Jump to content

User talk:Perfect4th

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Question from DavidHosle (11:25, 1 September 2024)

[edit]

How can I create a new wikipedia page? --DavidHosle (talk) 11:25, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DavidHosle! There's two parts to this: how can you technical-wise and how can/should you content-wise?
Content-wise, creating an article on Wikipedia as a newcomer is pretty hard – it's like trying to run a half marathon on your first day of training. You can't write an article about yourself, can't promote yourself or someone else, and should avoid editing about a subject you have a conflict of interest with. If you still want to create an article, you have to meet two minimums: first, the subject has to be notable by Wikipedia's content definition, and the article should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.
Technical-wise, you can't create an article before your account has reached a certain age and number of edits (four days and ten edits, I believe), but you can create a draft, and I would recommend this – you can get feedback from experienced editors about an article that way before publishing it.
Let me know if you have any more questions, and happy editing! Perfect4th (talk) 21:01, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Hauntedgravestones (17:54, 1 September 2024)

[edit]

How do i create a wiki --Hauntedgravestones (talk) 17:54, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Hauntedgravestones! Take a look at Wiki hosting service. Let me know if you have any other questions about editing Wikipedia! Happy editing, Perfect4th (talk) 21:01, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 4 September 2024

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:28, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Guild of Copy Editors September Newsletter

[edit]
Guild of Copy Editors September Newsletter

Hello and welcome to the September newsletter, a quarterly digest of Guild activities since June. Don't forget you can unsubscribe at any time; see below.

Election news: Project coordinators play an important role in our WikiProject. Following the mid-year Election of Coordinators, we welcomed Mox Eden to the coordinator team. Dhtwiki remains as Lead Coordinator, and Miniapolis and Wracking returned as assistant coordinators. If you'd like to help out behind the scenes, please consider taking part in our December election – watchlist our ombox for updates. Information about the role of coordinators can be found here.

Blitz: 13 of the 24 editors who signed up for the June 2024 Copy Editing Blitz copy edited at least one article. Between them, they copy edited 169,404 words comprising 41 articles. Barnstars awarded are here.

Drive: 38 of the 59 editors who signed up for the July 2024 Backlog Elimination Drive copy edited at least one article. Between them, they copy edited 482,133 words comprising 293 articles. Barnstars awarded are here.

Blitz: 10 of the 15 editors who signed up for the August 2024 Copy Editing Blitz copy edited at least one article. Between them, they copy edited 71,294 words comprising 31 articles. Barnstars awarded are here.

Drive: Sign up here to earn barnstars in our month-long, in-progress September Backlog Elimination Drive.

Progress report: As of 05:14, 11 September 2024 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors have processed 233 requests since 1 January, and the backlog of tagged articles stands at 2,824 articles.

Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we do without you! Cheers from Baffle gab1978 and your GOCE coordinators Dhtwiki, Miniapolis, Mox Eden and Wracking.

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

Message sent by Baffle gab1978 (talk) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:54, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Pearljacs (12:27, 14 September 2024)

[edit]

can i find my dobbelganger --Pearljacs (talk) 12:27, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Pearljacs! Wikipedia has an article about dopplegangers, but I'm afraid I can't help you with much else related to that. Let me know if you have any questions about editing Wikipedia! Happy editing, Perfect4th (talk) 21:41, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

template removal?

[edit]

Hello Perfect4th, and thank you for your mentorship. I'd be grateful if you could take a look at this P.G. O'Dea article, where a template was added, suggesting that some citations may not verify the text. The citations themselves are legitimate and come from 1940s and 1950s newspapers. However, the URLs provided (which link to visual access of the source via Wikimedia Commons) seem to be causing the issue.

I believe the citations would not have been questioned had the URLs not been added, but the URLs were included only to allow readers easier access to the visual sources. Could you kindly review the template and the discussion on the talk page?  I’d appreciate your guidance on whether the template is necessary or if it could be removed, considering the legitimacy of the sources themselves.  Thank you for your time and assistance! Kokatoni (talk) 19:23, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Kokatoni! I'm sorry for taking so long – I was unexpectedly busy these last few days. Looks like you've had a good conversation on the talk page of the article, which was exactly the right venue. In general in my experience, screenshots are not really verifiable, so we can't really count them as reliable sources, but adding the sources on their own should work.
If you ever have more sources questions that get specific and you're looking for more eyes (or your mentor disappears off the face of the earth), you can also take a look at the reliable sources noticeboard, where some folks can take a look at source questions for you. You're also always welcome to drop by here (and I'll try to answer a bit faster next time)! Happy editing, Perfect4th (talk) 18:25, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
thank you for the pointers, @Perfect4th! Much appreciated Kokatoni (talk) 18:34, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course! Let me know if you have any other questions, and happy editing, Perfect4th (talk) 18:38, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template Creation

[edit]

Hello. I need help creating a template. I want it to show a specific team on the log table but showing only 5 teams. the template is Template:2024-25 South African Premiership. how do i go about it?

Greg (talk) 20:41, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Greg! Are you trying to pattern the template off of a season's league team navigational box somewhere? I looked through Category:Association football navigational boxes and it doesn't seem that creating one for a single season is common practice on Wikipedia. However, there is a template for a league that links to all the teams in the league for a season, such as {{Template:Ghana Premier League}}. Will that format do what you're looking for? If not, do you know of an example of what you're trying to do? Happy editing, Perfect4th (talk) 18:25, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Perfect4th.Here is an example of what i am trying to do:
Pos Team
 Pld W D L GF GA GD Pts Qualification or relegation
1 Mamelodi Sundowns (C) 30 17 8 5 42 22 +20 59 Qualification for Champions League
2 Kaizer Chiefs 30 17 6 7 48 27 +21 57
3 Orlando Pirates 30 14 10 6 40 29 +11 52 Qualification for Confederation Cup
4 Bidvest Wits 30 14 10 6 33 22 +11 52
5 SuperSport United 30 14 8 8 43 26 +17 50
Updated to match(es) played on 2 July 2020. Source: Premier Soccer League
Rules for classification: 1) Points; 2) Goal difference; 3) Goals scored; 4) Head-to-head points; 5) Head-to-Head goal difference; 6) Head-to-Head goals scored; 7) Playoff; 8) Relegated (R); 9) Qualified to the next round (T)
But for the 2024-25 Season. GREG (talk) 19:53, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Greg, I must admit I have never seen that markup before, so I've asked here over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football, and I've pinged you to that discussion so you can follow it as well. Hopefully one of the experienced editors there can give us a hand. Happy editing, Perfect4th (talk) 21:35, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 26 September 2024

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:10, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RFA2024 update: Discussion-only period now open for review

[edit]

Hi there! The trial of the RfA discussion-only period passed at WP:RFA2024 has concluded, and after open discussion, the RfC is now considering whether to retain, modify, or discontinue it. You are invited to participate at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Discussion-only period. Cheers, and happy editing! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:38, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Kingofthewetcats (19:20, 7 October 2024)

[edit]

Can you block user Ss122? He got me blocked for 24 hours because he bribed another moderator into blocking me. He was edit warring on the Odetari page, against a valid edit I made. --Kingofthewetcats (talk) 19:20, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Kingofthewetcats. The folks on Wikipedia who have blocking ability are called admins; I am not one and cannot block anyone. You should also never cast aspersions of bribery as it can be a violation of one of Wikipedia's five pillars, No Personal Attacks.
I took a look at the Odetari article and the reverts in that history. While no one should edit war, especially not 3+ reverts, the best advice I can offer you is to not edit war yourself. The only person whose actions you are accountable for is your own – you can't control other people's actions. If you reach a point where you could be said to be edit-warring, discuss it on the talk page.
That being said, it does look like Wikipedia's external links guideline says not to link everything in a link to an external site (exact text: the lists themselves should not be composed entirely of external links). You could certainly add a general link to Odetari's YouTube channel in a new External Links section instead though.
Let me know if you have any other questions, and happy editing, Perfect4th (talk) 20:26, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 19 October 2024

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:15, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Koribabori (23:16, 20 October 2024)

[edit]

Hi, I was wondering if I took pictures how would I upload them? --Koribabori (talk) 23:16, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Koribabori, and welcome! There's a tutorial on this help page that walks you through uploading and using pictures (& you can check out Help:Pictures if you want a more detailed explanation). You'll want to use the Commons option for pictures you take yourself. Let me know if you have any questions, and happy editing! Perfect4th (talk) 23:36, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Growth News, October 2024

[edit]
Extended content

Current work

[edit]

Newcomer Homepage Community Updates module

We will add a new module to the Newcomer Homepage that will allow communities to highlight specific events, projects, campaigns, and initiatives. We have released a simple version on beta wikis and we will soon start an A/B test on our pilot wikis. This module will only display on the Newcomer Homepage if communities decide to utilize it, so learn how to configure the Community Updates module, or share your thoughts on the project's talk page.

One design concept aimed to increase constructive activation

Constructive activation experimentation

After showcasing early design ideas at Wikimania, we conducted user testing of design prototypes. We now aim to engage communities in further discussions and plan to run a targeted experiment, presenting a structured task within the reading view to logged-in new account holders with zero edits.

Community Configuration

This Community Configuration extension was developed to help communities customize wiki features to meet their unique needs. The Growth team is now helping other Wikimedia Foundation teams make their products configurable:

  • The Moderation Tools team now provides Community Configuration for Automoderator. (T365046)
  • Certain Babel extension settings will be configurable soon. (T328171)

Future work

[edit]

As part of the Growth team annual plan, we will continue to investigate ways to increase constructive activation on mobile, while also working with Data Products to move forward A/B testing functionality via the Metrics Platform.

Community events

[edit]
  • Growth team members presented Community Configuration: Shaping On-Wiki Functionality Together at Wikimania (slides). The session recording is available to watch on YouTube. This session provided an update on the Community Configuration project and introduced details about the upcoming features that communities will soon be able to configure. Representatives from the Moderator Tools, Editing, Web, and Campaigns teams shared their plans for utilizing Community Configuration in the future. Following these presentations, the WMF Growth team's Benoît Evellin and Martin Urbanec answered audience questions.
  • Habib Mhenni gave a presentation of how mentorship works at WikiIndaba 2024. The recording is available.

Stay informed

[edit]

Growth team weekly updates are available on wiki (in English) if you want to know more about our day-to-day work. If you want to receive more general updates about technical activity happening across the Wikimedia movement (including Growth work), we encourage you to subscribe to Tech News.

Growth team's newsletter prepared by the Growth team and posted by bot • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

Trizek_(WMF), 15:43, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What are reliable sources? - NoBrainFound

[edit]

Please reply to this with an answer or approximately correct answer, I will respond soon. NoBrainFound (talk) 00:20, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, NoBrainFound! The short definition of reliable sources is sources that are independent, published, and have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. So an article should be based on sources that are generally considered to be correct (e.g. an article about a biology process based on a biology textbook). The longer definition can be found at reliable sources, and I'd highly recommend reading at least the Reputable section there. However, if you're looking for how to cite sources, Referencing for beginners should give you a good overview. Let me know if you have any more questions! Happy editing, Perfect4th (talk) 00:35, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Made a new work-in-Progress draft named network

[edit]

Check my new work in progress draft! See if it is correct and check me with a rating! NoBrainFound (talk) 20:52, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Warning: I know that there is a article named network, but it barely has any info. NoBrainFound (talk) 20:53, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, NoBrainFound! That reference (source) is definitely more on track, but I'm not sure which article you're talking about that has barely any info. If you're referring to Network, that is because it is a disambiguation page – that word could refer to multiple different topics, so the disambiguation page's job is to briefly describe and link the different topics so that they're easier to find. Looks like you're referring to the linked topic Computer network – is that the article you looked at? You could see if there is a place on that article where the information in your reference would be useful. Happy editing, Perfect4th (talk) 21:16, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to Network, but I didn’t know there was a Computer network, I will sincerely apologize to the owner of the computer network page and let them know. Sincerely NoBrainFound. NoBrainFound (talk) 21:33, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No need for an apology! Articles aren't owned by anyone anyway – we all work on many different articles here, and just because someone created an article doesn't mean that they take control of it or even have to watch it very closely (though many do). The important thing is to pay attention to feedback and try to listen and learn. Many new editors feel like the best way to contribute to Wikipedia is to create a new article, but that's not the only way or even the best way to start.
I always feel like another editor, Bonadea, said it best in a Teahouse conversation here: ...It is a little unfortunate that many newly-registered editors seem to believe that the best and only way to contribute to Wikipedia is to add new articles. It's unfortunate for two reasons. First, there are many other editing activities that are as important as (or more important than) creating new articles: for instance adding information to existing articles, updating references, fixing errors, adding links between Wikipedia articles, removing inappropriate text or sources, etc. Many of these things are a bit tricky, and it can be easy to get them wrong by (for instance) adding a source link to a website that is deprecated or adding too many Wikipedia links. But that's usually okay! Every single experienced editor has made a bunch of mistakes along the way (and I suspect all of us still make bloopers from time to time), and very few mistakes are truly egregious. Second, creating a new article is pretty much the hardest thing to do for a new editor – mainly because it involves all the tricky stuff such as evaluating notability, writing neutrally, using sources responsibly, picking the right sources, formatting the references, including a reasonable amount of detail in the text, etc. Once you have made a couple of thousand edits, most of those things will be much easier. And there will still be no shortage of notable topics to write about! :-)...
If you'd like help figuring out what to edit about, you can let me know what kinds of things you're interested in and we can try to find something you'd like to edit. Just respond here or on your talk page! Happy editing, Perfect4th (talk) 21:42, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New article not for submission yet

[edit]

Protoverse is the article, check the talk page for help. NoBrainFound (talk) 16:04, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, NoBrainFound! Which talk page are you watning me to check? I can't find an article or draft article about Protoverse. I did see the conversation at the reference desk (permalink), but that conversation doesn't seem to refer to that subject.
When you are referring to a page on Wikipedia, whether it be an article or a talk page or a project page, you can link it by surrounding the page title with [[]], just like in your drafts and normal articles. You can link to, for instance, the Teahouse like this: [[Wikipedia:Teahouse]]. So you can link the talk page you'd like me to check by surrounding it with square brackets, and then it'll be easier for me to know where to check and help you out :) Happy editing, Perfect4th (talk) 04:07, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted it, sorry for the inconvenience. NoBrainFound (talk) 04:11, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No worries! Let me know if you have any other questions! Happy editing, Perfect4th (talk) 20:59, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Fahadotaibi (00:49, 5 November 2024)

[edit]

Hi, I was working tirelessly to added citations and reliable sources for Shaqra University page, all credible sources, but someone who wasn't happy about giving a balanced view of reality deleted all my content. If Wikipedia agrees with this manipulation of content, I will stop editing for Wiki. Wiki now is a PR content only it seems. Thanks. --Fahadotaibi (talk) 00:49, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Fahadotaibi! Let's break this down a bit. You added information to Shaqra University across several days regarding various controversies, correct? Another new editor then removed a portion of the material you added. It's always best to assume good faith about other editors' reasons, as there can be several reasons for an editor removing content like that. One of them is that the editor felt that undue weight was given to claims that had less total significance for the overall subject than the amount of space devoted to them in the article implied. Another is that the editor doesn't wish the information to appear there, which could be because they don't like it or because they have a different point of view on the material than you do, or any number of other reasons or variations on those reasons.
So what do you do about it? Here on Wikipedia there's a cycle that editors use for content disputes called Be Bold, Revert, Discuss. If you make an edit, and another editor removes/reverts part of it, the next step is to discuss it. Usually, the best place for that is the talk page of the article – in this case, Talk:Shaqra University. I'd suggest making a new section there and explaining your edits to the article and politely inviting the other editor to discuss with you. (This works best if you listen to their position as well as explain yours, and make your original post without making them feel attacked.)
Once that conversation is had, there can be several outcomes – hopefully, you can reach a consensus on article content and edit accordingly. You could also run into an issue such as no response, in which case you could then determine the best course of action, or still not have consensus, in which case there are other avenues you can try to better reach consensus and get the eyes of other editors on the article. But you won't be able to reach consensus or determine any other outcome until you start the conversation, and a talk page discussion is the first step for any resolution.
I'm not saying you're wrong, or that the information shouldn't be in the article, but Wikipedia is made up of all kinds of editors with all kinds of points of view, and the content is made better when we can work together through those differences.
Please do let me know if you have any questions! Happy editing, Perfect4th (talk) 03:01, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Unfortunately, I dont have time for this. I have added sections with credible sources and they were all deleted. We can't work against paid PR firms. I will quit editing Wikipedia pages from today. Thanks! Fahadotaibi (talk) 03:14, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have started a talk page, but this editor deleted all my edits and the editors before me calling our edits "anarchy" and that we are trying to have "free speech". Is wikipedia a PR page only? Any negative stories with credible sources and citations are deleted because they are "allegations" and "controversies"? If so, I will quit. Senior editors needs to look into this ASAP. Many thanks Fahadotaibi (talk) 19:05, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Every time I make edits, this other editor would delete them along with a controversy section that someone else has added in 2020. Should I quit editing for Wiki now? Will someone with a revert power take a look? Thank you. Fahadotaibi (talk) 02:21, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Fahadotaibi! Apologies for the unfortunate delay – real-life stuff got in the way and I didn't have the time to devote to this as it deserves. I was going to warn you about the three-revert rule but I see I was too late this time. Basically, in order to avoid endless back-and-forth content addition and removal, there's a pretty hardline rule on Wikipedia that you cannot revert more than three times on one page. Good news is that it's not hard to come back from or avoid getting blocked for it again – the block expires automatically 24 hours from when it was placed (and has already at the time of writing), and you just need to follow the rules at the three-revert rule I linked to earlier to not get blocked. More importantly, though, revert-warring back and forth is not going to improve the article. Currently, the history is full of two editors disagreeing without reaching consensus, and that's never good.
I've read over the talk page discussion. Now, a disclaimer: I cannot read Arabic and don't have the time to do the extra research myself to evaluate source reliability. (A partial side note: it's good for new editors to practice – if you wish to and you're familiar with templates, check out {{Source assess table}} and look at the table titled "Source assessment table: prepared by User:Example". Try it with each source to see how you can quantify them in each category – especially independent and reliable. See if they have, for instance, a page describing how they handle fact-checking. Yes, this can take some time when you're unpracticed, but it is certainly helpful; just start with one and see how it goes.) I appreciate that Arbitorya mentioned one wording compromise that both incorporated your sources and was mindful of sticking to what the source itself says, as best as I can read that discussion. Did you have a concern about that specific solution? I hope that question doesn't come across as accusatory – I'm genuinely unsure what your concern is and I'm trying to understand so that I can help you better. That can give us a starting point to keep going.
And yes, I should warn you that conflicts where you are invested like this can take time. I'm willing to try and help you out with understanding how to handle it according to the Wikipedia rules if you're wanting to, but if you want to be the most successful, you'll have to put some time into it and also be willing to listen and compromise (and so will whoever you're in conversation with, but that part is not in your control). If you don't have time to invest in this right now, probably the best thing to do is to say so and walk away for now. Wikipedia welcomes your contributions, but when there's conflict you have to have conversations to solve it and if you don't have time you won't be able to be an effective editor in that area of conflict.
My talk page is open if you have questions or want to continue this conversation. Best, Perfect4th (talk) 08:52, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Perfect4th .
I really appreciate you taking the time to respond and look into the matter. The other editor told me point black that they have a vested interest in creating a PR page on Wikipedia and it looks like they have hired a professional copy editor, too. This is why they deleted the controversy section and everything else.
The funny thing is that I was asked to donate to Wikimedia as I was trying to access the page, but I find it so hard to donate when Wikipedia has turned into a PR marketing pages for organisations.
"Regular" editors shouldnt have the power to delete whole sections without a valid reason. I am quiting this because I dont have time for editing wars and wikipedia doesnt value my research and contributions honestly. I have spent hours researching, locating sources and writing, but all my contributions got deleted. Fahadotaibi (talk) 07:11, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fahadotaibi, were you referring to this comment as the vested interest in creating a PR page on Wikipedia? I only just found that diff – it's also in a language I don't speak, so I needed some Google Translate for it. I hadn't previously seen anything blatant enough for me to be certain as I haven't notified many editors of that yet, but Wikipedia does have specific guidelines for editors who have a conflict of interest. It appears the other editor has hardly edited since their 3RR block, but if they return I may leave them a notice about conflict of interest editing.
(As for donating, I suppose the distinction doesn't matter to just about anyone other than editors, but the majority of people you interact with here are volunteers who don't care about the fundraising. That's Wikimedia/WMF business, not editor business.)
You are correct that removal of content without any reason is not allowed, but when there is disagreement it is usually best discussed on the talk page to come to a consensus. If you are interested in pursuing the conversation further, you could look into a third opinion to get someone else's voice in the matter. Regardless of whether or not you want to keep working on the issue, I thank you for putting time into Wikipedia and I wish you well. Let me know if you have any other questions, and happy editing, Perfect4th (talk) 20:22, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Pefect4th. I really appreciate your feedback. The other editor is now back deleting my contributions and those before me. What course of action I should do now? Thanks. Fahadotaibi (talk) 11:09, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again, Fahadotaibi! First off, I would advise that you completely stop editing the article itself. Almost the entirety of the last 100 revisions are reversions back and forth between you and one other editor, which is most definitely an edit war even if it isn't a 3RR one. Talk on the talk page by all means to try to reach consensus, but don't edit the article directly, even if it's left as the version you wouldn't prefer.
As to the dispute itself, one thing you could do is get input on the reliability of the sources supporting the claims at the reliable sources noticeboard. Try to succinctly list some claims and the sources that back them up and ask for input. You can also take a look at a third opinion option as I mentioned above. I don't have a further opinion on or time to thoroughly investigate the dispute, but either one would be better than edit warring. Also, for fairness & neutrality's sake: if you do have connections to the subject, please keep in mind the conflict of interest editing guideline as it's very hard to edit neutrally in that case.
Please do let me know if you have any questions on either of those processes or any further questions, and happy editing, Perfect4th (talk) 23:08, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 6 November 2024

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:05, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Universal singularites by NoBrainFound

[edit]

Yes, I gave warnings throughout the draft. Check it out. NoBrainFound (talk) 23:38, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, NoBrainFound! Looks like there's no article about the subject on Wikipedia so far, which is a start. Your next step should be to prove notability, shown by demonstrating that there is significant coverage of the subject itself in multiple reliable sources. (If you're unsure whether a source fits that bill, feel free to link it here or ask at the Teahouse for more info about that.) If the subject is notable, then you can keep improving the article and eventually submit it to the mainspace. Let me know if you have any questions, & happy editing, Perfect4th (talk) 05:24, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question from HerakliosJulianus (15:10, 17 November 2024)

[edit]

Hi, I'd want to switch mentors to someone with experience writing and editing battle and war-related Wikipedia pages. I'm especially interested about the best ways to write and organize a Wikipedia article about a historical war or military engagement. Would you kindly pair me with a mentor with experience in military history?

Thank you! --HerakliosJulianus (talk) 15:11, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, HerakliosJulianus, and welcome! I'm afraid I'm not aware of a specific mentor with an interest in that area, although it's quite possible there is one. However, Wikipedians in general like grouping themselves together based on interests, and you're in luck – there is a Wiki[pedia]Project called WikiProject Military history (MILHIST for short) that you may be interested in. The main page lists some info and resource links, but you see the talk page to ask for help there.
Many WikiProjects are inactive, but I believe MILHIST is one of the most active and should have plenty of contributors who can help you out with any specific questions. I'll add my usual note for new editors: keep in mind creating an article here can be pretty tricky as a newcomer so you may want to edit a bit in existing articles to get a feel for policies here, but once you're familiar there should be plenty of folks in that project knowledgeable enough to help you out.
Feel free to let me know if you have any other questions about this or general Wikipedia editing, and happy editing! Perfect4th (talk) 22:23, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 18 November 2024

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:43, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:50, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question from HimankA380 (12:07, 19 November 2024)

[edit]

Hi,How to add images in an article? --HimankA380 (talk) 12:07, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, HimakA380! The pictures help page explains how to add an image to an article. If you want to add an image that's not yet on Wikimedia Commons (a sister website hosting many of Wikipedia's pictures), Wikipedia:Uploading images has an explanation. You can also check out Wikipedia:Image use policy (policies about using images – copyright is important).
know this is a lot of information, so feel free to let me know if you have any more questions, and happy editing! Perfect4th (talk) 14:47, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Perfect4th&oldid=1258754121"