How to write a article --Mr. barone get one free (talk) 18:11, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Mr. barone get one free, my recommendations are

1. Make a few hundred constructive edits to Wikipedia, so that you become familiar with its more important policies; and then
2. Study Help:Your first article.

But don't waste your time by trying to write an article backwards. Maproom (talk) 22:05, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Good day. I'm new to Wikipedia editing. I would like to add (edit) basic information on this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_House_of_Representatives then under this heading: Current members (33rd Alaska State Legislature). Specifically, I wish to edit this section to add basic information for Representative Cliff Groh, #18 on this list. Thank you, Zamino926. Zamino926 (talk) 20:53, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Zamino926, thank you for aiming to contribute to Wikipedia. (I've moved your question from the top of this page to the bottom of the page, which is the normal place to add new discussions.)

Is your aim to add information to Alaska House of Representatives#Current_members (33rd Alaska State Legislature)? It already has all the information about Cliff Groh that is called for there. If it's something else, maybe you want to change the information that's already there, please explain here. Maproom (talk) 07:31, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Can I turn my account dutch? --Pieter123454321 (talk) 15:42, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, Pieter123454321. Pieter123454321 is the name of your account on en:Wikipedia. It is also the name of your account on nl:Wikipedia, see here. I dnn't know what you mean by "turn". Maproom (talk) 17:48, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

I think I solved my own problem, thanks for your kindness Pieter123454321 (talk) 18:57, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi, what is a good page for me to edit? --Aricciar (talk) 05:51, 25 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Over at Wikipedia:Teahouse, you said that if I should put something like Wikipedia edits from the IP address 92.93.94.95 are by me, see Special:Contributions/92.93.94.95 on my userpage. I have done part of that job on my userpage, but when I do that, what happens? Does a bot or someone put those edits under my name or does it just sit on my userpage for the foreseeable future so editors can look at my contributions as an IP address? Roads4117 (talk) 09:03, 25 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hiello Roads4117. I don't see that on your user page, just this: "I started editing Wikipedia on 24 August 2021 under an IP address, although I started contributing more to Wikipedia from December 2021 onwards. On the 20 June 2022, I made my Wikipedia account", with nothing to say what IP address. Anyway, nothing will automatically happen. The edits will still be attributed in Wikipedia's database to the IP address, you'll just be allowing anyone interested in your edit history to look at those edits. Maproom (talk) 10:01, 25 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Oh OK, the IP address edits are further down. But for now, I think that I will just leave it. Roads4117 (talk) 10:47, 25 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

I feel a bit silly because I reviewed that highly promotional draft with a fine-toothed comb, but somehow missed checking the very first source. Trying to AGF, I can only assume the editor working on the draft somehow mixed up the citations as they added them in, because they all seem to be titled wrong and attached to statements they don't support.

From my initial search, I don't think the article will survive anyways due to notability, but I find copyediting and source-checking strangely soothing even if it might get deleted. Seeing users with an impressive track record like your own makes me want to strive more though, I'm planning to try to start contributing to more new content and get hands-on with citing references, which has unnecessarily intimidated me for awhile, lol. Thanks for all your contributions to en.wiki, you're an inspiration! 🙌 Chiselinccc (talk) 08:50, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

A tag has been placed on Skyeskyns requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band or musician that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Theroadislong (talk) 18:26, 6 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hey there! This is to let you know that phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship (RfA) review is now no longer accepting new proposals. Lots of proposals remain open for discussion, and the current round of review looks to be on a good track towards making significant progress towards improving RfA's structure and environment. I'd like to give my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has given us their idea for change to make RfA better, and the same to everyone who has given the necessary feedback to improve those ideas. The following proposals remain open for discussion:

• Proposal 2, initiated by HouseBlaster, provides for the addition of a text box at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship reminding all editors of our policies and enforcement mechanisms around decorum.
• Proposals 3 and 3b, initiated by Barkeep49 and Usedtobecool, respectively, provide for trials of discussion-only periods at RfA. The first would add three extra discussion-only days to the beginning, while the second would convert the first two days to discussion-only.
• Proposal 5, initiated by SilkTork, provides for a trial of RfAs without threaded discussion in the voting sections.
• Proposals 6c and 6d, initiated by BilledMammal, provide for allowing users to be selected as provisional admins for a limited time through various concrete selection criteria and smaller-scale vetting.
• Proposal 7, initiated by Lee Vilenski, provides for the "General discussion" section being broken up with section headings.
• Proposal 9b, initiated by Reaper Eternal, provides for the requirement that allegations of policy violation be substantiated with appropriate links to where the alleged misconduct occured.
• Proposals 12c, 21, and 21b, initiated by City of Silver, Ritchie333, and HouseBlaster, respectively, provide for reducing the discretionary zone, which currently extends from 65% to 75%. The first would reduce it 65%–70%, the second would reduce it to 50%–66%, and the third would reduce it to 60%–70%.
• Proposal 13, initiated by Novem Lingaue, provides for periodic, privately balloted admin elections.
• Proposal 14, initiated by Kusma, provides for the creation of some minimum suffrage requirements to cast a vote.
• Proposals 16 and 16c, initiated by Thebiguglyalien and Soni, respectively, provide for community-based admin desysop procedures. 16 would desysop where consensus is established in favor at the administrators' noticeboard; 16c would allow a petition to force reconfirmation.
• Proposal 16e, initiated by BilledMammal, would extend the recall procedures of 16 to bureaucrats.
• Proposal 17, initiated by SchroCat, provides for "on-call" admins and 'crats to monitor RfAs for decorum.
• Proposal 18, initiated by theleekycauldron, provides for lowering the RfB target from 85% to 75%.
• Proposal 24, initiated by SportingFlyer, provides for a more robust alternate version of the optional candidate poll.
• Proposal 25, initiated by Femke, provides for the requirement that nominees be extended-confirmed in addition to their nominators.
• Proposal 27, initiated by WereSpielChequers, provides for the creation of a training course for admin hopefuls, as well as periodic retraining to keep admins from drifting out of sync with community norms.
• Proposal 28, initiated by HouseBlaster, tightens restrictions on multi-part questions.

To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I/Closed proposals. You are cordially invited once again to participate in the open discussions; when phase I ends, phase II will review the outcomes of trial proposals and refine the implementation details of other proposals. Another notification will be sent out when this phase begins, likely with the first successful close of a major proposal. Happy editing! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her), via:

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for this edit. However, this version should be restored, for reasons explained here. Your edit can then be integrated. Also, at Opioid epidemic in the United States, "published its rebuttal to" could be changed to "reexamined", since the problem was not the letter itself. 200.59.184.69 (talk) 16:00, 27 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I believe my edit was a clear improvement. It does not change the intended sense of the sentence, it just makes it clearer. I don't understand Scrambled Jag's reason for reverting it (and I see he has been blocked by Firefangledfeathers and his contribution deleted). Maproom (talk) 16:40, 27 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

No one reverted your edit (which as of now is the most recent edit to that article.) The point is that a different version should be restored; the reasons were articulated in the now-deleted talk-page comment. When that version is restored, your edit will need to be reintegrated, but that will be easy. The reverts in question have nothing to do with actual content, so don't be afraid to restore the superior version. 182.160.124.214 (talk) 18:04, 27 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

  The redirect Kindling (sedative–hypnotic withdrawal has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 8 § Kindling (sedative–hypnotic withdrawal until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 01:07, 8 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

hiya. im bird244. a few months back you contacted me about making some maps i could use for articles. how should we proceed? Bird244 (talk) 20:14, 1 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Bird244, I offered to help by uploading plates from the Hertslet atlas to Commons. If you intend to use some of those plates, please tell me which. Maproom (talk) 07:01, 2 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

oh. i thought you meant you were going to make copies of the maps, but altered to show borders post 1870s Bird244 (talk) 00:01, 3 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

but id still like those maps. i can use them for 19th century pages Bird244 (talk) 00:11, 3 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi there! Phase I of the Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review has concluded, with several impactful changes gaining community consensus and proceeding to various stages of implementation. Some proposals will be implemented in full outright; others will be discussed at phase II before being implemented; and still others will proceed on a trial basis before being brought to phase II. The following proposals have gained consensus:

• Proposals 2 and 9b (phase II discussion): Add a reminder of civility norms at RfA and Require links for claims of specific policy violations
• Proposal 3b (in trial): Make the first two days discussion-only
• Proposal 13 (in trial): Admin elections
• Proposal 14 (implemented): Suffrage requirements
• Proposals 16 and 16c (phase II discussion): Allow the community to initiate recall RfAs and Community recall process based on dewiki
• Proposal 17 (phase II discussion): Have named Admins/crats to monitor infractions
• Proposal 24 (phase II discussion): Provide better mentoring for becoming an admin and the RfA process
• Proposal 25 (implemented): Require nominees to be extended confirmed

See the project page for a full list of proposals and their outcomes. A huge thank-you to everyone who has participated so far :) looking forward to seeing lots of hard work become a reality in phase II. theleekycauldron (talk), via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:09, 5 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

hi you recently edited a page I created. Could you please take another look at it and share your opinion? I would appreciate any feedback you have. thank you Privetjournalist (talk) 22:25, 30 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi Privetjournalist. Here are some comments.

• The "Classical" section says that he "was chosen", and "They selected him". Who were "they"? What did they select him for?
• After the opening section, the article should refer to him as "Rahal" throughout, not as "Moslem Rahal".
• "Concert performances in Italy, Germany, Turkey, Syria, Lebanon, and Algeria under the conduction of Maestro Missak Baghboudarian (2002-2021) like the Ney concerto, Song from al furat- by shafi badereddine, The ecstasy of victory- Abdel Salam Safar and more" has several flaws. "like" and "and more" suggest that you're not quite sure about your facts, like a schoolchild writing an essay; it's better just to write "incuded". Names of works should be italicised: The ecstasy of victory. "Conduction" is a word, but refers to the flow of heat or electricity; you mean "conductorship". (You could also write "under the baton of", or "with Baghboudarian as conductor".)
• Instead of writing "Maestro Missak Baghboudarian (2002-2021)", it's better to use a piped wikilink Baghboudarian, omitting the word "Maestro", his forename, and his data of birth. Any reader who wants to know more about Baghboudarian can follow the wikilink.

Rather than a redlink to Osnabrücker Symphonieorchester, it's better to link to the article in German-language Wikipedia: Osnabrücker Symphonieorchester [de].

• Section headers should be in sentence case: "Notable figures", not "Notable Figures".
• "Regester" is not a word.
• "After the war in Syria" – sadly, the war is ongoing.

I hope this helps. Maproom (talk) 07:31, 1 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you so much for your assistance. i will take your input and fix it As a relatively new contributor to Wikipedia, creating this article took a considerable amount of time and effort. I aimed to ensure it met all guidelines, so discovering it did not make the cut was quite disappointing. Thank you again for your help. You are welcome to check on the article anytime, and I would appreciate your feedback. Privetjournalist (talk) 08:16, 1 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I have made corrections to the page and would appreciate it if you could review it again to confirm if it now meets the appropriate standards. If possible, could you also check the template and see if I have made the correct changes for it to be removed? If so, could you remove it since you clearly know your way around? I am hesitant to remove the template myself as I want to ensure I am following all guidelines properly and not solely focusing on the content. Thank you for your assistance. Privetjournalist (talk) 09:32, 1 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I've had another quick look (I'm quite busy this morning). Here's some more things:

• The "Teaching and Research" section has boldface marks around the section headers. Those should be removed.
• That section should be written in sentences, not as a list.
• In that section, "Beirut" should be capitalised.
• In the "Projects" section, It's not clear which of the boldface items are meant to be section headers.
• In that section, "soloist" has two "o"s.
• In that section, you describe Jordi Savall as "famous". Don't do that, it's promotional. There's a wikilink to an article about him, let readers judge for themselves. If you sprinkle the text with "famous", "maestro", and similar words, it will give a bad impression to reviewers.
• In that section, you use seven references to support an uncontroversial statement which isn't even about the subject. That looks bad, it suggests that you are desperate for acceptable references.

A reviewer of your draft will be concerned mainly with whether the references establish that the subject is notable. References are assessed on quality (independent, and with extensive discussion of the subject), not on quantity. When they find that the first two English-language sources are both to the same content, which only has a passing mention of Rahal, they may give up, leave your draft in the waiting list, and find a better use for their time, rather than checking the other 97. Maproom (talk) 10:22, 1 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I have made changes based on your inputs and referenced many sources that Wikipedia considers reliable, such as BBC News (both the English and Arabic versions in different contexts), Proceso (a famous Mexican newspaper), The New Criterion, The Sonar (a Catalan newspaper), and many national Syrian newspapers. I understand that Wikipedia does not consider the Syrian papers reliable, but for Middle Eastern people, these sources are generally trusted when it comes to art articles.You were a great help for me, and I would appreciate it if you could check my work one last time and consider removing the template if it meets the guidelines.(if you have the time of course)

one last thing and sorry that i took this much of your time, could you let me know when the review process ends and what types of users are considered reviewers? Will the article appear on the main page, or have I just wasted my time? Privetjournalist (talk) 13:21, 1 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I cannot read Arabic, and know little about music. My own judgment is that Rahal is probably notable; but I have seen no evidence of that in the form of reliable indepedent published sources with in-depth discussion of him in a language I can read (English, with difficulty French). I am not a reviewer. Some editors have been accepted as reviewers, they don't need to be admins to qualify as reviewers. Once you submit the draft for review, there are four possibilities:

1. It will be rejected, meaning that in the opinion of the reviewer the subject is definitely not notable. In this case, that is most unlikely.
2. It will be declined, meaning that in the opinion of the reviewer the subject has not been shown to be notable, but this may be possible with further work.
3. It will be accepted,and the reviewer will move it to article space.
4. It will stay in the waiting list for months, because no reviewer is willing to take the time to assess it fully. In my opinion this is likely. The first six English-language sources cited do nothing to help establish notability. I have no reason to think that the Arabic-language sources are better. If I were a reviewer I would certainly not look any further, I'd just leave it in the waiting list and find something else to review.

If I had the task of getting this draft accepted, I'd go through the sources, starting with the English-language ones as this is English-language Wikipedia, until I'd found three or four reliable independent sources with in-depth discussion of Rahal. Then I'd rewrite the draft from the beginning, basing it entirely on what they say. It would be a much shorter article, and much easier to review. Once it was accepted, it would be possible to add more material. Maproom (talk) 16:25, 1 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Due to deleting the informaton Admer9 (talk) 06:53, 10 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi Admer. I can't guess what you mean by the above. Can you explain? Maproom (talk) 10:57, 10 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi Admer. I see now that you have re-added the names of two poets to Eidagale#Notable_people. Those poets are not-notable in Wikipedia's sense, which is "there's a Wikipedia article about them". If you think their names should be listed despite their lack of notability, you should discuss the issue on the article's talk page: see Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Maproom (talk) 14:07, 10 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Greetings from afar. Thanks for your thanks re donations elsewhere - I was hoping that at least one other person held the same views, and it turned out to be you – ahead of several others. :) >MinorProphet (talk) 00:05, 18 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Bold 171.243.109.244 (talk) 13:34, 18 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi there! The trial of the RfA discussion-only period passed at WP:RFA2024 has concluded, and after open discussion, the RfC is now considering whether to retain, modify, or discontinue it. You are invited to participate at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Discussion-only period. Cheers, and happy editing! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:38, 27 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your comment on my draft. I am just getting back to you. The topic of my draft article is all three: Mary Rutan Hospital, Health Center, and Foundation. The three branch organizations are known under the umbrella heading of Mary Rutan Health. Is this concept admissable in Wikipedia articles? How would you handle it? Thank you. Stella Worth (talk) 19:50, 18 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Stella Worth, I've moved your question to its chronological place, at the bottom of my talk page.

Every Wikipedia article should have a topic, or subject, that it's about. If each of those three topics is notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article, then you should write a separate article about each of them. If you acknowledge that none of them is notable enough, you should do nothing. If only the health centre is notable, then you should wite an article about that, and not about the other two. If more than one of them is notable, the articles about them can link to one another; but their notability will be judged seperately. Maproom (talk) 23:21, 18 November 2024 (UTC)Reply