Archives

2021, 2022, 2023, 2024, 2025

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 180 days are automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Note: Legend7583's mentor Snowmanonahoe is away.

Hi Snowmanonahoe,

I need your help ... do you know why the Andrea Dupe page is in "no index" statuts ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrea_Dup%C3%A9 <meta name="robots" content="noindex,nofollow,max-image-preview:standard"> --Legend7583 (talk) 13:43, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Legend7583 Although the article was accepted via the articles for creation process, the AfC reviewer does not have the WP:AUTOPATROLLED right, so before search engines are allowed to index it, a new page patroller has to also perform a review. The Main public logs show that no such review has yet taken place. If 90 days elapse without review, articles automatically get marked as OK to index. There has been some WP:COPYVIO with images in the article, which may be why the review has been delayed, apart from the usual NPP backlog. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:21, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your explication Legend7583 (talk) 14:40, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello sir, I'm glad to have you as my mentor. Seeing a biography of many notable persons inspired my passion to join the global editors and article writers in wikipedia to make my contribution. You can guide and teach me simultaneously to the world of free contributors. Thank you --Fabejo (talk) 19:54, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Fabejo and welcome to Wikipedia. I'll be happy to answer any questions you have if you post them here on my talk page. You could also use the Teahouse if you want a quicker reply from experienced editors. You are correct in thinking that Wikipedia only has articles about people who are notable in the specific way that word is used here. The other relevant policy is the one about biographies of living people. Please don't try to draft an autobiography as that is likely to fail: you can put some limited description of yourself on your user page, as you have already done. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:09, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much sir@@Michael D. Turnbull,how should I start a fresh article for well known academia who had authored many publication and made a contribution to the world of science? Fabejo (talk) 11:26, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For academics, we have some special guidance about notability: see WP:NACADEMIC and notice that they only need to meet one of the criteria but must do so in a way that any draft makes clear with reliable sources. There is general advice about how to start drafting articles at Help:Your first article but unless you have prior experience with Wikipedia (e.g. because you have edited without bothering to create an account until now), I would strongly advise you to begin by contributing to existing articles so as to learn more about our policies and guidelines. Writing articles from scratch is quite difficult and we have a good essay about that. Is the academic you want to write about personally known to you? If so, there are some additional considerations regarding conflicts of interest. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:51, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know him personally but his outstanding performance when he was an undergraduate student, master degree and PhD and his current publication deserves a wikipedia page sir.

I'll be glad if you could put me through. Fabejo (talk) 12:14, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you mean by "put me through": perhaps you could explain? Please don't call me "sir" as here in England that sort of title is only used for Knights! If you mention here the name and academic affiliation of the person you intend to write about, I may be able to give further advice. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:10, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=rkKeSr8AAAAJ&hl=en

The above link is his research. Overall best graduating student of taraba state University jalingo. Best graduating student in msc. computer science bayero university kano. Currently PhD Student, Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS Course: information communication technology. Fabejo (talk) 13:56, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Fabejo With a H-index of only 6, I don't see how this person could meet any of the requirements of WP:NACADEMIC. We tend to say that a biography of him would be too soon to establish notability. He's not even finished his PhD and found permanent employment, yet. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:07, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He is currently a lecturer in the university.

Okay thank you very much I really appreciate. Fabejo (talk) 16:57, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mike ... I have a few questions about references:

— Can reference lists be annotated?

— Can COI references be placed under See also?

One last question, related to my last message elsewhere: were you able to get that screenshot? Augnablik (talk) 12:36, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Augnablik Not sure what you mean by annotated references. Maybe explanatory footnotes (separate from references) using {{efn}} are what you mean? The WP:SEEALSO section of an article is only for wikilinks to related articles but you can have a "further reading" section where you can, as far as I know, put any citation but are usually to books. I've been busy, so not yet done the screenshots but will get round to it, probably tomorrow. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:16, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, Mike, I didn't mean explanatory footnotes ... having more or less forgotten that they even exist in Wikipedia, as I'd only heard about what they were but I don't recall ever seeing any in articles I've edited. What I had in mind by a "reference list" was like a bibliography in which all the entries have a brief mention of what's important about them for readers interested to know more about the subject of the article, which is what efn's seem to also be.

You've given me a pile of homework with those efn and SEEALSO articles from just a cursory glance! Do you know of any further Wiki guidance with suggestions about which layouts might be of particular value for references in different circumstances?

As for the screenshot, very low priority. I asked only because I wasn't sure whether it might still be forthcoming. Augnablik (talk) 07:59, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For layouts in particular circumstances, I think your best bet will be to look at good and featured articles associated with Projects of relevance to the topic you are interested in, for example from the table at WP:WikiProject Biography/Arts and entertainment: most other Projects have similar tables. (Screenshots now sent.) Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:52, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for both your advice and the screenshots, Mike. If my earlier comment about your giving me a pile of homework came across as anything but a lighthearted way to send appreciation for such a large stash of information, please be assured that's how it was meant. Augnablik (talk) 00:37, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mike, i'm making a draft on Diacetonamine.

I was wondering if you can use your knowledge of chemistry to make any edits? Many thanks in advance.2.101.56.53 (talk) 06:20, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Diacetonamine

Hi IP editor. The problem is that there are always dozens of references that could be used for simple chemicals and I prefer to write about things that are clearly notable: pesticides and pharmaceutical drugs being obvious examples. I see that there are 85 citations to diacetonamine just in RSC journals (from the Chemspider entry) and the trick is to find the ones that confirm notability, preferably in secondary sources so the person who reviews your draft will find it easy to accept. You could look at its Wikidata entry for ideas: you should certainly mention its occurrence in Carteriospongia, for example. it doesn't seem to be on the REACH list of large-scale intermediares (we keep that list at User:Marbletan/REACH), which is a pity as that would be a good pointer to notability. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:05, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning, I trust you are doing good? I am requesting for a suggestion of whether gimba kakanda is notable enough to have a wikipedia page.

Kakanda is a writer,journalist and public intellectual whose work span literature he gained recognition with his poetry collection "Safari pants"

He has contributed to national discourse through columns in respected outlets such as Daily Trust, Al Jazeera, and The Guardian (Nigeria). His commentary often influences public debate, particularly among Nigeria’s politically aware youth. Fabejo (talk) 06:03, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Fabejo. The first thing you need to ask yourself is "can I find reliable sources that have significant coverage about Kakanda but are independent from him?" (so not mainly based on interviews). I know little about Nigerian journalists/poets so I can't answer that question but you may be motivated to find these sources. Anything confirming that he does indeed influence public debate would be great! If you can place your three "best" sources here in the form of links or brief descriptions, I can give more advice. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:11, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://literaturevoices.com.ng/literary-fraternity-in-nigeria-today-tends-to-be-more-political-than-literary-an-interview-with-gimba-kakanda-by-hussaina-shabafu/

Interview, not independent!

https://gimbakakanda.wordpress.com

Wordpress is a generally unreliable source. See WP:RSPWORDPRESS

https://www.premiumtimesng.com/opinion/730778-shettima-at-58-a-study-in-the-art-of-salesmanship-by-gimba-kakanda.html

By him, not about him, so no use.

https://www.thecable.ng/book-hunting-with-mr-vice-president/

By him, not about him, so no use.

https://www.thecable.ng/sokotos-grant-application-template/

By him, not about him, so no use.

https://www.thecable.ng/author/gimba-kakanda/

All by him: useful only as an example of his writing.

https://www.gimba kakanda.com

His website, so clearly not independent.

These are the links. Fabejo (talk) 11:33, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I only asked for your three best about him and this set is very thin on that front. Finding good sources is, I know, tricky to do but it is vital if a Wikipedia article is going to be possible. We don't need evidence that people exist, we need evidence they are notable as required for this encyclopedia. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:54, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Mike Turnbull I'm sorry for the distraction I am just curious to start writing an article for a living person. I don't know if you could refer me to some few notable persons that were not not on Wikipedia so as I can start writing under your supervision. Thank you. Fabejo (talk) 12:08, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an expert in notable people but we have a great Project to increase the content of the encyclopedia about women, who are under-represented in biographies. Take a look at WP:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/348 for a current initiative and maybe think about female authors in your country who don't yet have articles. It is often easier to find sources for authors because newspapers and magazines review their books and give a bit of background about them. My other advice is that you can equally well contribute by adding to existing articles. Wikipedia is a work-in-progress and when you see a good source (e.g. a film review, a book review, a new review of a biotech breakthrough or whatever), you could summarise it and add the citation to the relevant article. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:04, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mike ... in addition to the other major article you know I'm working on, I'm also doing a little copy editing for the September GOCE backlog drive. When I copy edit, I often do some actual editing in addition, if not too time-consuming; and I have a related editing question about an article I'm working on about a major celebrity:

I've tightened up the lead a bit but it's currently 439 words, which is slightly longer than the general recommendation of 400-max. But I also know the word count in a lead can vary with the article's size and complexity.

Since I can't find any supporting MOS information about suggested ratios of lead length for varying lengths of the body of an article, do you think 439 words is okay for an article of 9,400+ words? Or do you know somewhere that does give that sort of guidance? Augnablik (talk) 10:17, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The lead section should be a concise summary of the article, not a repetition of bits of the article. It should be written in a summary style. Its purpose is mainly to give an accessible overview of the whole article. It should not repeat the information in the article word for word, nor should it introduce new information: see WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. The length of the lead needs to be balanced against the length of the article. While a featured article might have a lead of between 250 and 400 words, that would be an upper limit. A Start-class article might only need a lead that is between 100 to 250 words long to summarize the article. That said, I wouldn't sweat this too much if you are following the advice I've linked. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:04, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ensuring that the lead in this article isn't a repetition of bits of the article elsewhere is my next task. I'm about to do a final check on that by using a strategy that just came to me earlier today, which I think will make the task much easier in such a long article. Which is:

— Having the same article open on the screen in two browser windows at the same time, side by side.

— Keeping the lead open in the window where I'm editing, but the rest of the article in the other window I'm checking.

Since I'm following your linked advice, it's nice to know I shouldn't "sweat this too much"! Augnablik (talk) 15:34, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Turnbull, well, even though I was delighted with my "find" yesterday of a time-saving way to do a final check on an article lead, I decided that using it would be too much time to spend on a task that requires just basic copy editing when I've already done quite a bit of quick editing as I went along — and have other pending work. I'll use the discovery for other times and instead just add the need for careful editing of the lead on a list of suggested editing tasks to go on the article's Talk page after giving the article one last look.

I'd like to share that "find," though. I'll check that it's not already somewhere in Wiki documentation — but assuming it's not, what would you recommend as the best way to take the idea forward there? Augnablik (talk) 07:55, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There must be some "how to" pages where you could add your tip, although I must say I don't immediately know of a good one. Personally, I regularly open multiple tabs for all sorts of purposes including having my cited text/source in one tab and the place I'm editing in another. Since I know you don't use the source editor very much, you might not be aware that if you edit an article like Judy Garland in that editor, you can hit the "preview" button to the right in the top row of icons (not "show preview" at the foot of your screen outside the edit window). This will split the edit window into two parts: on the left is the source editor and on the right is the rendered article which can be scrolled independently! Hence you can be looking at the full article somewhere while source editing the lead section. It helps to have a PC with a decent wide screen if you are working like that but that is indeed my setup. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:12, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know about the Source editor being on the left side of the screen and the Visual editor on the right, and I use it when inserting things like an infobox or other major template. But my "find" is a way to show the article in the Visual editor on both sides of the screen, which to me is so much easier to work with while on a task like the one I described.

I wonder if there's some sort of Wiki documentation about what might be called technological tips, in contrast to content policy and guidance. Perhaps that's where my "find" would best fit. Augnablik (talk) 14:33, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See Help:Editing and the various pages it links to. Maybe we need an "advanced editing tips" linked or included there. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:20, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a great idea. At first it seemed better if the tips would appear in a separate article and linked to because I thought of my "find" as more related to technological choices than to content about editing. But as I looked at the article more closely — especially where it gets into the important issue of how often to publish — I could see that my idea of using two Visual editor screens is just as much an editing strategy as a technological one.

Surely what I came up with is directly related to the even more basic strategy of why some editors feel more at home with the SE and others with the VE. Which is due — I believe — to personality differences that could simply boil down to left/right brain preferences.

So it would be wonderful for the Help:Editing article to include a section on the "best fit" of the SE or the VE for the bulk of our individual editing work, although of course even those of us who strongly favor the VE must use the SE for at least some of our work (even if it seems unfair that those who favor the SE don't have the same switch-hitting requirement!). Then the idea of editing on two halves of the same screen would immediately follow that discussion, both the existing way you reminded me of with (1) SE on one side, VE on the other and (2) VE on both sides.

Boxing and shading the tips could really help call the readers' attention to them, helping to set them off from all the surrounding content.

Maybe you could take all this forward, stepping away momentarily from your mushroom or whatever gnomes live under ... Augnablik (talk) 13:11, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you place your ideas on the talk page of Help:Editing if you are not confident to just place them straight into the text. It is only semi-protected and improvement is welcome. I don't use VE enough to make decent suggestions. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:18, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I seem to have misinterpreted your earlier message ("Maybe we need an 'advanced editing tips' linked or included there") a little more inclusively than you intended. Augnablik (talk) 18:33, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"We" just meant the Wikipedia editing community. For various reasons, I'm not the best person to actually create the tip section. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:10, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, yes, I got it. My miss. Happens occasionally. Meanwhile, hope things stay relatively quiet for you and your compatriots this week as you give our president another royal welcome. No one does pageantry better than you Brits! Augnablik (talk) 11:30, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. Where do we post comments regarding the quality of Wikipedia's articles? --MewXacata81 (talk) 23:46, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @MewXacata81. That's rather a broad question and hence it is difficult to give a good answer. For an individual article, you can go to its talk page and suggest why you think it is good or bad and maybe even suggest ways it could be improved. It is also on talk pages that there is an article assessment, which you are allowed to modify based on your own reading of the article, up to "B" rating. The process to rate articles as good or featured is a formal one. If you want to comment on groups of articles on similar subjects, say biographies, then the best place to do so would be on one of the talk pages of a relevant project, like WP:WikiProject Biography/Politics and government. Don't forget that if you feel an article needs improvement, you can just find suitable reliable sources to cite and be bold in improving it yourself! Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:58, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Your advice is worth everything. MewXacata81 (talk) 19:42, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Food afternoon miss --Nhknhisan178 (talk) 08:30, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Nhknhisan178. This is the first and only edit you appear to have made and I don't understand what question you have for me. You will need to explain before I can respond. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:14, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mentor!

I recently stumbled upon (in my opinion) a pretty badly formatted article. I have seen that the Spanish version of this article is at least quite nicely formatted and seems to have more content. I do not speak Spanish. What is the best way to go about trying to get it translated or at least improved in a meaningful way considering most sources even in the English article are in Spanish?

Juan Pablo Pérez Alfonzo --Icantreadalphabetically (talk) 00:28, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Icantreadalphabetically! I've reformatted your URL link as a plain wikilink as that makes it easier to read. We have a template {{Expand Spanish}} which can be placed at the top of articles to suggest they might be improved from another-language Wikipedia. See for example Alfonso Leng for how that looks when in use. In this case the English article is not too bad in my opinion: I've seen much worse! One of the problems is that Spanish article uses only two sources, one being a BBC report, while ours has 15. Thus huge amounts in Spanish are completely unsourced, which we try avoid here owing to the verification policy. This means that even a good Spanish/English translator would have to seek out the original sources, which is a lot of work. I see that you have already mentioned your concerns on the article's talk page, which a good thing to do but as there are fewer than 30 editors with that page on their watchlist, I doubt that much will happen as a result. I know that's not very encouraging but Wikipedia is imperfect just because volunteers here only work on what interests them. I hope you will do the same, whether on that article or the millions of others. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:33, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I know about a freedom fighter in my family. To write article. What I've to do? --Aaryabhattraman (talk) 07:35, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Aaryabhattraman Welcome to Wikipedia. My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. Additionally, you will have a conflict of interest if you are writing about a family member you know well. Please read the pages I have linked and ask any other question here in this thread if anything is unclear. If you are still determined to write about your "freedom fighter", I may be able to assist in judging whether they are likely to be notable as we use that word for Wikipedia biographies if you tell me their full name and country of origin. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:44, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

story · music · places

Thinking of you on St. Michael's Day: on top of The Company of Heaven and a Bach cantata, I show a collection of DYK around people called Michael on my user page ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:22, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Michael,

I have a draft article about Burmese film director Sein Lyan Tun: Draft:Sein_Lyan_Tun. My main Wikipedia account is currently blocked, and the draft was originally created by staff connected to the subject. I have prepared a neutral, fully sourced draft with inline citations. Brief summary of the draft:** - Sein Lyan Tun is a Burmese film director based in Paris. - His short films include *Everybody’s Gotta Love Sometimes* (2023) and *Late Blooming In A Lonely Summer Day* (2021), which have been selected at international film festivals. - He has directed documentaries such as *Unsilent Potato* and *For Me and Others Like Me*, winning several awards in Asia and Europe. - The draft includes early life, education, career details, filmography, and awards with references. I would greatly appreciate your guidance or help submitting it for review in the Articles for Creation (AfC) process. Please note that because the draft was created by someone connected to the subject, independent review is required. Thank you very much for your time and support. PNDec93 (talk) 12:17, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@PNDec93 I have merged your duplicate question. Assuming the "main Wikipedia account" you are referring to is User:PS Films then the block may be because that username is not permitted as it appears to be an account for multiple people associated with PS Films. Wikipedia insists that only one person have access to each account. Also, if an account is blocked you may not create another account to circumvent the block, which applies to you personally: we call such evasion attempts sockpuppetry. You must instead appeal the block using the method described at the link "appeal for your block to be lifted". As to your draft, it is currently unacceptable (aside from your block) as it violates our policy on biographies of living people, since it lacks inline citations. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:49, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Michael,

Thank you for your response earlier regarding Draft:Sein Lyan Tun. I’m writing from my new personal account, PNDec93, because my previous account (PS Films) was blocked for appearing to represent an organization. I have already submitted an unblock request and understand the username and promotion issues — that will not happen again.

I appreciate your feedback about inline citations. I have now added reliable, independent references throughout the draft and ensured that it follows the Biographies of Living Persons policy.

Here is the updated draft:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Sein_Lyan_Tun

Could you please take a quick look or let me know if I should resubmit it to Articles for Creation (AfC) for review?

Thank you very much for your time and advice.

PNDec93 (talk) 12:37, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@PNDec93 Your URL link points to the same draft as you linked originally and Draft:Sein Lyan Tun: Revision history - Wikipedia shows that was last edited on 25 May. Your present account shows edits only to user talk pages, so I can't figure out where you have saved what you say you added. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:05, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hei.I'M Potatus joy J.T Saya anak Cristina leaner yg berada di Riau pekanbaruStatus surat kemerdekaan Amerika Serikat. Saya ingin pulang.saya pernah ingin di jemput Ke Dubes US di Riau pekanbaru.terhalang Jepang yg menyamar ke masyarakat. +081378750868. Tlvn my Mom.jangan tlvn Jon homo. President demokrasi. Terimakasih. Saya mau pulang --Potatus.pototus (talk) 14:26, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Potatus.pototus This is the English Wikipedia, so please communicate in English. A Google translation of what appears to be Indonesian (above) still makes no sense to me. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:21, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Michael , I need some help editing a page that I put up that is my bio. I know it it’s looked negatively to a degree if you’re putting yourself up but I’ve been interviewed many times have many both awards citations and I’ve put that in I had ChatGPT put a page together, which I uploaded and I was wondering if you could go in and see what I need to fix on it if I had somebody else to do it I obviously wouldn’t be doing it myself. Let me know if you can do that thank you and the pages on my page here it says draft Paul Stephen Boyington I’m a film director and I’ve had a long career in Hollywood. --La-provence-wood (talk) 20:08, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@La-provence-wood I took a look at your draft and it has all the hallmarks of AI slop. Chatbots are hopeless at writing articles from scratch, even if they sometimes manage to clean up poor text written by humans. Basically, you have one valid reference, which correctly written using the {{cite news}} template would be Lipton, Lauren (16 July 1990). "Designer Paul Boyington: Holywood's Master Miniaturist". Los Angeles Times. p. 206 – via newspapers.com.. Note how the bot appears to have hallucinated the name of the author of that piece! This is based on an interview with you, so doesn't establish notability as required by Wikipedia, since it is not independent of you. IMDb is not a reliable source, although it may be added as an external link. There may well be other, more independent, commentaries about you in reliable newspapers but it is up to you to find them. You also need any draft to conform to the policy on biographies of living people. Even something as "simple" as your birthplace need a valid inline citation. Bottom line: autobiography is frowned upon for good reasons. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:36, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I get the problem. It's not like I don't understand it. That's why I hardly ever spend any time on this medium because I find it abstracted best I mean obviously I've worked with many well-known people and I've done some pretty well-known stuff myself all I'm trying to do is present it so it's a source it doesn't matter to me how long it is or how short it is etc. just that it's accurate. I'm sure I'm not the only one on the planet that wants to have some accurate biography on Wikipedia or any other source that's a public source just like Imdb with that you mentioned I have no control over that they write their own tracking of our credits so I'm looking just for help. I'm not looking for you know Criticism I use chat because they understand your format. I don't and I'm a screenwriter, but your format is abstract and it's not my forte. I even went to Law School recently and it's not even what we've learned in Law School about citations so you know rather than lecture me you know I'm a 72 year old man just try to help me find what's reasonable in the biography. If you need more support, I've had enough written about me over the years. I'm just trying to put something accurate in there. I see people with a lot less experience posted in your database so I'm just trying to help it I can carry a PR for him to do it or something, but I'd rather at least start with something that I believe is accurate and who's better to do it than the living person where we're writing about I mean, I appreciate the uniqueness but part of the problem is so you have nothing when if I don't write it or go out of my way to have somebody who's a fan of the site write it or created or manipulated all I'm asking for you. It says you're my mentor or you're my go to just do your thing but obviously it's your area of expertise is not mine and all I'm asking for is unbiased help I'm not trying to misrepresent anything. I'm trying to do it as accurately as you do it, but I don't have that much time. I've got many projects and I'm just trying to have something that's reasonably accurate. I mean when people write in the LA times about you, you're not writing the article they are so what's a better source than that your critical of that your critical of me your critical of all these sources so as we say in the movie business the balls in your court I'm not trying to dictate anything I just want something accurate I have done some things in my life that I think are reasonable for this kind of format. You tell me how you approach it and then help me do it is not what a mentor is for. Why are you even in on this chain if you're not there to to enlighten I've enlighten many people throughout my career that are a lot less experience because they're passionate about making movies as well. I'm obviously passionate and I've created movie studio I've created great work with people like Tim BurtonJohnny Depp, and Keith Richards and all the different credits I have and I even got going to law school the age of 67 so I'm not apprehensive on taking on challenges. I just don't understand clearly what you and your Wikipedia cohorts are looking for so help me out. That's why they referred you to me. If not, give me somebody else who is more reasonable to work with? La-provence-wood (talk) 14:13, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@La-provence-wood It's not my database and I'm older than you. Beware of scammers who will read the above and contact you suggesting they can write an acceptable article about you. They can't unless there are appropriate sources out there: which need to meet these criteria. If you have such sources, place them on the talk page of your draft and I'll take a look. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:23, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Michael so you see the problem, you don't like chat, which is the game changer in our lifetime just like computer animation was when I started working on that in Silicon Valley and did work with both the first commercial ever shot at Lucas Films and also went to Apple to help concept their rollout of the Mac office and 84 it changed the landscape of movie making so why wouldn't I use ChatGPT to write something that you guys found accurate to your format not so much creatively accurate but accurate. I didn't find anything that wrote and I'm the subject matter in accurate. I thought it was quite accurate and it got rid of a lot of other sources that I didn't have references for us. Oh, I'm trying to define is what sources since you're so critical of everything. My bio that I had an article up there for months that had many is the television Academy. It was the LA Times. It was the Seattle Times. It was Lewiston morning tribune from my hometown area and all people that have written articles. There's cinema magazines is. It was the tv show "Entertainment tonight", and all people that have written articles. There's magazines that have written articles effects has written articles on me. The defunct visual effects magazine "Cinefxs" that was published in the 80s and 90s wrote a in-depth article on the work I did on "Ed Wood". They spent several weeks on it interviewing me. Are those not legitimate sources if not who in the cinema world is where people write about what we do because it's interesting is legitimate in your mind since you're so seasoned and older give me the 411 as we say in the hip-hop culture.

Help a OG brother out. I'm sure you know what an "old G" is. I try to have fun at this point in my life and I hope you do too cause you're spending your time writing on this stuff so give legitimate critical suggestions rather than referring me to you know generic Wikipedia guidelines that doesn't help anybody.

The reason I appreciate why Wikipedia case and Point I'm currently writing a movie about the life of Paul Butterfield who is a well-known blues harmonica player in the 1960s I used Wikipedia for the basic outline of his life before I ever undertook developing my screenplay and the structure now it's been filled in from interviews throughout his life and now I've interviewed over 40 people that knew him played music with him, including his son is helping me and his widow so how else do we in the modern world not want to have as a source something that is written objectively I like Wikipedia for that, a starting place for anybody that I want to find something out about. so what would be the way to curate the many things that have been written about me and personally having a PR firm or Wikipedia experts outside source write it about it like you're concerned Which is probably very legitimate since you do this all the time. I'm just trying I am actually the person that we're trying to define from objective sources some of the things that I've worked on and created just like in the case of Paul Butterfield I am going to the actual people that knew him that lived with them that were married to him that were the children of and players, including David Sanborn six time Grammy award and other people blues musican Elvin Bishop, and all the former band members and anybody who knew him that worked professionally with him that are still alive and they've all given me their opinion and what the experience was like out of that I'm writing a screenplay and hopefully we'll shoot it as a movie so what is different other than Paul Butterfield who is Desceased about this kind of article? I'm just trying to understand What you consider an objective source like I said "Cinefx" monthly magazine which is probably the most renowned visual effects reference in the 80s and 90s when I was doing a lot of that work which is really all I am interested in having mentioned because it's notable work. Today mostly I'm focusing on my own movies and TV writing producing and directing, but when it was in its heyday it was considered a great source for all of us. It was highly respected it in the industry I could easily upload what the interview or his name is Paul and he wrote the great book about the making a Blade Runner. I could get his last name if you felt it would be a reference because he wrote the Edwood article about me. There's nobody in my film visual effects business that didn't consider it a great source at the time unfortunately, it was a highly expensive monthly periodical if you're not familiar with it and eventually it no longer exists I guess because of the change to digital format, but you can get the articles if you order them from the Cine effects website. La-provence-wood (talk) 14:49, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I referenced Cineplex magazine that did it end up the article on me for the movie Edwood. I think it was the best article that I ever had written about myself and I didn't write it. The guy that actually wrote the book about the making of Blade Runner wrote it and I'm gonna get you his name but here's the connection to the site. They're now defunct but they're sold copies sold on Amazon. They were great. If you didn't know about them.

Cinefex Magazine 1980-2021 Catalog Index by Don Shay, Gregg Shay

Publication date 2021 Topics CineFex, VFX, Visual Effects, Cinema Collection cinefex-magazine; cinemamagazines; magazine_rack Language English Item Size 2.4M CineFex Magazine 1980-2021

CINEFEX, launched in 1980, was a quarterly journal covering visual effects in films founded by Don Shay. Each issue featured lengthy, detailed articles that described the creative and technical processes behind current films, the information drawn from interviews with the effects artists and technicians involved.

In its February 2021 issue, #172, Cinefex announced its final issue of the magazine after 40 years of publications.

The entire 40 year catalog would remain available online through the iOS CINEFEX application until the release of iOS 17, under which the CINEFEX application (v.2.3.0) no longer functions, severing the only access to this significant publication.

The official development and application support sites link to a dead 404 page, and the application has not been updated since early 2022.

These uploads are intended to act as a historical record of this important publication. It truly "belongs in a museum".

Please note that this is an on-going project. I hope to eventually fill in metadata to correctly credit all artists involved with the creation of this wonderful magazine.

Archive.org pre-sorted and filtered: https://archive.org/search?query=subject%3A%22CineFex%22&sort=date So let me know if I get the publication uploaded as a source since it's now a defunct magazine published and then 1980s through early 2000s and upload the article and it's an in-depth article on the making of "Edwood" and the visual effects I did for the project Paul Samon the article and he was a very knowledgeable writer of visual effects journalism, here is details on the article. I have a printed copy that I could find in my archives.

. "Show them the bibliographic information Bring the citation: Cinefex #61, March 1995, “Wood Works” by Paul Sammon, pages ~107–110 — this helps staff verify whether they indeed have the issue even if not in electronic catalog."

An objective third-party source he did that he's a journalist and a well-known writer for this area. Look at the book he wrote on the making of blood Blade Runner with Billy Scott. La-provence-wood (talk) 16:01, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@La-provence-wood That Cinefex article may well meet our golden rule for sources: I can't tell as the article itself is not archived. My role as mentor is to help you learn how to contribute to Wikipedia, not to write your biography for you. The draft you have created can be submitted for review as described at WP:AFCREVIEW but as I've said above it is likely to be declined in its current state as failing to show wikinotability. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:51, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since I have the article in storage I will uploaded soon as I locate it I understand your a guide through the world of Wikipedia but I don't understand when you use sources such as The television academy for my Emmy award, and nomination, Canadian tv a academy for the Gemini nomination for my work they are well known and not manipulated by the industry or sources like the LA time or entertainment tonight why wouldn't those be considered legitimate sources and citations just asking and trying to understand your criteria for Wikipedia La-provence-wood (talk) 20:09, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@La-provence-wood Yes, those sources are fine to confirm simple facts. However, they are primary sources, not secondary ones which should form the basis of Wikipedia articles, as we need significant coverage of topics (i.e. discussion of what someone did and why their work was important). Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:24, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have a question regarding proper style and readability. For example, in a page regarding Patrick Carnegie Simpson "Ten years later, he [Carnegie's father] returned to Scotland. following the death of his wife, Carnegie's mother." which I changed to "Ten years later, he [his father] returned to Scotland, following the death of Carnegie's mother." thank you for any advice you give. --Finisterre44 (talk) 00:38, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Finisterre44 Welcome! That sort of change, for readability, is fine and we even have a group called the guild of copy editors who specialise in this aspect of Wikipedia. The general advice is to be bold when editing but allow for the fact that others may revert a change you have made. One small point: you marked your edit as "minor", which is a very specific bit of Wikipedia jargon. See WP:MINOR for why some people might think that your edit wasn't minor. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:20, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That makes a lot of sense, thank you very much! Finisterre44 (talk) 19:45, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Michael! Thank you so much for your guidance on teahouse. I was wondering if I could trouble you with another question, considering that you have mentored other editors! I am overall curious how wikipedia commons works and what exactly is the difference between commons versus this version of wikipedia. I'm building out my userpage and would love to insert images to show my personality. Seems that commons is the go-to for all things image related, no? Is this where I can find images to use? If I am totally misunderstanding how commons functions and there is another template that I can instead consult pls lmk! (and share that link hehe) thank you :) Spindella000 (talk) 17:46, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again @Spindella000. The idea behind Commons is that it stores all the images that are licensed in such a way that they can be used in any language version of Wikipedia (well over 300!). Obviously, that's much more efficient than having each language store locally the images they use. Similarly, there is Wikidata, which among other things has basic information about each article in English and links it to articles on the same topic in other languages.

Finding images in Commons can be tricky, although it uses categories like commons:Category:Cats which can act as starting points for a search. An alternative is to use Google image search and then use the Google "tools" menu to restrict the results to creative commons licenses: in practice, these will often be ones stored here, as Google indexes them all. Or you can start with an article on a topic of interest and click through one of the images to reach Commons. Then you should see how that image has been categorised and can find related images. Each image on Commons has a box just above the picture which shows the link you need when inserting that image into a Wiki page. Hope this helps! Mike Turnbull (talk) 09:22, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you SO SO much! I had no idea there was even a Wikidata vs. Commons wow. I'll start Googling now hehe truly thank you so much Mike! Spindella000 (talk) 13:15, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Mike. I wonder if there is any way to protect against mismatches between the variety of English posted in articles as what to follow in the article and what's actually ended up there.

I thought to ask because I've now seen so many mismatches of this sort on articles I've edited during GOCE clean-up campaigns that it's become a bit discouraging. I think editors don't always understand, follow, or in some cases even notice, posted "Use British English format" or "Use American English format" signs. Which of course means there can be a format mishmash in the same article through no fault of the main author, and without the author being aware. Augnablik (talk) 20:14, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know of any existing way to enforce the agreed format and of course many articles don't have the relevant templates, they just start out with whatever their creator used. Similarly with date formats and citation methods. As an aside, I get very irritated by a well-known editor who uses a bot to convert |last= |first= author lists to the |vauthor= format on the grounds of "consistent citation formatting", just because that's how the first citation was created. (He never uses a bot to go in the other direction.) If you feel strongly about the issue, you could raise it at WP:VPI, since there could be a technical solution whereby editors were reminded about the existing conventions within an article when they go into edit mode. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:50, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for the Village Pump idea. Something like a little flashing caution message with a raised hand would be just the thing. 😅

Augnablik (talk) 21:06, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just realized I used the wrong term in the title I gave this thread and that I should have used "Engvar" instead. And you didn't even scold me! Augnablik (talk) 05:34, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It didn't occur that you would want to be scolded and I certainly knew what you meant! Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:17, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did I say I would want to be scolded? 😅Augnablik (talk) 10:21, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Augnablik I've only just noticed when editing Temujin Kensu using the visual editor, which as you know I almost never do, that the various templates like the "Use American English" one are immediately visible top left of the editing window just below the toolbar. So I guess the real problem is that you can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it drink! Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:32, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, Mike, I wrote you another message on what I thought at the time was a refreshed version of your Talk page because I saw only one other message above the one I wrote. And it was 4 days ago.

As I can't recall waiting for an answer from you more than 3 days at the very most since you adopted me, I realized something strange was going on. Long story short, I finally figured out that the page I wrote that message on had a slightly different version of your name as a URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ User_talk:Mike_Turnbull.

I just deleted my message from that page. The only reason I'm mentioning this is that the other editor's message is still there, dating back to May; so if you and he haven't connected since then, he may be wondering what's what.

Augnablik (talk) 09:56, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Augnablik Thanks very much for pointing out the existence of User talk:Mike Turnbull. I've no idea how the original editor managed to create it in error but I've now turned it into a redirect so hopefully no-one else can make that mistake. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:02, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you hadn't responded to an earlier message of mine on this Talk page, Mike, I might never have gotten back here from your phantom page, or at least for a long time! Augnablik (talk) 16:56, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For editors aware of the Engvar template, it's almost impossible to miss the "Use American English" (also the "Use dd/mm/yyyy template") at the top left of articles when you edit with the VE.

But the templates are in a very pale font in the VE … which is why I said it's almost impossible to miss. I actually did miss those templates for awhile as a newbie editor, though I did take care to be consistent with what seemed the author's original intent.

Augnablik (talk) 09:18, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sir,

I am grateful to have you as my mentor. I have written two articles in English; however, they were published on the Malayalam page of the publication. Could you please guide me on how to have them posted on the English page? I would greatly appreciate your help with this.

Thank you! --Sajini Varghese (talk) 04:23, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sajini Varghese Each language variation of Wikipedia is an independent Project and what is published in Malayalam may or may not be suitable for publication here. The main thing that has to be demonstrated in this Project is that the topic is notable as that word is defined at this link. This means that articles must show how independent, reliable, sources that have no connection with the subject have published about it in detail. I can't see your strangely titled page about Kuriakose as the main text appears to have been deleted, perhaps because it was in English not Malayalam. I don't advise you try to create it here unless you can show how this person meets the notability requirements, with sources of the type I've already mentioned. Incidentally, for living people, English Wikipedia has a policy that demands inline citations for all facts. As a newcomer to editing, you will be expected to use the articles for creation process but I recommend not even trying until you have gained experience by editing existing articles on topics that interest you. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:34, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Does CID The Dummy have WP:SIGCOV rights? Thanks! Monopurpose account (talk) 23:04, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Monopurpose account. I'm no expert on video games but the basis of an article on any given game will be the evidence of notability based on the reception and critical commentary the game received. There is a section on this, with several citations, in this article. \whether this is significant enough is a matter of opinion and if you are concerned, you should probably ask at WT:VG, as well as on the talk page of the article itself, which I see you have already done. Ultimately, a non-notable topic can be proposed for a deletion discussion. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:19, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good Day Mr. Micheal, My name is Xolani I am based in South Africa --XdaDezana (talk) 07:03, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is this like a Job? for me? --XdaDezana (talk) 07:04, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I thought i was gonna edit stuff for myself, but i like how professional it feels --XdaDezana (talk) 07:05, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @XdaDezana and welcome to Wikipedia. I've combined your three edits into one section. This website is almost entirely based on contributions from volunteer editors, so there is no "job" on offer and you should only give as much of your time as you can spare. The good news is that you are helping to build one of the Internet's biggest and most visited sites. I suggest you begin by adding to existing articles on topics that interest you: for example you could look at some articles about South Africa and see whether they can be improved. Please always include citations to reliable sources for anything you add, since an encyclopedia like this doesn't use personal knowledge, only already-published information. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:24, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for the response sir, will there be an in income in return? 154.117.134.242 (talk) 11:11, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@XdaDezana No, as I implied above, I am giving my time voluntarily and neither of us gets paid! Make sure you log in before editing, or your edits will be associated with your IP address, not your account. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:14, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK no problem sir, WIll do and I am happy to help, thank you so much for everything 154.117.134.242 (talk) 11:18, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sannimudi --Sannimudi (talk) 07:04, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Sannimudi. You don't seem to have asked me a question! I can guess that perhaps you are interested in the various written forms of English that Wikipedia uses. There are varieties of English that differ in spelling: color (American) and colour (British) being an obvious example. Wikipedia has a convention of using whatever version of English is most appropriate for an article (see WP:ENGVAR) and has templates to remind editors of which one to use to be consistent within any given article. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:03, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Mike. I'm doing a lot of re-editing on one of my knotty problems articles and sometimes I want to go directly to a reference that I've used several times in the article. If I want to go to another place where that same reference is used, is there a way to do it? Like, let's say I want to go to one of the other places in the article where ref. #9 occurs, how can I search for the next occurrence of that reference?

In word processing programs, I think I recall correctly that it's possible. But what I've read so far in Wiki guidance doesn't seem to address this particular question. If it is possible, it would save time and eyestrain. Augnablik (talk) 14:39, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Augnablik Taking your sandbox as an example, I see currently that reference #9 is used twice. In the reference list, there are tiny superscript "a" and "b" alongside the citation to the 12 September 2022 article. Clicking on these individual letters takes you directly in the rendered text to the place where these citations are used, highlighting the "9". You can also go in the opposite direction, so clicking on any superscript "9" in the main text jumps to the reference list with that citation highlighted. Is that what you need? Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:39, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite, though I'm glad to find out or be reminded (not sure which, at this point) that it's possible to click on the small letters in references used more than once in the article -- assuming I can get my cursor to land on such tiny real estate.

What I'm hoping for is a way to go directly to a previous or a later use of ref. #9 in the article when I'm not currently near one of the other places where ref. #9 is located, in which case I could do what you suggested above. I'd like the equivalent of a Go To command in word processing, in other words. Augnablik (talk) 04:54, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are two main possibilities. Your browser has a "Find" function accessed by the Ctrl-F key combination. then the issue is what is the Go To you want? The citation #9 will be a named reference so you could search for the author (Hassan), if that's what you can remember, in the source code. It will only be there once, where the full citation has been written out. In other places it will occur as <ref name=something/>. The visual editor is very unhelpful in this regard as I can see that it has automatically generated the name ":6", which is a meaningless string that has no relationship to the #9 which appears when the page is rendered. When I use named references, I always give them a meaningful name: maybe "Hassan2014" in this case. To find the other instances of that Hassan reference, you currently have to search for <ref name=":6"/> (note the / at the end) having first established that this is how the visual editor has named that reference.

The second method, which is not really any easier, is to use the "Find-and-replace" functionality of the source editor. That's accessed via the small magnifying glass icon to the right end of the menu bar in the source editor (to the left of its "Preview" function). You would first search for something you could remember as being part of the citation (Hassan in our example) and that would jump to its citation, where you would discover what name had been used (":6" in this instance). Then you would search for ref name=":6" as above. If all this doesn't do what you have in mind, you will need to be more specific about the problems you run into. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:59, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot that you'd be thinking in terms of the Source editor, which I use only when I have to. If I had to switch from the Visual editor to Source to search for the next or previous occurrence of ref. #9, I doubt it would be worth the extra time.

Maybe I could ask the Visual editor tekkies to create such a feature, if there isn't one already. Would you know where to do that?

Irrespective of wishing for that feature, I'm really glad I went back over the article again after it sat and sat on the COI edit request shelf waiting to be picked up again by whoever was going to come along after Encode left again. I hadn't looked at it in a long time. I found so much I could do to tighten the text, further clarify, make use of Wikipedia citations, and sometimes even find new references.

There's a new editor on the scene now, someone I've occasionally "talked with" from GOCE. He gave me the cheerful news that my edit request is one of the oldest in the COI queue. With that in mind, I hope he can help speed things up once I resubmit the work. I'm aiming for tomorrow. Augnablik (talk) 18:16, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Full details on the VE are at Help:VisualEditor - Wikipedia, which also has a feedback link. You'll need to take a look at its existing features and define exactly what you think is missing and why that's an important omission. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:11, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Mike! Also for all the tips you gave me for using the Source editor to do what you suggested a few messages back, even though I won't be able to use them. I'm sure they won't be in vain, as I've never forgotten you once told me that you had around 600 mentees. Augnablik (talk) 17:01, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	thank you of your contributions Beachie2 (talk) 13:22, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Michael D. Turnbull, I am varun from India and you had beed assigned as my mentor on wikipedia. I want to know that how can I find the valid sources and Citiation for certain topic that is provided to me for suggestion or adding citatons. As wikepedia is the great source for information, I wanted to know from which source I can look to contribute to this great source? --Varunpareek07 (talk) 05:12, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Varunpareek07 and welcome to Wikipedia. You don't say what type of article you want to contribute to, so it is difficult for me to give a good answer. Take a read of our reliable sources page, which discusses the sort of sources that are preferred. If you have more questions after reading that, come back here in this thread to ask, telling me which article(s) you are interested in. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:25, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Thanks for all the good work you do at the Help Desk. You've helped me innumerable times! Cheers! —Fortuna, imperatrix 16:44, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[Wading through all your latest barnstars]

If the subject of an article never existed, like Robert Adams — because that was not the original name of the man who spent a lifetime using it and gaining fame with it — should there be some sort of alert for readers up front? Like, for instance, to use quotation marks around the title of the article? Or to say something about it in the one-line summary at the top of the article, though I don't know quite what the wording would be?

I thought to ask you because the current article doesn't point out this situation right away, which strikes me as misleading because readers will be caught off guard when they eventually realize the truth ... unless they're already aware of it. Augnablik (talk) 17:54, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The policy on article titles is clear and is at WP:COMMONNAME. I'm not sure how you can say that someone "never existed" if they became notable using something other than their birth name. Many people do that, for example authors using pseudonyms or pen names. Classic example here is J. K. Rowling. You are correct that Wikipedia can use the lead of an article to clarify naming, something I did with Temujin Kensu using in addition an explanatory footnote since reliable sources called him different things during his life. We can also create redirects and disambiguation pages from one less-used name to the article title. More advice at WP:DEADNAME and note that WP:BLP always applies, even on talk pages. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:42, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do see your point, Mike, about Adams as someone who actually did exist. To me, though, the Adams situation seemed so different than a literary pseudonym for sure, and a spiritual name, slightly less so for a stage name, but still … Certainly for Wikipedia purposes, someone known as Robert Adams existed and became notable under that name.

I guess Wikipedia doesn't use quotation marks around names like in this case or you'd have picked up on that when I gave it as one of the alternatives I asked about, and my other suggested alternative: a mention of the situation in the article summary. So I'll just add something about the situation in the lead as you did with Temujin Kensi. Augnablik (talk) 17:23, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

📌📌

@Mike, below is the message I posted on your phantom Talk page. Since it's about the same article as the one in this earlier message, even though a different focus, I'd like to connect it as follow-up to this message I'd already posted here earlier. I have two more questions about this article—which, by the way, I copy edited for GOCE's November backlog reduction drive.

1. Something happened to the article's infobox. When displayed correctly, it's actually quite long—but part of it is now hidden in the VE. In the Source editor, though, it seems to still be there. I need to get it to display correctly, and I'd also like to know what I probably did wrong that caused it to be hidden.

2. I'd like your opinion about the validity of mentioning — though not using as a source — a website that's currently listed under "External links" at the very end of the article (bullet 4). This website offers a lot of individual research, backed up by support that seems convincing enough to be at least worthy of mention because it's already been proven that a number of statements made by the subject of the article, Adams, that aren't factual or verifiable (cf. the "Controversy" and "Imaginative story telling" sections).

The website lays groundwork for the position that Robert Adams was actually another man by the name of Robert Siegel, and Siegel does turn up on a number of occasions as attested to by other sources. As far as I know, the website is the sole source of such information about Siegel. I know that for mention in a Wikipedia article, it would be better if there were at least one more such source for the same claims; but wouldn't it seem that the issue should at least be mentioned as something to be aware of and further inquiry encouraged in light of the proven statements by others?

@Mike Turnbull, could you look a few chunks of text above this message for where you'll see two red office pin emojis like this 📌 and then read everything below down to this message? When I posted it about a week ago, I didn't realize that my "signature" and time stamp hadn't been added and so you must have never been notified.

I'd never seen such a thing before and as the week went on, all I could think of as to why you hadn't replied — other than an emergency might have arisen or you'd gone on vacation — was that I'd worn you out with too many questions!

But finally I've figured out what happened. I vaguely recall that for some reason I was writing you in the Source editor, as I am now because I wanted to see if the coding might reveal anything. I suddenly remembered seeing somewhere that when you write messages in the Source editor, you have to type 4 tildes to get a signature and time stamp — in contrast to the Visual editor, where that's automatically done for you. Mystery solved. Augnablik (talk) 18:00, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Augnablik First a comment about my "phantom" userpage. I'm having one of the global stewards help me usurp that name so it will become my WP:VALIDALT account. See User talk:Mike Turnbull. Now to Robert Adams (spiritual teacher). The infobox today looks fine and is actually quite short compared with some I work with (see Pyridine)! In the source editor I see one immediate problem: there's a template for "Short description|none" at the very top and later after {{Advaita}} "Short description|American promoter of Advaita, whose identity was later discovered to be that of a different man", which is not a WP:SHORTDESCRIPTION in my book. In the visual editor, it is the Advaita template that expands completely so it can be edited, which may be a bug since in the source editor one just sees the template name and, I guess, if you wanted to edit it you would have to go to the template page.

The use of the external link you mention as a source is going to be very controversial as it is a WP:Blog. I'm not competent to untangle the Adams / Siegel issue and your only reasonable way forward, assuming you care to invest time in this, is via the talk page of the article. You may need to ping a few folk who have contributed or are part of the relevant Projects.

Your point about having to sign with four tildes when source editing on user talk pages is correct. However, even if you fail to sign the user will still get an WP:ALERT as these are automatic for any edit by a third-party on one's talk page, as you'll know from your own talk page. Of course, I didn't get the alert from your edit on "Mike Turnbull" as it ain't yet mine. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:13, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But Mike, it was here on this Talk page, not the other one, that you should have gotten an alert about my message ... up where the two 📌📌 icons are. So, what would explain that you weren't alerted?

Perhaps the infobox self-repaired itself, although I see someone else made one edit after me; but the edit summary says it was just changing categories of the article. There are times I wonder if my computer is haunted because of things happening like that. The weirdest is the way my cursor jumps to the left margin of the paragraph I'm in (not the line) whenever I'm typing a message and need to type a capital letter or one of the pieces of punctuation you have to press the Shift key to get. The Wiki tekkies have no answer for this.

I'll follow up on the short description issue. Thanks for picking up on both issues I asked about.

"Ain't"? 😱 Tsk, tsk. Haven't we Americans already ruined your beautiful English language enough? Augnablik (talk) 17:52, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Augnablik Sorry I misunderstood which edit you referred to. So, yes, when you made that edit at 18:00 UTC yesterday I was already finished for the day but was alerted and saw it this morning. "Ain't" is not, as far as I know, an Americanism. It is in my 1972 edition of Chambers Dictionary, which has always been my go-to as a (former) cruciverbalist. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:10, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, no — I'm sorry! I had no idea that in the UK, ain't is considered okay to use!

In America, it's definitely not. At least that's what we learn in school, and get corrected for if we use it in a typical middle-class home.

In the spirit of Thanksgiving, a favorite American tradition, please extend me a pardon … just as US presidents do each year to selected turkeys, who thus avoid the fate of ending up on a holiday table. Augnablik (talk) 09:06, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

how to creat cition --Navacoustic (talk) 03:04, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Navacoustic and welcome to Wikipedia. I assume that "cition" is a typo for "citation". The general policy on that is at WP:CITE. There are lots of semi-automated ways to create citations, so although the main templates {{cite book}}, {{cite news}} and {{cite web}} can appear a bit daunting you will find that tools like citer.toolforge can often help. I'd advise you to practise on existing articles that interest you, rather than creating a new topic from scratch. Note that you can trial things in a personal sandbox. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:31, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Right here officer! Polygnotus (talk) 18:28, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good thought, thanks User:Polygnotus! Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:29, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

thank you

Jblackstarr (talk) 15:13, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi thank you for being my mentor. How do I publish a new page? --Jkay456 (talk) 03:32, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Jkay456 and welcome to Wikipedia. We tend to use the word "page" to refer in general to every place where editors can add content, including User pages and Talk pages, while the word "article" is reserved for the main encyclopaedic content (sometimes called mainspace) and where you'll find an article like Nurse practitioner. You have written a bit about the latter topic on your user page, which is the wrong place to put it: the link I made to user pages describes what should go there.

New editors like you can't create articles directly: they must use the articles for creation process so that their work is reviewed by an experienced editor. In any case, I would strongly advise you not to try to draft anything completely new yet: better to work on the millions of existing articles on topics that interest you. For example, I note that Nurse practitioner is quite poor and could do with additional content sourced to this sort of already-published material. However, it is protected against vandalism so that only editors who have made at least 10 edits and have had an account for four full days can edit it. You could build that up by practising by doing some of the suggestions on your homepage. If you have any follow-up questions, just place them here in this thread. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:13, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Michael, My name is Garner Andrews, and I am the Director of Marketing for Gary Con. It is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Con. There is a current entry about Gary Con on Wikipedia but it is out of date and I would like to update it. This is my first foray into editing and creating Wikipedia pages. Any help is appreciated. --GaryConGarner (talk) 20:58, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Garner! I would suggest reading up on Wikipedia's conflict of Interest policy at WP:COI, and then making an edit request for your page using specific "Change X to Y" wording while citing reliable sources. I'll post some more information on your talk page about Conflicts of Interest. (talk page stalker) Happy Editing -- IAmChaos 21:53, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @IAmChaos. Thanks again to you and @Michael D. Turnbull for the help getting these updates made. I have created my personal page and welcome any further conversation on my talk page as you suggested. I have spent the last few months both collecting sources as well as creating the updates that should be appropriate. It will likely be much more than simply changing X to Y because there is so much additional history that is not currently included in the current article. I would welcome additional advice on how to manage it with the use of the Talk page to ensure the changes are accurate and acceptable to all interested. GaryConGarner (talk) 20:34, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @GaryConGarner and welcome to Wikipedia editing. You have already had some advice from User:IAmChaos which is correct. The important first step is to read the policy on paid editing and comply with the disclosure part via your user page, which is currently a redlink because it has no content. Click on it (e.g. here in your first message) and you'll be able to create it. Paid editors can make some limited changes to the article itself as described at WP:ASFAQ but should mainly propose changes via its talk page, supplying reliable sources to back up the additions. take a look at Talk:Beta Technologies and you'll see the sort of interaction I had with a paid editor for that article. These sorts of collaborations can be very productive when done properly. Regards. Mike Turnbull (talk) 09:48, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mike, Can you validate that I have properly added the needed info to my user page in order to cover the paid editor statement? Regards Garner Andrews (talk). GaryConGarner (talk) 20:19, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Garner. Yes, that's fine. I see you say on your user page that My first contribution was a major re-write of the Gary Con gaming convention page However, you haven't directly altered that article yet and the best approach to making changegs in view of your COI is to use the edit request wizard on the article's talk page at Talk:Gary Con. The more specific you can make each suggestion, backed up by reliable sources, the easier it is for neutral editors to make the changes. Don't attempt a full re-write in one large chunk as that is unlikely to be accepted. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:54, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again @Michael D. Turnbull. I can break it up, but if I am going to do so, how do I effectively make multiple change requests? How do those who will review these proposed changes want to have the change requests separated? And I mean this on a technical level, i.e. should I start creating and naming each edit request in a logical way, e.g. if this is my template text...

::::== COI edit request ==
::::{{edit request|COI=yes}}
::::I am disclosing a conflict of interest as I am paid by Gary Con.
::::I have drafted proposed updates in my sandbox:
::::[[User:YourUsername/Sandbox#Proposed_updates_for_Gary_Con]]
::::Brief description
::::Updated content
::::

...that I then update it like this for request #1 of say #30:

::::== COI edit request 1 ==
::::{{edit request|COI=yes}}
::::I am disclosing a conflict of interest as I am paid by Gary Con.
::::I have drafted proposed updates in my sandbox:
::::[[User:YourUsername/Sandbox#Proposed_updates_for_Gary_Con_edit_1]]
::::Brief description
::::Updated content
::::

And when we have agreement/approval on the change, do I delete that from the talk page?

Please let me know your thoughts. GaryConGarner (talk) 22:05, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@GaryConGarner I don't think that your approach is a good idea. The disadvantage is that by putting your proposals in your sandbox they will be subject to change in future: the whole idea of article talk pages is to keep all the content together in one place. Talk page content never gets deleted, just archived in some cases if they get too big. My suggestion would be to take one or two (no more!) of your most important suggestions and start the process out with edit requests using the Wizard. The simplest format is "change X to Y based on this citation Z as source". with luck, you'll find a willing volunteer to work with you and later requests can basically be of the type "please update the article based on this list of new sources". That's how things evolved with Talk:Beta Technologies. Check the archive on that talk page for how they started more formally. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:18, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and thank you for considering my question. Information on the history of the Farmers’ Union of Alberta states that the organization only existed for about 5 years and was defunct by 1942. In reality it served the Farmers of Alberta for over 20 years. How can we edit the incorrect information on the FUA. --FarmHistInfo (talk) 22:59, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @FarmHistInfo and welcome to Wikipedia. We don't have an article on the Farmers’ Union of Alberta (hence redlink) but we do have several possibly-related articles. Which one do you mean? Whichever it is, you can edit it to clarify the information, provided you supply a citation to a reliable published source such as a contemporary newspaper or a book. User-generated sources like personal websites are not acceptable. Or you could start a discussion on the talk page of the relevant article. Incidentally, you refer to "we" in your question. I need to point out that by policy, Wikipedia insists that each account be operated by just one person. If a group of people want to edit here, each needs their own account (e.g. "John at FarmHistInfo", "Jane at FarmHistInfo" etc.). Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:38, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. I cannot now find the information I looked at yesterday presumably it was AI generated.

The specific answer to my request for information on the FUA was that ‘the FUA was dissolved in 1942’.

This misinformation is frustrating, but the more interesting question is to ask how the story of this vital piece of history can be added to Wikipedia so that the full story of the history of the Farm Movement will not be lost. my reference to ‘we’ in my original inquiry was a reference to Wikipedia and myself . As a source for information, Wikipedia hopefully is as anxious as I am to ensure that as many elements of our history are recorded as possible. ~2025-34576-37 (talk) 16:15, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@FarmHistInfo Please make sure you are logged in before responding, or your edits gets saved with the new "~2025-etc" anonymous format! I believe that the relevant article here is at the link United Farmers of Alberta, so take a look there and see if you spot anything that needs correction. AI does tend to "hallucinate": the article I linked doesn't mention 1942 at all and Wikipedia editors try to avoid use of large language models altogether for article creation. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:25, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I submitted a new wiki page I was wondering if there is anyway I would be able to check if it was submitted correctly and check status , any help is much appreciated --User1988888 (talk) 12:16, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@User1988888 You have saved a draft page at Draft:Rory Valintine and in that sense what you have done is "correct". However, the draft violates our policy on the biographies of living people, which you should read very carefully to understand the issues. If, as I suspect, you are trying to create an autobiography then I suggest you abandon this attempt, for the reasons mentioned at that link. By all means ask me any further questions here in this thread. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:26, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You seem pretty bias on helping people since your own page states you rather people not create pages to start with "I prefer to edit existing articles rather than create new ones. At present there are 7,092,095 articles on the English WIkipedia and my opinion is that this is too many. For every new article it might be best to delete a less worthwhile one, so new editors should consider using WP:AfD before WP:AfC." I asked for help and meet with a "Get Lost" type response. User1988888 (talk) 12:47, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

how do i create an article? --Makingawikipageonmyselfgoal1 (talk) 11:18, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Makingawikipageonmyselfgoal1 and welcome to Wikipedia. Judging by your chosen username, you intend very specifically to create an autobiography, which as that link explains is very strongly discouraged and almost never succeeds. General advice on creating articles is at Help:Your first article and I can advise further if you plan something other than autobiography. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:28, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed an error in the Article about the Arecibo Answer crop circle hoax matrix display dimensions and it appears they thought I was vandalizing the page and warned me that if I do so again they will take away my editing privileges. --Minecraftiscool4411 (talk) 04:10, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Minecraftiscool4411 I think that the problem here is that you made a change to the Arecibo message article which is of the type that vandals might do, without explaining in your edit summary (or the changed text) the source of your assertion that the hoax message was 1 pixel bigger than the 23x73 of the original. By policy everything in Wikipedia has to be cited to a reliable publication. I would expect this to be discussed in this weblink which is cited but I don't see anything mentioning 23x74 there (I may have missed it). If you give a source, then you should add it to the article at the same time as you make the change. Or you could discuss things with User:Meters on the talk page of the article. Note that it is unlikely they will have seen your response to their message on your talk page because you did not WP:PING them. Don't worry about the WP:REVERT of your edit: that's a very common way that editors here reach consensus about what should appear in articles. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:04, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies if that was not intentional vandalism, but on one hand we have a claim that the dimensions are the same, with a source that has been in the article for at least six years, and on the other hand we have a user named "Minecraftiscool4411", who, with their first ever edit, makes an unsourced claim that contradicts the existing source, which they didn't remove. Meters (talk) 00:10, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t mean to sound rude when saying this, but I did leave an explanation to that edit in the form of a reply to the notice that you gave me about vandalizing the pages. Minecraftiscool4411 (talk) 21:48, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As Mike Turnbull pointed out, you didn't ping me to your page so I never saw your response. For that matter, you responded 21 hours after after my warning, and you waited less than 3 hours before bringing it here. I don't monitor editor's talk pages for responses to minor issues, and I'm not on Wikipedia 24 hours a day.

As for your edit, again, we have a claim that the dimensions are the same, with a source that has been in the article for at least six years. You are made an unsourced claim that contradicts the existing source, and you left the original source in the article. Meters (talk) 08:25, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

None of this is a big deal. I've apologized for thinking that your edit was vandalism. If you have reliable sources that support your claim then please provide them. Your opinion or personal knowledge is not WP:RS. I would suggest that you discuss any changes related to this on the article's talk page as you are attempting to contradict a longstanding sourced claim. Meters (talk) 08:39, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm practicing some copy editing. In this article about Thomas Herbert Johnson, citation 10 says "material pertaining to Thomas H. Johnson's time at Dartmouth College is in the collections of the Bunn Library...etc.." This seems to be so general and non-specific a citation as to be useless to a reader checking the credibility of an assertion. What would you recommend here? --Ucumcoru (talk) 19:06, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See below. Mike Turnbull (talk) 22:56, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, another question about the citations in this same article on Thomas Herbert Johnson. Several of the citations, when followed, lead nowhere useful. For instance an assertion about his academic record is backed up with citation 12, to "Collection: Williams College Alumni Biographical Files |". archivesspace.williams.edu. Retrieved 2025-11-22. When I followed that citation to the Williams College site, I found it impossible to discover this man's name, much less any evidence to back up the assertion about his academic record. Other citations are equally useless. The assertion that the subject had been elected to the Gargoyle honors society is backed by citation 13, to a Williams Record article on the Gargoyle society that makes no mention of Johnson. The assertion that the subject served as president of a theatrical group is backed by citation 14, to a Williams College site that merely confirms that the theatrical group once existed, but does not mention Johnson or any other of its officers. How do you handle assertions backed by citations like these, which lead readers nowhere? --Ucumcoru (talk) 19:34, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Ucumcoru. Interesting example. One of Wikipedia's key policies is that readers be able to verify content from the cited sources. For living people this means that you would certainly be encouraged to delete any material not cited. For deceased individuals the situation is not so black-and-white and you should exercise some judgement. For example, linkrot often means that web links which once worked no longer do. In that case, you may be able to find a copy at the Internet Archive, for example. That doesn't seem to apply here, as the link to cite 12 is live but (like you) I couldn't find any relevant entry with this search.

The correct process is two-fold. Place the template {{failed verification}} at the points in the article where you identified problems, making a comment in your edit summary that you will discuss this on the talk page. Then start a discussion at Talk:Thomas Herbert Johnson, copy-pasting in the comments you placed in the thread here so people interested in the article will know your views. There are only a few editors who have that page on their watchlist (under 30) so you could ping some of the major contributors. You could even work out who added these particular references and ask them directly if they are still around. However, that's not vital. Note that by policy, the onus is on the editors who want content to be in an article to provide justification for inclusion (i.e. in this case to show that there is indeed a published source, even if not easy to obtain). I hope this helps! Mike Turnbull (talk) 22:55, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your explanation!

I'll try now to follow your instructions. I appreciate your help. Ucumcoru (talk) 17:51, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, how do I create links to other wiki pages. For example if I clicked the word YouTube it would take me to the wiki page YouTube --AlRidesTrains (talk) 16:53, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @AlRidesTrains and welcome to Wikipedia. Full explanation is given at WP:WIKILINKS. In general, you can search for help by using the search bar with WP: in front of suitable keywords. Good luck! Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:08, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much Michael! AlRidesTrains (talk) 17:09, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

how do we use HTML? --Romansisaac13264 (talk) 12:37, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Romansisaac13264 and welcome to Wikipedia. There is only a limited use for direct HTML here as the MediaWiki software uses a special code which is described at that link. Some HTML tags do work, for example <s> and </s> to strike out text on talk pages. Most newcomers here use the visual editor but the coding is more easily seen when you use the source editor. You can set up your default editor at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing. If you have follow-up questions once you have read around a bit, just put them here in this thread. Good luck! Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:06, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm having trouble with both sources and setting an archive link instead of the dead link for reference 18 --TheCap7 (talk) 22:58, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TheCap7 I suggest you remove that source and the content it supports entirely as it is a blog, which can only be used in very limited circumstances and isn't needed in this long article with plenty of good sources. See WP:LINKROT for the general help on dead links. Mike Turnbull (talk) 23:04, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I need help to add citations, references and images of the art. I think it might be too hard for me to do this wiki page.

Maybe I should find a paid wiki writer to recommend to the subject/artist written about in this page. Where do I find a wiki professional writer? --Ancaruh (talk) 04:44, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Ancaruh. I assume that this refers to your Draft:Mircea Paul goreniuc, which has been declined by a reviewer. Is this an attempt at an autobiography or an article about someone you know? In either case, you re unlikely to succeed because this encylopedia only allows content about people judged to be notable by the definition at this link. For living people, there are special rules, which your draft does not meet. There are few "professional writers" here but you may be approached by scammers who will claim (wrongly) that they can create an article for you. Honestly, you would be best to abandon attempts and instead look for alternative outlets. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:06, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see you are active at the Teahouse, so I put you in as a featured host (see Wikipedia:Teahouse/Host/Featured/5). Feel free to customize the picture to your liking. Interstellarity (talk) 15:32, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Interstellarity Actually, I had deliberately not added myself to the host list as I didn't want to feel any obligation to contribute regularly. However, now you have twisted my arm.... Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:59, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, how can I edit a semi-protected wikipedia page? --Boluwatifemoses (talk) 03:50, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Boluwatifemoses The link WP:SEMI explains what that sort of protection means. It is the simplest level of protection designed to deter vandalism, mainly from unregistered/temporary accounts. Anyone who has an account that has made >10 edits and whose account is >4 days old becomes what we call "autoconfirmed" and can edit these articles. So all you would have to do is wait until ~ 6 December and have made a few more edits, for example by creating a user page. If you want to do something faster than that you can always make suggestions about improving articles by commenting on their talk page, providing sources for the content you want to add or reasons why you think something should be changed. Hope that helps! Mike Turnbull (talk) 09:52, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Michael. Good to meet you. I'm Liz, fairly new to being an editor on Wikipedia, though an experienced website editor and writer.

I'm hoping to contribute to the community and the Wiki in lots of ways, but I have also been asked by my employer - Hacked Off - a press justice campaign group, to add information relating to the phone hacking scandal and campaign for press justice, here in the UK.

To be totally transparent, I am passionate about media reform, and had been a supporter of this campaign for a long time before I was employed by them, so am honoured to now be employed, but by the very nature of our remit - honest and accurate information - and not paid-for-spin is our mission. So I'm confident my moral compass is set firmly to fair - and I will be doing this in an honest and just way.

I've today added that disclosure to my user profile (I think I did it correctly) and am now having a crack at my first draft article.

My previous mentor hadn't been active for 119 days, so I requested a new one, and am grateful to have been assigned to you.

I hope you don't mind me reaching out as a newbie and seeking your guidance.

Thank you in advance. Liz --LizardP (talk) 17:08, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @LizardP and welcome to Wikipedia. Looking at your user page, the disclosure is fine except there is still no actual name in the employer bit. Just edit in the name "Hacked off", maybe with an external link to their website. There is a steep learning curve for those who want to edit regularly here, so you might want to edit in areas where you don't have a conflict of interest before tackling those where you do. Beware that many of the volunteer editors don't like paid ones and may be a bit techy despite our guideline to assume good faith. In a moment I'll add some links on your talk page that you should read. I don't see any attempts at a draft article in your contributions so far but for that you must, by policy, use the articles for creation process owing to the COI. Good luck. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:11, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much Mike. I appreciate the advice. I think I've fixed that user account COI code now. Yesterday I started work on a new page for Hacked Off, but wasn't complete so didn't publish it until just now - though, it's still not complete (these things take time, don't they)! But it is now in my sandbox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:LizardP/sandbox/Hacked_Off

I'll spend some more time reading the links you sent me, but I'm only able to do this work part-time so it's probably going to be slow.

In the meantime - in any spare time - I will also happily conduct edits in other areas too!

Thanks again for your help. LizardP (talk) 09:39, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’d like to create a Wikipedia page for my husband, kindly advise --Elaine Steckel (talk) 18:24, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Elaine Steckel and welcome to Wikipedia. I'm afraid that that's likely to a bad idea unless your husband is notable in the quirky way that this word is used here. Please read that link and the one about autobiography, which is nearly as relevant. The only hope is that you can find sufficient already-published sources which are all three of reliable, independent and with significant coverage. Most people don't merit articles in this encyclopedia (I certainly don't) but if you place just three of your best sources here into this thread I can give further advice. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:36, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He is a world renowned scientist and investigator with multiple verifiable sources from academic institutions such as UCLA, university of Chicago, Tulane University. Elaine Steckel (talk) 18:43, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Elaine Steckel OK, so I can see that he is widely cited and some of his work is cited in articles here. For academics, Wikipedia has a special set of criteria stated at WP:NACADEMIC. You need to read that carefully and decide which one or more criteria he will meet: one is OK, multiple even better. The next step is to start your draft by using the articles for creation process (click on that link to begin). I would advise you to read the policy on biographies of living people and this essay on pitfalls to avoid. When you have got your draft off to a decent start, leave me a message and I'll take a look to advise further steps. Mike Turnbull (talk) 20:09, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Ryanh272025's mentor Dr vulpes is away.

Hi Michael - thanks for being my Wiki mentor! I've re-submitted an article for consideration. I wonder if you had any feedback on how it could be improved? I've made significant edits to my initial draft, including adding new citations and also re-written for neutrality. Be grateful for your thoughts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jeff_Dodds --Ryanh272025 (talk) 20:58, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ryanh272025 I'm not an AfC reviewer but I think that the main issue is that the sources that aren't just trivial mentions are, like the Guardian articles, based on interviews, so not independent of Dodds. At a brief reading I don't see any source which is all three of reliable, independent and with significant coverage. You generally need three of these (not just with the same basic content) to meet the notability requirements. If indeed you think you have these, then highlight them in a comment at the top of the draft so that it will be easy for a reviewer to check them. Mike Turnbull (talk) 21:34, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've added a comment on the draft. I'm not sure I agree about the sources being trivial mentions. All of the articles are firmly about the subject, as demonstrated by the subject being referenced in the headline of every article. Could you please expand what you mean by that so I'm clear? FYI - there are two articles from The Guardian. One is an interview, the other is an extensive news story about his job move ('Honda Marketer joins Virgin Media'). There are also independent, standalone news stories in ESPN, Marketing Week, The Drum, and Reuters. Thanks again - appreciate your time. Ryanh272025 (talk) 22:14, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ryanh272025 I think that my concern boils down to the fact that most of the content about Dodds' early career is just what might appear on a c.v., without any comment about what he actually achieved that might make him "stand out from the crowd". His role at Formula E seems to be covered in more depth and may well be what gets this over the line as an article. However, as I said, I'm not an AfC reviewer, so it will be interesting to see what they say. BTW you should probably expand on what being a Non-Executive Director for the UK Government actually entails. Mike Turnbull (talk) 22:37, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks Mike. That sounds look good advice. Will make a couple of edits. Thanks again. Ryanh272025 (talk) 22:50, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How do I upload an image as part of an Article, say a photo of an Apple for the fruit, Apple --TexanSteak (talk) 14:47, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @TexanSteak and welcome to Wikipedia. You should find all you need to know at Help:Pictures. Wikipedia mainly uses images stored at our sister Project Wikimedia Commons and owing to copyright we can't use any random picture we find on the Internet. Only those with appropriate creative commons licenses are allowed (with a few exceptions I won't bore you with). Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:53, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How to create a quote? --MyanmarLiteratureAid (talk) 15:52, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @MyanmarLiteratureAid and welcome to Wikipedia. There are several templates for quotes, depending on whether the original was a {{poem}} or just general text, which usually uses {{blockquote}}. Click on these links to see the details. Beware that copyright considerations may come into play if you want to include a very long quote and whatever the source you must WP:CITE it. I can give more advice if you tell me which article you want to edit. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:26, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

how about create 4α-methyllathosterone, 24-methylenecholesterol, β-Ergostenol or expansion of Lophenol, Episterol, Fecosterol? Htmlzycq (talk) 13:49, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Htmlzycq I'm a chemist, not an enzyme specialist, so I have been going through existing articles, starting with those from List of EC numbers (EC 1), where I'm up to 1.1.1.280, adding the new template {{chemical reaction}}. I place any missing chemicals into Wikidata and Commons, as you'll see from my uploads there. You are, of course, welcome to use any of this to expand other articles but I don't really want to be distracted from my main focus at present. Regards. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:12, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Quick question, is there a limitation on link quantity in a paragraph, because I don't want to leave an article without a link that might give more context, but I don't like to have a paragraph full of blue text from links? kind regards Spiros --Nektarini555 (talk) 09:30, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Nektarini555 and welcome to Wikipedia. There's general advice on that at WP:SEAOFBLUE. It is best not to over-link common words and as that guidance says, only link the smallest unit in a sequence like town, county, country. If you have further questions, ask them here in this thread or at general places like the Teahouse. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:45, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers mike Nektarini555 (talk) 11:52, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: SnowyAE7's mentor Calliopejen1 is away.

How do I like, add a link to another article myself? --SnowyAE7 (talk) 20:53, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @SnowyAE7 and welcome to Wikipedia. I see that you edited the article Felimida regalis using the visual editor (VE). There is general advice at Help:Linking but, for example, you could go into editing mode on that article and highlight the word "nudibrach" with your cursor. That word would benefit from a link as it is a technical term that readers may not be familiar with. Then in the VE's menu bar there is a link icon just to the left of the "cite" item. Click on that and your cursor at nudibrach will offer some likely links: in this case "order of gastropod" is the one you want and you would put it in. Hope that helps! Mike Turnbull (talk) 09:02, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: EzSwag$n1p3r's mentor CanonNi is away.

Hi Michael! I recently made the article- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amar%27e_Oba

It says This article may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion for the following reasons: as an article about a real person, individual animal, organization (band, club, company, etc.), web content or organized event that does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject. See CSD A7. because it includes communication intended for the user, which indicates that the page could only have been generated by a large language model (LLM) without reasonable human review. See CSD G15. The page may be deleted under any criterion that is valid.

Please can you help me out? --EzSwag$n1p3r (talk) 04:00, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @EzSwag$n1p3r. Your draft has already been deleted and, as I am not an administrator, I cannot now see it to comment. However, I can guess that the main problem is that you are a relative newcomer to Wikipedia and have not understood the requirements for biographies of living people, especially for sourcing to show how someone is notable in the way that is required. Is Amar'e Oba someone you know: if not, why do you want to write about them in particular? Most people don't merit articles in Wikipedia: I certainly don't. Regards. Mike Turnbull (talk) 09:04, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Farshid --Farshid ameri (talk) 01:08, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Farshid ameri and welcome to Wikipedia. You don't seem to have edited Gematria, so I'm not clear what your your question might be. I'll try to help if you give me more details. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:31, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:11, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello mate, I use to frequently edit pages regarding footballing topics. Which I'm aware isn't your field. But it is something I'm passionate about, ensuring the most accurate information for general understanding of those looking to widen their knowledge on particularly players, managers or philosophies with such a fast moving industry.

I commonly correct mistakes, add context, and typically provide up to date citations for better understanding of pages that either lack context, or of course have been vandalised. When making small edits, referring to pre existing citations already in the existing page, would you recommend I add further citations for added context? Or doesn't it matter as long as the information changed in the page is accurate in context to the pre existing citation?

This of course would apply to anything outside of football aswell. But I thought I would at least give you further detail in which I tend to spend my time productively on here.

Thanks. --AnalistaDoFutebol (talk) 00:54, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am not your mentor but I can answer that question for you. If the minor edits are covered by the citation then you don't need to add a new citation, if it is new material then please add a new citation. Dafootballguy (talk) 02:51, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@AnalistaDoFutebol The advice from Dafootballguy is good. All I would add is that Wikipedia is intended to be a long-term repostitory of reliable information, so it prefers secondary sources to primary ones. Hence while an article might say that the final score in a match was 2-1, based on a citation to news outlet, it would be better to replace that citation with a full match review, which of course would still verify the final score. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:03, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

—𝐏𝐞𝐫𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐨(𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔) 06:06, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello... I recently wrote a draft article on "LGBTQ representation in Sri Lankan film and television" and it got rejected. In that case, since I cannot resubmit, do I have to make another draft from scratch? --Samfedo (talk) 09:06, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Samfedo You have already had quite a lot of advice at the AfC Help Desk. The final rejection told you to stop trying to get this topic in its present form onto Wikipedia, as it doesn't fit our inclusion criteria. I took a quick look and I think that the basic problem is that you are adding your own interpretations of the sources. So, to take just one example, you say of Bahubuthayo that Chaminda is used for comic relief via effeminate, stereotypical portrayal, an example of how early films used offensive gay characterizations to generate humor. and you cite this website for that opinion. Nowhere in that source is any comment on "offensive gay characterizations", so that must be your personal essay-like original interpretation. As that link makes clear, it is not Wikipedia's purpose to publish original thought: it is our job as editors to summarise what has already been published. My advice would be to use your skills to add to existing articles on Sri Lankan films and television by finding reliable reviews that can expand the content. There is no point in starting again on your draft. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:26, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will make a new one. Thank you for your advice. Samfedo (talk) 04:39, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Wikiguys64's mentor Abo Yemen is away.

Hello there Michael, I hope you are well. I am a young teenager who wants to pursue a career in computer editing. I was just wondering what the benefits of Wikipedia editing is for later life e.g career, casual life I look forward to a response from you, Wikiguy64 --Wikiguys64 (talk) 17:33, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikiguys64 There are many possible benefits. Maybe the most important is learning how to work in a collaborative environment. For example, if you ever work as a programming specialist, you'll have to collaborate with computer users and, of course, your bosses until you are senior enough to have a team working for you. Beware that here on Wikipedia we don't allow original content: we only summarise what has already been published in reliable sources. I note that several of your contributions have been reverted and I removed another one a moment ago because you had added an opinion However, many online gamers said that the game was the worst FC/Fifa game ever. without supplying a source so that our readers could verify that people had stated that. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:47, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Michael, thanks for your informative response. I will include sources in my edits from now on Wikiguys64 (talk) 12:20, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Itsyaboibiggiecheese's mentor HouseBlaster is away.

Hey, you are my Wikipedia mentor. How many mentees do you have? --Itsyaboibiggiecheese (talk) 06:16, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Itsyaboibiggiecheese I have around 1300. Most never ask a question but you can look here on my talk page and its archives to see the ones that did. A huge number of people ask a question and then never edit again, so its clear that many people sign up to Wikipedia but don't really intend to contribute. I hope that you do! Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:47, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I thank you for the reply. I enjoy editing Itsyaboibiggiecheese (talk) 19:28, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

How can I get improve with Wikipedia --Gaden-lib (talk) 21:25, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Gaden-lib I'm not sure what your question means but I have placed links on your talk page which you should read, as they may help. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:26, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hey ! Can you help me go through basic guides or some pages where I can learn the basics because I can't do nothing big edits without small edits and for small ones, every page I visit looks perfect --Nepwikigod (talk) 19:34, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Nepwikigod Welcome to Wikipedia. There should be some suggestions for simple edits on your homepage tab (see Special:Homepage) and in a few minutes I'll place some links on your talk page which will help with the basics. You should keep away from what we call contentious topics, where I see you have already run into some problems. I can assure you that there are plenty of articles which are far from perfect and could do with your input based on published sources you could find! Maybe you could add some photos you took yourself of places and points of interest near you? There are articles about most places on Earth. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:55, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hey michael

Sorry to bother you

i see some things that are added in a locked topics which clearly projects communal hatred or separation so I don't know how people let that just happen. I thought well protected pages don't just add "terms" or topic without thinking thrice but guess people do add if few agrees. I am talking about the recent edits in page Nepal. I don't know if it's the right place to ask but since I saw you've really helpful and a old user here maybe you can look at it and guide me how can I talk to people about the terms they added and on what basis. Since even the constitution doesn't include those words. Once you go to the page you will automatically know what term I am talking about Nepwikigod (talk) 10:41, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Nepwikigod The current source cited for the term "mulbasi" which you say is "मुलबासी" in Nepali is supposed to be the government report I accessed at the Internet Archive: citation #5 in the current version of the Nepal article. I searched for both the word itself and your Nepali version in that document: neither seems to be there. I also looked at the Wikipedia article Ethnic groups in Nepal and neither word is there either. This is strange and may be an error! I did find the word "Magar" in the census data, which according to the infobox of the Nepal article is one of the ethnicities that are supposed to make up the Mulbasi group. Magar is present as a word many times in the ethnics groups article.

You are right to challenge the use of the word "mulbasi" via the talk page of Nepal, although you are not allowed to edit the article itself. If I were you I would simply ask "where is the source that verifies this word's existence and meaning?". Verification is a core Wikipedia policy. The word mulbasi was not in the infobox at the end of 2025 but appears to have been added in this first edit by @Dickipedia369, who I am pinging here to allow them to comment. (Their talk page has some comments which may be relevant). If they do not reply within a reasonable time, I will WP:REVERT the article to its state before they made their edits. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:25, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

hello Mr. Turnbull. How are you. The term Mulbasi is another term for (Adivasi Janjati) which you can find in Ethnic groups in Nepal. The term Adivasi Janjati is widely out fashioned and considered derogatory by the people in which they belong. I myself is from the clan. You can Google search and read articles about the topic. If my reply does not meet wikipedia code of conduct you can always revert. But I am here to have constructive edits on wikipedia. Thanks a lot. Have a good day, mate. Cheers! Dickipedia369 (talk) 14:26, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

ne:आदिवासी जनजाति you can go to this nepali wikipedia page. Where it clearly mentions the word Mulbasi (मूलबासी) in nepali devnagari. Dickipedia369 (talk) 14:36, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

and about the nepali wiki you cited, you can view the edit history of how a guy changed the whole paragraph and especially changed terms. The initial paragraph follows a constitution driven approach while the last edit made clearly shows the intend was to change the terms and definitions without any source. Wiki works on reality not on editors thoughts. Since noone really visits Nepali wiki let alone edit, that's why that thing is 12 months old but I will revert it back to original since I can do it and I have source i.s constitutional definition. Why don't you try asking the government to recognise "mulbasi" then me can talk about outing that word on internet Nepwikigod (talk) 18:59, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

and the meaning of mulbasi is "indigenous/main people" of certain land in this case different regions of Nepal. Dickipedia369 (talk) 14:37, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Dickipedia369 Thank you for your quick explanation. The problem seems to be that the cited source I linked above contains none of the words Mulbasi, Adivasi or Janjati. Artilces in en:Wikipedia must be based on the sources they quote, not the knowledge of editors here. Obviously, I have no expertise in Nepalese terms and I suggest you and @Nepwikigod continue this discussion at Talk:Nepal to come to a consensus about the content of the relevant articles. By using that page, others who are interested in this topic can make their views known. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:50, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

hello buddy

Since you are from that calm which was not hard for me to guess with the words you wrote on your page and your recent edits. Wikipedia isn't a place where you put on words that roam around the society you need source and good backing atleast that's what I learned thanks to Micheal. And about the enthinic tree you recently added out of nowhere with no backing is very unfortunate. I am clearly familiar with your intend of addition of that tree but people like Micheal aren't so he's giving you a chance. And what is "Shilpi" exactly? Never in my whole life have I ever heard this word being a Nepali. You are out here spreading communal hatred. You can have the hatred for others inside you but please refrain from spreading these out in international pages. I can prove every single one of your claims wrong. I would have reverted that way back but I don't have the power. Nepwikigod (talk) 18:36, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

hey honey. Since u r from that calm which is not hard fro me to guess from your choices of words. so shilpi is another terms for Dalits. It is dervired from word shilpakar Dickipedia369 (talk) 16:22, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Dickipedia369, @Nepwikigod Please both assume good faith in other editors and do not use my talk page to accuse each other of "spreading communal hatred" or to call each other "honey". The correct place for a civilised discussion is at Talk:Nepal, focused solely on how to improve that article. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:32, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

my apologies mike

I never intended make it a discussion here. You mentioned him here and he started writing here and so did it. My apologies for that. Anyways thanks for the guidance your are really helpful. Hope I can ask questions with you in future too Nepwikigod (talk) 18:39, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Michael,

I've been assigned as your mentee and I wanted to ask one quick question: I'm in the process of researching a handful of mid-20th century French authors / artists whose works are largely out of print. In the event of encountering further biographical details in out-of-print books, is there a recommended process for providing a citation that can be verified? As in, should I scan the book page, and so on. Thank you for your time!

All best,

Nate --Ahnonvraiment (talk) 15:01, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Ahnonvraiment There is no need to scan books and as WP:OFFLINE says, verification does not require that it be easy (or cheap) for Wikipedia readers to verify the content. The correct template to use for books is {{cite book}} and it has parameters to allow for translation of the title, if that isn't in English, and similarly for any quote. Note that in writing biographies of authors, you won't normally be using their books as sources but will want to cite commentary from independent reliable sources so as to show how the authors are notable in the quirky way that Wikipedia defines that word. Of course, a biography may include a listing of an author's selected works but should mostly be based on secondary sources. Google books links are useful if you have them and Google is a good source for out-of-print things, although I don't know whether they have much in French. Hope that helps! Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:49, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ahnonvraiment, Google books works fine for what you want. Try these examples: Paris Insolite, René Crevel, Francis Carco, Jean Raspail. Note that when you see, 'No preview' in the search result, it means you cannot view pages within the book, as you can sometimes with other books. But if all you want is the citation, just scroll down a bit and click the 'Create citation' button, which you can then copy.

Another good source is the vast resources of Gallica, although there is a bit of a learning curve involved with their website. Here's some search results for Jean-Paul Clébert; click 'Detailed information' (if you get the English interface; I think Gallica uses your IP to decide what language to show you) to see the citation. Mathglot (talk) 22:27, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi how do I create a wiki page for a person --Uxtobi (talk) 15:58, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Uxtobi In a moment, I'll add to your talk page with some useful links, the most important of which is Help:Your first article. However, I strongly advise you not to dive straight in create an article from scratch. You should first gain some experience by editing existing articles on topics that interest you. There is a lot to learn, especially how the English Wikipedia defines the word notability, which determines whether an article here is a valid topic. If you name the person you intend to write about, with a couple (no more) of the sources of information you intend to use, I can give further advice. Regards. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:13, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Michael,

I’m Tapestry Nerd, I’m new to editing Wikipedia and have been getting started with articles related to textile art and tapestries. While reading and editing, I noticed there seem to be a number of gaps and opportunities to improve clarity, sourcing, and coverage in this area.

I’d really appreciate any general advice you have for a new editor, especially around good citation practices and how to approach making constructive edits that align well with Wikipedia’s standards.

Thanks in advance, I’m enjoying learning how the editing process works. --Tapestrynerd (talk) 18:50, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Tapestrynerd and welcome to Wikipedia. In a moment, I'll put some general links on your talk page which will be worth reading when you have time. It is always good to have editors like yourself who want to specialise in particular areas, especially if you have access to books or reliable magazines that others may not. The main thing to say is that Wikipedia articles should be based in the main on secondary sources, not primary ones and that original research is absolutely forbidden: everything in our articles must be based on summarising already-published information. The main policy related to this is one of verification. My other advice is to start small: edit some of our existing articles where you spot deficiencies and only take on the much more difficult task of writing a new article from scratch once you have a few weeks at least of experience. Regards. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:41, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Chandramohan --Chandramohanlodhi (talk) 12:28, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Chandramohanlodhi. You have not edited the article on the Playboy Club, nor any other Wikipedia article, so you are going to have to explain further if you expect me to answer any questions. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:41, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Can I claim AnilistaDofuteball? We both deal in sports and I'd love to help with them. Happy editing. Dafootballguy (talk) 03:35, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Dafootballguy. Yes, of course. I haven't been contacted by that editor. As you probably know, you can claim them via Special:MentorDashboard. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:54, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to read my story at User:Interstellarity/My Story and join in for some Wikipedia-related fun. I hope you like it. Interstellarity (talk) 22:08, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

hiii --Sashwat Koirala (talk) 10:41, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi to you, too @Sashwat Koirala, on Wikipedia's 25th anniversary. Do you have anything I can help with? Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:53, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

How can I move my article to "Maria Caballero Garcia" if I do not have the "Move" tab? --Mcaballerogarcia (talk) 13:24, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Mcaballerogarcia New editors are not allowed to move articles into mainspace for the simple reason that their inexperience inevitably means that Wikipedia's policy, especially in relation to biographies of living people are unlikely to have been met. In your case, you have created a draft on your user page and it is clearly an attempt at an autobiography. Please read that link to understand why creating autobiographies is very much discouraged and almost always fails. If you want to try again (which I don't recommend) you should use the articles for creation process and demonstrate how you meet the notability requirements laid out at this page. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:41, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mr Turnbull, It is nice to e-meet you. I am looking to publish my current organisation, the Food and Drugs Authority (FDA), Ghana via Wikipedia as well as the educational institutions I attended. I would really appreciate guidance from you regarding how to go about it. Also, I am looking to organise one or two events associated with Wikipedia in my community for youths. I will keep you posted on this.

Looking forward to connecting with you.

Regards, Elizabeth --Lissibet (talk) 16:40, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Elizabeth and welcome to Wikipedia. I see that you have already made some edits as you get to know your way around. Writing a new article from scratch is much more difficult! One of the issues if you want to draft something about the FDA in Ghana is that you have a conflict of interest and in Wikipedia terms that means you also may be considered to be a paid editor. Basically, you'll need to formally declare your employment and use the articles for creation process so that experienced editors can check your work. You'll have to show in the draft how the FDA meets our somewhat quirky requirements for what we call "notability". This means finding about three sources which are of the very best as explained here and basing your draft mainly on these. More advice at this essay. Let me know by adding to this thread if you have further questions after reading the links I've given you. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:02, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Mr Turnbull.

Apologies for the delay in response. I will do better in the future.

I appreciate your prompt response. It is well noted and highly appreciated.

I will read through the shared links and revert if I have further questions. Lissibet (talk) 20:59, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes please. How do I add pictures to the Wikipedia article? Thanks --RoyalDaddyJ (talk) 07:22, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @RoyalDaddyJ and welcome to Wikipedia. There are basically two steps to adding a picture to an existing article. The first is to upload the picture itself (e.g. a .jpg) to Wikimedia Commons using the upload wizard at Commons:Special:UploadWizard. You must be careful of copyright as this is a legal part of the process: it is simplest if you took the picture personally using your own camera. Otherwise (e.g. for random pictures you found on the Internet) it is unlikely they can be used, although there are some circumstances where they can. It gets complicated, so let me know if you are talking about pictures you didn't take! The upload process involves assigning a name to the file: for example one of mine was File:Hawthorndale Mansion 2018-2.jpg, which is now in the article Jealott's Hill. See Help:Pictures for how to do that part. Essentially, it involves linking the filename into the article's text. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:32, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

hello how do i make an article --Oluwatamilore Adeniran (talk) 19:39, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Oluwatamilore Adeniran and welcome to Wikipedia. There is extensive advice at Help:Your first article. However, I would warn you that creating new articles is much more difficult than contributing to the millions of articles already here. In particular, you need to provide citations to the sources you have used: that was one problem with the draft you had in your sandbox. You need to summarise these sources in your own words and show how the topic is worth including - a concept we call notability. Please read the linked pages I have given you. Mike Turnbull (talk) 21:54, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Alexanderiro's mentor Justiyaya is away.

Hello. I created a article called Poe Myat Hay Thar who is an international pageant title holder from Myanmar. But a person deleted that by saying she is not notable. But She is the Face Of Beauty International 2023 and Miss International Myanmar 2024. What should I do right now? --Alexanderiro (talk) 18:19, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexanderiro I need a bit more information from you before I can give a good answer. You uploaded File:Poe Myat Hay Thar.jpg to Commons and have stated that it is your "own work", implying that you were the photographer for the picture. Is that correct and if so, what is your connection to Poe Myat Hay Thar? Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:35, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, user: Michael D. Turnbull. I am from MUM org who own Miss Universe Myanmar license for past 12 years. These photo are owned by our organization. Poe Myat Hay Thar a.k.a Kendra Erika, Face Of Beauty International 2023, is from our organization and that photo is the paid arrangement from us. So technically, we,MUM org., have fully copyright ownership. And we let the photo free to use. We are making an article about her but some author deleted the article saying the article is so short. So, we can't use that photo right now but I'll make another long one in anytime soon. If you have more questions, you can ask me. Thank you so much for your care. Alexanderiro (talk) 20:12, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexanderiro Your article was not deleted but was moved to draft and is now at Draft:Poe Myat Hay Thar. Wikipedia does not allow entries in the main encyclopedia unless the subject is notable in the specific meaning of the word described at this link. Most of the 8 billion people on the planet (me included) are not notable and can't have articles. Any draft you produce must demonstrate notability by using sources which are from reliable published sources independent of their subject and which have significant information about them. This is summarised here. I checked your draft and it only has two sources. The "faceofbeautyinternational" one only mentions Kendra Erika in a YouTube video she herself uses for promotion: that is clearly not independent! The other has no evidence of editorial oversight and very little information: not much more than a PR piece. This is simply insufficient to base an article on. We usually need at least three decent sources. I must also point out that you have a conflict of interest in writing about anything connected to your organisation and in Wikipedia terms you may be considered to be a paid editor, which under the terms and conditions stated at that link means that you have to make a declaration about that and only use the articles for creation process. Please read the links I have provided to see all the implications. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:22, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This was my first attempt to edit I added to 'the lady from the lake' that the BBC broadcast this play in 1974. Indeed it is being repeated now on BBC4 (1 feb 2026) I included Eileen Atkins, and tried to link to her page but this didn't work --Owenchris123owen (talk) 23:13, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Owenchris123owen I can see your edit here. The main problem with it isn't that you don't include a link to Eileen Atkins, which is trivially easy but that you didn't include any citation to a source which a Wikipedia reader could use to verify that what you wrote is factually correct. (Also the point that 1 Feb 2026 is now in the past, so should be "was shown", not "showing"). To generate a link, one wraps the name of the target article in double [ brackets, so in this case [[Eileen Atkins]] into the text. See Help:Introduction to editing with Wiki Markup/1 for full details and a tutorial. Let me know if you have other questions: many will be answered by reading the links that PolishHamster put on your talk page. Good luck. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:36, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Mike ...

Here's a paragraph from the Jackson-Reed High School article. I was thinking to make an edit in it even though that's where I went to high school, because as I was reading the article just to get updated on the school after its name change a few years ago, I noticed something that surprised me: mention of the first two class presidents when the school was built. As far as I know, they aren't notable. I checked the school's website to see if there was a list of graduates who've gone on to fame in case they might be on it, but found that there wasn't.

Do you agree this information shouldn't appear, or in articles like a school's opening is it okay?

"Wilson High School graduated its first students in February 1937. Chester Moye was the president of the February graduation class. The school held its first spring commencement exercises for 290 students on June 23, 1937. Robert Davidson was the class president." Augnablik (talk) 07:40, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Augnablik I don't think that the issue is one of notability: after all, the first principal (Norman J. Nelson) is mentioned in the same section and he isn't notable either. Given we are talking about 1937, there won't be a WP:BLP concern and lots of articles mention people who aren't otherwise notable but just part of the historic record. This is especially true of people like the CEO and other office holders of companies What worries me about that section of the article is that the mentions of class presidents are not cited to a source. WP:V is a policy and if there is no reliable source (even the school's own website) then that alone is grounds for removing the information. Actually, with my access to newspapers.com, I readily found citations for in the Times Herald for Mon, Jan 25, 1937 ·Page 14 that says 34 students were in that first graduation class and that Chester Moye was its president. There is a long article in The Washington Herald of Sat, Jan 30, 1937 ·Page 8 giving Nelson's name as principal and mentioning Moye, although not his class presidency. So, with these citations added, I think the article would be fine! Wikipedia is all about published sources.... Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:43, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, thanks! This may be the first time that a mentor has done a source search for a mentee in Wikipedia's history … but, then, not all mentors are also gnomes …

For some incongruous reason, it didn't even occur to me that if early principals could be mentioned in a Wiki article without question, so could early student council presidents.

Because I know newspapers.com is accessed by a paid subscription, I can't help asking, wouldn't you have access to newspaper archives in the Wikipedia Library and avoid having to pay for one? Augnablik (talk) 13:09, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, my access is via TWL. I've had it for just over a year and it was renewed recently. You have to apply for access: it's not automatic even if you are a member of TWL, as I assume you are. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:25, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is really helpful news. I have a long way to go to get up to par using the Library—so many resources, so much to learn about getting access to them. Augnablik (talk) 14:03, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

So, Mike, I just went to TWL to sign up for a newspapers.com subscription but couldn't find it listed under CONTINENTAL or NATIONAL resources as well as REGIONAL resources. Where did you go to do it? Augnablik (talk) 06:56, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is detail of what to do at this URL. The process is a bit clunky but once you have access then newspapers.com is part of the standard TWL access page. The information panel there tells you when your subscription will expire and gives a link which allows you to request an extension. In practice, I no longer go through that library page when I want to access newspapers.com; I go direct to their website and log on with my email address as username. Their system knows that I have a "free" account via TWL. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:09, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Done. But why isn't newspaper.com on the list with all the other resources … unless because of an apparent shutdown at least a year ago that seems straightened out now? Augnablik (talk) 12:54, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No idea. I see it on my list between the entries for NewspaperARCHIVE.com and Nomos, where I'd expect it to be. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:02, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'd like my article to be reviewed again, please can you help me resubmit it for review? Thank you --Hassen19 (talk) 12:52, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Hassen19. There is a big blue button on the draft (at the link Draft:Creative Media Authority) which would allow you to re-submit it. however, you would be wasting your time as the citations are not properly attached to the pieces of text which they support. See Help:Referencing for beginners for some instructions. Looking at that draft, it seems that most of the citations you used actually refer to the Abu Dhabi Film Commission, which is an article we already have and which you contributed to last year. I've looked at that article and it is dreadful in respect of the way it has been cited. It has used external links (bare URL) instead of properly formed citations with the {{cite web}} template. Your time now would be much better spent bringing that article up to scratch. The fact that you have only previously edited this one article before trying to draft an article about a related topic prompts me to ask: what is your connection to these organisations? Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:36, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this feedback, I have updated it, please can you kindly review. I work with the organisations. Hassen19 (talk) 14:16, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Hassen19 I can see the changes you have made to Abu Dhabi Film Commission and in a while I'll tidy it up a bit more. Meanwhile, to be in line with the Wikimedia Foundation's terms and conditions, there is a mandatory declaration you must make about your WP:PAID status as an employee of these organisations. See that link for details. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:45, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Now much tidier! Note also that the WP:PAID terms mean that you should only add any more to that article via edit requests on its talk page, in view of your COI. It is fine to create new drafts provided you use the articles for creation process, as you are doing, although I don't think that the new draft will be accepted because it overlaps so much with the existing published one. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:31, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have a subscription now! But I can't figure out how to (1) slide my cursor up the pages of newspaper articles to go faster than using the Up arrow, and (2) jump to the top and bottom of pages. There must be some way, right? Augnablik (talk) 12:28, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Augnablik Try this link, which is one of the articles we were talking about. When I hover over that newspaper page with my PC mouse, I see a tiny cursor looking like a right hand. Pressing and sliding that around moves the page image. There is also a big + and - which allow the page to be zoomed in/out. Note also the "clip" tool at the top, which allows you to create a crop of just the part of the page you want for a Wikipedia citation, although the URL you will get has unwanted bits if you go direct from TWL rather than through your account independently. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:47, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Mike, the hand icon moves the page around but it's not quite what I was hoping for. I guess that's all that's available, though, or else you'd know.

And yes, I knew about the Plus and Minus icons, which are somewhat helpful.

I've just found a new wrinkle in some of the articles I've looked at that are continued on pages of another section in the newspaper: when I type the letter and page number of the continuation page in the field at the bottom of the screen, I'm never taken there. Have you found this too, and if so, do you have a solution? Augnablik (talk) 13:25, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As for the Clip tool, I tried it earlier—but from the results I can see I need some further practice! Augnablik (talk) 13:30, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've not needed to hop from one page into another section, so far. Can you link a newspaper.com page URL here where that would be required and I'll poke around to see if I can find a solution: basically, I'm an experimentalist! Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:36, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"I'm an experimentalist"—yes, I've seen examples of your chemist background re-emerging in the past!

Okay, here's one such continuing article:

“‘Joy in Meditation’: Swami desires to bring Indian teachings West”

By Gary Christian

The Houston Post

Sun, Mar 19, 1978 ·Page 102

At the end of the article, it says, “Please see ‘Joy’ page 16BB. But how? Augnablik (talk) 14:25, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, you did ask for a link. That would be a bit of a challenge because I'm typing on my phone, and I use newspapers.com on my computer … which for some reason doesn't always show messages as quickly as my phone does. Neither of your recent messages is appearing there, so if I post it on your Talk page on my computer, I think it will screw things up.

Solving which could be another juicy experiment for you … Augnablik (talk) 14:32, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I got to the page 6BB which was the start of the "Joy" story but actually numbered page 102 in the floating box at the bottom. It said that the next piece was at 16BB, so I "guessed" that 16BB would be image page 112, ten pages later. It was, namely this one. I can't readily see another way to do that other than by looking at the original hitlist with relevant keywords, including looking only within a particular newspaper + date combination. Don't talk to me about "Smart"phones. I hate them for anything to do with typing. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:32, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't quite follow the logic of how you figured out what to do in the "floating box," I think you called it. Would you work your experiment on this article, and tell me what you did to reach the equivalent of "C10, Col. 1"?

https://www.newspapers.com/image/1235080073/?match=1

As to why I often read and answer messages on my phone rather than my computer, I have the Wikipedia app on my phone—it's convenient to get a quick idea of new messages, especially replies.

Plus as I mentioned, I've learned that my phone may be more up to date on incoming messages than my computer, which seems very strange. If I know that a reply I'll make to a message is likely to be long, I go back to my computer to try to work there, depending on whether the message has arrived yet.

Yes, I know it seems my computer is haunted at times, considering how my cursor jumps above and leftward when I need to type a capital letter or several punctuation marks! At least I haven't had any further Internet access drama. Augnablik (talk) 18:41, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The link you provided was, I assume (again, a "guess") actually page C1 of the original printed newspaper. Hence C10 would be 9 pages later. The floating box at the foot of the page you linked said it was image 23, so add 9 and get "page" 32, which is indeed the correct place, namely this one. I wonder whether the issue about your PC browser being slow compared to your phone is simply that you need to refresh the browser page to see the new message: that's Ctrl-R on most browsers, or the little circular arrow top left. Mike Turnbull (talk) 09:59, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Mike, I think I get what to do now—although the "23" I see in the floating box for this article says page rather than image, but it seems to be the same thing.

About the other issue—my computer's delay in showing me the most recent version of Wiki conversatiions—I don't think refreshing is the key to the mystery because I've often refreshed without results. But the way I did that up to now (pressing the Return/Enter key in the web address field) is a little less efficient than the circular arrow and especially the Ctrl-R (probably Cmd-R on my Macintosh), so I'm glad to have those tips.

And having a subscription to newspapers.com is the best gift I've had in a long time! Augnablik (talk) 16:41, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

How to add external links 😕 --Itsparroww (talk) 11:11, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Itsparroww and welcome to Wikipedia. See Help:Links, which explains how to use [ brackets to create external links and the text a reader would see. There is also a good way to convert an external link into a citation of the type we use in articles as source references. Just paste the URL into this webpage.

I notice that your sandbox and talk page are places where you have started to create draft articles about Chahak Arora, who, you say is associated with Itsparroww Music Company (the same as your username). This suggests you are writing about yourself or someone you know. That's a very bad idea, for reasons mentioned in Wikipedia's autobiography guidance and concerns about editing with a conflict of interest. New editors who try to create such articles nearly always fail and have a frustrating time here. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:20, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Here you said deleted articles can sometimes be found at Deletionpedia. I can't get there any more. Do you know something I don't?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 00:31, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Vchimpanzee. No, I confess I was just parroting what I had seen other people write. As our article you linked says, Deletionpedia is defunct. However, the fact that it existed (and some similar sites still exist) means that other places like the Internet Archive may have copies of WP-deleted articles and never-accepted articles since while they were here they wouldn't necessarily have been accessible to indexing by robots but when copied out they could have become accessible. Of course, the simplest way to get back some articles is via WP:REFUND. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:06, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Michael, sorry to bother you but I’m stuck on a small edit. I spotted that “Arun Valley”, on the “List of Special Areas of Conservation in England” page was incorrectly linking to the Wikipedia page describing the one in Tibet/Nepal! I edited/removed the link but then noticed I needed to make it a ‘red’ link. I’ve followed the instructions on the Red Link page, but it reinstated the original incorrect link! I’ve undone this edit so the link is now black, but it clearly needs set to red. Any guidance or direction you can give would be much appreciated. Thanks, Peter. --Waffling Wally (talk) 09:33, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Waffling Wally. I see the problem at List of Special Areas of Conservation in England. Basically, to make Arun Valley a redlink and not default to the existing Arun Valley article you need to think what the page for the English valley would be called if and when it were created. I guess it would be "Arun Valley (England)". You can create a redlink for that with the Wikitext using a WP:PIPEd link. [[Arun Valley (England)|Arun Valley]] renders correctly as Arun Valley. The only problem is that when the article about the English Valley is created, it may get some other name (e.g. "Arun Valley (Sussex)") and your redlink won't turn blue. One can sometimes get round that by using a link to Wikidata but unfortunately the English valley doesn't have an entry there. While searching in Wikidata, I found that we do have an article on the Arun Valley line, a local rail line! Maybe your link on the conservation list should be piped to that in the meantime. Incidentally, the list article is very poor in respect of citations/sources: it only has one. If you are interested in the topic, maybe you could find others and cite them in the text before the actual list. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:29, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Mike …

Is this a term you're familiar with — and if so, would you explain it to me? I know the context is doing something to a Wikipedia page. But what? Augnablik (talk) 17:00, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Augnablik I've not heard of that exact term but it is probably a reference to WP:HATNOTES which are templates that go on top of articles to explain something such as "this is about topic A, for topic B see...." Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:31, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Like replacing former templates, perhaps … well, I guess that could be. If I ever find out for sure, I'll share the discovery! Augnablik (talk) 05:37, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Next question (this is a pop quiz, you see):

If I'm writing directions for editors to go to an existing Wikipedia page where there's a table, and make them land on a specific column of a specific table, is that possible?

The column heading would be New rollover total … and it would be the 6th column from the left. Augnablik (talk) 10:22, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If it is possible, it would have to be an WP:ANCHOR. I've no idea if these work within tables but you can experiment! (e.g. create a table with an anchor in your sandbox and see if you can link to it.) Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:51, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

See Help:Tables_and_locations#Section_link_or_map_link_to_a_row_anchor. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:54, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Success! Fortunately, using an Anchor template is similar to something I'm used to doing in word processing, though with different terminology.

Last question on your pop quiz: if you want to write a message to someone or some group in MediaWiki, is there a way they can respond to your Wikipedia address rather than somewhere in MediaWiki, so as to avoid your having to create a new address over there? Augnablik (talk) 12:10, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by "new address". Your single account with its logon ID of Augnablik + passsword is valid on all Wikimedia sites. Special:CentralAuth/Augnablik shows that you have local accounts all over the place. The alert system will give cross-wiki alerts to your en: account if anyone pings you on another wiki and the "subscribe" system for talk page messages also works across all wikis. Special:TopicSubscriptions will list all the places where you have subscribed to a talk thread. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:29, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, both links. Though I wonder why the first one shows "local accounts all over the place," as I don't recall setting them up … and I also wonder why the second link says I subscribed to all those message threads because I sure don't recall doing so. I think I need to check if I've inadvertently set some preference to make that happen.

Thanks for all the new fragments of wisdom! Augnablik (talk) 16:05, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You don't realise you are setting them up because it is done automatically; you just need to read a foreign-language article e.g. by clicking on an inter-language link and you'll get an account at that wiki. Some foreign language versions automatically send "welcome" messages to your email when that occurs and this is a frequent source of annoyance mentioned at the Teahouse when people don't realise why they are suddenly getting strange messages! Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:11, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also interesting. I must have missed seeing those messages in the Teahouse. But foreign language wikis weren't the only places that appeared on my subscription list ...

Speaking of the Teahouse, I think our friend whose messaging we discussed elsewhere may have refrigerated a bit or even gone on vacation. Augnablik (talk) 07:20, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

On a short break only. He made lots of comments there yesterday. Let's WP:AGF. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:27, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

So far, Mike. I haven't seen anything all that cantankerous. But I'll keep a lookout. I was holding out on AGFing earlier because of the same thing.

Nothing remotely near what I myself dealt with on occasion. Augnablik (talk) 17:18, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way in the Teahouse to see all messages from a specific editor? If so, that would save me a bit of time in sleuthing. Augnablik (talk) 07:51, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You can do that by searching within the user's contributions page for any user. Use the "Search contributions" drop-down and choose "Wikipedia" for the namespace and the tag filter "discussiontools-reply" (which you get by choosing "reply"). Then choose a date range if you wish, say 1 Jan 2026 on. For my contributions, that gives this output, which as you will see is pretty much what you would want. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:53, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This looks very helpful. I need to pester you again, though, because when I tried this out on my own Contributions page, I still haven't quite succeeded. Here's what I've been able to do so far, writing out your directions a little more in detail in case I need to do this again in the future.

Go to the editor's Contributions page. Click on Search for contributions in the box near the top of the page. On the dropdown menu that you now see, go to the Namespace field and select "Wikipedia." Now go to the Tag filter field and click on ______.

This is where I'm stumped because I don't find a tag filter by the name of "discussiontools-reply." Augnablik (talk) 12:32, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, wait ... now I see. It wasn't quite clear to me that I wasn't supposed to go to a tag by the name of "discussiontools-reply" — but "Reply." I misunderstood "choosing reply."

Go to the editor's Contributions page. Click on Search for contributions in the box near the top of the page. On the dropdown menu that you now see, go to the Namespace field and select "Wikipedia." Now go to the Tag filter field and click on "Reply." Lastly, go to the "From date" and "To date" fields and provide the date range that you want to search for results. Click on the Search button for the results.

I think this covers everything. Now to try it out for our friend. Augnablik (talk) 12:46, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]