your sourcing thaqt demonstrates the notability of a company. You cannot rely on demonstrating notability by citing the business website itself, or press releases, or insider business magazines. The business must have been covered by at least three mainstream media reports, in detail and in depth, and not just by insider business newsletter or paid-for articles, or interviews with CEOs etc.

My advice would be to stick to other topics, and to learn the basics of editing first. i.e. work on improving existing articles and learning how to add citations to support unsubstantiated factual information presented in those articles. See WP:TUTORIAL and WP:YFA for further guidance. Good luck! Nick Moyes (talk) 10:03, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am a new host at Teahouse, I installed Scripts you provided. But when I click invite, that message come to me only. Help me to fix this issue. TruxtVerified (talk) 08:02, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@TruxtVerified It works for me. I've just gone to your talk page and successfully used the 'Invite' button to leave you a TH invite (You can obviously remove it now). I assume you didn't try to use it whilst you were on your own talk page? As I'm not a whizz with scripts, once you've investigated by removing and reinstalling it, and still find there's a problem, I suggest you post your query at WT:TH as there are some (like Sdkb) who are pretty good with scripts.

But feel free to test it by leaving me invites - I'll know what's going on and remove them later.

Please note: I'd not realised the teahouse badges were still in the 'active' section of that page, so I've just moved it down to the inactive section as these were used a lot in the very early days, but are no longer needed.

Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 10:14, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It works, Thank you for you attention. A good friendship starts here❤️TruxtVerified (talk) 11:21, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Nick Moyes, i am a new user on Wikipedia and I am editing Wikipedia for past approx 20-30 days and I have more than 300 edits , i want to know that when will I become a Extended confirmed user on wiki and what are the benifits of this. and I also want to design my user page like many other Wikipedians but I don't know how to do that ? WikiAnchor10 (talk) 14:03, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiAnchor10 Please read WP:XCON to appreciate the significance of Extended Confirmed rights. You will need an account that has been active for at least 30 days (today or tomorrow, probably) and have made 500 edits. So you've a little way to go on the second bit.

If you find a userpage you like, you could look at the source code they've used to create it and copy and modify it to suit your interests. (Don't just paste in another person's userpage - that might rouse curiosity,. but modify it to suit (and perhaps also credit the source in an edit summary))

Alternatively, take a look at Wikipedia:User page design guide for various ideas you could try out. I hope this addresses your queries. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 18:22, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks WikiAnchor10 (talk) 18:57, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The source text appears in full on Fridays(!)otherwise the para you removed would have been sufficient. This is a 100% copyvio I'm afraid! There is history on the creating editor's talk page. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:17, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It has since been deleted. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:36, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for updating me. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:21, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

hello --Apex101 (talk) 20:05, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am Unable To Create knowledge panel please Help me.. --Nabi Bux Zardari (talk) 08:25, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nabi Bux Zardari The true “knowledge panel” is found on Google Search results, and often incorporates Wikipedia information. We have no control over how Google uses our data. Here, we use Template:Infobox to create a INFOBOX in an article.

Please check those out for guidance. As I am away from home right now until Monday, please seek further help at the WP:TEAHOUSE. Nick Moyes (talk) 08:55, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nick,

How can I tell when creating an article, whether I have included sufficient secondary references to qualify my subject as having received significant coverage?

I have recently had an article declined for this exact reason, and although since then I have added more secondary references, I cannot tell whether it meets the threshold. Since I don't want to go through the whole rigmarole of being rejected and having to resubmit, I would greatly appreciate it if you could give me some assistance before the article is reviewed.

For reference, here is my draft article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Kate_Andrews --Bill Wilson AKA "CIA" (talk) 06:11, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bill Wilson AKA "CIA". I can't do much to help you with only those sources, I'm afraid. They're all just brief mentions of her, and none show an in-depth, independent article about her. As such, she fails to meet WP:NBIO. Your only course of action is to do further research, or wait until such sources are published. That is often the issue with news outlets and journalists - they're the ones who might make news stories available that you can use, but they rarely get written about in detail themselves. Sorry I can't assist you , though I have done some minor copy-editing of the draft and have marked where factual statements about a living person need to be supported with a citation. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 09:35, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response Nick,

If a could ask you a further question, my draft of the Kate Andrews article was modelled after this one on Katy Balls, yet I am not sure which sources in the Katy Balls article would qualify her as a notable person if my Kate Andrews one doesn't qualify. Is it just a case of an article being wrongly accepted? Bill Wilson AKA "CIA" (talk) 10:46, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bill Wilson AKA "CIA" It could well be. I'm not going through each of the refs in that article, but they all seem fairly short. See WP:NJOURNALIST for our notability criteria about creative professionals. Don't give up though, and keep working on it and looking for other sources. A year or so ago I created a page about journalist, Olga Rudenko from the Kyiv Independent, but by then then she had featured on the front cover of Time Magazine! Nick Moyes (talk) 13:36, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers! Thanks for your assistance, Nick Bill Wilson AKA "CIA" (talk) 14:24, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How to publish a biography on Wikipedia? --Alexandrachudinova (talk) 21:30, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Alexandrachudinova. Thank you for your question, and welcome to Wikipedia. I can see that you attempted to use Wikipedia to publish an article about yourself, and that it was (quite reasonably) deleted. (I happen to be an administrator here, so can view your deleted page)

Simple question: Are you notable (as defined by Wikipedia)? See this page for our notability criteria for living people, or WP:NARTIST for creative individuals.

If you can find three or more independent sources that talk about you in detail and in depth, then you may well meet our notability criteria for having an article about you. If not, just forget it. This encyclopaedia is not here for WP:PROMOTION. You would obviously have a Conflict of Interest in trying to write about yourself, and it's not always a good idea, anyway (see WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY).

Finally, I always advise any new editor to spend time learning how to make small edits to existing Wikipedia pages before ever trying to create a new article. It's like a brand new learner driver setting off at 100 km/hour and trying to avoid crashing. It's very difficult! Kind regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:03, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Nick Moyes,

My pleasure for your full answer.

I have a question. The process of submitting the articles can be much easier than right now.

Do you have an opportunity to submit a suggestion for Wikipedia?

Have a nice day.

Respectfully,

Alexandra Chudinova Alexandrachudinova (talk) 13:49, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexandrachudinova I am afraid I do not quite understand your question.

If you want to make suggestions for the way Wikipedia operates, these can be raised and discussed at 'the Village Pump'. There are different places for those discussions, depending on what your idea is. So read that page carefully.

If, however, you just want to submit a new article, the best route for you would be to start work on a 'Draft' article, then submit it for review and feedback when you are ready. Go to this page to find a 'wizard' to help you get started. But I should warn you that creating a new article from nothing is one of the hardest tasks here. It is often best to spend time first making smaller improvements to existing pages, and getting to understand how things work.

The most important thing for any new article is that it must meet our Notability Criteria, and be based upon Reliable Sources. If you can't find sources to show that a topic is notable, then we cannot have a page about it here.

I hope one of these replies addresses your question. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 15:07, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How can I post an advertisement --Jessica36363 (talk) 06:32, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jessica36363 You can't - we do not permit advertising here. See WP:NOTADVERT. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:26, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just tried to edit this page Facial recognition system, by adding a much needed section on AI based facial recognition. Since AI is kind of a new an evolving topic, many researchers opt to self publish their work on arXiv, create their own project pages, or share their works on self published blog posts. I understand that these may not qualify as reliable sources according to Wikipedia:Reliable sources, and I do understand that there sometimes is a fine line between self-promotion and supporting a contribution. Can you help me improve my contribution (the AI section for face recognition) [1] ? Thanks! Nuwiz (talk) 14:46, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Nuwiz, thanks for reaching out. Whilst I'm afraid I don't have the time to help improve your contributions, I can confirm that blogs and promotional links to company websites are never accepted here. I realise that AI/facial recognition is a cutting-edge, rapidly developing field. But we cannot accept such primary sources from a company website (it comes over as WP:PROMOTION). Instead, we need secondary sources which have reported independently on those developments. Wikipedia only collates and presents what others have reliably reported already. If that means waiting, then so be it.

On another note, I'm afraid I need to advise you that your account name breaches our policy (WP:USERNAMES) on two points. It appears to represent or promote a company website, and it could therefore also have multiple users accessing it. Please permanently abandon that account, forget its password, and create a new one which is neither promotional, nor suggestive of multiple users accessing it. It faces being blocked for those two reasons alone, I'm afraid.

Best wishes, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:12, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nick,
You said to drop you a note – unfortunately, this indeed appears to be a slow motion edit war. The two Rwandan IPs (41.186.194.39, 197.243.109.58) are likely the same person on different devices/connections, given previous overlap also at Menelik II and the tendency to paste the same prepared arguments in their edit summary. They might be trying to make some valid points, but the message keeps getting truncated, and attempts to direct them to the talk page failed.
Cheers, 2406:3003:2077:1E60:EDE9:C688:2C0C:D5F5 (talk) 05:52, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've blocked two IP addresses for slow burn edit warring and given low-level page protection to the article for 6 months. That'll impact on you as you're not editing from a registered account, even though I can see you've been active on this IP range since March 2021. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 10:26, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I am wanting to add a Rosenwald school to the " List of Rosenwald Schools". The school is listed in the article, but it is not listed on the table showing the schools. I want to add this beautiful restored school to that list. --Mrs.Stina (talk) 19:40, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia, Mrs.Stina, and thanks for your question.

The page entitled List of Rosenwald schools was not protected, so you are able to edit it yourself. (You did not need to make this request)

Alternatively, you could leave a clear explanation of what you want doing on the article's Talk page (it's called an EDITREQUEST).

If you have a photograph that you have personally taken (i.e. you own the copyright of it - rather than simply taking it off the internet - then you can upload it to Wikimedia Commons, and from there embed it into the List article.

I have left you a standard 'welcome' message on you talk page with links to help pages which will help teach you the basics of how to edit Wikipedia. I will keep a watch on List of Rosenwald schools, so if you get in a muddle trying to do it yourself, I might spot the edit and fix it for you if I can. If you make a real mess of an edit, you can go to the 'Page History' Tab and find your edit at the top of the list of every single edit to that page. Look along that top row and you'll see an 'Undo' link to revert any change that you did not intend to make.

I hope this helps. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 20:00, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am hoping to edit the "Soup" article, as the information in that article only mentions soups in North America, and there is also a missing page I would like to create, "Íslensk kjötsúpa", and I see that to edit the "Soup" article I have to have 4 edits at least. There is no question here, I just wanted to inform you of my intention on Wikipedia. Good day, and goodbye. --The Soup Person (talk) 21:49, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@The Soup Person OK, thanks for letting me know. Please ensure you use at least three reliable, non-promotional citations to support any new article. As creating a page from scratch is one of the hardest tasks here, I advise you to get a little editing practice on existing articles beforehand. You can create a draft article (and work on it until you're ready for it to be reviewed) with our wizard tool at this page. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:41, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What questions will you answer? --Liverbrads1 (talk) 05:51, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Liverbrads1. I'll try to answer any problem you have that relates to editing or using Wikipedia, or if you need guidance about interacting with other users. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 14:16, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nick. I noticed that you had given Theresearchroom and Shling00 the autopatrolled right. Since they seem to be brand-new editors who wouldn't meet the requirements for autopatrolled, I'm guessing you meant to give them confirmed instead? Just figured I'd check. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:05, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Extraordinary Writ Thanks for flagging this. They were at a training session I was helping with a few months ago, and I'm trying to remember why I need to change their rights. I think it may have been to do with access to translation software. But I'm sure you're right to flag this up as an administrative error on my part. I will look into it and fix it (though I can't do it right this minute). Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 20:59, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed Nick Moyes (talk) 10:43, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are you a bot or no? --KuzynPedia (talk) 14:38, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@KuzynPedia No, I'm a real human being. You can read about my interests and my involvement with Wikipedia over 13 years on my userpage. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 16:06, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like a pretty serious BLP infringement (uncited claim of major criminal activity by someone identified by full-name, and possibly even a public person), not mere vandalism. Could you explain your thinking why it does not merit a rev-del? DMacks (talk) 23:19, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good question; thanks for asking. I've no objection to it being revdelled, but my feeling was that it was a random sentence added to a random article with no connection to that name and with that name not being findable online (I did take time out to search for it, and found nothing, apart from a similarly named American individual). Hence why I said "I don't think REVDEL is quite warranted" (my subsequent italics) as it seemed like a vandalism-related edit unrelated to the article, and thus already removed from view. But I was borderline, and might have felt differently on a less busy day, so please revdel it if yo disagree with my comment. I guess "better safe than sorry" is not a bad approach. I'll leave it to you to decide. But if you do, should you not then really also seek WP:OVERSIGHT in this instance? Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 08:34, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If I may jump in as the person who originally suggested revdel (though I'm not an admin), thanks to both of you for bringing this up and laying out your reasoning. I didn't want to dive into the question at the teahouse because of streisand effect concerns, but it looked to me like potentially defamatory material, and the reason revdel came to mind is that the user looked like they were trying to not just get it deleted from the page, but (perhaps quite reasonably) to get it struck from the page history. I was also considering suggesting oversight. If somebody else doesn't move forward with that I'm happy to request oversight if you think it might be warranted. - Astrophobe (talk) 16:00, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. I need. Help in writing in Wikipedia. I have had a career in the Music Industry and film soundtracks. I have a lot of significant artists I have worked with, Produced, and Managed, as well as partners in projects, such as film soundtracks, concerts, studio musicians, and songwriters that my songs were with Richie Havens, Country Star Razzy Bailey, Johnny and June Cash, Willie Nelson I have worked on projects with these artists. --Kenneth Hatley (talk) 01:40, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kenneth, thanks for your question, and welcome to Wikipedia. I'll put a welcome message on your User Talk Page with a few useful links to getting started with editing Wikipedia.

It sounds like you've known lot of famous people in your time, and you probably have some great photos of them that you've taken? You could really help out by checking their Wikipedia pages and seeing if you have photos of these artists better than the ones already there that would improve the articles. Providing you own the copyright as the photographer, you could upload these to Wikimedia Commons (via this link) for use in Wikipedia articles.

If your question relates more to you wanting to write an article about yourself, then I should point out two things. Firstly, the subject of any new article must meet our 'Notability Criteria'. This means that the world at large must have noticed and written about them in independent mainstream publications. For musicians and artists, the specific criteria for acceptance can be founds at WP:NMUSIC. Sources such as music books and mainstream magazines and newspapers are acceptable sources, but user-generated content such as WP:IMDB or personal blogs and websites are no regarded as sufficiently reliablet.

Secondly, we very strongly discourage anyone from attempting to create an article about themselves. Not only is this an extreme Conflist of Interest, it is sometimes not a wise thing to do (see WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY). If someone is notable (by Wikipedia's standards, then there's a good chance another, unconnected editor will want to write about them. Of course, if you feel you do merit a page here on Wikipedia, you can make that suggestion (and include a few links to good sources) at Wikipedia:Requested articles/music.

I hope this answers some of your questions. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 10:22, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nick,

Thank you for the advice. Yes I have many years throughout my career. I certainly understand that it is dangerous territory when one writes their own biography. As a professional in the industries of Music and film, I understand and have been diligent to back up any projects and achievements, good or bad Richie Havens advised me in the early 80's. Richie said get everything in writing, besides the contract, but put it in as a letter to certify any project, Richie further stated, we go to have facts with us, because there are too many liars out there that will try to claim it was not you. Richie, was a partner and the God Father of mny son. Richie was our my first Producer in Nashville in a band called the Raven, though the albu mnn did not getr off the ground, and the band lasted, but mine and Richie's relation almost until he passed away. David Carradine was another one, very much like Richie. When David went top Bangkok and was suspected murdered, after the Bangkok Police gave me five different stories. I had just spoken with David a day or two and was very positive about another film and the sound track he and I were going to do the Production and composing, unfortunately when he went to dinner out of the hotel, to meet with the film producers. After the evening, and dinner David had to walk back to the hotel. However, the Chauffeur had driven away. When David got to the hotel, the camera was on and saw him come in, when he went to the elevator the camera went blank. I received a call fom a Director in L.A. , Lance Miccio he called me at about 5:30 a.m. in the morning. I was in Santa Fe, New Mexico on business with an Executive Producer. The first words out of Lance was, "Kenny I am so sorry", I asked him what was he sorry about enough to wake me up; then the words that came out of Lance's mouth put me in a state of shock, his words "Kenny, I am sorry about David's passing, I asked him what was he talking about, he said David was dead the maids found him in his bedroom, with him tied up in the closet. Kenneth Hatley (talk) 01:59, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Kenneth Hatley - those are sad stories. I think David Carradine as Kwai Chang Caine in Kung Fu was utterly wonderful. I was glued to that series and really admired him, as well as the character he payed, when I was a kid growing up in the mid '70s. As you say, to know him personally and to lose him in that way must have been shocking for you.

From a Wikipedia perspective, those personal stories - no matter how valid - can never be used unless they were properly published in quality newspapers, or equivalent. But if you need any specific advice on adding content here, do let me know. Or, if I should not respond in due course, feel free to seek help at The Teahouse - a place designed to help newcomers who are struggling with the intricacies of editing. Best wishes, Nick Moyes (talk) 16:45, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1) MARIO VARGAS LLOSA Mario Vargas Llosa of Peru (born March 28, 1936) is one of the most popular contemporary Latin American writer, who is also an active political activist. Llosa won the Nobel Prize for Literature in 2010. The major themes of his novels are centred around human tragedies and loss of identities under dictatorships, and the helplessness of the oppressed in temporalities of totalitarianism --Halabi51 (talk) 15:37, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Halabi51. Welcome to Wikipedia! Do you have a question about the article on Mario Vargas Llosa? If so, please explain clearly what help you need. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 20:33, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nick,

When it comes to articles about towns and other such places, would it be off-topic to mention nearby services like hospitals and schools solely because they are the closest available services of their kind to the settlement in question? --Bill Wilson AKA "CIA" (talk) 19:54, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bill Wilson AKA "CIA" I presume your query relates to the article about Helensburgh, which I see you've been working on. Before I answer your question, I should point out that I can see quite a few issues with what's in that article already- though probably not all of them are as a result of your own attempts to improve the page.

At a quick skim through, I can see (in these edits of yours that the page contains lots of factual assertions without backing them up to proper citations. Instead someone has just linked to a business website within a citation, and one (the Outdoor Museum) is to a domain that isn't even functioning any more). That's not the right way to do it. It looks like you've started to move things around and tidy things up, as wellas improving the encyclopaedic tone. This is a good move. Editors have obviously added all sorts of details (presumably from their personal knowledge, but not given any links to enable someone to WP:VERIFY them. Just a link to an organisation is not sufficient. There is quite a bit of WP:TRIVIA which you could remove, such as the mention of who the museum's designer is. One citation is just an external link which needs to go; the other is a good one which verifies that the museum was 'award winning' - but it's not in the right place to support the statement about awards, whereas the whole sentence isn't needed. The actual word changes you have made have all improved the encyclopaedic tone of the article - so well done on that front.

I would urge you to continue cleaning up the page and improving its encyclopaedic nature. Regarding schools and hospitals: well, yes, there's a danger that it becomes non-encyclopaedic by adding such stuff, and reads like a list of minor local facilities. Saying that the town is served by a major hospital and a key railway station may be valid, but listing all the schools probably isn't. Maybe cite a link to show which education authority it falls in. It's a balance between not bloating an article with WP:TRIVIA and keeping it trim, well cited, and with every factual statement supported by a Reliable Source that can be checked to verify the statement is correct.

I'm not sure this was quite the answer you expected, but let me know if you want any further guidance. Nick Moyes (talk) 20:59, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for going the extra mile and reviewing the actual article, Nick.

Firstly, I completely agree with the article's referencing issues. Just so you know, most of assertions predate my editing. The only reason why I didn't address them was because I thought it better to deal with the other problems first, such as the structure, outdated information, informal tone, etc... My thought was to not go too mental to begin with and just deal with the most striking problems, then decide on the references and trivia later.

Secondly, regarding the hospitals: in the article, there is mention, for instance of Paisley and Vale of Leven hospitals - both of these hospitals are, of course, not in Helensburgh. This is the problem that I have: should the article be concerned with what is strictly in Helensburgh - in which case neither hospital should be mentioned - or rather, that, but also what might be relevant to the Helensburgh residents (in which case they would be mentioned)?

Once again, thank you for your comment, that was really great! Bill Wilson AKA "CIA" (talk) 21:37, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bill Wilson AKA "CIA" You're welcome. And, yes, I see the things I dislike did predate your edits. (I've upgraded the article's quality rating and left a note on the talk page with my concerns.) Think of the article, not as a resource for local people to find out where they can access resources, but more for anyone else who does not know Helensburgh to find out things that are worth knowin about the towng. Looking at it that way, thenI'd suggest leainge out anything not related to directly to the town.

One tip can be to raise issues of concern , and your proposals to address them, as a note on the talk page. If nobody objects to your proposals, then go ahead and make them. We work by consensus, but if nobody offers alternative approaches, then simply WP:BEBOLD.

I don't know how committed you are to the idea of improving this article. But should you be, then once you've made all the basic improvements and additions that you think need doing, you could ask for 3rd party input at WP:PEERREVIEW. You could set an ambition to bring it up to WP:GA status, for example. But only submit it once you'd put in as much work as you think is needed to fix the basic things first. I worked on enhancing this article for months and months before getting a GA rating. It was a fascinating, in-depth exercise that was most satisfying. But it doesn't appeal to everyone! Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:16, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Nick, that's cleared things up.

For future reference, is there a page on Wikipedia that I can consult for future queries like these - the suitability of content, lets say? I am aware of the Help section, but it seems intimidating to navigate (which is why I ended up asking you!) Bill Wilson AKA "CIA" (talk) 06:23, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bill Wilson AKA "CIA" Yes, Bill. The best place to ask any question, day or night is The Teahouse. It's friendly forum designed to help new editors when they encounter problems. You may find me there, too, but there are over 80 'Teahouse Hosts' available to answer queries. Nick Moyes (talk) 09:00, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a test from SAAO to see if this works 155.232.7.202 (talk) 09:15, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That works fine, thanks. Nick Moyes (talk) 10:38, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutly no problem here! Simply, the short notice entailed the serious risk that the request would not be processed. I, who fortunately live in the CEST/CET time zone, noticed the urgent request just before going to bed and immediately processed it. Luckily the deployment slots were free this morning! Let's say that luck did a lot :P Wish you a great Editathon and a nice day ;) Superpes15 (talk) 09:47, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Man was born to suffer why woman are born for grace Halabi51 (talk) 10:47, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How can I deal with Vandalism? --MrLegacyVideoMaker666 (talk) 01:10, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MrLegacyVideoMaker666 Thanks for your question. As a very new user yourself, first spend a bit more time simply learning the basics of editing. I've checked some of your contributions and not all were that appropriate. this, for example could be considered by some as unhelpful, bordering on vandalism. Yet you probably did it through Good Faith. But not to worry - new users make mistakes and need to learn (hence why I mention this), and why I welcome your question.

To answer your question more directly, I suggest you take a long read through this page: WP:VANDALISM) and follow some of the links to get a grasp of how Wikipedia defines and deals with vandalism. Then, after a bit more experience of editing, you could enroll at Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit/Academy (there are minimum requirements of being able to show 200 WP:MAINSPACE edits first).

If I could make one suggestion: I would like to see you adding a very brief WP:EDITSUMMARY to all your edits, rather than simply reverting people with no explanation. That's pretty bad form and doesn't either help people learn, nor does it explain your motives for making any given edit. By guiding and steering people towards the right way to edit, we can change poor editing behaviour into really helpful editing., and I appreciate your interest and willingness to help out.

If you have favourite articles that you are concerned about (maybe they are your pet subjects, or maybe you've already suspected bad faith editing happening there) you could add them to your WP:WATCHLIST, and then view recent changes to those articles, or even get notifications of changes, if you modify your Notification settings in Preferences. You can then revert and warn an editor if they continue making bad faith edits. You could enable WP:TWINKLE to help you inform and warn users more easily and quickly, placing a series of increasingly firm notices on a vandals talk page before you ever consider reporting them for administrators to take action at WP:AIV. As an admin myself, I get irked when a user gives a final warning to a vandal editor and then immediately reports them to AIV. I expect that editor to watch the actions of that person and only to report them after they have continued with further bad editing activity.

On othre thing you might lie to look at as the live upodates of all edits at Special:Recentchanges. I use these settings to reveal the most likely bad faith edits. It is never wise to lurk at the top of the page - most editors tend to watch only these. Instead, go down the page to view older edits which might still be damaging, but which have been missed. Click on 'diff' to see their edit and then take time to assess and consider why those changes were made. e.g. Does it improve the page? If not, does it detract yet not appear like actual vandalism? view any edit summary; view the other Contributions of that editor; check their talk page for prior warnings; keep a Tab open with their contributions for half an hour or so (IP editors and brand new accounts tend to like causing havoc over a short period of time, and many stop when first warned. Make sure any warning you give is fair and proportionate, and that you explain why you have reverted someone. All things like this turn new editors into really helpful backroom folk. Good luck! Nick Moyes (talk) 11:25, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I appreciate your help! and by the way, I am now autoconfirmed with 41 edits (As of right now the time I replied) :-) MrLegacyVideoMaker666 (talk) 22:27, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello how can i create an article --Editorrr164 (talk) 18:05, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Editorrr164. Your edit to User:Editorrr164/sandbox makes no sense to me. Your sandbox is the right place to prepare a new article, but doing so successfully is the hardest task anyone can do here on Wikipedia. For a total novice, it is much harder, still.

Unless the topic can be shown to meet our Notability Criteria, then it cannot have an article on Wikipedia. Please read WP:NSCHOOLS to understand how that applies to educational organisations. Be aware that Wikipedia is not here to help you promote or advertise any organisation. See WP:PROMOTION. If you are connected to the school or college, you will have a 'Conflict of Interest' and must declare that on your userpage. See WP:COI to understand this guideline. Having understood and acted on those COI guidelines, and assuming you still feel the school meets our Notability Criteria, you may then wish to read Help:Your first article. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:19, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I would like to write a biography of a living physician with multiple citations, contributions and a long and illustrious career. How do I begin? Thanks. --Doc Lusion (talk) 20:12, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Doc Lusion The best way is to first spend time learning the basics of editing Wikipedia -especially understanding how to add content and to cite Reliable Sources to substantiate it. Then, and only then, is it sensible to attempt to create a new article about a person. They will need to meet our 'notability criteria' for living people, found at WP:NBIO. And you can create a draft article in either your 'sandbox' or as a formal Draft article and submit it for review and feedback. See Help:Your first article.

If you either are, or know, this person, or are employed by them, then you would need to declare your connection to them by following guidance laid out at this page. I hope this helps? Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:33, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Trizek_(WMF) Talk 23:16, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is a Steward? --MrLegacyVideoMaker666 (talk) 01:10, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MrLegacyVideoMaker666 Stewards are users with a very high level of technical access across all Wiki Projects and interfaces who help manage, maintain and restrict access to our platforms. There are only 31 stewards across the entire set of projects, and you and I rarely, if ever, need to worry about what roles they perform. However, you can find out more information here. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 13:22, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

hi --Ojando (talk) 22:42, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, @Ojando. Do you need any help or advice on editing Wikipedia? Nick Moyes (talk) 00:11, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How do I create a page? --Jrmango (talk) 22:32, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jrmango. Just a quick reply before I head off to bed tonight: Pages can be created about NOTABLE TOPICS, but not just about any old stuff you happen to know or like. If you tell be the type of topic (person, place, film, musician, species, nebula, etc, I can point you to the relevant notability criteria (such as WP:NBIO, WP:NMUSIC, WP:NFILM etc).

You can create a draft article either in your personal sandbox or as a proper DRAFT and submit it for review and feedback when you think it's finally ready to go into the main part of the encyclopaedia. Please follow guidance and use the 'Article Creation Wizard' at this page. Everything you add to a page must be based upon properly published, good quality Reliable Sources. Follow the hyperlinks for all the information you will need to get you started. Regards, and good luck! Nick Moyes (talk) 23:57, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the inaugural Moderator Tools newsletter! We’ll aim to publish new issues whenever we have big new updates about the projects we’re working on.

PageTriage[edit]

We’ve now wrapped up our work to support the English Wikipedia’s New Pages Patrol community by tackling some major technical debt in the PageTriage extension. The final project update gives an overview of all the work that we did over the past 6 months.

Automoderator[edit]

We’re currently working on a project called Automoderator, which will enable communities to automatically revert bad edits based on community-defined settings. We’re looking for input and feedback on our plans so far, and have a number of questions on topics we need patrollers and administrators to help us understand better. In addition to the overview and questions on the main project page, we now have two sub-pages with more specific information:

• If you want to investigate Automoderator’s accuracy rate and check out how it would behave in practice, we’ve set up a testing process with data and scores so you can help us find new patterns we can take into consideration before Automoderator is deployed.
• The measurement plan is the first draft of our plan to measure whether Automoderator is achieving its goals and not having negative consequences. Want to propose some data for us to capture to help evaluate this project? This is the place to go!

Other[edit]

Our team has also been working to ensure that software we’re responsible for is updated to support temporary accounts. We’ve made changes to PageTriage, Nuke, and The Wikipedia Library.

Although we have active engineering projects ongoing, we're always happy to chat about your community's content moderation tool needs - feel free to get in contact at Talk:Moderator Tools.

Read past issues or sign up to this newsletter here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:21, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can Autoconfirmed users like me get the rollback user right, or do you have to be extended confirmed? --MrLegacyVideoMaker666 (talk) 22:02, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MrLegacyVideoMaker666 Extended confirmed is a rough indication of the amount of experience we would expect from someone requesting rollback rights, but is not 'set in stone'. Please read WP:Rollback so you are aware of what is involved. Note the section which states that "Rollback is not for very new users: it is unlikely that editors with under 200 mainspace edits will have their request granted."

I appreciate your keenness, but noting recent comments on your talk page, don't let your enthusiasm to revert vandalism blind you to good faith editing. Maybe also like to see WP:CVU and read WP:HATCOLLECTING. All the best, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:21, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Soccer player --RobertoSanchez1990 (talk) 01:03, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@RobertoSanchez1990 This makes no sense. Do you have a question for me about editing Wikipedia? Nick Moyes (talk) 13:03, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I used my IP for my first actual edit, and then read that creating a login would eliminate displaying my IP and just display my chosen User Name, however after completing registration it does not cross reference that my User Name is from that particular IP address, stating that I have 0 edits. Is there a way of fixing this? --Bobby Sh3p007 (talk) 20:32, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bobby Sh3p007. There is no technical way to officially connect an IP address to a registered account on Wikipedia. You can create a userpage and disclose anything you want about your previous IP editing. Cullen328 (talk) 20:37, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Hi, Bobby Sh3p007. I'm afraid we can't 'merge' the edits from one user with those of another (or with an IP address). However, if you really wanted to link this account's edits with those when you were not logged in, you could easily add a note on your userpage stating that you formerly edited as IP 192.633.32.44 (or whatever it was). But it doesn't seem worth doing for just one edit, nor is it actually all that sensible to declare your real IP address that you're editing from. (Many registered users actually like to keep private the identity of their IP address and not link it to their account). Hope this (and Cullen328's reply) are of use. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 20:41, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am debating whether or not to start regularly editing Wikipedia again. After looking at the contributions of my old account, I laugh at the foolishness of myself when I was immature and young. Based on my previous issues/complaints from three years ago, what are some specific things I need to improve on if I am to successfully return to this site? What was the main issue with my editing/behavior back then? What should I avoid? aeschylus (talk) 04:22, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Aeschylus Hi. You have two accounts and a large number of very small archive pages which I don't really propose to wade through in detail. But, at a skim through, I don't see much that you were doing wrong. Sometimes one can get sucked into spending ages working in areas of Wikipedia that aren't really that satisfying, yet one continues with it until one runs out of steam. If you're thinking about returning to activity again, decide what it is you want to focus on, and make sure you understand those areas well by reading all the relevant guidelines. This applies just as much to article creation as it does to dealing with vandalism, grammar and copy editing, article assessment or copyright work. For article improvement and creation, decide which areas you want to focus on - maybe making a 'to do' list to help you stick in a narrow area of the most important things for you. You can do that on your own, or get involved with some of the WP:Wikiprojects by working through some of their suggested areas to focus on. Not allowing yourself to get sucked down a rabbit hole is one tip to avoid losing the will to contribute.

Perhaps I could turn the question around and ask you to link to things that have bothered you in the past and which you'd like guidance on?

As an aside, if ytou do return to activity, do please find better archive settings which don't make innumerable tiny archives (one per month with one thread in each!). Such settings make it very hard for someone to look back through. Have a read of the settings at User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis. I'd suggest that |format=Y/F could do with being changed to |format= %%i to give you numbered archives (or at the most, have one archived talk page per year) and ensure that 'minkeepthreads' is set to something sensible, like |minkeepthreads=20 so that you've always got the last twenty topics available on your talk page. I tend to be a bit suspicious of users who archive everything off their talk pages all the time. It makes me wonder what they're trying to hide. OK, I do take things to extreme a bit myself so, if you look at my settings, I keep a large number of quick-to-refer-to threads on my talk page (50), and have | maxarchsize=200000 to give me a few large archives, not hundreds of tiny ones. This makes going back to look for a past thread and doing a Ctrl-F keyword search so much easier. For me, it would be a nightmare to have your archive settings; for you it's simply not needed.

Whether you're a new editor or not, the things to avoid are unreasonably accusing other people of doing bad stuff; being defensive and not open to listening to another person's point of view; failing to spend time to read policies and guidelines relevant to the area you're working on, and not being polite or welcoming to others. I didn't sense any great issue with your earlier interactions, though.

If someone challenges how you've made an edit, take time to read up and see if you've misunderstood something - and take the time to apologise if you have (I've had to grovel a few times over the years!) You handled a question about Mark Fowler (hitman) quite well. (I've since lost the link to one of those innumerable archives pages, so can't give you a diff), and you appear to have created some pretty good articles and DYKs in the past.

My feeling is that I don't see an issue with you returning to editing activity - and I think you'd be a net positive if you did. But it comes down to what you want out of it, what time you want to spend on this site.

I hope this helps a bit. If you want any further specific advice, do please ask. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 20:28, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback! I will follow this advice if I return. aeschylus (talk) 20:34, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Nick, Hope you are well!

I need your help in updating one article. --Sunnykhurma (talk) 09:02, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sunnykhurma Please cold you give me a link to the article you want to update, and tell me what you want to add or change. Linking to a source would be extra helpful so that I can guide you most effectively. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 09:14, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for Reply, Draft:The Jalandhar Times Please go through with this and suggest to move this on main page Sunnykhurma (talk) 09:20, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sunnykhurma I'm afraid I won't do that as the draft does not show how the newspaper meet our [[WP:GNG| notability guidelines]. There are no references at all - and any you do use must be independent of the subject and have talked about this newspaper in detail and in depth. At the moment it is not written in a language appropriate to an encyclopaedia, and sounds more like an advertisement - and that is not our purpose. There are thousands upon thousands of local and regional newspapers around the world. Whilst most are reliable enough to be sources of references for use on Wikipedia, few meet the criteria of actually being notable themselves. See The Kyiv Independent as an example of one that is. Sorry I can't help you, but you are free to continue working to improve it. Finding good sources to use as references should be your priority. Without them, you would be wasting your time, I'm afraid. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 11:31, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Now, Please have look. I have modified the things which you suggest me to do. Please Sunnykhurma (talk) 17:36, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sunnykhurma All your sources are still based on The Jalandhar Times, or on its social media presence. To be notable, we need to see evidence that at least three other media outlets have written in detail and in depth about this newspaper. Simply existing is not a rationale for a Wikipedia article, I'm afraid. Nick Moyes (talk) 17:45, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://news.google.com/publications/CAAqBwgKMImXoQswoaG5Aw?ceid=US:en&oc=3

Will these links help? Sunnykhurma (talk) 17:50, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sunnykhurma No, they won't The first six all linked TO the The Jalandhar Times. I assume the rest will, too. We need sources that talk ABOUT The Jalandhar Times. There is a significant difference! Nick Moyes (talk) 17:56, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These Below links are talking about The Jalandhar Times

https://www.thecompanycheck.com/org/jalandhar-times/480e94c295 Sunnykhurma (talk) 18:02, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sunnykhurma I'm really sorry. All that link does is prove that the company exists - but that was never in doubt! Millions of companies, newspapers, shops and people exist too. Only a small number ever get noticed and written about by the world at large. Our notability criteria for businesses would be explained further at this page.

What you could consider doing is make mention in an existing article to demonstrate that the newspaper serves that region, alongside other newspapers and media. I assume Jalandhar#Media would be the place. Kind regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 19:20, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Why does Wikipedia keep deleting my translation? --Mariamkaram94 (talk) 18:57, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mariamkaram94 I don't understand what you mean. We already have an article on English Wikipedia at Tantura massacre.

You appear to have created an equivalent article in German at User:Mariamkaram94/Tantura-Masskar, and appear to have successfully edited it after posting your question to me. To be frank: You should really be creating translations into Germans over at German Wikipedia. But, oh, I see you already are!

Assuming the version in German that you made here on English Wikipedia is no longer needed, would you like me to delete it for you? If you want to request deletion at a time of your choosing, just add {{Db-author}} to the top of the page, and someone like me will drop by and delete it for you.

Is there anything else you need from me? Nick Moyes (talk) 19:31, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

i was only trying to ass a German Translation to the already published article.

As far as I understood, it's now in my drafts and am blocked from publishing for 3 days till I finish my editing then it will be published.. correct? Mariamkaram94 (talk) 19:44, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mariamkaram94 You said "I was only trying to ass a German Translation" I presume you meant ADD a German translation?

If so, please stop! That's not the way to do it. You must go to German Wikipedia and add your article there, first checking all the sources you cite to ensure they genuinely support the text you have translated. Just literally translating word for word is sloppy and doesn't guarantee a good article. I do not know the rules governing German Wikipedia, I'm afraid. But here, brand new users should go through Articles for Creation until they're 'autoconfirmed'.

Having done that, and had it accepted on German Wikipedia (not here!), you can make a link using the 'add language' function. Because de.wiki and en.wiki use different 'skins' which give you a slightly different layout, on de.wiki it's on the lower left hand column in desktop view, whilst here it's on the top right, just about the 'View History' tabs etc. You can make the link from either page back to the other - it doesn't matter which you start from. You only need to do it once. Hope this helps. Nick Moyes (talk) 20:50, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I'm pretty sure German Wikipedia would expect you to use INLINE CITATIONS. We certainly would! There are 28 inline citations in the English article; your draft in German has just one non-functioning reference right at the bottom. You're on the right track - but you've a fair bit more work to do to make this an article suitable for an encyclopaedia where each factual statement you add can be WP:VERIFIED to its source. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:01, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Colified areas as that could be there in the evening of computer science and technology University admission coaching centre of the day --Kishan singh rathore jalila (talk) 15:46, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Kishan singh rathore jalila Hello. Do you need advice on editing Wikipedia? If so, please explain exactly what help you need. I cannot respond to a random string of words, as they simply make no sense to me. Sorry. Nick Moyes (talk) 16:06, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That was a lovely manifesto. Cheers, Crawdad Blues (talk) 00:40, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello what can I do --Alieyah nicole (talk) 20:57, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alieyah nicole. Sorry I didn't see your question until today - I'm afraid I was busy elsewhere.

The answer is very much that it's up to you. At it's simplest, you have a 'Homepage' Tab which offers newcomers some easy editing suggestions to get them started. Click that Tab; select the broad topic areas you might be interested in and scroll through what it offers you. These will be things like adding a link to other articles, or fixing grammar and spelling.

You could visit our WP:TASKCENTER, which offers categories of things people might like to do.

Bottom line: this is an encyclopaedia if 'notable things', collated from properly published sources. Nothing we add should be our own opinions or our personal knowldge. So, adding 'citations' to support statements which might be deemed questionable and currently cannot be verified, is a really useful thing to do.

I often suggest looking for topics on subjects that interest you, and reading through some of them, whilst asking oneself: "can I improve the sentence construction or readability?", or "are there big gaps in the article that I could find some books or good quality websites that would support the addition of new statements?"

If you wanted to tell me a bit more about yourself and yhour inteersts, I might be able to make further suggestiosn for you.

Meanwhile, I have left a welcome message on yor talk page with sme links to get you started, nd to teach you how to approrah editing with either of our two editing tools. gards, e Nick Moyes (talk) 20:25, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I was thinking about adding to the 'In popular culture' section of the Antidisestablishmentarianism (word) article, as the word was featured as an answer to the New York Times crossword earlier this year (09/19), and I was wondering if that was considered significant enough to add, or something I would be able to add. On the page currently is a usage of the word by Eminem, so it looks like appearances of the word are considered noteworthy, and the New York Times crossword could be considered to be pop culture. Thank you! --Jackalope256 (talk) 04:42, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jackalope256 That's a really interesting question! My initial reaction was 'No - don't be daft!', but then I looked at Antidisestablishmentarianism_(word) and I've shifted my view to 'Errm, maybe - why not give it a go?'. But I'm very doubtful the edit would stick, because I suspect the word is used in crosswords and quizzes all the time, and wouldn't be seen as significant enough. I also wonder if there was anything significant in the actual clue that was given, as maybe that could be worth quoting? You'd use {{Template:Cite news}} to add the relevant details, ideally including page number if you know it. Good luck (though I'm not holding out too much hope! Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:10, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I heard for boxing rec website I have to edit through a wiki account Is this true? --Boxingrec2144 (talk) 14:53, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Boxingrec2144. I really didn't understand your question until I went to our article on BoxRec. It seems they run a wiki about boxing. You can find it here.

Whilst it uses the same underlying software (called MediaWiki) that we use here on Wikipedia, the running of that project has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with English Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation.

A wiki is simply a website that any user can sign up to and contribute to. So, yes, if you want to do more than just read content about boxing (i.e. you want to edit and contribute there), then you will need to sign up to their wiki, and follow their rules. Your account you've just created here could not be used to edit the wiki at BoxRec nor, indeed, many thousands of other wikis around the world.

Just to reiterate: the wiki being run by BoxRec has nothing to do with us here at en.wikipedia.org, and I would suggest you use a different username if you do want to contribute over there. BTW: Should you ever want to add information about boxers to English Wikipedia, BoxRec would definitely not be regarded as a Reliable Source that you could cite as a reference here. We do not accept citations to other wikis because anyone can add or edit information without any oversight or editorial control.

I hope this answers your question. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 16:40, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi thanks mate I understand that. I made a boxing rec page but can't figure how to do it as I go edit it asks me to log into wiki witch yeah isn't this wikki cause I still couldn't log in so I'm abit confused I just saw email for help and this was where I was sent. Thanks for your time Ill give it another go with your links you shared. Kind regards Brodie 1.147.112.154 (talk) 13:00, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Happy to help. I hope you get the other wiki sorted. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:21, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having a blast at WikiConference North America. I remember you saying once that I should really try going to a meetup or editathon at some point, way back when I was a newbie. I'm also pinging Xeno because I think you might be able to help him find something he's looking for given your past experiences. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 18:34, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Clovermoss Hi there - that's great to hear. I missed online Wikimania this year because my ISP went down for about two days at the start of the event, and I never caught up. But being at events in person is better - especially if there aren't too many air miles involved. I'm definitely intrigued as to what you're alluding to by your second statement, but if Xeno wants to ping me, or email me off-wiki they can.

I don’t know who @Xeno is. I don’t know what they want. If they're looking for ransom I can tell you I don’t have money, but what I do have are a very particular set of skills. Skills I have acquired over a very long career. Skills that make me a nightmare for people like you, but which Xeno might need.

So go for it guys! Nick Moyes (talk) 20:24, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Nick! I had typed this up yesterday, and I forgot to hit submit. Thanks for connecting us Clovermoss. What I was looking for was some kind of quick reference guides / cheatsheets / best practices on running meetups, edit-a-thons, that kind of thing. There's a lot of energy here in Toronto that we're trying to harness. –xeno^talk 01:28, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Xeno That sounds wonderful (Please forgive the silliness above - I couldn't resist!)

I'm guessing you've already visited WP:EDITATHON and WP:MEETUPS? These are good places to start event planning

I will privately email you a link to a really useful 'Editathon Checklist' on Google Docs, put together by @Sara Thomas (WMUK). I don't want to publish it here as I can't seem able to make it 'read only'.

From my own, relatively limited experience of helping to run editathons, I've felt that two things were really important, but often overlooked.

• Firstly, ensuring you capture the usernames of everyone who attends lets you monitor your event's success and support participants afterwards. Anything from a simple 'white board' to a properly logged event at the 'Outreach Dashboard' can be really useful (or even do both!).
• Secondly, give participants something to take away with them towards the end of the event so they don't feel bewildered once editing on their own. For one event I made a 2-sided A4 handout in MS Word. I put the text HERE. With hindsight, it was probably too detailed and lengthy. I still like the idea, though.

Finally, HERE are some short notes and observations I made after attending my first Editathon at a major UK university. Having an admin present to support people to make brand new Wikipedia accounts was very helpful. But be aware that both live projecting or prepared screenshots from an experienced editor's account won't look the same as a those from newcomer's account. I created NM Demo 2 for that very purpose.

I hope some of this helps. Shout if you want any further thoughts. Nick Moyes (talk) 15:32, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the detailed write-up Nick. And also thank you for the Liam Neeson impression, we were laughing out loud here at the WikiCon NA/Toronto lobby party :). For now we’re starting with a Wikipedia Day meetup! –xeno^talk 16:26, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, that's because it's left on "comment" in case anyone in the course that it's a resource for wants to make a comment :)

There's some guidance in the Outreach Dashboard about running editathons @Xeno, in case that's useful, but please also feel free to drop me a line (email on my userpage) if you'd like a chat, always happy to help. Sara Thomas (WMUK) (talk) 12:08, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Nick! I tried to add a missing comma to the article "Water supply and sanitation in the United States", but it seems that whenever I do something else is getting edited and I'm not sure why. From my understanding the edit should say +1 bytes, but it's saying -2 instead. The place I'm adding a comma is right after a hyperlink, and the extra changes didn't show up when I previewed my edits. Any advice? Thanks! --Placeholderer (talk) 16:21, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Placeholderer I can't actually see where you've added a comma in this edit (maybe it's my eyes!), but you've moved elements of the citation around, so it's really hard to see what you've added. One extra byte is nothing to worry about, and is probably the result of you leaving in a space character which isn't visible, but which nevertheless adds to the total count.

It can often be a good idea to experiment with different copies of a text block in your own sandbox if you want to delve into what's going on. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:06, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How do I upload a photo to wikipedia? The photos are of Tina Alster and she owns them, and she gave me permission to upload them, but they keep getting deleted for copyright violations --Anyalizbeth (talk) 16:08, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Anyalizbeth The issue is that nobody knows whether you're telling the truth about being given that permission. That's not to suggest you're lying - just that we cannot take your word for it. We need an acceptable form of proof.

So, the best way is to get the copyright owner of the photograph to send an email from an account that is clearly identifiable to them, containing the text of one of our formal image release templates. The copyright owner will be the person who was in control of the camera - not the person being photographed. So images taken for PR purposes won't necessarily belong to the subject of the photo. You can find guidance and template text here.

I see that you have already had final warnings on Commons (see here) for uploading images that can't be proven to be copyright free. You really could have engaged with @Didym who left you the warnings there, but hopefully you can get at least one image owned by Tina Aster approved and released for use.

If you know Tina Aster, then you should declare your CONFLICT OF INTEREST on your userpage. See instructions at WP:COI. If you are actually employed by them, or are being paid to create this article, you are obliged by our policies to declare that you are in receipt of payment, per instructions at WP:PAID.

Personally, I would wait until your article has been approved as meeting our Notability Guidelines before worrying about images. Whether an article contains a photo of the subject is irrelevant to its notability. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:56, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help! I will submit the article for review first before I try to add pictures Anyalizbeth (talk) 14:54, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again! I was browsing articles and I came across the "Dutch East Indies" article, where I noticed one user (Errenneff) made many edits critical of the Dutch, adding few (if any) citations. Though they created their account several months before the edits, this is the only article other than talk/user pages they edited. Would it be advisable to revert unreferenced edits they made for WP:NPOV or WP:Advocacy? I'm also less sure what to do because these edits were a few months ago, and they do include reasonable changes. Thanks again for your time! --Placeholderer (talk) 16:30, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Placeholderer Interesting question. The sum total of their additions and deletions can be seen here and here.

The first set of edits appears to have added a fairly reasonable perspective to colonial rule (but I'm no history buff). Yet it wasn't supported by citations. Rather than deleting their edits 9which have clearly remained for some months) you could work through and judiciously add {{citation needed}} templates where you think some supporting reference might be helpful.

If it appears some of their edits have been inserted in such a way as to appear to be supported by an existing citation, then it is helpful to check that source. If it can't be substantiated, one can either insert the cn template, or add a {{failed verification}} template.

The second edit was the removal of a quote and supporting citation, which appears to have been discussed on the talk page, per Errenef's edit summary. I suggest reading discussion, then the entire section of the article, both with and without the deleted text, and determine her, in your mind, its deletion was reasonable. If you don't think it was, then reinstate it with a brief but clear edit summary to explain why.

If you follow this advice, you could even think about posting a note on the talk page to explain what you have done, and why. That highlights your own activities on the article and helps others determine whether you did the right thing. I'm afraid I don't have time to read the entire article and set of edits in detail to be able to give you more detailed advice, but I think a common sense approach of adding cn templates where necessary could be useful. Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:38, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Questionnaire --Maryrose finuliar (talk) 12:21, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Maryrose finuliar Hello. Do you have a question about how to edit Wikipedia? If so, I can probably help. But my mind-reading skills are not what they used to be; so please be clear what assistance it is that you seek. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:02, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I want to add a politian to Wikipedia and his information such as birth date, school attended and his personal info such as wife and children so that it may be available on google search .please help me publish his information and help me with the steps --ZakayoBrighton (talk) 18:59, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there, ZakayoBrighton. Every subject that is accepted into our encyclopaedia has to meet our Notability Criteria. Certain types of senior politicians may be accepted if they meet a subset of these criteria, found at WP:NPOLITICIAN. But, please be aware that just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline, of course.

You can only add details of the type you mentioned if these have already been published elsewhere, because Wikipedia is only really just a collation of existing information already in the public domain.

I should also advise you that trying to create a brand new article without prior experience of editing Wikipedia is a really, really challenging exercise. We advise gaining experience first, and then submitting a draft for review and getting helpful feedback from experienced editors. You can do this by reading the advice and using our 'Article Wizard' at this page. Hope this helps. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 20:33, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nick, how do you provide citations for common practices? For example, on the Ethereum page:

> Source code and compiler information are usually published along with the launch of the contract so that users can see the code and verify that it compiles to the bytecode that is on-chain.[citation needed]

This is common practice as can be evidenced by various block explorers where this information is available; it is highly encouraged to do so as it builds trust (as publishing this information allows you to verify). But there is no article that would tell you this is common practice, except for maybe tutorials encouraging you to do so.

Your help is much appreciated! --Nordbjerg (talk) 16:09, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Nordbjerg. I'm struggling to understand exactly what you mean by "common practices". Is this a technical term linked to cryptocurrencies? Or does it just mean: "normally, x and y are published at the same time".

I'm afraid the paragraph you're referring me to is too technical for me to suggest how to address the 'citation needed' template.

May I suggest you raise this question on the article's talk page in the hope that interested/knowledgeable editors may be able to arrive at a consensus on whether or not a citation is needed, and how to proceed? I certainly think that such a large paragraph is either sufficiently factual that it needs a citation to something to support it, or is it perhaps so blindingly obvious that it isn't actually needed at all.

I'm really hating the fact that I can't advise you more effectively with this one. But for basic guidance on how to add an inline citation, please see WP:REFBEGIN. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 20:19, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nick, thanks for the reply! I think perhaps a better phrasing would be "best practice". I'm not entirely sure how to phrase it, forgive me -- essentially, the above paragraph I quoted is self-evident if you are in the space; there isn't really a singular document or book or study I could reference to back it up. People usually just publish those pieces of information.

I could ask on the talk page in hopes there is someone who is both a skilled Wiki editor *and* knowledgeable in the area if I'm still not making sense. In any case, thank you for your time, I appreciate it! Nordbjerg (talk) 20:30, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

hello,

I am not able to publish my sandbox for public. Please guide. --Sagpok57 (talk) 05:57, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sagpok57. Your sandbox draft article is not ready for publishing right now. You need to work on it a lot more.

First of all, is this person NOTABLE by Wikipedia's standards? See either WP:NBIO or WP:NMUSICIAN to see our criteria for acceptance. Basically, this person needs to have either won prestigious awards, had song at the top of the music charts, or been written about in detail and in depth by independent news outlets. If they have, then you need to add an WP:INLINE CITATION to each factual statement to allow anyone on the other side of the world to find those sources and verify it for themselves. See WP:REFBEGIN for how to add references. Each award or achievement needs a supporting citation. (By the way, you don't need to wikilink to the word 'award' or 'achievements' as we all know what they mean without having to look them up!

I don't understand the odd numbering you've used, such as "Kalika music award 2066 (best song of the year)" If this is the Nepali calendar, I think you should add Gregorian calendar dates in brackets.

Once you have found and added references to support our Notability criteria, and tidied up the article, then you could submit it to our Articles for Creation review process. You will receive feedback if it's still not ready, or it will be moved into the main encyclopaedia space if it does. Just add the following text {{subst:AfC submission/draft}} to the top of the article (but leave out any 'nowiki' tags and their accompanying chevron brackets. Click 'publish' - which simply means 'save' in this context, and you will see a 'Submit' button which you should hit only once it's genuinely ready for the encyclopaedia.

Finally, you are writing about yourself or about someone you know personally? If so, then you would have a 'conflict of interest' and must declare this on your userpage. Find out how to do this at THIS PAGE, or read WP:PAID if you are being paid to create an article about this person.

Hope this helps you. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:12, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]