User talk:Michael D. Turnbull

Archives

2021, 2022, 2023, 2024

This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Z1720 (talk) 00:02, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good job! My new project is Draft:Earl Bailly, which I found on Commons helpdesk. I was a little surprised when the proposer/creator said "The Lunenburg Art Gallery Society are the stewards of the Earl Bailly collection and legacy and have been offered funding for an educational space, but the donors expect a wikipedia page to exist before funding can be granted.", but thought "Screw that, I'll do it anyway." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:03, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have good sources for that draft: I added a couple more on its Talk Page. It would be great if you could find a source for the Wiki-blackmail and name-and-shame the donors in the article! Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:22, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please misunderstand me correctly! I put a cc-template at Draft talk:Earl Bailly, but there was no WP-blackmail [1], just newbie-ness. And unusual that a technically PAID new arrival suggests a subject that should OBVIOUSLY (imo) be on WP. I feel no particular need to name and shame potential donors to an art gallery in Nova Scotia. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:34, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

... but the donors expect... sounds pretty close to me ;-) Let me know if you want me to nominate again at DYK when you are finished, assuming you don't fancy the QPQ. Meanwhile I'm deep into sorting this mess. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:41, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TBH, I'm a little disappointed neither Maggiehohle or Artstoronto could be arsed to make an after-publishing response. Oh well. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:04, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, there are a couple of essays about that, e.g. WP:DNER. Mystifies me, too. Mike Turnbull (talk) 20:17, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changing topic, I found another recurring "error" to pick at: If you autofill a source like Vogue, it will often fill the company name Condé Nast as author name, which looks quite plausible, but it's wrong, and the articles often has actual author names. See [2] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:56, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've never used autofill like that: my main go-to is the WP:Citation expander working from doi or isbn, which is usually excellent. I'm not sure who else might be interested in Wikignoming the Vogue one. Mike Turnbull (talk) 21:02, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I might get onto it. In other news, a dog I started a WP-article about met a king:[3]. Second time I know that he (the dog) has been mentioned in The Times. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:05, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems I whined a little too early. Apparently some people don't look at WP-talkpages for weeks at a time. Very odd and possibly illegal. This is the norm in the global population, surely. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:51, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As DJT would say: ".... so sad". Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:19, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As Judith Newman said, "Wikipedia may be a haven for cranks and pedants, but it is also amazing." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:38, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I chanced across July 2024 global cyber outages this morning and it gives a much better account than my local news, with a global overview. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:40, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And on the other foot, [4]. Like you said, it keeps us off thee streets. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:44, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the discussion about that image, and considered it a clear "delete" based on policy. However, I didn't bother to comment as I am pretty sure that will be the outcome. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:57, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was skimming it and was prepared to say delete, but at that point there was an article about the photo which had been kept. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:00, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And thanks for pointing me to that scary story, I haven't checked news in hours. Apparently my laptop doesn't have crowdstrike software, I checked my folders per the WP-article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:58, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't look at the DYK-section very often (unless I'm in it), but today I saw "that the Puck Building has two gilded Pucks?" and to my surprise I realized that I actually did know that! From editing Puck, I think. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:58, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello👋 how do I add a footnote that an acronym is unclear? --RageAgainstDarkness (talk) 15:39, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RageAgainstDarkness I assume this relates to your recent comment on Talk:International Atomic Energy Agency. You are doing the right thing: there are hundreds of editors who have that article and its Talk Page on their WP:WATCHLIST. Give it a couple of days and you should get replies. We do have templates that can be added to articles to indicate missing information (e.g. {{cn}} for "citation needed"). My own way to deal with this sort of thing is to put the acronym into the Wikipedia search bar which takes me to INES, a WP:DISAMBIGUATION page from which I infer the correct meaning in this context is International Nuclear Event Scale. I would then WP:WIKILINK the acronym where it occurs in the IEAE article. That's much better than tagging the acronym as being unclear and leaving it to others to clean up. Wikilinks are perfect for this. Regards. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:08, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking to create a Wikipedia article for 'The Heartbreakerz,' a vocal group I'm part of as the songwriter. I want to make sure I structure the article properly and use reliable sources. Could you guide me on how to present the group's background and our work to meet Wikipedia's standards please? --Verified.heartbreakerz (talk) 00:28, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Verified.heartbreakerz I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad news but I would judge based on your brief draft that there is essentially zero chance of an article about your group meeting Wikipedia's policy of only describing notable musical groups. We even have a humorous take on the situation you are in which you should read. Articles here are based on finding and neutrally summarizing sources meeting these criteria, which simply don't exist currently. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:57, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies i did remove it all, i will restore it and you can tell me what u think of it i thought I put too much information. Verified.heartbreakerz (talk) 12:08, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Verified.heartbreakerz Please don't restore the draft on your userpage. That's not the correct place for drafts and if you put it there an admin is likely to have it speedily deleted. Instead, you can follow the WP:AfC process (click that link for details). My strong advice is that should first work on existing articles on Wikipedia, so you learn a bit about our standards. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:12, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but i did it yesterday i didnt need to restore it, i saved it yesterday on a word document i just written it out exactly from there on my laptop within Wikipedia standards. Verified.heartbreakerz (talk) 12:19, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Michael! I'm not sure if you can see my sandbox, but I've been trying my hand at drafting an article.

I have been trying to comply with the wikipedia guidelines for drafting, and was wondering if you or anyone else could take a quick look and provide feedback?

Thank you! ScienceOcean (talk) 21:53, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ScienceOcean We have the WP:AfC process (see that link) which is designed to help new editors by providing feedback on draft articles. I'm not a reviewer there but can comment on your sandbox, which anyone can look at if they wish. Like many new authors, you have written the draft backwards: that is, you've written what you know and then tried to find sources to back up what you say. Read the link and you'll see why it is much easier to write the other way round. You have also failed the neutrality policy by saying things like [Dr. Chen has] a passion for community well-being. I don't understand why the draft has so much about Chen and relatively little about the May 9th day(s) since its inception. I would have expected more press coverage from Taiwan either commenting that people had taken part or explaining why they had not. One of the sources you have not yet used is a blog, which is no use for Wikipedia. You need about three decent sources meeting these criteria: reliable, independent and with significant coverage. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:34, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see! Thank you so much for your comments and feedback! This was extremely helpful. ScienceOcean (talk) 18:47, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quick follow up question...there is actually a lot more press coverage regarding Taiwan No-Alcohol day, but it's Taiwanese press and the articles are in Mandarin. Would these still be useful to use as citations, or would I have to translate them? ScienceOcean (talk) 18:53, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ScienceOcean No you don't have to translate them, other than for yourself to confirm what they say, of course! See WP:NONENG for details. Best practice is to include translations for the titles and any quotes. See {{cite news}} for example, which has parameters that allow for translations, using |trans-quote= etc. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:09, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there,

I drafted a finalised Wikipedia page on my father, Brigadier General Al Faroque Siddiquee. I don't know how to upload it; could you please help me with that? --TheCloudGuy44 (talk) 18:30, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TheCloudGuy44 I can see the draft at Draft:Al Faroque Siddiquee and you have followed the correct process by using articles for creation. However, this draft has been "declined" by one of the reviewers who specialize in looking at drafts. I can see why they did that. The main reason is that you have not adhered to our policy explained here. All articles on living people must have full inline citations so that every single fact is backed up by a source, so that readers can verify the content is correct. To take one trivial example, how are readers to confirm his DOB? You may know this to be true but Wikipedia doesn't base articles on what its authors know, it bases everything on reliable published sources. In a biography, if you can't find a published source, it can't be included. We have an essay about this: we call it the problem of writing drafts WP:BACKWARDS.

All this will be bad news for you but I suspect that, with considerable further work, you can create an acceptable draft. Your father is likely to be wikinotable owing to his rank and service, which I assume will have meant that he will have been written about at length in reliable sources that are independent of him such as mainstream newspapers. If that isn't the case, then forget about developing the draft. Note that anything written by colleges etc. he has been associated with fails the independence test and can only be used for limited information in the way described here. That can include backing up information such as DOB. Get back to me here in this thread if you have further questions. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:14, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am trying to publish an entry on Wikipedia. Can you help me review it? Thank you --Samuel Malasa Banda (talk) 17:51, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Samuel Malasa Banda I assume this is about User:Samuel Malasa Banda/sandbox. This can never become an article in the encyclopaedia because it has no cited sources. Wikipedia is not a social media site. It has strict policies about biographies of living people and you need to read that link to see why your draft is unacceptable. If you wish to continue writing about Kachale, then see the advice at this page. However, I would strongly advise you to forget about creating a new article until you have made contributions to existing articles and have learned about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:35, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also prefer technology, engineering and science related topics cus that's my niche so how do I go about them here --ElielKwesi (talk) 15:51, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ElielKwesi Welcome to Wikipedia! There are many ways to contribute and for science topics we have a number of Projects that specialise in working collaboratively. For example, I'm a retired organic chemist, so I joined the WP:CHEM group: see that link for details. All our projects are listed at WP:PROJDIR, so you should find something to interest you. Not all Projects are very active, however. My strong advice is to start by contributing to existing articles before you try to write one of your own. That's much more difficult than it may appear before you get to know your way around. In a moment, I'll add some useful links to your own Talk Page. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:19, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any tech community available id like to start there 102.176.94.154 (talk) 17:48, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ElielKwesi Don't forget to log in before editing! I've already pointed you to the various communities. Technology is at WP:WikiProject Council/Directory/Science#Technology. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:01, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These tetrahydroporphyrins are precursors to porphyrins. Oxidative dehydrogenation, I am pretty sure. Not only synthetically but in PPIX biosynthesis. But maybe my info is wrong?

PS sorry about trying to get your advice on borane business, I was looking for some outside advice from organic perspective. --Smokefoot (talk) 17:00, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are correct in general. However, in the case of meso-octamethyporphyrinogen all the methylene groups which link the pyrrole rings are fully substituted, hence there is no H atom which can be removed to allow the oxidation. Of course, these ketone-derived types are entirely synthetic: all natural porphyrinogens have CH₂ linkages between the pyrroles. No problem about pinging me on the boranes; I'm happy to add my 2p-worth on any chemistry topic but in that case I really know close to nothing! Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:11, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. Yes, Me8 derivative is a rock, apparently. --Smokefoot (talk) 17:27, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BorgQueen (talk) 00:03, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, how do I edit someone's article without removing efficient information? --McDee Pit (talk) 19:45, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@McDee Pit Welcome to Wikipedia. The Kemin Industries article, as it is today, is truly terrible. Its only sources are the company's own writings, which tends to be promotional. Proper encyclopaedia articles are meant to be base on sources like these. If you can find such sources, then please do paraphrase them in your own words and add the information, citing them as you go. In a moment I'll add some links to your Talk Page which you should find helpful but for now, please read the pages I've linked here. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:02, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I will do so. McDee Pit (talk) 20:25, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! A long time ago you very kindly helped me to begin to understand how to do the DYK process, (it was for my first bio and was for Carol Van Strum.) I have done it very rarely since but am trying with a nomination for Mary Jane Patterson at Template:Did you know nominations/Mary Jane Patterson. It is about to be timed out and is stuck! Some editors whose queries have been responded to now seem to have delayed or disappeared. I am unsure if I can do anything about it? Would you mind having a peep and letting me know if I should/can do anything? Thanks if you can. I am, as you may remember (!) pretty inexperienced at anything except from actually editing! Balance person (talk) 07:40, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Balance person It seems clear to me that your hook alt0b is fine: I wouldn't have been happy with the others, for the obvious reason that Patterson is a slave's daughter, not usually a relationship described as a "descendant". It looks as though Sionk was the person who first reviewed the DYK and I don't understand why they haven't approved it given their comment on 31 August. I'll ask them on their Talk Page in a moment. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:37, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See Sionk's Talk page. You assumed the DYK wasn't approved but it already had been and now awaits the next steps in the process. It will go from WP:DYKNA to one of the prep areas when one of the people who specialize in DYK move it forward. There is no deadline now, so you can relax and don't need to make further comment on the template page unless someone pings you there. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:04, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see! I thought from Narutolovehinata5 comment on 30 August that something else had to happen. Sorry to have caused you extra work! Thanks so much for helping. Balance person (talk) 11:19, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Balance person Actually, it may be me who isn't understanding the issue, since I haven't run into it before. According to WP:DYKTIMEOUT the two months refers to the hook being promoted from the WP:DYKNA page to one of the preparation areas. There are details about this at WP:DYKPBR and the 2-month rule is "at the discretion of reviewers and promoters". I guess I could promote the hook myself, after making checks it is properly sourced in the article. However, I've never done that and am a bit hazy as to the process. Your nomination is currently the first one to be seen on the DYKNA page, so I imagine it will get attention from the experts who do most promotions fairly soon. If I were you, I would politely ask on BorgQueen's Talk Page if she would do the promotion. She is very active admin and works a lot at DYK (she promoted my latest one: see above here on my Talk Page). Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:41, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the idea, Mike. I have popped a message on her talk page. Fingers crossed! Balance person (talk) 15:52, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. It has now been promoted! Balance person (talk) 08:09, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you T24boo 17:09, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@T24boo You're welcome. The homepage tab you can see when looking at your userpage should now have my name associated with it. If it doesn't, please let me know. Incidentally, I am unlikely to respond if you ask in this sort of language. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:15, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I’ll start by saying I didn’t know how to do things in my talkpage fair enough. I didn’t even realize that because my mentor went mia and I’ve been trying so hard to edit and so I did teach myself so I got me a few bots, did my manuals and here we are today. T24boo 20:28, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good day, If I see a revert rollback war going on what are the steps to take. I just did one for the first time and I hope I did it correctly. Can you check if you have time. Ty --T24boo 22:38, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@T24boo I assume this is about Flag of Tennessee, which I see has now been semi-protected by an admin. As far as I can tell, you and Nemov did all the right things: calling in your edit summaries for discussion (by the IP) on the Talk Page and warning them on their Talk Page. I haven't tracked down how the page protection happened but I assume it was via WP:ANI. A couple of learning points. The IP was removing content and providing reasons in edit summaries (however dubious) for doing so. Hence that's not strictly WP:VANDALISM, since the IP just disagreed about the content and we have a policy explained at WP:ONUS, which says The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. So, strictly speaking, it was for you and Nemov to justify why the material should be in the article, rather than for the IP to justify why it should not be. Also, in these circumstances (content dispute, not vandalism) you must be very careful not to break the the three-revert rule or you may end up being blocked. It is always important to keep a cool head in these circumstances! Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:12, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok good and thank you for explaining it in detail so I can learn for the future. Have a good day. T24boo 13:36, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

		The Helping Hand Barnstar
		This Helping Hand Barnstar is awarded to Michael D. Turnbull, for his mentoring and helping new users, and devotion to responding to user questions at the Tea house, Help desk, and WikiProjects. Your efforts do not go unnoticed; keep up the good work! (And here's some refreshment while you're busy helping!) Mathglot (talk) 22:38, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How to make a article about myself --Starfire Royaltin (talk) 12:46, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Starfire Royaltin Welcome to Wikipedia. Starting out on Wikipedia for the purpose of promoting yourself by means of a autobiography is a really bad idea, for the reasons explained at those links. Your userpage says that your claim to wikinotability (the main criterion we use to determine if an article here is worthwhile) is that you are a YouTuber. We have a few articles on American YouTubers but they were mainly written by someone other than the subject. If you insist on trying to write about yourself, then you must use the WP:AfC process, after declaring your conflict of interest. Read this advice and this essay and prepare to be disappointed. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:20, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Volume Gallery - how do I get the template to allow me to enter citations. It just turns blue in visual mode. If that makes sense. --T24boo 14:44, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@T24boo I rarely use the visual editor but there is a tutorial about it at Help:Introduction. As I understand it, for citations, you have to click the cursor at the point you wish to place a citation and then click the "Cite" part of the toolbar, which should create a tiny blue square where your cursor is. Then you click into the menu, which offers a "Manual" tab at first, with options including Website, Book etc. Obviously, you have to have in mind the citation you are going to use and be able to follow through the options as you go. An alternative method that some people use is to develop the citation in your sandbox and then copy/paste it into the article (using the source editor). Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:54, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I tried it but it’s like the template won’t allow me to place the link where I need it to go. I’d probably have to practice in my sandbox yes I’m thinking too. I had them ready to go last night than I had to end because I got stuck on that but thank you again! T24boo 15:00, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Want to start a page about me and my career in the entertainment industry --Johnny Rosen (Nashville) (talk) 15:27, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnny Rosen (Nashville) Welcome to Wikipedia. Starting out on Wikipedia for the purpose of promoting yourself by means of a autobiography is a really bad idea, for the reasons explained at those links. If you are an entertainer then you would need to meet the relevant wikinotability guidelines. If you insist on trying to write about yourself, then you must use the WP:AfC process, after declaring your conflict of interest. Read this advice and this essay and prepare to be disappointed. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:14, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thanks

I have no idea how this works

. Not self promotion only documented info. 68.89.9.217 (talk) 17:16, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnny Rosen (Nashville) Please ensure you log in before commenting or your edits will be assigned to your IP address, not your username. If you have sources that are independent of you (so not based on interviews), and cover you in some detail in reliable sources such as mainstream newspapers, then there is a chance you could draft an autobiography but we experienced editors know that such ventures almost always fail. I can't stop you trying! Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:30, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. How may I best edit Mike Shinodas page to express him being a rape apologist and a supporter of scientology? --JusticeForChester (talk) 17:00, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JusticeForChester Short answer: very, very carefully and with solid backup from reliable sources. You are a new editor and I see that your suggestion has already been reverted by another editor. We have a process described at this link which explains how to proceed (via discussion on the article's Talk Page). Note that at every stage you need to abide by the policy for biographies of living people. Please read all the pages I have linked before you make further edits. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:36, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Found an artist during the Cuban revolution that is not mentioned on Wikipedia. Although there isn't much about her online. Any suggestions? --Cubichedetampa (talk) 21:28, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cubichedetampa Sources do not have to be online provided they are published (e.g. books). See WP:OFFLINE. My main concern would be that you are a newcomer here and won't understand yet the requirements for a new article, especially on what we call notability. I suggest you gain some experience editing existing articles, e.g. on other topics that interest you and after a while read the detailed advice. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:08, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have a question about expanding an article I’m working on that has controversial elements. Ive researched and its validity is confirmed. --T24boo 21:57, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@T24boo Go ahead and ask the question but don't expect me to guess which article! Mike Turnbull (talk) 09:40, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I completely forgot to mention how folks with COI should look into getting edits done. Thanks for covering the gap. Maybe I don’t have the policy knowledge for the Teahouse yet, huh?
By the way, Paddy did the edit anyway… MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 17:44, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I followed you here from the Teahouse. I included your suggestions and added a whole bunch of additional research projects that University Archives and Special Collections has contributed to. Would it be possible for you to take a look again? TIA!

Draft:Northeastern University Archives and Special Collections Gmecagni (talk) 14:27, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gmecagni The main hurdle in getting a draft accepted is usually to show notability, which is what our Teahouse discussion was about. Listing individual collections, all cited to the archive, doesn't help with that. If you like, I'll happily chop away at the draft to reduce it to what I think the reviewers will be looking for. Among other things, the lead part of the article should be summarizing the rest and not be the only place where you mention the subject strengths, for example. Indicate here in this thread if you would like me to work on the draft (probably mainly on Sunday next owing to other commitments) and I'll do so. Expect to see large parts cut but bear in mind that these can be added back later as they remain in the edit history. The idea is to make it obvious to the reviewer what confirms the notability. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:43, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I welcome your assistance with chopping the article down to size if you think that would help. I will try to add more descriptive language about subject stregnths in additional sections as well. Thank you! Gmecagni (talk) 14:57, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gmecagni OK, I'll give it a go on Sunday. One problem is that your academic sources (all the doi numbers) are written by staff at the library, as far as I can tell. That makes them not WP:INDEPENDENT. Incidentally, we have a gadget called the WP:Citation expander that can format citations correctly given just the doi, or you can use citer.toolforge which can take a wide range of inputs. That saves a lot of time! Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:20, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gmecagni I've re-jigged the article and explained what I've done in edit summaries and a comment at the top of the draft. If you are happy with my version, or after you have made further tweaks, I suggest you re-submit it. I think it should pass the review now. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:59, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! I truly appreciate your help navigating the Wikisphere's notability requirement. I've resubmitted the article and fingers crossed it will pass muster this time. Gmecagni (talk) 11:29, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the page got rejected again. Do you think I should just give up at this point? #bummed Gmecagni (talk) 14:39, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gmecagni Yes, I noticed that it was declined today (not "rejected" which means "give up"). That's a pity as I think it was just about acceptable for notability, although I'm not an AfC reviewer. You have two options other than giving up. 1) Incorporate some of the text and the best sources into the article on Northeastern University. 2) Keep the draft in the hope that some good secondary sources covering the archive in more detail show up in the next few months. Drafts are automatically deleted after 6 months of inactivity but if you make even a small edit that resets the clock. If I were you, I'd do both options. You can also link the draft from the Talk Page of the University article and mention that anyone interested in it can add content, preferably of the sort that helps notability. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]

I can provide sources listing it as a herbicide if you like. RustyOldShip (talk) 14:15, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RustyOldShip I was just in the progress of writing on your talk page! As my edit summary said, my trusty old Pesticide Manual says Zytron was a Dow trade name for DMPA [Wikidata], which is already listed and exists in Wikidata, although there's no article for it. Similarly, penoxalin is a WSSA former name for pendimethalin, which we already have. I don't think we should be adding multiple names for the same thing but maybe you believe there are other chemicals which now get called these names, in which case I'd like to know what they are. BTW I meant to thank you for adding the new herbicide articles you recently created. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:24, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For penoxalin, see top of PPDB. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:31, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. I knew DMPA was another name for Zytron, but I thought Zytron was a common name as I saw it in scientific papers. Likewise penoxalin, (With an X?) though I had was not aware of any other names and thought it was also a common name.

I have been somewhat surprised that wikipedia editors rarely add textual content to the articles I make, it seems they mostly nitpick at formatting or sources (though in fairness they are usually correct and their edits are usually improvements) when from my perspective it is so easy to write text, I look up scientific articles and add anything that seems interesting. I note that your name often appears after edits adding chembox identifiers and other properties. RustyOldShip (talk) 14:35, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RustyOldShip Yes, penoxalin with an "x": I had a typo here which I corrected just as you were preparing your reply! The list of herbicides was created by me using the common names listed by BCPC mainly (who use DMPA) but interestingly pubchem have Zytron. I tend to rely on BCPC and PPDB as being the specialists in current pesticide ISO Common Names, with the Pesticide Manual as backup. I have a long history in pesticide research at ICI / Zeneca Ag and Syngenta, and have contributed to or started many articles here. My userpage lists some of them. I hope you'll be happy to self-revert on penoxalin, especially as I see you edited recently at pendimethalin. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:50, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that our conversation at my Talk page has evaporated — hopefully just temporarily. What I see as the most recent activity is a lot of new notifications that threads I originated in the Teahouse have been archived.

😮 Augnablik (talk) 00:42, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Augnablik That would indeed have been unusual, if not unprecedented! I can still see them at User talk:Augnablik#Search-and-replace and in Special:Contributions. As usual, new notifications on your Talk Page have gone in below the old ones, just as this thread is now at the bottom of my Talk Page and earlier threads are in time sequence starting with the oldest at the top. I have auto-archiving set up here, which you may need at some point. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:31, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I see that you're right … I so rarely engage in conversation on my Talk page that what I was doing was looking for a message thread under your name, not the one I used when I posted in the Teahouse (Search-and-replace).

Okay, back to my User page, chastened.

Augnablik (talk) 12:09, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Augnablik On any standard browser, Ctrl-F can be used for search and if you had searched for "Mike" on your Talk Page, you would have found the thread. That sort of search is often useful on long pages. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:44, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, good to know. I'm beginning to see that many standard word processing tricks — like Ctrl F — also work in Wikipedia. Augnablik (talk) 12:48, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm impressed with all you've done with this new editor. Joyous! Noise! 15:37, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you approve. It was good to get a positive response from them, although that's yet to be translated into their editing of the articles in question. Many of the newcomers who ask mentoring questions here on my Talk Page end up abandoning Wikipedia, which is disappointing. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:58, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.

Take the survey here.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 00:40, 13 November 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Hi, Mike. I’m not sure you received what I sent yesterday because I got confused where to send it: your talk page or mine, as we hadn't connected in awhile since you agreed to take a look at my "knotty problem." During that time, I was writing it up for you.

I think the message might be only on my own user page, though I did start off with an "@" for you.

In addition to my question of whether you got it, here's another. I'd expected to send you an attachment of my word-processed write-up but found I couldn't. Then I realised this was probably a security protection, but I wasn't at all happy with how it looked when just pasted into a message. It wouldn't be easy for you to read. Is there any way around this so you can see it formatted as in the original? Augnablik (talk) 13:50, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Augnablik I've been busy but was just about to take a look at your userpage in detail after the ping. There is no way to format a Word document into Wikipedia but you could send it to me via email. To start, there's a link on the right-hand "tools" menu on user pages and user talk page. My userpage also includes a specific userbox with the relevant link. The only downside from your point of view is that your own email address will be included the first message you send me. Initially, you won't be able to attach the Word document but when I reply from my personal email then we can exchange standard messages that do include attachments. Go ahead now if you want to do this. Otherwise, I'll reply on your Talk pge, which is the best place for the conversation since most of what you have written is already there. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:27, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to know that the message reached you yesterday — it verifies for me that writing "@" with a user name works, apparently no matter what the source page is.

If you can really read the squished-up message, fine. Otherwise, I'd be happy to go the e-mail route, as you suggested with the addition of one additional step to make the attachment possible. I knew my e-address would be visible. Augnablik (talk) 15:46, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Augnablik You should just now have an alert saying I sent you an email! Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:54, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was a joy to find myself adopted by you! We've already had many back-and-forths elsewhere, so this won't be my first question to you, just in our new roles. Nor will it be a practical one. But now that I know you and other assigned mentors often have 600 mentees at the same time, I can't resist asking you this:

Although I understand that not all assigned mentees continue the relationship with their mentors, how do mentors keep up with even those who do stay involved? What a balancing act you and your colleagues must engage in ... especially someone like you who's admitted to enjoying problem solving! :0 --Augnablik (talk) 19:25, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Augnablik I don't find it difficult to keep in contact with the 1% or so of editors who I become engaged with. Some of these are because of my replies to them at the Teahouse or Helpdesk, rather than because I'm their allocated mentor. If you look at my Talk Page here, + archive, you'll see the results. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:34, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, "Dad." After getting the suggestion you made at the Help Desk about how I could use a template to edit the doner kebab article, I went back to it to see if I could succeed with what you said. Frankly, I was confused by the directions, just as I had been by what another editor had suggested a little earlier. At any rate, when I re-read the alert message at the top of the article about its protected status, it turned out that autoconfirmed editors could edit after all — and so I was able to edit as usual.

This afternoon's adventure reinforced for me what a long way I have to go in using templates. Maybe the use of templates is one of Wiki's special tools for which there's a video (I hope).

It occurred to me to mention to you (perhaps needlessly) that even though you've adopted me, if I have a question like the one on editing a protected article that seems of more general interest for many other editors besides just me, it would make more sense for me to post at the Help Desk or even the Teahouse. That way I can save more individual questions I might have to ask you on your Talk page at another time.

And (spoiler alert): there is indeed another knotty problem plea for help coming up. But probably not for several weeks, as it will take awhile to get it written up for you. Augnablik (talk) 14:57, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Augnablik Yes, in general the Teahouse and Help desk will not only be faster but is where people can search archives to find the Q&A long-term. I'm still waiting for you to begin working on the biography article related to your previous knotty problems, where I've suggested the way forward! Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:05, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to go back over what I've already done with Ramendra's article and work on it some more in light of some of the things you brought up before I share it with you. The reason I put it aside for some months was not only because I felt I'd hit a wall on it but also because I was involved in a major move — which is just winding down. Also I have several other ongoing responsibilities to keep on top of and at the moment, I'm recuperating from a week of flu. Back in the saddle soon on Ramendra.ms article.

Augnablik (talk) 15:40, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An haife ni a garin kurya Madaro cikin iyalin (Idris abdullahi kurya) Abubakar Idris Kurya da Hauwa’u Suleiman. Sunka haifeni sun mini tarbiyya da nunamani ƙauna, sun kuma koya mani darajar gaskiya, haƙuri, da kuma taimakon juna. Mun yi girma a cikin al’adun Hausawa, inda aka koya mana mu girmama manya, mu yi aiki tukuru, kuma mu riƙe addininmu. Waɗannan dabi’u sun zama ginshiƙi na rayuwata. Na gode wa Allah da ya ba ni damar samun irin wannan tarbiyya da kuma dama ta samun ilimi. Ina kuma gode wa iyayena da dangina da suka yi min goyon baya. Zan ci gaba da kokari na domin na yi wa al’ummata da ƙasata hidima.” --AAkurya (talk) 22:50, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Google translate): I was born in the town of Kurya Madaro in the family of (Idris Abdullahi Kurya) Abubakar Idris Kurya and Hauwa'u Suleiman. They gave birth to me and showed me love, they also taught me the value of honesty, patience, and helping each other. We grew up in the Hausa culture, where we were taught to respect elders, work hard, and keep our religion. These values ​​have become the foundation of my life. I thank God for giving me the opportunity to have this kind of upbringing and the opportunity to get education. I also thank my parents and family for supporting me. I will continue my efforts because I have served my community and my country.

@AAkurya This is the English Wikipedia. I think you want the Hausa Wikipedia at this link. Wannan shine Wikipedia na Ingilishi. Ina tsammanin kuna son Wikipedia ta Hausa a wannan mahadar. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:42, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When we signed up as editors, did we answer a question about our sex? I ask because I don't see that information at my User page, but someone recently referred to me with the correct personal pronoun and I wondered how he would know which to use. --Augnablik (talk) 18:19, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Augnablik Random passerby here. When registering, you have the optional choice of setting your preferred gender. I don't really know how the system works either, but I personally have a user script that tells me the pronouns of everyone I see based on that setting, so that editor could have a similar tool. TheWikiToby (talk) 20:45, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Augnablik These preferences are usually set globally for your accounts right across Wikipedia, at Special:GlobalPreferences. Many long-term editors use the gadget navigation popups set at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets. Once activated, that gadget does lots of useful things, including giving the gender and number of edits etc of users when you hover the cursor over their name. Hence I readily see that TheWikiToby uses male pronouns and has 4517 edits to date. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:16, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I just don't recall ever answering a M-F question … that's why I wondered how that other editor knew (other than divine wisdom). Augnablik (talk) 10:26, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I now understand a bit more about this as of today, TheWikiToby. There's a global preceded setting we can use to display information about ourselves. No extra tool needed. I'm a little shaky on how to get to those settings and I'd have to go back and try to get to the same command one more time before I could claim full confidence. But at least I have the general idea. UPDATE:Found it again. Here's the simple way: you can just click on your icon top right and when you see a menu, click on Preferences. Then just look down for the one that has GENDER in its title and go to work.

		The Good Heart Barnstar
		You're so kind and supportive. —𝐏𝐞𝐫𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐨(𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔) 12:18, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mike, isn't there a way to add line space between paragraphs, and in the Visual rather than Source Editor? I hate to make it hard for readers of my messages not to see the text less bunched up together. Augnablik (talk) 13:29, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Augnablik The "Reply" tool on Talk Pages strips out multiple carriage returns. I'm using this now and have inserted one <cr> character here

which gives this line with limited space before it or

two <cr> to insert more space

or even three <cr>. All end up with only one in the output. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:12, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

However, using the source editor, I can put in as many <cr> as I like:

here with a single space before it or

here with two spaces

or here with three <cr>. You need to look a tthe source code to see the difference. I don't use the visual editor very much but you can practice with it in your WP:Sandbox. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:14, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Errkk, not happy news. I'm sure there are others in addition to me who'd really appreciate being able to stay in Visual Editor all the time to do our work, like as if we were in our word processor. It just feels so weird in Source Editor.

Seems as if the tekkies ought to be able to make that possible. Augnablik (talk) 16:26, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are quite a few things that are much easier to do in the source editor. However, as more and more people want to read and edit WP from Smartphones, I think that developments to making editing easier that way will continue. If you haven't done so already, I suggest you read WP:SMARTPHONE and links therein. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:06, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've pretty much stopped trying to use my iPhone for editing because it seems impossible to use it to edit in the Visual Editor. To me, the Source Editor looks too cluttered to work with, especially on a small phone.

But I'll try to bite the bullet and try to do the things in Source Editor that, for now at least, seem beyond my reach in Visual Editor. Prayers welcome ... Augnablik (talk) 18:59, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of which, is there anything like a place for writing the Wikipedia tekkies a user request like this? Not that I doubt others have made requests over the years, but still …

And perhaps get replies from the tekkies, like, "Thanks, yes, we'll work on that," "Sorry, no — here's why"? Augnablik (talk) 23:08, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Augnablik The place to make technical requests is the Village Pump - technical. Note the "Ideas" tab and read all the instructions for each type of request. On a grander scale is the WP:WISHLIST. You'll need to read that page and its links to see how it works. Mike Turnbull (talk) 09:59, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wish List — perfect. Thanks! I'm already involved at the Idea Lab with something else. Augnablik (talk) 10:47, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Mike. I've been trying familiarize myself about the ArbCom election, as I came to see the value of doing so. In the process, I also came to read about the experience of one of the candidates with an editor by the name of TheresNoTime.

Since I learned that all his major permissions have been removed, I was surprised to find his name under users with CheckUser permission (see below). Obviously an oversight, but I have no idea who to alert.

Suggestions?

There are currently 55 users with the CheckUser permission on the English Wikipedia. A complete listing is available at Special:Listusers/checkuser. As of 15 November 2024, the following editors form the CheckUser team on the English Wikipedia:

Appointed community checkusers Alison, Blablubbs, DatGuy, Dreamy Jazz, EdJohnston, Ferret, Girth Summit, Ivanvector, Materialscientist, Mz7, NinjaRobotPirate, Oshwah, Ponyo, Reaper Eternal, RoySmith, Spicy, SQL, ST47, Stwalkerster, TheresNoTime, Vanamonde93, Versageek, Yamla, Zzuuzz Augnablik (talk) 08:40, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Augnablik That editor is a software engineer employed by the WMF and on the Wikimedia UK board of trustees. As an admin, they are bound to have had run-ins with various other people from time to time. I think you must have misunderstood the all his major permissions have been removed part. I suggest you do nothing. Mike Turnbull (talk) 09:50, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Augnablik (talk) 10:44, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mike ... I should have written you before posting at the Help Desk, but when I thought of what time of day it would be for you in the UK, I made a mistake in thinking it was your night time. You're behind me, not the other way around. Here's what I asked at the Help Desk.

________________

I just posted a question for the first of all the candidates over at the Arb Committee site, and — because I rarely use the Source Editor — ran into trouble right away. I think the candidate I was writing to was the last one on the list, Krakatoa Katie.

At any rate, my message didn't get into a box — there are some stray numbers on the first and last paragraph — and there's an apostrophe just before the first character of the italicized paragraph. I've come here for help rather than writing the election coordinators because it didn't seem they were actually first responders.

I'm not sure that my question is even visible to others because it didn't go into a box. But if it is visible, it's in bad shape. And I'd really like to post it to all the candidates.

UPDATE: In case you started to look into the above, Editor Maproom has just stepped in to help me at the Help Desk.

AND SINCE HE STEPPED IN, I MYSELF ADDED: @Maproom, now that I went back to that location I see that the candidate to whom I posted was CaptainEek, not Krakatoa Katie. The first candidate on the list, not the last one. And my message looks a little more correctly formatted than it did earlier. Perhaps someone involved with the election stepped in to make the fix, though there is still a stray number 1 at the beginning of the message and no box. Below is the address. Thanks for helping! Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2024/Candidates/CaptainEek/Questions Augnablik (talk) 08:25, 28 November 2024 (UTC) @Maproom, I just noticed something in the directions for submitting questions to candidates that I hadn't read before: "Use the |list resume= option to correct list numbering issues, by manually specifying the start point." This seems relevant to that stray number 1 that got into my message, but I have no idea how to use that option. Augnablik (talk) 10:07, 28 November 2024 (UTC) Augnablik (talk) 06:57, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Augnablik: I fixed the formatting, I hope, in this edit. CaptainEek had already tried to do so and said in his edit summary that his reply would be delayed owing to Thanksgiving. You messed the page up again by adding to your question. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:43, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks … though I didn't add anything till after I went back to the question I'd sent her and saw the number 1 was still there. So she had been the mystery fixer-upper … 😅

Now I'll try to copy/paste the same message for the other candidates. Augnablik (talk) 12:32, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've gotten myself into some deep yogurt at the election site where I'd hoped to copy/paste the message to CaptainEek to the other 11 candidates. The question for her looked okay except for the title that for some reason says Answer plus a stray piece of ending code.

So with that minor success, I decided to try copying my Source Editor message to CaptainEek over to the next candidate on the list, Just Step Sideways, adjusting the question number and attempting to add the title. But the pasted message doesn't show up at all, only the title, which I probably placed incorrectly because I never saw the usual Title field for a message.

A very challenging day, as I'm also facing technical issues in typing messages. I get to the end of a sentence or a phrase, and when I start a new one the capital letter or the dash, colon, or semicolon jump backwards to the start of the previous sentence and I have to copy it to the place I intended it. Nothing like this is going on anywhere else on my computer. Gremlins for sure.

Since Maproom hasn't come back to my issue on the Help Desk after some hours ago, and I may be overloading you, I think I'm supposed to call it a day for now. Perhaps some magic will happen overnight. Augnablik (talk) 15:20, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Augnablik The way the ARBcom questions have to be asked is probably beyond the capabilities of 90% of editors, possibly intentionally! I've fixed your second one, which used the wrong (i.e. non-existent) template. Adding questions takes pretty good knowledge of source editing and my suggestion would be to vote based on the information already present. I don't bother to vote in ARBcom elections since the work of that committee is so remote to anything I do on Wikipedia. I've also "signed off" your Help Desk question. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:37, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The wrong template? Hmmm. I thought I copied exactly what I used for CaptainEek, with the exception of the title placement because of the impossibility of seeing a title field to put it in.

Source editing and I have definitely not yet become friends. An experience like today makes me feel even more edgy than I already was about using it. I'm really surprised that the tekkies haven't made it possible for us to do everything in the Visual Editor by now — that is, unless we prefer Source. That's exactly what happened in computer work in general, after all. Thank God we can use apps and not have to write arcane coding to accomplish our work.

As for voting in the election, I do plan to just go ahead on the basis of the existing comments from the candidates and other editors, not waiting long for their answers to my question. That question was an add-on, so to speak, though I do think it's quite relevant to Wikipedia overall. Surely if there are elections for people we'll be working under — who might someday be making decisions about our "knotty problems," why wouldn't we want to understand the work they're being elected to carry out and gain insight as to how it could directly interface with our own work. 😗

I came away impressed with most of the candidates, seeing them through Wiki's 360-degree camera view offering a combination of self-descriptions, answers to direct questions from other editors, and discussion among other editors. The process humanizes both the candidates and the demands on them so we outsiders see something of their own challenges.

Augnablik (talk) 17:41, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't consider I "work under" anyone. Content is determined by consensus and no editor has the ability to overrule any other. We all work within the agreed policies and guidelines and provided you don't infringe those, you won't be blocked or banned from the site. The role of ARBcom is mainly to rule on areas where there are legitimate, or illegitimate, differences in editors' points of view: e.g. regarding US elections or the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:51, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken about "working under" others in Wikipedia. I think my use of that term mirrors something that new and relatively new editors may feel for quite awhile after coming on board with Wikipedia, that if we make a misstep in regard to certain kinds of policies and guidelines, we can easily be blocked or banned.

Of course, civility and open discussion about differences of opinion go a long way in making that not happen. Plus supportive mentors with years of Wiki experience from the trenches who materialize unexpectedly from time to time ... Augnablik (talk) 21:55, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I need to get started in earnest on working with these tools, and would love to get ahold of some in-depth videos with good examples and practice cases to work on. Any suggestions?

Augnablik (talk) 12:35, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Check out WP:Cheat for some basics. I don't know about videos but if there are any they should be linked from Help:Introduction. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:43, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A start. Thanks. I had to use the image insertion code just today. I wonder if there's a master collection of all the Wikipedia learning material somewhere ... Augnablik (talk) 17:17, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello I'd like to modify a diagram on an article. How do I do that? --Félix Langlois (talk) 12:38, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Félix Langlois Welcome to Wikipedia. There is general advice at Help:Pictures. I would need some more information to help you further. By "modify" do you mean "replace one diagram with a totally different diagram" or "edit the diagram in a minor way". Diagrams/images are stored at out sister project Wikimedia Commons and there is more help at that link. Post into this thread on my Talk Page with the name of the article and the image if you need more advice. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:55, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Mr. Turnbull for replying so quickly to my request. I'd like to modify the 2nd picture in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forces_on_sails. Every black arrow in the picture should be pointing towards the boat instead of away from the boat. I would also like to change some text in the article. Buy I believe that for now you're only interested in picture modifications.

Best regards Félix Langlois (talk) 23:17, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking of simply using the Talk feature regarding the article. I'm sure that the person(s) who wrote the article worked very hard writing it. So, if I first start a discussion with the article author(s), perhaps I can convince him or them to edit the article reflecting my comments.

I'm hoping that they'll agree with me because I really believe that there are errors in the article.

What do you think?

Thank you and best regards Félix Langlois (talk) 03:38, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Félix Langlois I've looked at File:Points of sail--English.jpg and I think it's already correct. The black arrows are vectors showing the speed and direction of the boat. If the black arrow pointed towards the boat, this would imply it was moving in reverse, I think. Maybe you thought the black arrow is the drag force on the boat? I see that the file is also used on the main article on sailing, so I'm pretty sure that if it was wrong someone would have already noticed! You are correct in thinking you can raise any concerns on the Talk Page of an article and be cautious in this case. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:48, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your advice. Unfortunately I disagree with you. I will start a new topic in the Talk portion of the article.

Thank you Félix Langlois (talk) 03:47, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mike ...

A few days ago I used my new Wiki image-creation and Source Editor code skills to create a sort of personal award to show my appreciation somewhere between just a thank-you and a full-fledged barnstar for Wikipedians who "make my day" with delightful little snippets of dry humor or insightful wisdom -- or else point me toward them.

I'd been inspired to do this when I serendipitously came across a delightful little exchange that took place in Wiki messaging on Nov. 6 between Just Step Sideways, who was reporting acute distress over the "state of his country" but said he was sure he could fix it by morning "if someone could just explain it to him," and two other editors. Those editors totally cracked me up with their comments, one being, “If you really can totally fix the country in the morning, I'll be very impressed” and the other, “Yes, please fix the country in the morning. I have a hot cappuccino waiting for you.” And so I created this award for them and others brightening my days with similar fare.

Meanwhile, I'd planned to award you the Guidance Barnstar, which you richly deserve for all the guidance you've given me. And even for "claiming" me as one of your mentees. I didn't realize over my 2.5 years with Wikipedia what a difference that can make in an editor's experience. It's such a warm fuzzy. But as I was about to set up that barnstar for you, it occurred to me that my little homemade award might mean more to you because it's personalized. Like how parents enjoy their little ones' artwork up on their refrigerator door ... And you've brightened my day frequently, not just one-off.

My "Thank-You-for-Brightening-My-Day"award to you

Augnablik (talk) 04:34, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. If I want to go to an article for editors but I don't recall the acronym to use with WP:, is there some way to try to get there? Example: today I wanted to go back to an article entitled Structured Tasks that I'd visited a few days earlier (thus not in my current History) — but I couldn't, at least not at first. Eventually I found my way back, but it would have been much easier if I could have typed words in the Search field that I remembered from the title and seen a list of possibilities.

2. Once back at that article's Talk page, I wanted to ask a question but found no way to "add a topic". Are some articles' Talk pages actually protected from discussion? If so, it seems counter-intuitive to the whole idea of a Talk page. Augnablik (talk) 13:13, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Augnablik That page is at MediaWiki, which behaves as if it were in another language, just like the French main page. Wikipedia accounts are global, so your logon works there as it would here. However, assuming you didn't edit at that Structured Tasks page, the software doesn't "remember" that you visited that particular page, just as it doesn't remember which articles you have read but not edited. So, yes, it can be difficult to "find your way back". However, if you had remembered that the page was on MediaWiki (where most of the pages about growth team features exist), you could have readily used its search bar to find the right page. That's exactly the way you would search for a French article: you have to be in the correct wiki for the search bars to work locally.

The page there that you have linked above is not a Talk Page and it is not an article: it is a page [that] describes the Growth team's work on the "structured tasks" project. It does indeed have its own talk page, which for reasons I don't understand is reached from the "Discussion" tab, although when you get there it calls itself a Talk Page! MediaWiki tak pages like that place new threads at the top, so the reverse of standard en:Wikipedia conventions. Again, don't ask me why. I see little in the way of discussion there: the newest thread is from July. Note that your account has separate watchlists and contribution histories at each language version of Wikipedia as well as at Commons, MediaWiki etc. To see your global contribution, try the link at the foot of Special:Contributions/Augnablik where it says "Global contributions" and you'll find that there are 869 wikis, with your contributions currently at 2 of them. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:25, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to add some User boxes like you have on your User page. It was fairly easy to use the Babel template to add languages, but I'd like to:

1- Create a new one, currently shown in red on my User page as non-existent but nonetheless described … and

2- See what's available in the already created User boxes. Augnablik (talk) 10:37, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you already know that to find such things, you just have to search with a WP: prefix, so WP:USERBOX and links therein. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:11, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Mike ... I had gone to that page earlier but I didn't find a gallery of boxes to choose from. After you replied, I went back and then I found a link to a gallery that had been rather hidden on my first trip to the page.

Since I didn't find quite what I wanted, even though a few boxes came close, I ended up just typing the things I had hoped to find boxes for. Augnablik (talk) 17:56, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So im trying to add his elementary school because im proud to know i went to elementary school with him but i dont know how to add it right --Ken651 (talk) 03:12, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Ken651 and welcome to Wikipedia. As you will learn as you gain experience here, the encyclopedia articles are not based on what you know, or what I know, but instead rely on what has already been published in a reliable source. We want readers to be able to verify what Wikipedia says and hence be confident the information is accurate. This is especially important in the case of biogrpahies of living people (please read that linked page). I can try to help you find a suitable source we can use for the article. To do that, please tell me the name of your elementary school. In a moment, I'll add some other links to your Talk Page, which will help you know more. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:54, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How to start writing new articles? I can't find the option to write a new article. --Mahmudurr (talk) 22:18, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Mahmudurr and welcome to Wikipedia. In a moment, I'll add a set of links to your Talk Page, which will include some about writing new articles, which should use the articles for creation process. Note that my usual advice to new editors is to start small and edit existing articles first until you get to know your way around. Drafting acceptable articles is more difficult than it may appear! Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:11, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After a month of the most serious flu I've ever had, and only occasionally emerging on Wikipedia for short comments here and there plus some fun additions to my User page, I'm again ready to tackle the Ramendra Kumar article. To my amazement, it's undergone major surgery by other editors in the past few months. There's hardly anything left of it ... literally!

Perhaps this will make it easier to do a full TNT on it. At any rate, now I'll work as fast as possible to get the article ready for your inspection. I've just alerted Ramendra that he'll need to also do some surgery on his personal website so I can use it as a source for certain things like how many books he's published.

With that in mind, I have a question: is it okay in an article going in as TNT to put a citation or two with the tag {{source coming soon }}? Or else cite Ramendra's website even if the number of books hasn't yet been posted there?Augnablik (talk) 10:01, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Augnablik This is slightly tricky because the account which made many recent edits (actually deletions) to Ramendra Kumar has been indefinitely blocked for various reasons probably not related to that article. In today's state, the article is not too bad and you can probably just build it back up, maybe looking in the page history to see if earlier versions actually had useful cited content and restoring any that did: there is now no need for you to go via a new draft in your sandbox. However, the first thing you need to do is to explain on the Talk Page of the article your relationship with Kumar by virtue of the fact that you have been in contact with him (that's a clear COI but nothing to be ashamed of). On Wikipedia there is no such template as "source coming soon" as that violates a core policy described at WP:NOTCRYSTAL. Also, there is no deadline here, better to take things slowly and get them right rather than rush.

I don't see any need for me to oversee your additions straight into the article: we know there are at least two other editors who are interested in it and it is not a topic I know anything about. Of course I'd be happy to be consulted (via its Talk page) for any specific technical problems you run into. Good luck. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:29, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you really say you think that article is "not too bad," Mike? There's nothing left of it, hardly. Of course, considering the quality of what was there, maybe I see your point…😅

All right, forward ho. Just one thing, though: could you answer the other question I'd asked in my message: "Or else cite Ramendra's website even if the number of books hasn't yet been posted there?" Augnablik (talk) 14:48, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can certainly cite his website. The formal advice for what it is acceptable to use is at WP:ABOUTSELF. You cannot cite what is not (yet) there. Usually for authors, the {{authority control}} template is used and links to their Wikidata item. This will automatically pick up various standard book catalogues when they are present in Wikidata. See Help:Authority control. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:40, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:40, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Also, I want to see the entire revision history under the History tab for the RK article, but I'm being shown only selected revisions ... and I see no way to override that so I can see all of them. I could swear the first time I clicked on History, I did see all of them. I don't recall doing anything then that would show me so few now.. Augnablik (talk) 18:48, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what is going on in your browser but all histories default to showing the latest 20 revisions, with an option at the foot of the resulting page to show more. If you click the "500" option for that particular article you get to this page which shows every single revision from when the article was created in 2010. Note how almost all after 2 December are deletions. As the the query you added here and then deleted, you don't have to use a template to declare a COI: just create a section header and place a simple piece of text below, much like you did when you told me about this on your Talk Page. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:35, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, you saw the query before I deleted it ... well, the reason I did that was because I realized it was a general query I could just ask at the Help Desk rather than bother you with it. You're saying I could create a section header within the RK article itself???

Will check out the History situation again. Augnablik (talk) 12:38, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not in the article! On its Talk Page. Much the same suggestion as Hoary gave you at the Help Desk. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:42, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So I guess you mean somewhere on the article's Talk page this is what I'd place:

== Conflict of interest == [line break] I have a conflict of interest with [what it is that you have a COI with].

Are there any advantages of doing this over using a template?

I have to admit I'm feeling a little unsteady about doing this.

Augnablik (talk) 13:50, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Templates are best for article subjects who have no intention of editing the article and will use edit requests on the Talk Page if they want to make changes. I assume you do want to edit the biography directly and so you need to explain the nature of your COI in a section where others can comment if they disagree that you should be doing that. Relax! It is highly unlikely anyone will object if you are open about your plans. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:53, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You've just given me the guidance I was hoping for but wasn't getting earlier: the confirmation that I can go ahead and explain the situation along with my declaration of COI. This didn't come up in the Help Desk discussions.

I could be wrong but at this new point in my Wiki life, I have the sense that for editors to share a little background information about their COIs rather than just an impersonal announcement, it can help make other editors more willing to give them the benefit of doubt if and when differences of opinion come up during work on the article.

Now I can indeed relax! ;) Augnablik (talk) 15:41, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've just come up with an opening statement for a COI announcement that I rather like:

==Conflict of Interest==

"As an editor working on this article, I must mention that I have what Wikipedia calls a conflict of interest due to connection with the topic of the article inasmuch as I ..........."

I wonder if it would be helpful if I went a step further and explained why I thought I could maintain objectivity despite the connection? I'm tempted to do that, because it could help allay concern some editors might have about any editor, not just me, with a particular COI.

Augnablik (talk) 16:07, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

K.I.S.S. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:17, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

😂 Augnablik (talk) 16:18, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How well I remember that advice from my days in the world of training. Well, I found what I think is a compromise in wording so I get to say something I feel the need to, yet not overload the message — thus following K.I.S.S.. It will soon go up at the RK page.

With all your recent help, especially with my COI agonies, I just have to go forward with that Guidance Barnstar. My little Thank-You-for-Brightening-My-Day award pales at this point. But I hope it will grace your refrigerator door for awhile longer. Augnablik (talk) 03:40, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

		The Guidance Barnstar
		A small token of appreciation, Mike, for so much helpful guidance as well as taking me under your wing. I can’t think of a more appropriate symbol for this barnstar than a compass. Augnablik (talk) 03:54, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With the COI knots behind us, on to the next knotty problem — much smaller in scope, I'm sure — with which I need your guidance in the RK article: how to proceed with the reconstruction. First I have a little update or two for you.

1- As you might assume, I posted a COI on the article's Talk page, following your recommendation that this be the first step.

2- I contacted the two editors who did some constructive work on the article in recent months, as you also recommended, and invited them to collaborate in further editing. One of them quickly replied that he'd "love to" and so now we're in close contact. I have a good feeling about this editor, though he has only a little over 400 edits. The other hasn't yet replied.

3- The newest question for you: although you recommended restoring much of the article and working on that, I have what I think is a pretty good version of it that I'd earlier saved and taken much further. So, considering that other editors pretty much TNTd it and no one has undone it or officially squawked about it, couldn't the other editor and I just drop that in to work on? Or perhaps work on it together outside Wikipedia and then drop it in?

4- Which reminds me: do you think it would be a good idea for the other editor and me to create a new section on the article's Talk page in which we explain that we are now a partnership collaborating on the article, so others understand that when edits are made by one of us, it's actually by both? Augnablik (talk) 08:29, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

5- BTW, the way the other editor came to work on the RK article was that it had been added to the group of articles suggested to all editors as in need of working on.

I don't think I recommended restoring the whole article. What I said was that you should look in the page history to see if earlier versions actually had useful cited content and restoring any that did, i.e. copy/paste out selective parts. You don't need to use the talk page about any collaboration unless you end up disagreeing with others about content, which you can tell if you are reverted. I think your best bet now is to be WP:BOLD and actually improve the article. You have spent far too much time debating how to do that and now you need to get on and add content. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:49, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It may not seem so but I'm geared up for the practical work stage.

What I was trying to explain was that outside Wikipedia, I'd made a version of the article that did incorporate usable material from earlier versions along with new information. That was what I asked if you thought I could drop in the hole created by the deletions to work on. Something I wouldn't normally have asked except the article had been blown up almost completely.

If we have to revert the earlier versions exactly as they appeared in order to go forward on it, I don't see the value but would go back and try to reproduce what was there last. Augnablik (talk) 14:44, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, you don't revert them, you just open an old version in your PC browser from the history, then "Edit source" and delve into it to copy out to your clipboard the part you want to rescue. Paste it locally into a text file or MS Word, whatever is your favourite editing software, or paste it into a separate tab where you have your sandbox open. There will be a set of warning messages that you are editing an old version but provided you never save/publish anything the current version of the biography will be retained. "Cancel" your edit (lower right in the edit window) when you have finished. If you already have something usable then there is no need to do this but it will be a useful learning exercise as that's a general way, for example, to fish out a citation from one article to reuse in another article. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:41, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going with your comment that if I already have "something usable,"there's no need to go through the somewhat cumbersome process of copying from an old version of the article and pasting it elsewhere. It will be a real time-saver to avoid that.

But as a teacher, I understood your suggestion about the "useful learning experience" to be gained in fishing out (yucky analogy: I hate cruelty to fish) citations from one article to be gained in another. And so, you'll be happy to hear I set up such a learning experience for myself by going to the Wiki article "Houseboats in New York City" and finding something with a citation that I could paste into another Wiki article, "Houseboat." That was easy, so I can check it off as a new Wiki skill.

Now on to the far-from-easy other work awaiting me on the RK page. Augnablik (talk) 08:51, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mike, you provided the following answer to a question of mine in the Teahouse: "@Joel Russ I see you currently have two references pointing to essentially the same URL. The template is very versatile since it takes any text as the "page": see its |at=in-source-location parameter. That would allow you to return to using a single named reference. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:56, 16 November 2024 (UTC)"

That was very useful for me to learn. I'm grateful for your reply.Joel Russ (talk) 15:05, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Joel Russ Happy to help. I regularly respond at the Teahouse and it is always nice to be thanked. Some people just do that by "thanking" my contribution in the page history, which is absolutely fine. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:29, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Mike. I'm knee-deep in working on the Ramendra Kumar article and I'd like to upload some photos taken of him by members of his immediate family. From the Special: Upload Wizard, I understand that to do this, I have to get some sort of permission. I've read documentation at the Wikimedia Commons but I'm not quite clear on which template to use. Can you point me in the right direction on this?

Ramendra is happy to provide good copies of photos as well as whatever documentation is needed. Augnablik (talk) 17:03, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Augnablik All should be explained at c:Commons:Volunteer_Response_Team. Everything can be done by email - the copyright holder (i.e. the actual photographer) should be the person to send the email, naming the file(s) that were uploaded. The uploading itself can be by someone else, such as you. Normally, you will have a week from the upload until the file would be deleted if a permission had not been given. Use the default Commons license of CC BY SA 4.0. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:38, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ... this area of Wiki work seems one with the deepest yogurt to wade through. Yet the same yogurt purveyor, the Commons, has a wonderful little basic user aid on copyright in cartoon format. It's among the best user aids I've come across, even though it doesn't go as far as I needed.

I'd love to thank the individual or team for that aid. Do you know who that would be? Augnablik (talk) 01:56, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Augnablik There seems to be a specific place to leave feedback on the upload process at c:Commons:Upload Wizard feedback. I found that link at the top of the upload page itself. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:34, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Turnbull, errrkkk. I found out that getting a green light from the VRT team can take up to 31 days once we fill out the required paperwork because there are so few team members available for that purpose. Augnablik (talk) 13:14, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm new here. I don't know anything. Can you give some direction so that I can start. --Jakir Ullah (talk) 18:31, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jakir Ullah Welcome to Wikipedia! I see that another editor has placed a message on your Talk Page which has a number of useful links. I would advise you to read some of these and to start slowly. For example, you could begin by looking at some articles about topics that interest you and see if they can be improved: even correcting a spelling error is useful, although you need to be aware that we use variations of English in some topics, as explained here. Your "homepage" tab will have some simple suggestions for edits. You can tell other editors a little about yourself and your interests by creating your own userpage (just click on the currently red link to your name). General advice for what to put there is given in this guideline. If you have more questions later, by all means add them into this thread. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:57, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's a Wiki article on a place in my home town (Washington, DC) by the name of Montrose Park that as a child, I used to visit with my mother from time to time. My original reason to go to that article was just to see what it said about the park and sort of relive old memories. I found it way too short, lacking in quite a bit of interesting history, and in need of an address correction. So I began editing it — under the assumption that simply having gone to the park as a child wouldn't mean a need to declare a COI. I knew it would also be good practice in using different kinds of citations that I'd need to work with on the RK article.

Little by little, I found myself getting so into working on the Montrose Park article that I began to feel as if this were back in the days I wrote occasional stories for a regional paper, and — just as I would have done then — got engaged in one of my favorite things: plunging into a bit of investigative reporting. I sent an e-mail with a few questions about the park to a volunteer group associated with it, to which the president responded with answers. But she also had a question of her own for me: "May I ask if you are writing something about the park - or if there is a purpose to your research beyond general interest?"

Would you recommend hedging and just saying I simply have general interest, perhaps alluding to my childhood visits to the park? And if I do so, would the mere fact that I'd contacted this group mean I should declare COI?

Or would you think it only fair to the lady for me to go ahead and explain what I'm doing for Wikipedia, probably bringing about my having to declare COI, which I don't mind doing now that I know it doesn't preclude working on the article but might bring about something of a challenge for me not to have the group try to influence me? I have no reason to believe that would happen, and I think I could deal with it if it did; but I'm trying to look at the situation from Wikipedia's perspective.

By interesting coincidence, that article has just brought about my first reverts in my 2.5 years of Wiki work. The other editor has been very kind and I'm actually glad to face a set of reversion issues so that when the need may come up on far more substantive articles than this one, I'll be better prepared. His reverts are based on what he believes is a copyright issue that I really don't yet understand, but I think we'll be able to sort it out.

Augnablik (talk) 12:26, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming this is about Montrose Park, I see that the issue was that you hadn't paraphrased the source you used but copy/pasted too much of it. Regarding the volunteer group, I would advise being upfront about your intention and suggesting they might like to edit the article themselves! The problem with such groups is that they may tell you stuff which is hard to verify or is unpublished. My advice would be to see them as a way to find reliably published but obscure sources you can use. For example, they may have historic newspaper cuttings they can scan and send you, or old books. You can also encourage them to take and upload photos of the park. COI is only really relevant if you end up straying from neutrality as a result, which I'm sure you can avoid. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:46, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That group could be invited to edit the article itself? Whoa, that's a happy surprise. I'd never have expected that!

The other editor's revert issue IS about copyright and thus presumably his belief that my editing was lifted improperly from the original source(s) … but that's what I'm so distressed to hear. I hope he can let me see those reverts again to compare with the original even though he removed them from public view.

Augnablik (talk) 13:29, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The volunteers might have to use the edit request wizard, depending on the extent of their COI: they aren't paid editors, I assume. I suggest you forget about getting hold of your deleted contribution. Just go back to the source and paraphrase it this time, with a citation, of course. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:26, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The maddening thing, Mike, is that I believe I did paraphrase the material earlier because I'm fully aware of the need to do so — AND I spent quite awhile on all the individual parts of the edits involved. Plus there were citations.

If I can't get the chance to compare the reverts against my edits and I have to lose them, I suppose I could view this as karmic payback for having been given quite a few past editing points that involved nothing more than a few pieces of punctuation or a clarificatory word to enhance an earlier message or edit. But the package of what was reverted took me at least an hour to do. 😓 Augnablik (talk) 20:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By coincidence, I just noticed your reply in the Teahouse to Thought 1915 to a question about whether it's preferred to publish consecutive edits and contributions to the same article — all of which were written around the same time — as one large edit or smaller ones.

The very same thing I've been remorseful about since my new friend the reverter took out his knife on several of my edits. The park that's the topic of the article on which he did surgery wasn't controversial, but I had published a bunch of edits together each time rather than separately and thus lost them all rather than just a few edits. Ironic that you would be responding to that user right after responding to me … Augnablik (talk) 01:27, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:50, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And Happy Christmas over to you, Mike!

Where I am at the moment, I'm having difficulty sending mail on my baytimer account, and I think we've already handled everything there that needed to be. So I'm back to your Talk page.

It was most kind of you to take time to do the detective work to find, and then look over, my father’s Wiki article as you did — for all the reasons I’m sure you took it on. It’s consoling to hear I’m not in hot water.

Your suggestion to add a photo of my father to the article is something I never thought of back when I edited it, but it’s a good one and I’ll follow up on it — even though it will entail an edit request. But now that I’ve come to learn the article was the work of a rather impressive editor, it will give me an opportunity to ask him how he chose my father as a subject to write about.

Since you read my father’s article, I know you’d be aware that Christmas is a time of the year filled with special memories for me — on top of its already being such an inward time of the year as our thoughts turn with gratitude for all who’ve played a significant part in our lives.

This year it’s a joy that both Wikipedia and you loom so large in my Christmas thoughts. When I began as a Wiki editor in 2022, I had so little idea of the scope of Wikipedia’s mission and the commitment to it by so many of its senior editors. It’s been an awesome discovery, as had finding myself increasingly drawn into it.

And to be walking on toddler legs, with tweenhood on the near horizon, is exciting … all the more to have such a wise and caring mentor. I see it so often in your guidance of not only me but also of others. This I appreciate all the more as a fellow teacher and mentor, not just as a Wiki toddler.

Christmas this year finds me in a hospital for the first time. It was still very special. I’m told that everything now seems under control, but there was quite a bit of concern among the doctors related to that month of lung issues.

I came on the proverbial “night before Christmas." Today, hopefully, I get out. Augnablik (talk) 03:56, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael, can I edit the article on me? It's way out of date. Thanks. --KateWiki1 (talk) 20:55, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@KateWiki1 We don't encourage article subjects to edit their biographies directly, for the reasons explained at this guidance. However, there are exceptions (e.g. if the article has been vandalised), all of which are listed at a set of FAQ, listed here. The accepted way to edit an article for which you have a conflict of interest like this is to use the edit request wizard which places your suggestions on the relevant Talk Page. Once you have read the pages I have linked, and our policy on biographies of living people you might like to ask me further questions here, which I'll happily try to answer. Meanwhile, it would be best to make no more changes to Kate Long (storyteller). Mike Turnbull (talk) 22:44, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mike ... I'm surprised that a rather nasty message from a user by the name of Asmongold has been allowed to stay up in the Teahouse — at least without comment from one of the senior Teahouse editors. It was written 11 hours ago. Augnablik (talk) 03:15, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) Augnablik, there is nothing visible in the Teahouse now, or in its history page, by a user by the name Asmongold (talk · contribs). Either you have misspelled their username, or their edit has been oversighted, as their contribution history is completely empty. (I suspect a typo, as there is no registered user by that name on English Wikipedia.) Note: when writing a message to someone, you should *always* provide a link as a courtesy, to spare your interlocutor the work of having to search for it. If you wish to link a user name without notifying them that you are talking about them, then use template {{noping2}}, as I have done in the first sentence of my reply. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 09:35, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathglot (and @Michael D. Turnbull), I guess that message was deleted, or "oversighted" — a new term I've just learned from your message. But here is the notification I received about that message. Sorry that I can't seem to get the copied lines single-spaced.

From 2001:56A:7F03:9E00:3456:C61D:FA3:351A

New topic: "Asmongold busted you."

created on Wikipedia Teahouse by 2001:56A:7F03:9E00:3456:C61D:FA3:351A.

You've been busted by Asmongold. More than half your spending is on progressive nonsense. I'll happily watch your demise. Augnablik (talk) 10:19, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Augnablik You misunderstood how that contribution was made. It is still visible in the contribution history of the IP that made it but wasn't added by an account. As expected, it was later reverted but there was no need for oversight as it didn't reach the criteria for that. The Teahouse gets plenty of such nonsense and the best response is to WP:DENY, not to respond. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:24, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Michael D. Turnbull, agreed that denial is pretty much the best medicine for those who write "such nonsense," but I was surprised how long it was taking for the message to get removed.

So, then, reverting is not simply a form of oversight? Augnablik (talk) 17:04, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oversight is a jargon term linked above by Mathglot. It is reserved for for egregious examples of copyright violation, defamation, etc. Reverting is a much more common part of our working practices (see WP:BRD, for example) and leaves the edit that was reverted in the history of the article/page, where anyone can read it. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good day,

I am currently writing Draft:Pressure-wind relationship calculations for tropical cyclones. While I do believe the topic is encyclopedic, I am having difficulties getting sources as they are mostly journals written by some of the scientists involved. While I do understand that this may be outside your area of expertise, it would help me greatly if you could help me out a bit. ✶Quxyz✶ 19:02, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Quxyz Using academic sources is fine: I do it all the time when I write about chemistry. The main problem to avoid is to make your draft itself a new synthesis of these sources, which is form of original research that is not allowed in Wikipedia. That means that you have to base most of what you say on secondary sources: either reviews or books, in practice, although sometimes experts writing elsewhere can be fine. Your cite to Greg Holland seems to fall into that category. Can you expand that cite to specify the book it came from?

To give an example of the possible pitfalls, you write The most reliable method of estimating pressure from wind involves using..... That could seem like an evaluative statement made by you. Actually, it is possibly OK: the source you are quoting says Of the many different types of satellite imagery, the one that storm scientists have found best measures a storm’s intensity is the infrared Dvorak image. However, if I were you I'd use wording nearer to what this source actually says and start with something like "According to C. Burt.....". And then I'd worry that Burt seems to be writing a blog, so I might look for a more reliable source! Another suggestion would be to make the existence of your draft known to others who write about weather events. I've noted several editors asking at the Teahouse for advice on tropical storms. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:54, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, you may already have done the search but Google Scholar gives plenty of sources that you can use, especially if you choose the reviews. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:10, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your time. I will probably work on ot later today as I have other things to do in real life. ✶Quxyz✶ 15:06, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How can I get started and write about myself on Wikipedia --Angok China (talk) 00:13, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Angok China Welcome to Wikipedia. This is an encyclopedia where, by policy, articles are limited to subjects which are notable in a specific way. The world's population is about 8 billion people and most have not been written about in reliable, independent sources: I haven't and you probably haven't either. There is an explanation of why autobiography is strongly discouraged and also a reason why you might not want an article on this website. Please read the pages I have linked and then perhaps stick to social media for promoting yourself. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:14, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

—𝐏𝐞𝐫𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐨(𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔) 04:37, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

COI updating ... I couldn't find any usable photo(s) for my father's article, as you suggested, so I turned to a place that has collections of broadcast pioneers' papers, including his, that I knew I could at least approach for help. Hope to hear good news about finding something soon. I'm glad you suggested adding at least one photo because it inspired me to look for a few more news pieces as well, and I found several that could add further information and interest. This was possible through the WikiLibrary (my 1st time there). I doubt that I could have done the search otherwise. As for the COI that I needed to declare with the edit request, I was so happy to have found out in time that I could merely declare it and not have to go any further with an explanation.

As for the RK article, slowly making progress; and the park article, no word yet from the volunteer group I contacted about collaborating. Augnablik (talk) 18:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mike ... if editors with COIs to declare do so at their User page rather than at articles' Talk pages, it would seem much less transparent than the other two declaration methods because other editors wouldn't easily become aware of COIs declared this way. Unless, that is, there's some way for a bot to go around User pages and collect COI information periodically, making it available for editors of articles for which COIs are declared.

In the absence of that sort of procedure, declaring COIs at the User page would seem a special benefit for editors who prefer to keep their COIs out of sight as much as possible while still complying with Wiki policy.

Augnablik (talk) 16:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is discussed at WP:DISCLOSE. The relevant part is If you become involved in an article where you have any COI, you should always let other editors know about it, whenever and wherever you discuss the topic. (my emphasis). That COI page is guidance, not policy, however. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:34, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and at WP:DISCLOSE the User page declaration method is mentioned this way: "3. If you want to note the COI on your user page, you can use the {{UserboxCOI}} template..." Until today, I hadn't actually seen this done at an editor's User page, but by chance I happened to come across COI done that way by User:Clovermoss.

It just doesn't seem possible that this kind of COI declaration would be as easy for those who should be aware of it to ever discover it, unless there's some technical wizardry going on behind the scenes. Augnablik (talk) 16:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

COI is partly in the eye of the beholder. If you look at WP:SELFCITE, for example, there is no obligation to disclose even when referring to one's own publication. So it is a matter of degree. WP:DISCLOSE says that editor A can add a template referring to editor B on the Talk Page of articles when editor A has noticed a COI (see Talk:Elayne Harrington in the top yellow box for an example). To my mind WP:AGF is more a important guideline, unless the COI is actually an example of WP:PAID, when the fullest disclosure is mandatory. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can see that my original message might convey more concern for wrongdoing on the part of editors who choose to declare COI at their User pages than I had in mind. It's true that was part of why I raised the question, but I also had in mind wondering how useful doing that could be for other editors also working on articles for which COI is not actually declared on the article's Talk page.

As far as ease of declaring COI, doing it on our User pages seems much easier for us. Plus, after seeing Clovermoss' page, I was impressed how streamlined it appears, especially if COI rationales needn't be added. But I just don't "get" how COI declarations done this way ever become known to the other editors of the articles for which the declarations are made, so that bias can be checked for a little more closely. Or maybe that's not viewed as a real consideration, because all edits are supposed to be looked at carefully ...?

As for applying AGF in COI situations, let's hope that this area is far from the only place in Wiki editing where it should be assumed as well as put into action! Augnablik (talk) 18:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll admit that I declare a bit more than what's really nessecary (and have had a few people to reach out to me to say that), but I personally feel like it's good to set such an example. I will note that sometimes people prefer not to disclose if they don't plan to edit said articles because of possible outing concerns. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 19:02, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When I have edited an article I have had a COI with, I usually note it in the edit summary itself (that way people watching the page can give it extra scrutiny if they wish). I don't really see the need to add the templates to the talk page unless you're a paid editor. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 19:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So, Mike, I guess you had a brief discussion with Clovermoss about my comments on her choice of where to declare COI ... thanks, I found them insightful.

The second one clearly addresses my concern about how editors working on an article on a COI-declared list would come to know of them. If that recommendation were added to the information about the three ways to make COI declarations, that would be perfect. Augnablik (talk) 05:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm aware, Mike hasn't discussed the subject with me. I only came here because I was pinged by you (this happens when you mention someone by username). The discussions I was talking about with others took place around the time I added the COI section to my userpage. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 07:32, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I had no idea that could happen! Good heavens, that could be sort of dangerous. Unintentional pinging, I guess it should be called. 🙂

Why your Wiki handle came up in this thread: I was pointing out your User page to Mike as an example of an editor who declares COI there rather than on the article Talk page. Feel free to read our thread, if you like, as you might well find it interesting.

I was at your page in turn because someone else thought one of the respondents to your ongoing editor survey and I should connect because of some shared Wiki interests … and I didn't go first to his User page but yours to learn a little about who created this impressive survey that was getting such great response. Augnablik (talk) 08:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As Clovermoss says, I have never had a discussion with her about COI. The learning point for you, Augnablik is that other editors only get alerts or notifications if you use particular code. See Help:Notifications. If you just type someone's name, nothing happens, although Clovermoss may now be WP:SUBSCRIBED to this thread, or have my Talk Page on her watchlist (unlikely) depending on how she has chosen to interact here. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Krushna Chandra Suansia (born 16 March 2000) is an Indian politician who is recognized as the youngest Sarpanch in India, elected at the age of 22. i want to publish i wikipedia --Atalbharatyuba (talk) 11:03, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Atalbharatyuba As I understand it, a sarpanch is a local level of politician, for example for a village or small town. On Wikipedia, we only have articles for politicians who meet a set of special wikinotability guidelines. Otherwise, for some people who happen to be sarpanches but are additionally notable for other reasons need to meet the guidelines for people in general, such as Chhavi Rajawat. In any event, notability is determined by showing the individual has already been covered at some depth by reliable sources independent of them, as summarised in our golden rules. Krushna Chandra Suansia (is that you?) may or may not meet the requirements: I can't tell since what you have placed on your userpage is totally without sources of the information. If you wish to proceed in drafting an article, please carefully read WP:YFA and WP:BLP. If you are, indeed, planning an autobiography, I am afraid you will almost certainly fail, for reasons mentioned at that link. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:18, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Atalbharatyuba, I couldn't help noticing your message to Mike because when I came here to his Talk page to post a question of my own, the designated space for me was right below yours. I thought to mention that according to the Times of India, January 21, 2023, "Yashodhara Shinde-Narwadkar, 21 [emphasis mine] was elected as the youngest sarpanch in Maharashtra of Vaddi village in Sangli district on December 20." (https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/k-drama-fan-feminist-not-on-social-media-meet-the-new-youngest-sarpanch/amp_articleshow/97032090.cms)

@Mike Turnbull, what do you think about Atalbharatyuba doing some sort of article on youthful leaders of India, or (but a much bigger project) even of the world? Then KCS could be included as one of several. Augnablik (talk) 05:41, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's up to them but as a beginner here I don't think they should be attempting to create any article from scratch yet. Incidentally, that's the problem with claiming that something is the youngest, oldest, tallest or whatever. It is very hard to WP:Verify and may not be true within days of having been incorporated into an article, even if true at one time. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:17, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mike, to what extent would you say that material of interest to understanding the subject of an article can be woven into it? I'm asking this because the more I work on RK's article, the more I've come across such material that I'd like to add to it — not in place of the basic facts and not so much as to outweigh them, but just to round out that information. For example: in several usable sources, he describes the genre in which he prefers writing for children and why. Also some of his aims.

Is that sort of thing likely to be reverted? I hope not, but thought to check before going ahead. Augnablik (talk) 18:33, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Augnablik Once you have got over the issue of notability (which I assume is not in doubt in this specific case) you can introduce a limited amount of what is called WP:ABOUTSELF material, say from an interview. For an author, his genre and preferences are clearly relevant but you need to express this as being his own view. If reliable critics describe e.g. the genre in some other way, you should also include that. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:39, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just what I was hoping to hear! Thanks. Augnablik (talk) 00:29, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Turnbull — thinking about how if I use WP:ABOUTSELF material such as an interview, other editors might not be familiar with its legitimacy and thus take the knife to it unaware, reminds me of a somewhat related question I'd also been thinking to ask you recently:

Suppose I'm working on the RK article and I cite something in a journal that might not be familiar to other editors but is actually a respected source in its field, or is otherwise legitimate as per Wiki guidelines even though at first glance it might not appear so. Is there a way to alert reviewing editors about this sort of thing without making the alert noticeable by the general public?

I have a feeling that no, there isn't or else I'd have heard of it by now — but at least I'll be sure after you reply. Augnablik (talk) 09:29, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's what talk pages are for. In some cases the talk pages are longer than the article itself! It is always good to include links to policy/guidelines when making such talk page comments. You can also make them in the edit summary for the edit which you might otherwise fear would be reverted (or mention there that an associated talk page comment exists). Finally, I've even seen hidden comments in the source code. For example, yesterday I saw <!--An infobox is unnecessary. Please see the talk page.--> at the top of Jindřich Marco, which you can only see in the source editor, not the visual editor. The markup for the hidden bit is included on the source code cheatsheet. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:13, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's a Wiki article on a small village in India by the name of Watunde that I'm familiar with. Today when I went to that article for something, I noticed a need for a corrective edit and decided to make it. At the same time, I decided to expand on an earlier mention of camping sites in the area to cite many new nature resorts that have come up near the village.

Still later, I got thinking that the article would actually seem a good candidate for deletion because Watunde really doesn't seem particularly notable. I wonder how it passed muster to be added to Wikipedia in the first place. Assuming you agree that the article should be deleted, would you recommend for me to use AfD or PROD? I've never done this before.

(BTW, the one thing at the Watunde page that I believe is notable and deserving of a separate article is Ananda Kriya Yogashram. I could write that article at some point, and mention all the nearby camping and nature resorts that I added to the likely deletable Watunde article, so the time I spent doing that won't go to waste.) Augnablik (talk) 12:15, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You would be wasting your time. There is a special notability criterion for settlements, stated at WP:GEOLAND. I think that this particular guideline is pretty daft but if you try to delete such an already-existing article you are likely to bring out from the woodwork all the inclusionists who rely on it. You are, of course, welcome to add whatever new nuggets you think aid Watunde's notability. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then every small village in the world is eligible for its own Wiki article?

As for adding any "new nuggets to aid Watunde's notability," I doubt I could ever find any, unless a future Mr. India or Bollywood celebrity is born there some day! Augnablik (talk) 06:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How to input those images in a page. --Phiwa Xaba (talk) 23:03, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Phiwa Xaba Welcome to Wikipedia. You have not given me enough context to answer in full. Which images? Which page (we usually call content in the main encyclopedia "articles", not "pages")? There is general help at Help:Pictures, which you should read before maybe coming back here to ask me for specific advice. I have looked at your contributions so far. Your first edit was in reply to something said on a Talk Page in 2007, so I'm afraid no-one will notice! More worryingly, your recent edits to Wembezi have messed up the citations (note the red error messages in the references section) because you changed the name of a named reference without providing an update to the reference itself. Also, you have added content without providing readers with the sources from which you obtained the information. By policy, Wikipedia articles should only contain information which readers can verify is accurate by looking at the cited source. Please read the links I've placed here and the others I'll put on your own Talk Page. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:31, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help and feedback and sorry for human error I 'm kinda new to Wikipedia I will learn from my mistake...•_• Phiwa Xaba (talk) 20:21, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Mike ...

Although I'm still working on the Ramendra Kumar article, I haven't been hurrying because I've had to await some information from his side, and I ran into an unexpected need for disambiguation of his page from one for another notable of the same name, one of the steepest Wiki learning curves I've yet encountered. Meanwhile, I've found plenty of editing to do on other articles. One of them, Saccidananda Ashram, is the article from which my latest calls for help come to you..

1- I've already done extensive editing on the article to take care of some glaring needs along with a few less so. One glaring need remains: all the previous citations in the article turn out to be merely references to some template! It's called sfn each time. I can't understand why this problem wasn't discovered by the patrollers long ago, as the article's history goes back to 2013.

2- In addition to the above issue, I found a legitimate citation to add to the article at the end of sentence 2 in paragraph 1 ... but when I did, what happened was that my new citation became an alternate version of footnote 1. Here's how it looked:

[1][2][3] Original citations

[1][2][3][1] Citations after I added my new one

In other words, my new citation would have received #1 even though that number had already been assigned to an earlier citation! I didn't publish because I could foresee trouble ahead between my new one and the earlier one, both numbered as 1. Instead, I made a copy of my citation elsewhere so I could eventually add it after you give me your "take" on this situation. Augnablik (talk) 09:18, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The {{sfn}} template is associated with a style of citation that I personally don't use but is perfectly acceptable and some good and featured articles use it. See Abraham Lincoln for an example. It is useful where there are mainly book sources that are going to be repeatedly mentioned, usually with different pages each time. So, in Saccidananda Ashram there is a bulleted list of eight books: here they are called "references" but in the Lincoln article they are called "bibliography". Above the sources are the actual citations, with numbers 1 to 10. In the article you are working on, most of the books are only cited once but Trapnell and Teasdale are cited twice, with different page numbers given as sfn=shortened foot notes. Is your new citation going to be from one of the existing 8 books or something not yet included in the bibliography? If the latter, you have two options. Either add your new source to the list of books and cite it using another {{sfn}} template (see that link for detailed instructions) or just cite it in the main text in the normal way between <ref></ref> tags and it should pop up in the citation area of the article among the sfn-defined references. Reference #1 in the Lincoln article is like that: it uses a standard reference, not a sfn. While we are here, note that there is also an {{efn}} template which stands for "explanatory footnote". The Lincoln article uses these to separate out "notes" to the reader as distinct from citations to sources. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:15, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OMG. Never heard of this sort of template. Or why it would be used in citation work.

And the reason I was totally bewildered when I was working on the article, I was doing it in the Visual editor (always my preference), and every time I clicked on a citation, all I saw were the words Template and Generated from: sfn. No actual source.

The citation I mentioned that I'd wanted to add was a new one. I would have thought my attempt to add it with the Visual editor would do exactly the same as if I'd been using the Source editor, but as I mentioned, it simply tacked on a second citation numbered as [1] but differing from the existing [1]. Why wouldn't the two modes have brought identical results, I really wonder.

But now I doubt that I'm going to add that citation after all because—to my horror—I discovered that the article's next-to-last and last paragraphs were directly copied from that source, word for word! What I'm doing now with the article is rewording and repositioning so as to keep the main thoughts, which were good. Then I'll take a look at the citations the other editor(s) used and see if they actually do support the statements. Augnablik (talk) 14:48, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Now you know why I never use the visual editor! Just as we allow use of varieties of English, we allow varieties of citation styles, aiming for consistency of each within any given article. Some editors get very wedded to their favourite style but serious editors have to be able to recognise all the varieties and use them as appropriate. If you have noticed serious WP:COPYVIO, please take the steps mentioned at that link. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:32, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that being able to work in many different situations is very valuable in life, but that Source editor is so awkward whereas the Visual editor is straightforward and streamlined. And when you're only in the late beginner/early intermediate stages of being a decent Wiki editor, you want to use the simplest way to get tasks done — as long as they're also done well.

If the Visual editor does NOT do every task well, then that's a new consideration for me, and one I never expected. But what a trade-off! When using the Source editor, there's so much visual clutter to deal with.

About the copyright violation, I know that whatever changes I make to the problematic text can't be too close to the original. And for that reason, I'll probably have to add still more information gathered from other sources to make that part of the article look even less like the original.

But I don't have to take responsibility, do I, to use the article's History page and try to track down the editor(s) who did the copy violations and bring up the problem with him/her/them? Augnablik (talk) 18:11, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You don't consult the originator, you seek admin help, as per Wikipedia:Copyright_violations#Parts_of_article_violate_copyright: the idea is that the copyright parts need to be revision-deleted, which needs admin rights. On the subject of source vs. visual, both have a learning curve but, for me, getting to know the source editor was no great problem and has allowed me to edit efficiently thereafter. Mike Turnbull (talk) 22:19, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I hope it's as equally okay as seeking admin help to simply make enough changes to the copy-violated material that it can now pass eagle eyes on patrol, as long as I mention in the edit summary what I did and why. That was my strategy yesterday and I think today it's cleaned up.

As for the sfn template, I tried using it to add a citation not yet used in the Saccidanandam Ashram article and guess what? The same durned thing that also happened when I tried earlier to add a citation with the Visual editor as I usually do. That is, instead of becoming citation [4], it became another citation [1]. I know you don't use sfn, so I'm heading to the Help Desk in hopes that one of your colleagues out there can get me out of this latest spin cycle. Augnablik (talk) 12:40, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sir, I would like to introduce my self as Knowledgeable intellectual presently working as Principal of Sai Vidya Institute of Technology, Bangalore. As a responsible member of society and highest admirative responsible person of the institution, It is my responsibility to mention all the achievements of our institution with necessary online references with authenticated URL's. But unfortunately I am not able to do the same. Requesting your good self to permit me to do the necessary changes --Ganesha Prasad (talk) 12:27, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ganesha Prasad If you are the Principal of that institute, then there is a mandatory declaration as a paid editor that you must complete. See that link for details. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that strives to maintain neutrality in its text. It does not allow promotion and paid editors are not allowed to directly edit articles for their institutions but must use requests made on the relevant talk pages. There is an edit request wizard you can use once you have declared your paid status. The links I have provided give more details. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:35, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ganesha Prasad Despite my reply, you continued to make edits to Sai Vidya Institute of Technology, without making the required paid editing diclosure. I have reverted these additions, which included adding the article to non-existent categories. As you have been warned on your own talk page, you are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia if you continue in this way. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:22, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

rasel2209

Cod15908

UbR@G89+6JN/-/g --Rasel2209 (talk) 13:17, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rasel2209 I don't understand what you are asking. Please supply more details. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:36, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Same here Ganesha Prasad (talk) 15:13, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]