Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 8 sections are present.

Hi! This is my talk page, feel free to drop me a message. To experienced editors: feel free to stalk my talk page and reply to any threads here.To admins: I prefer that my talk page remain unprotected, even if it's being vandalized. Such edits do not particularly bother me and I prefer to remain accessible to anyone who would like to reach me. However, if the volume of vandalism is so high that no other solution would stop disruption, I don't mind if my talk page is semi-protected for a day or two. Hopefully, this is a rare occurrence.

The redirect Onlyinclude has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 January 29 § Onlyinclude until a consensus is reached. User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 04:56, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Elli,

I hope this message finds you well. I wanted to reach out about a consensus debate currently happening on Donald Trump’s page, as it mirrors a similar situation we encountered during Joe Biden’s presidency. Four years ago, we agreed on a consensus to keep the lead sentence format, which I believe was both fair and sensible. Specifically, the line for Joe Biden was: "...who has been the 46th and current president of the United States since 2021." Looking back, I see that you were in favor of maintaining this as the status quo. Talk:Joe Biden/Archive 15#RfC: Should we say he is "current" president in the lead, or not?

I believe we should apply this same structure to Donald Trump’s page, just as we did for Joe Biden and Barack Obama before him, to ensure consistency and clarity. This format clearly conveys the order ("47th"), incumbency ("current"), and start date ("since 2025"), which helps maintain uniformity across presidential biographies.

Given your involvement and support in that earlier consensus, your insights would be incredibly valuable in the current discussion. It’s important that we uphold the same standards regardless of the officeholder, and I’d appreciate it if you could weigh in, share your thoughts, and cast a vote. Here is the current discussion and vote underway: Talk:Donald Trump, Superseding consensus #50, sentences 1 and 2

Thanks a lot, and I hope you’ll consider contributing. TimeToFixThis (talk) 07:48, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello --Rudy3x (talk) 16:44, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rudy3x hi! Do you have any questions about editing Wikipedia? Elli (talk | contribs) 20:45, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am used to publishing articles related to the origins and learning of the Hebrew language and would like to post some of those on Wikipedia. I use a lot of graphics and charts there. I have PDF outputs of those. What can you suggest, to effectively post those on WP. Thanks in advance. Yoel --Yoelgan2025 (talk) 18:46, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Yoelgan2025 hi! I'm not sure exactly what you're asking for help with -- if you want to be able to upload PDFs, you can upload them to Wikimedia Commons, though you need to make sure they are appropriately licensed. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:46, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, Elli. I do not currently have a question, but only wished to introduce myself. I have just created an account and you were assigned as my mentor. I hope you have a wonderful day. --Fagris Ofnir (talk) 18:34, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Fagris Ofnir hi! I hope you have a wonderful day as well :) Please let me know if you have any questions. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:44, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 February 1 § Category:Mayoral elections in Irvine, California on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:13, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have a question that can be answered by a checkuser, I'm asking you because I found your name in the recently active checkusers list but in case you haven't got time I can ask another checksuer. I've read that a user can register and use just 1 account, if a user creates more there's a violation of the rules and the other accounts may be considered sockpuppets and, in case, blocked. So, I've noticed a certain username which is most of the time sleeping and is active solely to make a specific kind of edits in certain periods. I find this a bit strange, I think that it's possible that such a username is a sockpuppet of another account which is normally used unless when the user needs to make that specific kind of edits that he does't want to be related to his main account. My question is the following: should this be the case, is the original user doing something against the rules (so that he might deserve a check to find a relation between 2 or more accounts) or is he acting legally? Let me know your opinion please, thanks for your time. 151.82.211.62 (talk) 18:14, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! If the accounts only edit in unrelated areas, that likely is allowed per WP:GOODSOCK (see point 2: privacy). If the accounts are editing in the same topic areas or especially the same articles/discussions, though, that would be a problem. Elli (talk | contribs) 18:01, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for replying! Actually I can't tell if a certain other account is editing in the same topic area, I just find a bit strange that an account behaves like that: waking up each N weeks or months to make a specific kind of edits and then back to sleep. This made me think that an original account is normally used for everything else while that one is a sock he's trying to keep unrelated, but if you say that's nothing suspicious at all I must have got wrong about this, even if perhaps a check would prove definitively that there's really nothing wrong. 151.82.121.26 (talk) 16:23, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! How do I create a new wiki --Phillipmar1234 (talk) 22:46, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How can create my personal profile --Satya prakash mishr (talk) 08:48, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2025).

Administrator changes

• Arcticocean
• Wugapodes

Euryalus

CheckUser changes

• Firefly
• L235

Oversighter changes

• Firefly
• Guerillero
• L235
• Moneytrees

Technical news

• Administrators can now nuke pages created by a user or IP address from the last 90 days, up from the initial 30 days. T380846
• A 'Recreated' tag will now be added to pages that were created with the same title as a page which was previously deleted and it can be used as a filter in Special:RecentChanges and Special:NewPages. T56145

Arbitration

• The arbitration case Palestine-Israel articles 5 has been closed.

Greetings Elli,

I hope you are having a good day. I sent you this message to ask you a question regarding citations. Often you will come across sentences that do not have citations, and I have observed that other Wikipedia editors have left a superscript following said sentences reading ‘citation needed’, or other similar words. How do I perform the same action?

Marked, Fagris Ofnir --Fagris Ofnir (talk) 19:00, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Fagris Ofnir hello! You can add the {{citation needed}} template. Elli (talk | contribs) 04:59, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. This will be helpful. Fagris Ofnir (talk) 18:21, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How do i upload images inorder to make a bio --The lyrical sharpshooter (talk) 12:15, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:2027 in the United States by month indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:41, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

	A barnstar for you!
	Thank you, Elli, for your contributions to Wikimedia. I really appreciate your efforts! Baqi:) (talk) 16:18, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How can I sing music better what do I need more to do --King Joshhy (talk) 19:28, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi mentor. I'm the designer and builder of the Exotrucks. I was hoping to get them added to Wikipedia for people searching. The article would be very similar to the "ariel atom" for example --Terrytumultyjr (talk) 01:59, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I need Instagram profile data --Black het hackr (talk) 11:39, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How to sell my old coin --JitGogoi9954 (talk) 02:43, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

how to change image --Yeahheahshs (talk) 04:00, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2021 Facebook outage is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2021 Facebook outage (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 03:30, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

hi, elli! i have a question about title standardization - i'm trying to make a page on the play "seven methods of killing kylie jenner," which is stylized all in lower case, but i notice it's not possible to create a page which starts in a lowercase letter. i'm assuming i should format it in title case, and then start the page with: "Seven Methods of Kylie Jenner (stylized as seven methods of kylie jenner)"? --Locust Valley (talk) 14:25, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Locust Valley you're correct about this. Titles of works are written in title case, even if stylized differently. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:44, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

thanks elli! Locust Valley (talk) 18:27, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I blocked of moving page by Elli because of unfamiliar by moving page rule , Elli,As I know that I did them fault and un- concious I gurantee that don't repeat it.please reback it to me and It will not repeat it again thanks. July2806 (talk) 19:06, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@July2806 can you explain why other editors were unhappy with your moves? Elli (talk | contribs) 19:11, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1_I think Managers were only like ideas of themselves and don't pay to ideas of others and If I had a fault instead of guidance and edit , They deleted my creation pages.

2_I said, It was fault and unfamiliarity and It will not repeat it again but If you are not please by my editing you can omit my access to editing permanently.

I will glad and pleased to omitted my access to editing permanently. July2806 (talk) 08:23, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@July2806 hi, I'm still not convinced you should be making page moves. If you'd like to appeal your block here to an uninvolved admin, you can do so with the {{unblock}} template on your own talk page. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:15, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why the HELL am I getting stupid notifications about getting my hard work deleted.. specifically with added images on music pages. Can you please tell me what I did wrong to get them deleted, and HOW I can put them back up with correct credit? --Ieslie (talk) 20:21, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ieslie thanks for reaching out. It appears you were uploading the covers to Wikimedia Commons, but Wikimedia Commons only allows freely-licensed works. Since most album covers are protected by copyright, they aren't allowed to be on Commons. However, you can locally upload them using the upload wizard. Click on "Upload a non-free file" and follow the instructions there. Please let me know if you have any questions :) Elli (talk | contribs) 23:14, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moved comment from the top. guninvalid (talk) 21:54, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ผมจะสามรถใข้งานได้ปกติแล้วใช่มั้ยคับ จะสามารถเชื่อมต่ออินเตอร์เน็ตและรับสัญญานเป็นปกติ --Puk2499 (talk) 23:18, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Elli! Nice to meet you, and thank you for the warm greeting, I see that you have a lot of contributions and are doing a great job of making Wikipedia a better place --MsYeromenkoMD (talk) 10:57, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MsYeromenkoMD Thanks! Please let me know if you have any questions about editing :) Elli (talk | contribs) 04:50, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

hi --Articlefixer44 (talk) 23:58, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Articlefixer44 hello! Please let me know if you have any questions about editing Wikipedia :) Elli (talk | contribs) 04:51, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1867 ballot measures in the United States has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. –Aidan721 (talk) 20:47, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Elli, I had a question regarding Roger Spong’s page and whether his two other children plus grandchildren could be added as only his son Christopher and his two sons are mentioned. His two other children are female and I was hoping it wasn’t just this reason that excluded them. I’d be very grateful for your advice. Thank you. --Parkray (talk) 17:37, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Parkray hi! In general, including names of descendants, especially living ones, runs into concerns about due weight and privacy (see WP:BLPNAME). If the descendants are notable (currently have a Wikipedia page) then they could be included. Otherwise, you'd want sourcing indicating them as especially significant. Elli (talk | contribs) 04:53, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello . What is the code for putting 'citation needed' for unsourced write ups. --Omnipresentnight (talk) 09:29, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Omnipresentnight hi! It's the {{citation needed}} template. Elli (talk | contribs) 04:51, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

your characterizations of my motives are incorrect

"especially given that RfC is currently leaning strongly against your position. You've taken your opponents to AN, trying to get them sanctioned for correctly enforcing our BLP policy"

maybe some operate that way, and maybe you've seen a few, I sure have, but I do not operate that way. can you guess why?

my sole motive was to restore RfC integrity and I needed to provide diffs to support my case

and if it violated BLP, why wasn't it unequivocally removed before the RFC was even opened, rather than being a point of argumentation in the RFC? should every editor who supported inclusion be sanctioned for promoting a BLP vio? soibangla (talk) 09:47, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Soibangla to be clear, the violation of policy was in readding the content to the article after it had been challenged without reaching a consensus to do so. Per WP:BLPRESTORE: When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first. Hence, restoring the content without a clear consensus, which you did, violated BLP policy. Elli (talk | contribs) 10:08, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

the content existed before the RFC and was still under RFC discussion, including expressed BLP concerns, so I did not see a BLP vio condition existed, meanwhile others removed the content with the RFC still underway, so I restored the status quo, obscure policy I was unaware of notwithstanding. in all the years I've been here, hardly a week goes by that I do not discover a policy shortname I had never seen before, including BLPRESTORE, as I am an exopedian rather than a metapedian, but I suppose ignorance of the law is no excuse. soibangla (talk) 10:36, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"cast aspersions about whether other editors are trying to cover up the truth about Trump-aligned figures" is not at all what I did. soibangla (talk) 11:25, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

are you open to reconsidering my sanction? soibangla (talk) 05:57, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Soibangla I'd be willing to reconsider in a few months, if at that point you can demonstrate that you understand the issues with your previous approach to the topic area and that you likely won't engage in that sort of behavior going forwards. Otherwise, you're welcome to appeal at AN or AE. Elli (talk | contribs) 10:48, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

well, again, I maintain that my AN edit did not at all "cast aspersions about whether other editors are trying to cover up the truth about Trump-aligned figures," but rather I was merely trying to get the RfC back on track. I pinged those editors to be transparent to them and so they could contribute if they chose.

the previous "strikingly similar comment" you cited, while a response to an editor I happen to like, was not actually directed at them, but rather it was a satirical remark directed at no one in particular; another admin previously misconstrued the satirical meaning (I have found in my life that written humor, particularly satire, is often misconstrued).

and again, I was unaware of BLPRESTORE, as I see others are also unaware of it and continue violating it. I will pledge to avoid participating on Talk pages to the maximum extent possible, never initiate any noticeboard discussions, and just stick to article edits. so yes, I have learned my lesson: avoid misunderstandings and conflicts by avoiding others to the maximum extent I can. I intend no malice. soibangla (talk) 11:59, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Soibangla I didn't say your edits to AN cast aspersions. The concerning edit was this one. As for BLPRESTORE and other concerns, I've already explained my rationale for the topic ban, the circumstances where I'll reconsider, and your other options for appealing. Elli (talk | contribs) 01:51, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

you did not cite that edit and it was not directed at any individuals, though it's abundantly sourced reality and a major reason anyone has ever heard of him, and it has been repeatedly removed.

I told you I was unaware of BLPRESTORE and that others also are because they keep violating it.

I find your rationale woefully inadequate to justify a death sentence from the topic area in which I have done 99% of my work for over a decade. goodbye. soibangla (talk) 02:21, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

is back to being a conspiracy theorist in the first sentence again.

I recommend posting on Talk a warning that editors restoring that content risk sanctions for unknowingly blundering into BLPRESTORE, just as I did. I doubt I am the only one unfamiliar with this obscure policy.

also, in no way did I cast aspersions on any participants in that article, and most especially not to game an RFC. there was no BATTLEGROUND behavior. soibangla (talk) 22:56, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, i wanted to ask if youtube interviews are considered as a source? For example an actors's interview on youtube about a movie or their company etc. --Omnipresentnight (talk) 19:23, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The first round of the 2025 WikiCup ended on 26 February. As a reminder, we are no longer disqualifying the lowest-scoring contestants; everyone who competed in round 1 will advance to round 2 unless they have withdrawn or been banned from Wikipedia. Instead, the contestants with the highest round-point totals now receive tournament points at the end of each round. Unlike the round points in the main WikiCup table, which are reset at the end of each round, tournament points are carried over between rounds and can only be earned if a competitor is among the top 16 round-point scorers. This table shows all competitors who have received tournament points so far.

Round 1 was very competitive compared with previous years; two contestants scored more than 1,000 round points, and the top 16 contestants all scored more than 500 round points. The following competitors scored more than 800 round points:

• Gog the Mild (submissions) with 1,168 round points, mainly from 4 featured articles and 4 good articles on old military history, in addition to an assortment of GA and FA reviews.
• Generalissima (submissions) with 1,095 round points, mainly from 2 FAs, 2 featured lists, 8 GAs, and 16 Did You Know articles mainly on historical topics.
• BeanieFan11 (submissions), with 866 round points from 20 GAs, 23 DYKs, and 2 In the News articles primarily about athletes.
• Sammi Brie (submissions), with 846 round points from 16 GAs about radio and TV stations, 45 GA reviews, and 3 DYKs.
• Hey man im josh (submissions), with 816 round points from 5 FLs about sports and Olympic topics, 46 FL reviews, 3 ITN articles, and a large number of bonus points.
• MaranoFan (submissions), with 815 round points primarily from 3 FAs and 1 GA about music, in addition to 9 article reviews.

The full scores for round 1 can be seen here. During this round, contestants have claimed 18 featured articles, 26 featured lists, 1 featured-topic article, 197 good articles, 38 good-topic articles and more than 100 Did You Know articles. In addition, competitors have worked on 23 In the News articles, and they have conducted nearly 550 reviews.

Remember that any content promoted after 26 February but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2, which begins on 1 March. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, feel free to review one of the nominations listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:12, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Elli, greetings. I just created my first page. How do I know if/when it gets approved or not? And is there a way to speed up the process? --Rema36 (talk) 20:38, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and thanks for the revert. I'd just like to ask if there's any way to revdel the move summaries per WP:DENY and other WP:NOTHERE reasons? Borgenland (talk) 05:01, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Borgenland It's possible under WP:RD2, but I didn't think it was warranted here. Elli (talk | contribs) 05:12, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Probably me being too prudish at the F-word. Borgenland (talk) 05:39, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

สวัสดีครับคุณเอลลี่ ยินดีที่รู้จักครับ ผมเรียนรู้เรื่องพื้นฐานและแหล่งกำเนิดและเรียนรู้พร้อมทั้งอยากสมัครการทำงานอินเตอร์เน็ตเขียนบทความแบบมีรายได้ด้วยนะครับผมเคยได้ยินมาว่ารวยได้ง่ายๆ --Chanapudjorasa (talk) 06:18, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]