Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120 121, 122

This page has archives. Sections older than 4 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present.

I got caught 2/2/2025 between completing new account and losing password in final verification. I don’t know how to provide a password to you acceptable in order to complete verification. --Ebermanann (talk) 12:14, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ebermanann Good day. I am uncertain about the message you are attempting to convey. Since you are communicating with me using your username, it indicates that you are logged into Wikipedia. If you do not recall your password, please visit Help:Reset password, and follow the provided instructions to reset your password. Pop back here if you have further questions or need any assistance for I am here to help. Best regards. Cassiopeia talk 01:49, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 00:06, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How do I make a page on mobile? --Drippy Monke (talk) 12:14, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Drippy Monke Good day. The Wikipedia application does not facilitate the direct creation of new articles; therefore, it is necessary to utilize a laptop or desktop computer for this purpose. In order for a new editor to create an article, they must have completed a minimum of ten edits in the main space of Wikipedia and have maintained a registered account for at least four days. Both of these criteria must be satisfied prior to the creation of an article. I suggest you to read WP:Your first article and follow the instructions prior starting crating an article. GNG is defined as the subject must fulfill specific criteria to demonstrate significant coverage from independent and reliable sources. These sources should provide in-depth discussions about the subject rather than merely offering passing mentions. This requirement is essential for verification, which is a core policy of Wikipedia. If a source is affiliated/associated/connected with the subject—such as the subject's marketing team, company, social media platforms, information in interviews of the subject or any self-published information—this indicates a lack of independence. Consequently, such sources cannot be utilized to satisfy the notability guidelines. Sources originating from educational institutions, government entities, foundations, social media platforms, and private companies are regarded as unreliable. In contrast, materials published by "major" newspapers and "reputable" books are typically considered reliable sources. Regards. Cassiopeia talk 21:43, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'm currently working on an article about an Italian railway station (draft still pending review). If it gets accepted, I wonder how do I link it to the equivalent Italian language article? --FoxgloveChoux (talk) 07:51, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FoxgloveChoux Please see Help:Interwiki linking and also the "See also" section at the bottom which would help you what you looking for. Cassiopeia talk 08:23, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the prompt reply! Will check that out. FoxgloveChoux (talk) 08:44, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bollywood hungama updated there box office on their wdbsite and website link citation was given so I updated the page it was linked with box office Dkfkvj (talk) 10:54, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dkfkvj Ok, I saw and checked. Thank you for letting me know. Please state in the edit summary so other editors would know. Regards. Cassiopeia talk

When reported by UFC and ESPN, they are official. They do not need independent sourcing. That's why you allow UFC.com/events to be sourced on the actual event page and move them to the "fight card" when they are on the UFC website. Why is that okay and why do you allow UFC.com to be sourced then.

You can answer "It's better to have independent sources" but for bout announcements, UFC and ESPN are official and are very reliable. They are not unreliable. You fail to understand this. Tell me where we can have discussion with other senior editors about BOUT ANNOUNCEMENTS. you should not be the authority for this. I want other people to oppose or approve this. Then, we can avoid this going forward. I do not think you are right for bout announcements and I want other editors to agree to a consensus. Where can I make this suggestion and you and I can debate this because I believe you are wrong for this case.Marty2Hotty (talk) 21:35, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Marty2Hotty I have explained to you for for more two years. Independent, reliable is the guidelines. Remove all the UFC source and content if you like. I have no more comment. ESPN contract with UFC is ending soon and it looks like another channel will take over, and if so, then ESPN can be the source as by then it will be considered independent. Cassiopeia talk 21:39, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Third_opinion#Active_disagreements

I added our disagreement to this page for third party discussion. Our discussion goes nowhere. You allow UFC.com Events to be official for pages like UFC 312. We move bouts to the Wikipedia page based on the UFC.com events page because they are official. This is not a scandal or subjective content. They are bout orders. Why do you allow UFC.com/Events to be used as the main source? The answer is: it is reliable, right? Why not for ESPN news report about a bout announcement. It is reliable and going to be posted eventually. Your argument makes no sense and conflicts, which is why I am requesting third-party comments.

Please explain why you allow UFC.com/Events to be a source then. The answer is the company announces events/bouts - media reports on them. These are bout announcements, not scandals. Marty2Hotty (talk) 22:23, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see no problem in having both sources as means to add bouts to events. ESPN's contract for broadcast is not a reason at all to avoid them. I can "understand" trying to keep UFC sources for bouts as dependent sources, but still they are reliable and it makes no sense to refrain from adding it to articles. That being said, this feels like another one of several episodes in which Cassiopeia tries to put her will into the updates. I'm sure there will be plenty more in the future. I'm not going to extend myself on this. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 23:34, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hotty,

I, others editors / admins have explained to you about sources many times for the last two years and have provided you the links for your perusal many times but I guess you didnt read them. Here the links below and please read them. (Note: Wikipedia is not a news channel but an encyclopedia, so not everything publish by whoever can be put in Wikipedia articles.)

I dont get upset when they change the source if they are independent and reliable which Felipe94 has never done that from my experience. I change the source when it is not independent and reliable; Dont suggest the barnstar which given by other editors and accuse them of something they didnt do.

I didnt state not reliable but NOT independent because of the affiliation/association/connection with UFC since they have business dealings (contract). r use of primary source sparingly: Primary sources can be used to present straightforward, descriptive statements that are directly supported by the source itself. This ensures that any educated reader can verify the content without requi:Independent source - Please read - (1) "Conflicts of interest" under Wikipedia:Independent sources#Non-independent sources, (2) "Relationship to primary and secondary sources" and (3) "Third-party versus independent" under Related concepts.

Foring specialist knowledge or interpretation. For example, quoting a court transcript to illustrate a witness's testimony is acceptable, but interpreting the testimony as fact requires secondary sources - see "An article about a busine" under Primary sources should be used carefully (note: can be used in article but does not contribute to the WP:N requirement for an article)

On the another matter about name change, pls read WP:NAMECHANGES - note: "after routinely" and not right after (immediately) the name change - if you want to know the guidelines. Cassiopeia talk 23:38, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, what are the objectives or goals of the edits? Am I required to do the edits? --Dr Michael La Capria (talk) 08:31, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Michael La Capria Good day. You are not obligated to make this edit. However, should you have any inquiries regarding the editing process on Wikipedia, wish to understand specific Wikipedia guidelines, or require assistance, please feel free to visit my talk page here. I am available to provide support. Cassiopeia talk 02:37, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]