Hi! Thanks for the welcome! I am a volunteer editor for wikiHow, and I was hoping the wikitext would be the same on here but it isn't, how do you design your userpage? Leia (...message...) 02:36, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'd start with taking a look at WP:USERPAGE, which will explain userpage policy, creation of subpages and everything else to you. If you'd like, there is a user page design guide but it's a little outdated. I personally made my userpage just by yoinking someone else's code and altering it to my tastes. If you'd like, you can copy the code off of my userpage and change out all the userboxes and such to your liking. If there's something in specific you're trying to do, let me know. Hope that helps. Kylemahar902 (talk) 02:51, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, if you're struggling with wikitext in general, you may wish to go through the introduction if you haven't yet seen that. Kylemahar902 (talk) 02:57, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! And I did take a look at the introduction. :) Leia (...message...) 14:02, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I really agree with your comments at the deletion for Li Dalong, there's so many articles to go through and nominate for deletion - there needs to be a better way. The amount of footballers with articles that should be deleted is bad, it's far too many. RossEvans19 (talk) 00:04, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you do some digging you'll find a user by the name of Lugnuts who made what seems to be thousands of sportspeople stubs. I'm sure there's a lot of lore behind it but I'm not aware of all the details. Removing them through AfD just isn't viable, I think it would be better to either nuke them all, or leave them all, so they stop clogging up AfD. Might bring this to the ideas board later after some more investigation. Kylemahar902 (talk) 00:16, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Lugnuts, I looked into his lore a little bit - he has made the most articles on Wikipedia, with 93,000+ (not counting the ones deleted and just counting all of them in total) and he intentionally made wrong edits on them, which he admitted to before leaving (you can see that in his edit history). Whilst some of his articles are notable, a lot of them need to be deleted. RossEvans19 (talk) 02:18, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, as one of the editors most familiar with Lugnuts' articles, I can say that his statement of introducing mistakes was not true (just a way of trying to anger those whom he didn't like once he knew he was about to be banned...) – I've found a good number to be notable when relevant places are checked (i.e. newspaper archives for the countries where the athletes were from). About 10-or-so every day are already being proposed for deletion and many deleted or redirected; see Wikipedia:WikiProject Olympics/Article alerts. BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:34, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah okay! Thanks for letting me know, I genuinely believed he had written articles that had intentional mistakes in them. RossEvans19 (talk) 02:36, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@RossEvans19 I posted in the idea lab if you wanted to chime in. Kylemahar902 (talk) 00:31, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! RossEvans19 (talk) 02:12, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

for your gracious response; I was worried I'd erred on the "too bitey" side. Unfortunately, Wikipedia's been around long enough to have a long history and a lot of our observable weirdness is built on some past piece of history. I hope this doesn't discourage you from noticing problems and thinking about solutions. Old-timers are often happy to share background information that may be relevant to How We Got This Way. This particular issue is especially charged because it's not just about athletes; I think many participants saw LUGSTUBS2 as potentially setting a precedent for bulk deletion or draftification of stubs in other areas without detailed examination, which was why emotion ran so high. Choess (talk) 01:12, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reaching out. I didn't interpret your comments as bitey at all, but I appreciate your concern. All the points you brought up were very relevant, and I can see now how trying to do anything about sports stubs is not only beating a dead horse, but risks sowing further division amongst editors. My key takeaway from this discussion has been that what really helps the encyclopedia is adding more content, rather than worrying about whether stubs exist. I think deletion efforts would likely be better applied to things like hoaxes and admasq. Kylemahar902 (talk) 01:54, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, such as at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people with lower case names and pseudonyms, (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 15:34, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Miminity, guess I forgot. Now that you've added the "preceding unsigned comment" notice, is that sufficient, or am I expected to go back and sign my comment properly? Kylemahar902 (talk) 15:56, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No need. This is just a reminder Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 03:15, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do not feel that this move is justified. While there is overlap in the equipment used, this list represents equipment used predominantly by the Army, and does not include equipment used by the other branches. It's also inconsistent with similar pages for other armed forces around the world. Jonathon A H (talk) 23:05, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Jonathon A H, thanks for the message. I actually thought about specifically reaching out to you first, as you were the last editor - I suppose I should have done so. My rationale for moving the page was that the title conflicts with the lead, in that the title says "List of equipment of the Canadian Army" only for the lead to then tell the reader the list also has the equipment of the Navy, RCAF, etc. I wanted to add this article to Template:Canadian Armed Forces, but then in doing so that could introduce some confusion when readers click on "Equipment" and get taken to "equipment of the army." I noticed that List of equipment of the Canadian Coast Guard has a separate article, but there are no lists for other branches. From my look at the list, it does appear to have equipment that is primarily used by branches other than the army, but you're right in that the list does predominantly focus on the army. Perhaps the solution could be to simply expand the article to include more RCAF and naval equipment? I'm not opposed to moving it back though. Let me know what you think. Kylemahar902 (talk) 23:12, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would also argue it's not inconsistent. See:

• List of equipment of the Romanian Armed Forces
• List of equipment of the Armed Forces of Ukraine
• List of equipment of the Israel Defense Forces
• List of equipment of the Moldovan Armed Forces

Yes, by and large most countries have three separate articles at least, but Canada doesn't really need that seeing as most equipment is standard issue across the CAF, and branch-specific equipment is pretty few and far between, with the obvious exception of the vehicles and such that would be primarily used by the Army. Hope I've explained myself thoroughly. Kylemahar902 (talk) 23:28, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Freak Lunchbox you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Fritzmann2002 -- Fritzmann2002 (talk) 20:41, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Yesterday I updated some non-free images for Canadian coins. I expected to get a note saying someone reviewed them before I continued to update the coin images, but that hasn't been the case, and these images are now on display. I'm now quite concerned that I might have done something wrong and it just hasn't been noticed yet. Could someone please take a look and confirm my updates were proper? I know we take this stuff very seriously and I don't want the Mint to come knocking.

• File:50-cent Reverse.png
• File:50-cent obverse.png
• File:Quarter Obverse 2023.png
• File:Canadian Nickel - obverse.png
• File:Canadian Nickel - reverse.png

Thank you. MediaKyle (talk) 13:43, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need an admin for this. As an editor, though, everything seems fine. Katie^talk 22:01, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I figured it would be best to use the admin tag just in case they did need to be promptly deleted. I appreciate you taking a look. MediaKyle (talk) 22:04, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to Mary Theresa King-Myers. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit for review" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:09, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that's reasonable, although I do think that being the first female municipal councillor in rural Canada alone makes the article pass WP:GNG. I figured by posting the article it might encourage others to try to add to it with the council minutes. I guess I'll just have to wait until I have time to go to the Halifax archives. MediaKyle (talk) 15:15, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @MediaKyle!

A few days ago you gave me instructions for nominating articles for "good article" title (you said it was looking good). You mentioned that once I nominate the article you'd be happy to review it.

I have successfully managed to nominate it just now (after improving it in various ways), and I would be very grateful if you could review it!

Here is the article in question: Religious responses to the problem of evil. Brent Silby (talk) 16:21, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Brent Silby, that's great! You actually just reminded me I have another good article review open at the moment so I should probably go ahead and finish that one first, but it's nearly complete anyways. I should be able to get started on your review sometime this weekend, looking forward to digging into it. Cheers, MediaKyle (talk) 16:34, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for agreeing to review the article! I am looking forward to our discussion :D Brent Silby (talk) 20:16, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MediaKyle I am not sure how the review process works, but if you have any proposals/suggestions for improving the article, then I'd be more than happy to implement them. Brent Silby (talk) 21:48, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, I suppose I could have explained more what I meant by review. This section in the instructions will give you a more thorough explanation of what a review is like. Basically, once I open the review, there will be a separate review page where I'll provide a list of suggestions, a spot check of your sources, and assessments of the other GA criteria. In the meantime, you might want to double check that all your images are appropriately licensed, no deadlinks in your citations, etc... This article is a long one, and is going to require a lot of thought, so the review might take a few days of back and forth. But if you're willing to put the time into working on the article, I'm willing to put the time into reviewing it. It helps that I happen to find the topic quite interesting. Regards, MediaKyle (talk) 22:03, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @MediaKyle! Since our last chat, I have checked all of the references, and fixed the ones that were broken. I have also used a citation bot to improve them even further.

In addition to that, I have added even more illustrations and fixed some small punctuation errors here and there.

I think that the article is pretty much fully ready for your review. I tried to polish it as well as I could. Brent Silby (talk) 21:52, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article Freak Lunchbox you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Freak Lunchbox for comments about the article, and Talk:Freak Lunchbox/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Fritzmann2002 -- Fritzmann2002 (talk) 20:44, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:59, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery 15:55, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell me how to create a wikipedia page? :) Loria (...message...) 17:47, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Racing Past. There's a few ways to go about it - for your first article, you'd likely benefit from creating it in the draft space where it can be reviewed by another editor before publishing. To create your page, I would probably start with the article wizard, but you can also just go directly to the page you want to create if you so choose, i.e. Draft:yourpagenamehere. There's a handy help page for this over at Help:Your first article which you might benefit from reading before you start. Let me know if you have any run into any issues or have any more questions. MediaKyle (talk) 17:53, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thank you for your help! Loria (...message...) 22:59, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]