Discussion on the notability of this topic is ongoing, and it was suggested to bring the discussion back here to the Teahouse. Kevincook13 (talk) 19:07, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You should probably explain more, or people will be confused. Mrfoogles (talk) 19:09, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was going to let the editor who suggested that we talk further at the Teahouse lead the discussion, but I will explain more. Kevincook13 (talk) 20:55, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Kevincook13, and welcome to the Teahouse. It is true that some reviewer comments on Draft:Finiteness suggested you ask for help at the Teahouse, but unless you make it clear what you are asking for, we're not going to be able to help you much.

What I will say is that a Wikipedia article should be a summary of what reliable sources say about the subject, and very little else. It doesn't look to me as if any of your cited sources talks specifically about the concept of Finiteness (it's possible that the third one has a section on finiteness, but a search in the Internet Archive didn't turn up anything).

There are two consequences of this. First, everything in your draft is either unsourced, or not about finiteness. Secondly, notability as Wikipedia uses the word is crucially dependent on sources. ColinFine (talk) 20:17, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sources which reference the concept of finiteness do not always do so using that particular term. Kevincook13 (talk) 20:48, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Finiteness has been rejected, meaning that you should stop wasting your (and other editors') time on it. Maproom (talk) 20:17, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The editor who rejected the article is the one who suggested opening up the conversation again at the Teahouse. Kevincook13 (talk) 20:43, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The editor who rejected the draft directed you to Teahouse so that someone could explain what "Rejected" means, not to dispute that your draft did not deserve to be rejected. There is no potential to salvage the draft. Please put it out of its misery by putting Db-author at the top inside double curly brackets {{ }} so that an Administrator will be notified to delete the draft. If "Finiteness" deserves an article, perhaps in time someone will compose it, but bringing it to the attention of the generalists at Teahouse is not the way to find that person. David notMD (talk) 20:57, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that your draft looked like a dictionary entry. Wiktionary is our corresponding dictionary. We already have an article on finiteness in maths. However there is no article on finite being. So if you do want to write on the topic, find sources and expand on that philosophical / theological aspect. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:31, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Finiteness currently redirects to Finite, a disambiguation page. From 2007 until very recently it also offered a single sentence of explanation attempting to describe what finite means, stating: "Finite is the opposite of infinite." On the talk page I commented that the explanation was circular. Two other editors suggested that it might be a good idea to write a finiteness article.

My draft is short, making it look more like a dictionary article, but it focuses on the state of being limited or ended, as opposed to focusing on the term finiteness as is appropriate in a dictionary. Kevincook13 (talk) 23:48, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon I did request that you withdraw the rejection. I appreciate the discussion we had, and your expressed willingness to continue it here, along with other experienced editors. I would like to discuss the lead paragraph.

Does the lead paragraph describe a concept (as is appropriate for an encyclopedia), or does it describe a term (as is appropriate for a dictionary)?

Does it describe a notable concept?

Does it contribute meaningfully to Wikipedia, as would be expected from a lead paragraph?

In which ways does the lead paragraph detract from Wikipedia?

If the lead paragraph does describe a notable concept, as would be expected, then is the entire article worthy of deletion?

You suggested that you would be willing to accept the article, with the warning that it might be nominated for deletion. I definitely do not want you to accept an article that you esteem a candidate for deletion. I thought that editors accepted articles because they are acceptable, not because doing so facilitates deletion. Kevincook13 (talk) 05:25, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert_McClenon you are the one who wanted to move this discussion between you and I to the Teahouse, which I started on your talk page, and which you took to mine. You told me that you would have participated in the original Teahouse discussion, if it weren't for the fact that you didn't notice it before it was archived. You said that you always participate in discussions of articles that you have reviewed, as long as you are aware of them. Are you planning to participate? If you are, please add a little note here to let us know. Kevincook13 (talk) 18:38, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@David notMD one of the things that supporters appreciate about Wikipedia is that editors freely exchange ideas, rather than simply make or comply with demands. Kevincook13 (talk) 16:07, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What part of "If there is to be an article on this topic, this draft must first be blown up and started over." do you not understand? 05:45, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

I see that one editor has stated, correctly, that I rejected the draft, and that that means that discussion is finished. So I think that I am asking the other experienced editors here whether they agree that I was right in rejecting this draft, or whether I should have only declined it again, and also whether there is any procedure for discussing a draft or a topic after a draft has been rejected. Do the other editors think that User:Kevincook13 should be able to rework it?

I am sort of uneasy with the idea that rejection is final-final if the draft was submitted by a good-faith editor, which in this case it was. If rejection is final-final, then maybe I should never reject a draft that is submitted by a good-faith editor. (Some drafts that are rejected are submitted either by conflict of interest editors or by trolls. I am not asking about them. This draft was submitted by a good-faith editor whom I think has gone down a rabbit-hole.) Is there any way that a good-faith editor whose draft is rejected can discuss reworking or starting over? And is there a way that a reviewer can ask for third-party comments on their decision to reject an article? If not, maybe I shouldn't reject drafts by good-faith editors, because I don't want to make a final-final judgment against good-faith submissions.

Also, I made an offer to User:Kevincook13 that I was willing to revert my acceptance and accept the draft with the understanding that it was likely to be nominated for deletion. I was willing to let the submitter get his draft into mainspace and let the community be the gatekeeper. What I would do would be to request that the blocking redirect be deleted or moved so that the draft can be moved to mainspace. Is Kevincook13 ready for that?

Those are my questions for the other editors and for the submitter. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:19, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As a non-AFC reviewer, I have no opinion over whether the draft should have been rejected over being declined or letting it pass through to mainspace to be AfD'ed by other editors. What I can say, after looking at the draft, is that it is, in its current form, inappropriate for an encyclopedia. The thoughts aren't organised, and the tone sounds off. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:44, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, User:Tenryuu. In that case, your opinion equates to saying that I should not have accepted it, because the instructions for AFC reviewers are to accept if we think that the draft has more than a 50% of passing AFD. What I am saying to the author is that I am willing to accept the draft, without making a judgment as to whether it will survive AFD, if that is what the author requests. I don't want to make a one-editor judgment that a draft should be abandoned. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:22, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks User:Tenryuu for the feedback on my draft. I am eager to learn how it can be improved, starting with the lead paragraph. Is it OK? Do the thoughts seem organized? How is the tone? Kevincook13 (talk) 15:36, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kevincook13: You're honestly better off starting the entire thing over from scratch and taking a look at what good articles look like. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:48, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are a new pages reviewer, who has volunteered to review my draft. I need more feedback than you have given me so far. No, I don't want the article to go into the mainspace if it is not yet ready. I need feedback on the lead paragraph. Kevincook13 (talk) 15:44, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kevincook13, the existing draft is not "not yet ready", it will never be ready. As has been stated above, it needs to be blown up and started over. It's just a collection of incoherent ramblings. For example, if you want to claim that "A controversial use of ellipses is to simultaneously intend both completion and non-completion, as in 0.999... = 1", you'll need to explain who finds it controversial, why it intends completion, and why it intends non-completion. It seems to me a clear, indeed trivial, statement of fact, accepted by competent mathematicians. Maybe the source cited explains those things, I don't have access to it. Maproom (talk) 13:55, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to start over, in other words rewrite the lead paragraph, if there is a reason for doing so. What is your personal reason for rejecting it User:Robert McClenon? Kevincook13 (talk) 15:55, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kevincook13 - You have two choices. First, you can accept my offer to move your draft into article space, where an Articles for Deletion discussion will decide whether to keep it or delete it. I made that offer because I do not want to act as a one-person gatekeeper. I don't plan to offer you any more help or any other help. Second, you can recognize that the majority of editors here think that your draft is not about to be ready for article space. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:25, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kevincook13 - I have already answered why I rejected the draft, and other editors have also commented as to why the draft will not be ready for article space. I am aware that you are not satisfied with my answer, or with any of the other answers. Continuing to ask me the same question is sealioning. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:25, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we don't want to be sealioning. My question was not simply a repetition. It was an invitation to reason with you, freely exchange ideas. I wanted to hear your reasoning, your ideas, not just the ideas of others.

At 05:45, 23 February 2025 (UTC) User:David notMD anonymously wrote above: What part of "If there is to be an article on this topic, this draft must first be blown up and started over." do you not understand?

When I first read it I assumed that you wrote it, since the quote was from your rejection. I was curious, so I checked the page history and was surprised to see that User:David notMD was the author. User:David notMD made it appear that you were the author, as if you were the one who was emphasizing the need to blow up my draft. But you weren't.

The lack of desire to build any sort of consensus with me is evidence that my finiteness article is not welcome, at least by some engaged Wikipedians. You seem ambivalent, however you are clearly coordinating your efforts with others who oppose it.

I have tried to build a consensus which includes me. I very much appreciate the feedback I received from those who reviewed my draft earlier and declined it. Each decline has helped me to see something consequential that needed to be addressed.

Please do allow the draft to proceed. Kevincook13 (talk) 16:56, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kevincook13 - I am not ambivalent about whether the draft will be ready for article space in the future. I was only ambivalent about whether other editors agree with me, and other experienced editors are even more negative than I am. I know that you want to build a consensus that the draft can be improved. That will not happen, because there is a consensus against the draft. I am still willing to accept the draft at your request so that it can go into article space and go to AFD. I will only do that if that is what you are requesting. I am not ambivalent, and I have already provided my reasons for rejecting the draft. Do you want me to move the draft into article space, or are you ready to accept that the consensus here is likely to be the consensus at AFD? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:42, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Robert McClenon I only ask that you withdraw the rejection, because it is without merit. Kevincook13 (talk) 15:25, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kevincook13 - My rejection was not "without merit". Other editors here have agreed with me. However, I have restored the draft to the version of 7 February, in order to get the pinniped out of my townhouse. The question now is which of the following happens first: the draft is rejected again; the draft is deleted; you are partially blocked; or you leave the draft alone for six months. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:52, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Kevincook13 (talk) 16:03, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft talk:Tatsusaburo Nakayama is my draft. I have been working on this for a year and a half, and recently spent much time researching more sources and info to add to the draft. Originally, the draft was sourced from the Wiki Japanese page (not sure why the Wiki Japanese page exists but the Wiki English page never has)...but it was my starting template, then I have added from books, magazines, and websites, additional info. I am a wiki page-submission newbie, but I feel in the Martial Arts community, this individual is worthy of having his own English page; so I hope I can get it tightened down enough, to pass submission. My prior submissions failed mostly on insufficient citations, of which I have spent much time researching and adding in the last few months. Can anyone who is accomplished at getting submission approval help me get it accepted? It seems there are so many technical things related to wiki approach, philosophy, format, etc....that must be known beyond just the details of the article itself, and it is quite overwhelming to know when it is 'sufficient' and ready to resubmit, with good chance of success. All help is appreciated. Davidwtaylor1 (talk) 19:00, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidwtaylor1, I can try to rework the way you have used references to make it conform more to the Manual of Style and point out issues, but will leave accepting or declining the draft after that. Give me some time. Thank you Reconrabbit 21:41, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

thanks Recon, I appreciate any and all help! Davidwtaylor1 (talk) 22:00, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's going to be quite a task, Reconrabbit. The oft-cited "ibid. Threadgill, Tobin and Ohgami Shingo" seems to mean "Threadgill and Ohgami, op. cit." -- but Wikipedia doesn't use "op. cit." (or "ibid."). (The combination of a named reference and Template:Rp would help, of course.) What's a lot more alarming than the mere format of these citations is that the stated ISBN for this book, ISBN 978-1-7334223-2-1, is unknown to WorldCat; and Google only knows of it via Wikipedia and Wikipedia scrapes. There is evidence here of the existence of the book (titled Shindō Yōshin Ryū; note the macrons). It's reviewed favorably, but described as Selbstverlag. Self-publication is alarming; that matter aside, is the book available from any publicly accessible library anywhere; and if not, is it proper for an article to use it as a reference? As an example of a Japanese-language source, what is presented as if a web page reproducing "Mastering the Mystery of Kicking From '2D' to '3D' Techniques" within a special issue of Secret Kick Monthly (though in Japanese, with unspecified titles) turns out to be merely some retailer's page advertising a copy (in "good" condition) that they're selling of 秘伝の蹴り　蹴りの奥義を極める　「二次元」から「三次元」の技へ, an April 1998 supplement to the magazine 空手道 (Karatedō). I can't find this supplement at either CiNii or WorldCat, though I may just be insufficiently caffeinated for the task. -- Hoary (talk) 22:47, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The ISBN was misspelled, it should have been ISBN 9781733422338. The ISBN-10 was being used as an ISBN-13. WorldCat entry here. I am a bit concerned about the self-publication aspect as it pertains to notability but I just want to make the draft more presentable to a potential reviewer. Reconrabbit 01:05, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it looks a lot better though. Will be tough to convince someone of the validity of many offline sources though, some of which are through publishers I could find nothing about. Reconrabbit 01:24, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Recon, Thanks for your help. Good catch on the ISBN typo; I have the book, and was about to send a screenshot.

One thing I don't understand, is that the original format/template I used for this draft, was the official Wiki page, in the Japanese language. It was accepted, and is a valid Wiki page in JP. (I used the translation to English option, to get to that page's source, since I am not Japanese fluent). That Wiki page's sourcing was very scant. Much of the sourcing I have done, is my own research, to fulfill the original English wiki responses about lack of sources. Do you think I am trying to include too much on the history of this person? I have seen many martial artists of the 19th century listed in Wiki, with less impact on martial arts (either dead arts now, or just very minimal info), who are likely 'less notable' to the martial arts than Nakayama, based on current-day adherents' population.

IMO Nakayama is as vastly important to tens of thousands of Wado Karate folks around the world, for if he didn't exist, Wado Ryu would not exist. He is also notable for the existing extand Shindo Yoshin Ryu schools around the world, that also are aware of his historic contributions, as well as his high level kendo swordsmanship skills as honored by the Dai Nippon Butokukai. Notability is in the Japanese martial arts world, not as much as the world in general, but aside from the Wado Ryu founder, Nakayama and Gichin Funakoshi are the most notable people of this style, that could not exist without their contributions. I just want his indelible contribute documented.

Also, I realize some of the 'sources' from the JP wiki page are magazine articles that are only available in Japanese language, and some are also 20+ years out of print, so their specific usage for sourcing is limited. My thought on still including some of them, is because they did exist, and do have those articles, and for someone that has them or runs across them or can read Japanese, they might be a useful resource in the future. I may be wrong in my thoughts, but to have a citation of a source even it present-day difficult or not readily accessible still doesn't remove the original material. For example, BlackBelt Magazine #1 might be difficult to find today in 2025, but it did exist many decades ago, and did have useful info within it. I hope that makes sense. My initial thought was to include all prior sources as able, from the published JP Wiki page, assuming (yes I know that is dangerous) they were valid sources at some time in the past, and should still be valid even if difficult to find in 2025. If I should remove some source citations to make the draft pass acceptance, I am willing to do that as well.

Thanks again for everyone here, pitching in to help. Davidwtaylor1 (talk) 17:01, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidwtaylor1 There is no concern about non English references. They may be used.

That a subject has an article in another language Wiki does not mean it will be accepted in the English Language Wikipedia, whcih has tyhe strictest inclusion criteria of all of them. It is a common thought that "It has an article there so surely it is valid here, too" but I am afraid that is not always true.

I make no comment on your draft nor on any other part of your conversation above, 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:09, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I am currently writing a draft on the Davis Fire. I am very unfamiliar with uploading images or files to Wikipedia and do not know how to determine copyright permissions. I found pictures on the Davis Fire here: https://www.rgj.com/picture-gallery/news/2024/09/11/davis-fire-gallery-in-pictures-wildfire-rages-south-of-reno-washoe-valley/75177094007/ and if someone knows how to check for copyright permissions, please help! Hurricane Wind and Fire (talk) 01:25, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Help on the copyright images, that is. Hurricane Wind and Fire (talk) 01:26, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The rule of thumb is that unless explicitly stated otherwise, any image is copyrighted and will be assumed to be so until it is shown otherwise explicitly. Those images were taken by a photojournalist for that newspaper - there is zero reason to think that they are freely licensed for anyone to use, and in fact it is virtually certain that either that photographer or the newspaper owns the copyright to the images. They are very unlikely to release them under a free license - they make their money by having employed photojournalists to take images for them that they can publish or sell for money. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 01:28, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thank you. As you can tell, I am very inexperienced with this topic of Wikipedia. I apologize for any inconvenience I caused. Hurricane Wind and Fire (talk) 01:47, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No harm no foul, asking first when you're not sure is not a bad thing! -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 01:52, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the case where there are no existing non-copyrighted (or freely usable) images of the fire, you can upload a non-free file to Wikipedia (not Commons) - see WP:NFCC - after the draft is published to illustrate that page. Reconrabbit 19:11, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thank you. Hurricane Wind and Fire (talk) 21:43, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Hurricane Wind and Fire: The thing you want to look at for a quick "primer" is Commons:Licensing. Wikimedia Commons is a central repository where "freely-licensed" media go, so that they can be easily reused everywhere. English Wikipedia in limited cases sometimes allows certain fair use media, but photos of "current" or "recent events" aren't one of them so that's not applicable here.

Tip: U.S. government sources are a frequent source of public domain images for many things, and fires/storms and the like are among those. A lot of storm articles for instance, contain satellite and radar imagery from agencies like NASA and National Weather Service. ("Public domain" means they have no copyright protection and are thus free of restrictions for anyone to use.) --Slowking Man (talk) 16:50, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the information. Hurricane Wind and Fire (talk) 16:53, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A current discussion is ongoing to move a page. If the move follows through, the page will have to be moved to an existing redirect page. How would you go about doing that? Rexophile (talk) 02:44, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Rexophile. Please see Help:Redirect. Cullen328 (talk) 03:46, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rexophile more specifically make a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests for any move requests you cannot do on your own (e.g because of existing redirect) ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 09:03, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I think I *can* do the redirect and move on my own (I think), and I know we're supposed to "be bold" in our edits, but I thought for a reasonably big-ish change like that, I should open it to discussion first. Although maybe that's not necessary since someone else changed it from the redirect it was to what it is now without any discussion I can find, so changing it back probably wouldn't be so bad of me to do. But I do have a discussion on the talk page for anyone who might want to join it. So, yeah, I'll think on it and especially if no one joins the discussion maybe I just go ahead and make the changes myself. I got it/I'll figure it out. Thanks for your help! Wikipedian339 (talk) 16:50, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Recently I have been made aware of this page, Battle of Brebes, that had been approved not too long ago, but the only sources used for the page are obscure Indonesian newspaper articles of dubious authenticity. This page had also made its way to another page, Majapahit–Sundanese conflicts, which was created by the same person. The page claims that the supposed battle are found in the Kidung Sunda, a Balinese kidung detailing the Battle of Bubat, nothing about a supposed battle happening in Brebes. Can someone help? Miserableed (talk) 04:23, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I don't speak Indonesian. I can't say you if sources are reliable.

I advise you to find others Indonesian speakers. Anatole-berthe (talk) 04:44, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I took the liberty of machine-translating the two linked sources the article has. Both seem to line up with what is in the article, though they seem to be more pop-culture and tabloid-like than reliable newspaper publications. I could be wrong, as I have no knowledge of Indonesian culture and their news. Attempting to search "Battle of Brebes" in Google brought up almost nothing other than some forums and the Wikipedia article, though I did find a website called famousfix. Famousfix has a page on the article, though it provides absolutely no information other than linking to other pages on the site. Searching the Google-translated phrase in Indonesian, "Pertempuran Brebes," does bring up pages, though none of them appear to mention the battle and only mention the modern regency. It doesn't even have an article on the Indonesian Wikipedia. I have flagged the article as a possible hoax and plan to do some further research into this topic to conclude. -Emily (PhoenixCaelestis) (talk) 16:38, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much. I had been learning about Majapahit history for quite a while and this is the first time I've heard about the "Battle of Brebes", too. I'll be glad to help if you need anything (like translating Indonesian), just contact me on my talk page! :D Miserableed (talk) 23:32, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just came back to this and did some more research. I could not find any more information on said battle minus a webpage that appears to circle back to cite Wikipedia, and reading through the article, the linked article "Kidung Sunda" that claims to have resources on it brings up absolutely nothing - not even a name for the site of the battle mentioned. I'm a little nervous to come to a conclusion considering it's been two days, but I think I'm pretty sure that the Battle of Brebes never occurred and that it is a hoax. I will wait a day before I send the article over to AfD, just in case anything new comes to light regarding this situation. -Emily (PhoenixCaelestis) (talk) 19:54, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your work! I believe the author of the article is using the quote of "Gajah Mada is verbally abused by the Sundanese envoy" from the Kidung Sunda page as a source, which only mentions Jipang. Jipang is the name of several different villages in Java (the most prominent one being from Blora, I think). I don't know why the author is taking it as the one in Brebes specifically, and didn't the quote mentioned that the men of Jipang is chasing the Sundanese? It's just... strange. I suggest also removing Majapahit–Sundanese conflicts, because it was made just for the supposed "Battle of Brebes" (the rest are about the Battle of Bubat, which already has a page), and has weird claims about the Sundanese gaining Lampung with the only source being another obscure Indonesian newspaper article. Miserableed (talk) 00:01, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll let you go ahead and put both those up for deletion, as I feel. Both articles were made by the same account as well, Holafishes. I would send them a warning as well not to post deliberately fake information on Wikipedia. You’re very much welcome for the help! -Emily (PhoenixCaelestis) (talk) 00:16, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thank you. It's just that I'm not sure if I know how to put those articles up for deletion, can I ask for your help? Sorry if I'm asking too much! :") I'll always be glad to help you with anything else. Miserableed (talk) 02:00, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do that now, thanks for letting me know. -Emily (PhoenixCaelestis) (talk) 12:07, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, after several edits & addressed WP:COI for the draft Draft:Winston Utomo, what should be the next step besides improving with editing (and waiting the approval)? Any suggestions for me? Rachael Adrino (talk) 01:39, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

could you explain what exactly happened? i'm unsure if i'm just missing something or if i just need more context ogusokumushi^{( ୧ ‧₊˚ 🎐 ⋅ )} 17:10, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ogusokumushi Alright then. After I did several edits to the draft Draft:Winston Utomo and resubmitted it, an editor asked me to address WP:COI in making this draft. As his suggestion, I've stated that I didn't have COI when making this draft on my talk page. Now what should I do then about the resubmitted draft? Rachael Adrino (talk) 02:23, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

have you explained how there isn't a conflict of interest? providing evidence of that may help your case. or have another editor (who isn't me because i''ve only been here 2 years and i don't think i have that authority yet LOL) look it over. ogusokumushi^{( ୧ ‧₊˚ 🎐 ⋅ )} 14:47, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ogusokumushi Since only you who recently respond this threat, I'm also wondering & still waiting another editor here to give several suggestions, who next? Please? Rachael Adrino (talk) 02:13, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit Special:Diff/1277721004 I have added a link [1] to a reference in English. It is dated Feb 20 and it states professor “...passed away today”. The obvious implication is that professor died on Feb 20.
However, the original in Polish [2] is dated on 19-th and it explicitly states in the very first words professor died on 19-th of February: “19 lutego zmarł...”.
I suppose the English version has been written (or possibly modified) the next day, so it got a next-day date, and the author or editor haven't paid attention to a vague 'today'.

How can it be noted in our article, so that we'll be providing a true and verifiable information but will not distract the reader with too much side details on someone else's mistake? --CiaPan (talk) 09:39, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @CiaPan: I suppose you could annotate the citation to the English source by pointing out the discrepancy with the Polish original. But surely the easiest thing is to leave out the English source and just cite the Polish one instead? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:12, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, DoubleGrazing! You're right, reverting my change would certainly be the easiest way. :) And it actually was the Polish-language page referenced originally, but I changed it to the English one once I found it at the Tech.Uni. website.
I try to link to sources in English at enwiki whenever available, and I just did not notice the problem until the change got saved. That's why I'm looking for some (unobtrusive) way to improve the current reference instead of restoring the previous one. --CiaPan (talk) 11:24, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have just sent an e-mail note to their spokesperson, let's see what happens. Hopefully they'll fix it on their side. :) CiaPan (talk) 12:19, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DoubleGrazing I still didn't receive an answer to my e-mail, but the problem with their web page has been fixed: now it says “Professor Jan Krysiński (...) passed away on 19 February.” So my concern became pointless and I mark the section as Resolved. CiaPan (talk) 21:01, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I'm trying to create a wikipedia article about the man who's spent the longest time deprived of his freedom - Sten-Erik Eriksson. I need some help making the article meet the notability guidelines, so if you got anything that I could improve - please let me know! Link: Draft:Sten-Erik Eriksson DenRige (talk) 10:38, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. The whole url is not needed when linking.

I'm not clear on the specific issue- though the fact that the sources are in Swedish may be making it difficult for us to examine them(it's fine to have non-English sources, it's just hard to look at them). 331dot (talk) 10:47, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @DenRige! Your draft for Sten-Erik Eriksson needs more diverse and reliable sources to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Currently, it only has four sources from two websites, which isn't sufficient. Try to find additional sources that provide significant coverage and are independent of the subject. This will help establish Eriksson's notability and improve the article's credibility.

As an aside (not related to notability), I noticed your draft links to many dates and common words. Per MOS:OVERLINK, this shouldn't be done as it can clutter the text. Cheers Yeshivish613 (talk) 14:38, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes – as a native Swedish speaker I can confirm that the sources are nowhere near sufficient. Aftonbladet and Expressen are large newspapers, not exactly unreliable sources but decidedly tabloidish and masters of gossip and clickbait. (I avoid clicking on links leading to those two websites, though I did check these sources now). And none of the major broadsheet papers - Dagens Nyheter, Svenska Dagbladet, Göteborgs-Posten – have ever written about this Sten-Erik Eriksson. There are other people by the same name who have been mentioned in the press, but not him. I'm afraid this is simply not a notable topic. --bonadea contributions talk 16:16, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DenRige

There may be a place for him on this page List of longest prison sentences served rather than trying to make a separate article. Blackballnz (talk) 06:24, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Teahouse! I've been reading over some articles, (Kings Island, Orion, Mystic Timbers, and more) and realized that there is some very helpful information missing. "Kings Island: A Ride Through Time" by Evan Ponstingle covers the full history of Kings Island up to 2020-ish.

(The linked website is a bundle of the book and another item, but it can be bought separately in-park and was previously able to bought separately online)

It features a lot of interviews from people related to the park. The information inside of it not just gives interesting/amusing details, but it has a bunch of facts and insights that could really be useful.

How could I source the information while also keeping it verifiable? Thanks!

Therguy10 (talk) 16:21, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Therguy10, it's perfectly okay to cite sources which are offline, as long as the source is reliable and verifiable. You can use the cite book template and make sure to cite it correctly, including page numbers, and include a link to https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Kings_Island/OzI3zgEACAAJ. Cheers Yeshivish613 (talk) 16:33, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Yeshivish613! Could this link perhaps be okay to use? The one you included is giving me a different book altogether :/ Therguy10 (talk) 17:29, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Therguy10, I'm pretty sure the link I provided was what book you were referring to, the book you linked is a plain autograph book. In any case if you cannot find a Google Books URL the ISBN (9781732121089 if I'm correct) should be sufficient to verify its existence. (Links to commercial sites like Cedar Fair are not allowed.) Yeshivish613 (talk) 18:05, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Yeshivish613 Okay now this is really funny. The book I got when I clicked on your link was an autograph book by Robert Castleman. But when I put in the ISBN number, I found the correct Kings Island book by Evan Ponstingle.

If you're not seeing "Kings Island: A Ride Through Time" when you click my link, then I have no idea what to do lol. Could perhaps a third person step in and take a look?

In any case, at least I could use the ISBN, but this is fascinating! Therguy10 (talk) 20:15, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Therguy10: Oh my this is really weird. On second look the links we both gave are the same! I am in the UK while you're in the US, though I'm not sure why the two books would mix up based on location. If anyone else can look into this it would be appreciated. Yeshivish613 (talk) 20:44, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Therguy10, here is the Google Books listing for the book. It includes all of the bibliographic information that you need to create a reference to the book, and if you use Template: Cite book, you can add the link I gave to the URL field. Cullen328 (talk) 03:31, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328 thank you! This seems to be the same link I provided as well - but please correct me if I'm wrong. Ping for @Yeshivish613, does this link work for you by chance? Either way I'll still use it, but I'm curious to see what comes up on your end! Therguy10 (talk) 15:06, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why this happens but apparently this one leads to the right book while the one you provided doesn't, even though they're exactly the same link. Happy editing Yeshivish613 (talk) 15:16, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is so odd! I may do some digging into it, and I find anything I will let you know on your talk page. And thanks again, Cullen! Therguy10 (talk) 15:19, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I created the article 2025 Bielefeld mass shooting, on a notable mass shooting in Germany, and provided sources.

An overzealous editor then took an action to put the evolving article into another namespace, and then used that cross-namespace reality as the criteria to propose WP:SPEEDY deletion. Weird.

I've contested it; and fully discussed it on the article Talk page.

But it needs an uninvolved editor to remove the speedy.

Would some uninvolved editor please take a look, and then do what needs to be done, to remove the SPEEDY template on this notable event. Cheers. N2e (talk) 16:24, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@N2e: I think you misunderstand the speedy deletion tag – it was placed there because 2025 Bielefeld mass shooting is a redirect to Draft:2025 Bielefeld mass shooting, and Wikipedia does not allow redirects from article space to mainspace. There is nothing weird about it at all, and the speedy deletion tag should not be removed. Feel free to edit the draft page and submit it for review; if accepted it will then be restored to mainspace, but that will only be possible if the redirect is deleted first! --bonadea contributions talk 16:39, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not misunderstanding. The admin moved the evolving new article to the draft space; THEN used that action they themselves had taken, to SPEEDY the (now just a redirect) article. That is a a weird thing to do. So the actions of that admin should be overturned. (i see that just removing the SPEEDY may not be enough; but the reason for that is the untoward action of that admin). So whomever removes the SPEEDY can also just put the original info back in, from the edits prior to the admin breaking the article. Pinging 'bonadea Cheers. N2e (talk) 16:45, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@N2e, the mainspace article and the draft are two separate things. The article was moved to draftspace because it needs more sources to establish notability. You can add this at Draft:2025 Bielefeld mass shooting and once it has sufficient sources it may be moved back to the draftspace.

The speedy deletion tag is only to delete the redirect from mainspace to the draft, which is correct. Your article will still remain at Draft:2025 Bielefeld mass shooting, and can be moved back to the mainspace when it is ready. Yeshivish613 (talk) 16:50, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, that's perfectly normal. unless something is moved without a redirect, it will stay as a blue link. in the case of this leaving an inappropriate cross namespace redirect, the original title (which is now a redirect) can be safely speedy deleted without losing progress. as is, i do think the article you wrote could use some more time in the oven, so it's fine as a draft

also, reconrabbit, who moved the article to draftspace, isn't an admin or page mover, and thus doesn't have the ability to delete or move without a redirect, hence a regular move followed by tagging the redirect for speedy deletion consarn _{(prison phone) (crime record)} 16:54, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) No admin has been involved. Please check the response you received at Talk:2025 Bielefeld mass shooting from the editor who moved the article to draftspace. If an admin had moved the article to draftspace, no redirect would have been created! Since the editor who moved it does not have the Page mover right, the action that moved the draft automatically tagged the redirect for speedy deletion. Again, nothing remotely weird about it. Replacing the redirect with the draft text would not be acceptable; cut-and-paste moves are not allowed since they break the attributions, and when that happens various administrative hoops have to be jumped. That would be counterproductive indeed. --bonadea contributions talk 16:57, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bonadea You said "Wikipedia does not allow redirects from article space to mainspace." ... "The article was moved to draftspace because it needs more sources to establish notability. ... once it has sufficient sources it may be moved back to the draftspace." Hopefully people got your meaning. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:41, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ack. Thanks for pointing that out – I won't tinker with my post now, but hopefully that will teach me to read what I write, for the future.... --bonadea contributions talk 09:52, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @N2e. It sounds to me as if what you're really objecting to is somebody moving the article to draft space. That is normal for a newish article which is not yet up to the acceptable standard of a Wikipedia article (usually because of sourcing), but has the potential to be improved. ColinFine (talk) 17:09, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, Colin, that would not be it. It was poor comms. I see the article is speedied, for CS2. When I could not see why/how CS2 made any sence. The admin who did it should have said they speedied it because they wanted to contest only two sources. So, poor comms. There are four more sources on the Talk page. This article on a very notable mass shooting will obviously exist within a few hours or a day just 'cause it'll get cleaned up by others, and of course, many more sources and further description of the events will be added, including the four I added on the Talk page. But it will be by others; I'm done on this one. And wikiprocess has been poorly executed here, and made a lot more work for a lot more editors who will have to clean it up. Cheers to all. N2e (talk) 17:20, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@N2e, as has been explained above several times, the speedy delete had absolutely nothing to do with the content or quality of the article, but was an administrative action to rectify a technically unacceptable situation, viz a redirect from mainspace to Draft space. The article had already been moved to Draft space, and was in no way affected by the speedy delete. ColinFine (talk) 17:47, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect has now been replaced by the draft moving back to mainspace. A prod was added and removed. The event may have to wait till there is sustained news coverage, and that will prove it is not a minor one-event. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:00, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Ethics Policy I found it on the list of articles that I should create, under the Buisness tab. Would anyone provide some feedback and maybe even join in on helping this article? Thanks

—- Mangoflies (talk) 20:09, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Mangoflies. I would say that there is probably nothing salvageable about that draft. Wikipedia is not a how-to guide, and an article cannot be based just on how-to guides. It would need to be based on (probably academic) papers on "Ethics policies" as an object of study. ColinFine (talk) 20:35, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @ColinFine

There is a different link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics_policy that apperas to be a real wikipedia article. How can I get rid of the draft

--- Mangoflies (talk) 01:25, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @Mangoflies. I see that @Explicit has deleted it. ColinFine (talk) 14:54, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone,

I recently submitted a draft for Verónica Cheja, an entrepreneur and communications expert in Argentina, co-founder of Urban Grupo de Comunicación. The draft was declined with concerns about notability, neutrality, and source reliability. I have since made significant revisions and would appreciate guidance on further improvements.

Here are the key adjustments I made:

1. Neutrality: Removed subjective or promotional language, ensuring an encyclopedic tone.
2. Verifiable Achievements: Clarified awards and organizational contributions, such as the Cannes Lions recognition.
3. Reliable Sources: The article relies on reputable sources, including La Nación, Infobae, Forbes, AdLatina, and Fortuna, which cover business and corporate affairs in Latin America.
4. Comparative Example: I referred to the article on Darío Straschnoy, which follows a similar structure for a notable figure in the communications industry.

I believe the subject meets Wikipedia’s notability criteria based on her industry impact and media presence, but I would love to get feedback from experienced editors on whether further refinements are needed before resubmitting.

Would anyone be able to review the draft or provide advice on how to strengthen the case for notability?

Thank you! Arcuki74 (talk) 21:04, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The best way to get feedback is to resubmit it. Asking for a pre-review review is redundant. 331dot (talk) 21:28, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Arcuki74. I haven't looked at your draft, but I would point out that neither her industry impact nor her media presence is directly relevant to notability as Wikipedia uses the term, unless she has been independently written about. Your sources may be reliable, but are they independent (as opposed to being based on interviews or press releases, for example), and do they contain significant coverage of her individually (as opposed to routine announcements about her businesses)? ColinFine (talk) 22:09, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also note that the article Dario Straschnoy has a big box with problems, and may not be a good choice of a model: see other stuff exists.

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. (I realise your account has been around for a few years, but with only fourteen edits in your history, you are still a new editor). ColinFine (talk) 22:13, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Editors,

Requesting someone to review this page - Sunny Kumar Singh. There's a LLM disclaimer, after which the redundancy was removed, still disclaimer. The person received nation wide media coverage during Delhi Assembly Elections 2025 and is District Magistrate of National Capital of India. Why the page has received a low importance rating?

Any other suggestions to make the article better and more compliant?

Appreciate all the help and time! Thanks for your guidance. Yashvardhan7776 (talk) 03:56, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a question about why someone did something, it's always best to ask that person directly. That rating was left by user:GoingBatty. DS (talk) 04:11, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yashvardhan7776, I've two comments about that article (in addition to the LLM issue that's already been raised). One is that it contains a lot of unwarranted boldface. The other is that it seems Singh is a senior civil servant, doing his job competently – but what makes him notable? Which three of the sources cited do most, in your opinion, to establish that he's notable? Maproom (talk) 10:28, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Yashvardhan7776: Based on the WikiProject India Assessment Guide, most of the articles are assessed at "Low". If you would like another opinion, feel free to add |reassess=y to {{WikiProject India}}.

@Maproom: I removed the unwarranted boldface and make other layout changes. GoingBatty (talk) 19:02, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any restriction on citing ROM downloads for games (such as fan translations or own created), since I have encountered them at Rhythm Tengoku and List of Creepypastas and just marked them using ^{[non-primary source needed]}. Yes I am a nerd -XCBRO172 (How could you tell?) 04:41, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well perhaps the original rom should also be referenced. FAN created ROM downloads are likely copyright infringement, and so should not be linked. Commentary and interpretation could be used, but it should be from a reliable source, not a fan site of user generated content with no editorial oversight. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:03, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good question to bring to WikiProject Video Games, where editors who have experience editing such articles can provide more insight. --Slowking Man (talk) 16:22, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm Yeren from Tencent's Communications team. As an employee, I've declared a conflict of interest (COI) regarding edits to the Tencent Cloud page. We have one straightforward, non-controversial edit to propose: correcting the Chinese entity names of Tencent Cloud, which are currently incorrect. Although I've already created a topic on the Talk page, for the sake of speed, could we make this edit directly? I understand that I should avoid making any potentially controversial edits at all times. TencentCommsYeran (talk) 08:12, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is resolved, thanks @Robertsky for the help. TencentCommsYeran (talk) 08:58, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a functionality for sending a user a private message or a leaving a message that's hidden from public view? I'm curious why a user (pretty sure an admin) made an edit, but I don't want to ask on their talk page in case they take it personally when I'm genuinely just curious. Sigmund7 (talk) 12:29, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes @Sigmund7, you can send someone a private email at Special:EmailUser.

For more information see Wikipedia:Emailing users. Cheers Yeshivish613 (talk) 12:36, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Sigmund7 (talk) 12:37, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sigmund7, see User talk:The 8th Line--I clicked the wrong one in the drop-down menu. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 13:32, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Understandable, thanks Sigmund7 (talk) 20:28, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the article on the Cyrus cylinder is a quote within which a bracketed reference to a name is wikilinked (e.g., as would appear: "some quote [something] ..."). But because the wl of course uses double square brackets, the original editor had to put the quote's brackets within the link so that they are also highlighted in blue: [Belshazzar]

This of course is imperfect; the square brackets that show in the text should be outside the blue link. But when I try to edit it like this: [[[Belshazzar|Belshazzar]]], it breaks the wikilink. How to properly get this to display? Al Begamut (talk) 14:08, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Al Begamut. You can always wrap anything not to be interpreted in "nowiki" tags - see WP:nowiki for how. ColinFine (talk) 14:46, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's also a template you can use e.g {{bracket|[[Belshazzar]]}} will produce [Belshazzar]. It's basically doing all the nowiki stuff Colin mentioned for you. - X201 (talk) 14:59, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. In nominating an article to DYK, a statement on my user page that I am using a machine translation has raised questions about the accuracy of the article I created. I would very appreciate some comments and suggestions on the following two points.

1. My use of machine translation

I write texts, both on talk pages and in articles, primarily by referring to machine translation. However, I do not write texts as they are output by machine translation. I read and compare the original language text with the output text, check the meanings of all unfamiliar words, and choose words and expressions that are close to the sources as possible. I do not think my writing can be called fluent, but I am writing with the utmost sincerity to the best of my ability.

Furthermore, for this article, I did not directly publish the article, but rather had a draft reviewed and copyedited by an English speaker who can read the original language before publishing it.

Based on my reading of WP:COFAQ#MTRANS and WP:MACHINETRANSLATION, I personally recognize that there is nothing wrong with this use of machine translation, but is there anything I should change about my use of machine translation? Or should I not be involved in machine translation at all?

2. Description of my user page

As written above, I consider my use of machine translation to be acceptable under the guidelines. However, since the accuracy of the article has been questioned based on my user page, should I add some additional explanation or change the wording on my user page regarding the use of machine translation? Or should I not include any words related to machine translation?

I am not too concerned about DYK's publication, as there is almost nothing I can do about the article, but if my user page is the reason for expressing doubts about the article's reliability, then I would like to clarify whether there is a problem with my user page or not. 狄の用務員 (talk) 14:42, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How do I get "autoconfirmed" and able to upload images to my graphic file? I created my account over 4 days ago and have made over 10 edits. thanks Judsonnewbern (talk) 16:35, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per XTools, your account is already autoconfirmed. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 16:40, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

most appreciated! thanks Judsonnewbern (talk) 16:45, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 16:49, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again all,

About a week ago, I asked about changing the white text of a logo to black so you can read it against the base-white Wiki background (here's a link to the page/logo I'm talking about). After poking around a little more, I found that the company uses a black-text version of the logo on their press releases. Is it okay to use a logo found on a press release? I've only ever pulled them directly from the websites associated with the topic. 30Four (talk) 16:55, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@30Four - You could also get the black-text version of the logo from this web site. I found this by going to Reunion's web site, going to News > In the Media, and then clicking on the first article. GoingBatty (talk) 19:15, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response! I'm assuming this means it's okay to use a variation of a logo as long as it's uploaded by the represented topic in some form, even if it's not on their own site. The JPG of the black-text on that site will definitely be easier to read on a white background, but I'll keep looking around for a PNG file of the same version. 30Four (talk) 23:24, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello anyone. I want to change my mentor but I don't know how. Could you please give me an advice? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Applefruitlife (talk • contribs) 18:31, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Applefruitlife, welcome to the Teahouse. Click the three dots "..." to the right of "Your mentor" at Special:Homepage and select "Opt out of mentorship". You can opt in again and get another mentor assigned. I don't know whether you can choose your mentor. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:24, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've picked the editor [3]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:27, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Editors who have signed up to be mentors can use Special:MentorDashboard to claim mentees. Hence, any new editor can go to the talk page of the person they would like to have as a mentor to ask them to make the change. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:17, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I’ve begun working on a draft after in a previous Teahouse post there was an agreement that there could be an article could potentially be created. I want to know if I am headed on the right track with my draft. I have confirmed that there are multiple international sources covering it as well, with sustained long term coverage from both national and local news sources, so I hope this is notable enough to continue writing this draft. Atheions (talk) 19:43, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Atheions. Yes, you're absolutely going in the right direction on this! It looks like there's absolutely enough lasting coverage on the chronic power outages of Puerto Rico to have some sort of article on them. One thing I'd like to introduce you to today is a search engine called Google Scholar. It's designed to bring up more academic sources (like journal articles or reports) than regular Google. It looks like this topic has received coverage in a fair few types of those sources, for example [4] and [5], but if you look around I'm sure you'll find more. And you don't need to worry about a conflict of interest just because you yourself are from Puerto Rico. Conflicts of interest are more to do with if you're writing articles about you, your friends/families/employers, or groups/clubs you are a part of. Nationality/religion may lead you predisposed to bias, but it's a bias every editor has and, fortunately, it's a bias that most editors can be aware of, accept, and then take reasonable steps to mitigate. Good luck with the artice! GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 19:57, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a separate thing if the outages are still ongoing it would be better to rename the article to Puerto Rico power outages (2017-present). Other than that it looks like you're off to a good start! Yeshivish613 (talk) 20:18, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Atheions, I think the article in its current state should be fine as long as you expand it (i.e. adding more info). It's notable enough for inclusion and has lasting news and academic coverage. — 🌙Eclipse (she/they/all neos • talk • edits) 20:25, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could a more experience editor please have a look at User:Artkritik/sandbox to suggest improvements. Artkritik (talk) 20:33, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Artkritik. It doesn't look to me as if any of your cited sources meet the triple criteria of being, reliable, independent, and containing significant coverage (See WP:42) - most of them are clearly not independent of Sigerud. Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources.

On what basis are you suggesting that he meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability? ColinFine (talk) 21:42, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm new to the Wikipedia world and would like to get started with something I know about. I'd like to work on documenting local active transportation projects. I'm in Austin, TX but would be happy to work on projects elsewhere. I see that there was a wikiproject for "Hiking Trails" but it is now defunct. I'm looking to document local greenbelts similar to the Atlanta Beltline page. But that page is using an "organization" infobox. Is there something more appropriate I can use? Or a project I can work on to learn more before starting to document Austin's greenbelts? Fastmole (talk) 21:31, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fastmole, welcome to Wikipedia! I recommend reading Help:Your first article. — 🌙Eclipse (she/they/all neos • talk • edits) 22:45, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Fastmole: With regard to infoboxes, there's {{Infobox hiking trail}}, but I wouldn't use that for anything but an actual trail. {{Infobox park}} might be appropriate for some greenbelts. Deor (talk) 23:59, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While I was creating a draft page for NBACentel [sic], a satire NBA news account that has garnered widespread mainstream media attention, someone else created a page for the account. It bugs me a bit that the title contains a space, and also that my draft feels far more complete and comprehensive. Is there a way I could motion to have my draft page entirely replace the existing page? I don't know if it's proper wiki etiquette to just go in there and completely replace the public page with my draft. Also there's the issue that I'd like for the page to be moved from "NBA Centel" to "NBACentel".

Thanks in advance! TSwanyIRL (talk) 21:46, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Just did this myself. Swapped the page content for the content that was in my draft, as it is far more comprehensive. If I did anything wrong please LMK! TSwanyIRL (talk) 22:17, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TSwanyIRL: It would have been nice to discuss it first with User:Soulbust who spent time creating that page. But now that you've gone and done it, it looks like an improvement so hopefully there won't be any hard feelings there. Cheers Yeshivish613 (talk) 22:41, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just to speak generally without passing any judgement on whether or not this was called for in this specific case: In the case of "there are two pages that exist and they should become one page", you want to do a merge. --Slowking Man (talk) 16:06, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello TeaHouse,

I've recently been directed to the teahouse regarding my recent (and first) draft Draft:2025 GR Cup Series, the draft was declined and through my conversation with @KylieTastic and myself. I have since improved the draft through adding more sources + some minor expansion. Could I please get another user's opinion on this?

Thanks

Kburgin24 (talk) 00:33, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kburgin24: One sentence says "The calendar was released on the 27th of October 2024, during the driver's dinner and an Instagram post." The reference does not say when the calendar was released or that it was released at the driver's dinner. There should not be an external link in that sentence either. GoingBatty (talk) 02:15, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GoingBatty Thanks for the quick reply! I wasn't sure if I could reference the Instagram post so I just changed it to "The calendar was released on the 27th of October 2024" Kburgin24 (talk) 02:26, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kburgin24: I still don't see a reference for the assertion that "The calendar was released on the 27th of October 2024". GoingBatty (talk) 02:33, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Other than the one instagram post from tgr_aus I can't seem to find a source to cite it, would I be allowed to cite this instagram post? Or should I just remove the "The calendar was released..." part entirely Kburgin24 (talk) 02:42, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GoingBatty Apologies I forgot to @ you in my reply Kburgin24 (talk) 02:49, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kburgin24: I don't think it's important to mention when the calendar was released. GoingBatty (talk) 03:06, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GoingBatty Cool, Thanks for your help! Kburgin24 (talk) 03:14, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone,

I've been patrolling recent changes for quite a long time and I just wanted to ask something. Is there an efficient way of patrolling? Do I have to check 'diff' for each and every edit? How do other patrollers do it?

Note:- I am using Twinkle. Warriorglance(talk to me) 01:40, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Warriorglance! I'm not sure if you're doing this already, but have you tried adding filters to Special:RecentChanges? I've applied filters to it so the program only shows me edits it thinks is vandalism. Here are the filters I applied:

And here's how the edits look after the filters are applied:

You can try it and see if that works. Additionally, when you gain some more vandalism experience, you can apply for rollback permissions so you can use tools such as Huggle and AntiVandal which make the whole vandalism-searching experience easier. Cheers, and reply if you need any help setting up those filters. ‍Relativity ⚡️ 02:13, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Relativity Yes, I use filters but I never knew there was a highlighting feature in filters. This makes it efficient. Thanks a lot! Warriorglance(talk to me) 02:51, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Draft:Mark Kevin Wykoff, Sr.

I recently written about an attorney in my area who is representing a man who shot and killed Sonya Massey... and they declined it saying that it appears that I am getting paid for the submission even though I am not... I responded to the individual, but I'm just curious why they would ask that and how do I fix it? InTheField217 (talk) 04:00, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Most drafts on attorneys and doctors appear to be put in by someone connected to them, and they are usually not notable. I don't know about your writings, but another clue is a promotional tone. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:33, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You should declare on your Talk page and the Talk page of the draft that you have no financial or personal connection to Wykoff, or if you do, the nature of the connection. David notMD (talk) 18:02, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All of my articles have been nominated for deletion. Why is there a way to write a new article in the first place? Everything notable has already been written about. Mangoflies (talk) 04:19, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wrote a reply at User_talk:Gråbergs_Gråa_Sång#Question_from_Mangoflies_(02:52,_28_February_2025). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:10, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mangoflies, you are incorrect. On my userpage, User: Cullen328#My redlinks, I list 16 topics that I believe are notable. Feel free to write about any of those topics. There is wide agreement that songs that have appeared on the major Billboard charts are worthy of Wikipedia articles. Most songs from recent decades are covered, but the Billboard charts started in 1913. There are countless hit songs from the 1920s through 1940s that lack articles. There is wide agreement that elected members of national, state and provincial legislatures are notable. There are thousands of biographies of 19th century legislators yet to be written, and thousands of legislators currently serving in non-English speaking countries. And you started Draft:Middle Eastern Airlines Flight 444 about a 1964 plane crash that killed 49 people. That crash is certainly notable but you stopped working on it last November. There is a book called The RAF Air Sea Rescue Service, 1918–1986 that has 15 sentences about the crash. With a little bit of work, that draft will be ready to be accepted. Cullen328 (talk) 06:44, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-dating Billboard, there are songs like As some day it may happen that can probably be made into articles. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:05, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've never written an article about anything new or even alive, that I can recall. First, learn WP:GNG and WP:RS and a few more in the alphabet soup linked in those pages. Avoiding living subjects gives you less to worry about (so far so good). Find your inspiration where you read and want to know, without a mind to creation in particular. But when it strikes you, try using WP:AFC. JFHJr (㊟) 06:45, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Mangoflies. I don't know about you, but for me, it was a great relief to realise that creating new articles wasn't the only way to contribute to Wikipedia. I've been editing for nearly twenty years, have 26 000 edits - but I've only ever created a handful of articles. ColinFine (talk) 11:45, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some lists of articles which don't exist in English Wikipedia, but many of which likely should: Most-wanted articles · Requested articles · WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles

There are plenty of articles which do exist on English Wikipedia but are quite short and you could work on expanding; for those look at WikiProject Stub improvement. --Slowking Man (talk) 15:58, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I used that AfC list and the articles I wrote just got nominated for deletion. Mangoflies (talk) 16:12, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stop creating articles. You have a history of having AfC drafts Declined, and when you bypassed AfC to create articles in main space, having those nominated for deletion. Going forward, create drafts and submit to AfC. If declined, understand why, and try to remedy before resubmitting. Only after a series of successes should you again consider bypassing AfC. David notMD (talk) 18:06, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WikiProject Women in Red has some redlink lists, although they're not always easy to find sources on. Overall though the crucial rule to follow is WP:THREE -- three reliable, independent, secondary sources with significant coverage. If you can't find that, probably don't make an article; if you can, you're probably fine. Additionally, it's really hard to get articles that are written a bit like resumés through AFC, like you're trying to with the lawyer one. I'd recommend writing about non-living subjects or just not about people, to some extent -- I don't think I've written any articles about currently living people, personally. There's a higher barrier to try to keep out articles about people who don't really have a lot of coverage. Mrfoogles (talk) 20:19, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mangoflies, if I was you, I would work on Draft:Middle Eastern Airlines Flight 444. It is very promosing and I gave you a great reference to use. Cullen328 (talk) 21:23, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Too late. There is already an article on it. Middle East Airlines Flight 444 Mangoflies (talk) 21:32, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there! I want to open up a conversation about moving a page to have a different name. I finally figured how to get the tag I want on the talk page (under the header "Requested move 28 February 2025"), but I think(?) I should also be adding one to the actual page itself that says something like 'this page has been requested to move, there's a conversation on the talk page' or something like that to alert anyone who comes to the page? A) is that the correct protocol, and assuming so, B) Do you know how I go about that? Thanks so much! Wikipedian339 (talk) 07:01, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Wikipedian339, it looks like you managed to figure out doing this yourself. Is there anything you still need help with for the move? Ultraodan (talk) 08:03, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikipedian339 once you've requested the move a bot will soon come and tag the article. So there's no need to do anything yourself. Cheers Yeshivish613 (talk) 11:42, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Wikipedian339: You may be interested in using Twinkle, which is a tool that makes easier doing a lot of common "maintenance" tasks including move/renaming requests. If you try it out, "requested moves" are under the "XfD" item in Twinkle's menu. (Slight misnomer here but the alternative would be a whole new menu entry for just move requests.) --Slowking Man (talk) 15:35, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I am new to wiki articles. I worked on an article: Draft:Shehu Musa Yar'Adua Foundation, which was rejected. Please I need help to improve and get my article approved. Thank you. Zeeyas (talk) 10:08, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zeeyas Hello and welcome. The good news is that your draft was only declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning in the draft process, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means that it may be resubmitted.

The draft just tells of the organization and its activities, sometimes in a promotional way. A Wikipedia article should do more, it should summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the organization, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. Wikipedia isn't interested in what the organization says about itself(so the "mission" and "vision" sections should just be removed).

Most of the awards described are about the organization's work(a documentary), not the organization itself. Furthermore, awards do not contribute to notability unless the awards themselves merit articles(like Nobel Peace Prize or Academy Award).

If you are associated with this organization, that needs to be disclosed, please see conflict of interest and paid editing. 331dot (talk) 10:14, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot Thank you so much for your response. I will implement your corrections.

Yes, I work with the organization. Is it possible for a different writer or user (other than myself) to help review the work in order to avoid the conflict or interest from my end? Zeeyas (talk) 10:50, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You may keep editing the draft, but you need to formally disclose your connection as the policies indicate. 331dot (talk) 10:56, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot This is noted. Thank you. Zeeyas (talk) 11:16, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nomination

Hello! I want to improve this article ("Religious responses to the problem of evil") the "good article" quality. I have already added images, made it more readable, filled up the categories, fixed the references, and added some notes. Is there anything else that should be improved in that specific article before it is ready for a nomination? Brent Silby (talk) 13:17, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Brent Silby. Thanks for your contributions, the article is looking good. For directions on how to nominate the article for GA review, you can check out the instructions page here. I recommend you read carefully the criteria, and first put yourself in the shoes of the reviewer by thoroughly going over the article and checking for yourself that it meets all the criteria. When you're satisfied with it, and you'd like to have someone review it, feel free to leave a message on my talk page and I'll do my best to get to it in a timely manner. Cheers, MediaKyle (talk) 13:33, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can referencing be collapsed? Appears 101-106 are to the same work, can this be replaced by one ref that covers all the page numbers? Ditto 116 & 118, and 128-131. David notMD (talk) 18:20, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for noticing! I will look into this right now and see what can be collapsed. Brent Silby (talk) 18:39, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Brent Silby the second to fourth references are currently (after deletion of some markup):

• The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "The Evidential Problem of Evil", Nick Trakakis
• Problem of Evil, Paul Brians, Washington State University
• Stephen D. O'Leary (1998). Arguing the Apocalypse. Oxford University Press. pp. 34–35. ISBN 978-0-19-535296-2.

Better decide if the author's name goes at the start or (a novel notion for me) at the end, what italics are and aren't used for, and (looking ahead to reference 7) whether authors' names are inverted or not ... etc. -- Hoary (talk) 23:37, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello guys! Today I tried to create a page about CARS1 gene (in VisualEditor) and when I tried to insert infobox gene into the article, it showed me an error. This error said that “ An Error has occurred retrieving Wikidata item for infobox” although this infobox was on Ukrainian wiki article about that gene.

What can I do? NotCarlJohnson1992 (talk) 17:07, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@NotCarlJohnson1992: Not use VisualEditor. It's been known to foul up when it comes to templates (and this includes infoboxen). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:11, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So how can I insert infobox gene template in Source Editor?

Thank you for your time! NotCarlJohnson1992 (talk) 17:15, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@NotCarlJohnson1992: See template:Infobox gene for usage notes. If there's a template, its page will include documentation on it. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:18, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I tried to insert that infobox in Source editor but it still showed me an error. NotCarlJohnson1992 (talk) 17:25, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It might help if you link to the draft you're working on so people can see what you're doing. Specifically, the error you're getting probably means that the template automatically requests info over the web from WikiData -- probably there is no WikiData item for your gene, so you probably want to create one. Mrfoogles (talk) 20:20, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See d:Special:NewItem, I think -- although make sure WikiData doesn't already have an item for it. Mrfoogles (talk) 20:21, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, unfortunately I deleted the draft and wikidata has data about that gene.

Here’s the link: d:Q17855882 NotCarlJohnson1992 (talk) 20:51, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've converted the links to Wikidata from external links into Wikilinks. --ColinFine (talk) 22:52, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @NotCarlJohnson1992. Looking at uk:Цистеїл-тРНК-синтаза, it calls uk:Шаблон:Картка гена, which is the Ukrainian version of Template:Infobox gene without any arguments. This picks up its data from the Wikidata page it is linked to, which I'm pretty sure has to be done from the Wikidata end. If the page is not linked, the template will not populate.

I don't know where your draft was, or how you deleted it, but you can ask for it to be restored (see WP:undelete). I advise not worrying about the infobox until the article is in mainspace, and can be linked from the Wikidata item. ColinFine (talk) 23:04, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well sorry for the confusion, By “deletion” I meant that I didn’t upload it at all, i just closed the browser’s page. @ColinFine NotCarlJohnson1992 (talk) 23:07, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also thank you for the advice! NotCarlJohnson1992 (talk) 23:09, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. Well, it certainly won't have been linked from Wikidata then!

I repeat that you don't need an infobox in the first version of an article - in fact, you don't need an infobox in any version of an article - it's at best a "nice to have", and some editors don't like them at all. The important bit of an article is the citations to solid sources, and the textual summary of those sources. All else - infoboxes, images, additional information from less solid sources - is secondary. ColinFine (talk) 00:43, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello anyone, here is an article anyone can improve by adding information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwert0ky (talk • contribs) 17:12, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello anyone, here I have a new article to improve — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwert0ky (talk • contribs) 17:22, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Qwert0ky Teahouse hosts are generalists here to advise on editing, not to co-author. Perhaps there are other places you can ask. David notMD (talk) 18:22, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stuff like this would go in WP:CLEANUP, although that corner of Wikipedia seems to be largely forgotten. MediaKyle (talk) 18:49, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see in the Greek wikipedia page several logos from dioceses in Greece, but only on the Greek wikipedia page (like this and this one). I'm not sure what the copywrite status of these or what Wikipedia's policy is on logos such as these. Alexthegod5 (talk) 19:55, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:Fair use -- there's a list of criteria any non-freely-licensed work (i.e. any work owned by someone, who hasn't given permission for anyone to use it for pretty much anything) have to satisfy. There's a whole form to fill out if you click "Upload file" somewhere in the Wikipedia sidebar? If there's diocese logos I imagine it would be somewhat likely they would meet the criteria. Mrfoogles (talk) 20:23, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mrfoogles I'll take another stab at it, but when I was filling it out I wasn't sure which selections to chose from. Thanks! Alexthegod5 (talk) 21:11, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Probably the option you want is "This is a logo of an organization, company, brand, etc.", if it helps Mrfoogles (talk) 22:36, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Alexthegod5. Please have a look at WP:Logos. ColinFine (talk) 23:06, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have some page ideas but I don't know if they're board or well known enough to constitute a page. BigBoiWikiWhale (talk) 21:28, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As a general rule, even the most specific topics can warrant a Wikipedia article so long as they meet WP:GNG or WP:SNG. Also, be bold! If an article doesn't exist but you think it should, why not create it and try putting it through the WP:AfC process? guninvalid (talk) 22:01, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

George H. W. Bush broccoli comments is notable enough to have a WP:GA, so whatever it is you want to make, I promise you it won't hurt to try. guninvalid (talk) 22:03, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Jacob Lee 6939. Further to what @Guninvalid says - it won't hurt to try and establish that the subject is notable by finding satisfactory sources that are reliable, independent, and contain significant coverage (see WP:42. Doing anything else before that is like starting to build a house without surveying the building plot - it is likely to be time and effort wasted. ColinFine (talk) 23:10, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed a lack of Wikipedia articles covering many cybersecurity topics such as data breaches and vulnerabilities, and many of the articles on networking technology are old and poor-quality. I am interested in collaborating with other Wikipedians with an interest in this field. Is there an existing project I can join, or how would I start one? guninvalid (talk) 21:59, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Guninvalid. There's WikiProject Computer security, but it says it is "semi-active". You might want to ask on the parent project, WP:WikiProject Computing. ColinFine (talk) 23:13, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

What is the process for proposing an essay for deletion?

I came across this essay just now. While I understand it was intended in jest, it engages in subtle racism, xenophobia, eurocentrism, and othering.

The author has an indefinite block, though I'm unclear why. Delectopierre (talk) 22:55, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delectopierre, the user was a sock of Icewhiz, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Icewhiz--a particularly nasty ongoing threat to the health of the project and the mental health of a number of our editors. Since Icewhiz was blocked in 2019 and this was created in 2021, I can delete it per WP:G5. Thanks for bringing this here. Drmies (talk) 22:59, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you! Delectopierre (talk) 23:09, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MFD, it's the process used where Wikipedia:MAIN PAGE got deleted. It's in your Twinkle's XFD menu. Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 22:59, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Delectopierre (talk) 23:09, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do edits like this one have to be reverted for arbitration reasons? I gave the user {subst:alert} already, but is it necessary to revert comments like those as they are not ERs? Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 22:57, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I did it--thanks. Drmies (talk) 23:01, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Uh, ok. Then what about Talk:Gaza war hostage crisis#POV title? Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 23:04, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I made an edit request, it was implemented, and the template was changed to “yes”

Then another editor came along and changed it to “no” without any other editing. My implemented edit request is still live on the article, they just changed the template answer. Is this normal? Is there any policy page that deals with a 3rd party re-opening an accepted request? Mikewem (talk) 23:11, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mikewem I'm assuming you're referring to Talk:Israel#Edit request 28 February 2025. The request wasn't accepted, it was just read. When the template parameter is changed from "answered=no" to "answered=yes", it just means that it is reviewed and responded and that it is not listed at Category:Wikipedia extended-confirmed-protected edit requests, a category listing all the edit requests that needs attention. The way Remsense did it is so that another editor can take a look at the edit request. So to me it seems extremely normal to do that. Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 23:23, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was actually Talk:Jews#Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 February 2025

And I got my facts slightly wrong. The edit was implemented into the article but the editor who did the implementing maybe neglected to change the template or maybe purposely left the request open. Then a third party changed it to yes and then changed it back to no Mikewem (talk) 23:52, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If I report a user to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations, do I have to tell them through their talk page? If yes, what template do I use? Justjourney (talk) 01:19, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are not required to notify them. If you choose to do so, see Template:Uw-socksuspect Meters (talk) 01:31, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]