User talk:Ganesha811/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Administrators' newsletter – January 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2023).

Administrator changes

added Clovermoss
readded Dennis Brown
removed

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:54, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Question from Nowthiswonthurt on The New Book of Knowledge (02:12, 19 January 2024)

Hello! The entry "The New Book of Knowledge" relates to the editions of The Children's Encyclopaedia published by Grolier in the US. While I have no doubt the entry is largely correct, there must be a parallel English (UK) publication, which predates the Grolier editions with the same title, but is not mentioned in this entry, since my family bought a set (?12 volumes) in London some time between 1949 and 1951. The covers were cloth-covered cardboard in dark red/brown with silver (or possibly gold) lettering. I am pretty certain it was a UK publisher, and it certainly predates the American publications under the same title. My question is, how to include this information, which is simply my uncorroborated recollection, however certain I might be of my facts (it was my favourite reading matter when I was between 4 and 7 years old (born 1944). I certainly knew every item in the whole set by the time I went to Secondary School at the age of 8, which is how I am sure of the dates. --Nowthiswonthurt (talk) 02:12, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello! The best way to add this to Wikipedia would be to find a reliable source which discusses the UK edition. The source can be online or offline, but if you can find evidence of these UK editions, I can help you add it to the article. Thanks for your interest in contributing to Wikipedia! —Ganesha811 (talk) 02:59, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Maria Trubnikova

The article Maria Trubnikova you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Maria Trubnikova for comments about the article, and Talk:Maria Trubnikova/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Shushugah -- Shushugah (talk) 09:43, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Question from ICP3M2 (15:53, 26 January 2024)

Hi Ganesha811, delighted to have a mentor, it's a lovely surprise. I am trying to create a new Wikipedia page. I started to do one but I can't find it now! --ICP3M2 (talk) 15:53, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello! You can look at your past edits on your contributions page. Perhaps it's emergency management you were thinking of? Happy to help answer questions about how to edit. —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:11, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Question from SmeatOne (19:21, 30 January 2024)

I made 2 changes to Peter Capaldi's page about his time on doctor who, it stated he was the 12th Doctor but he's the 13th. Matt Smiths last episode he stated he was Number 12 and that he couldn't regenerate again until the Time Lords gifted him with New Regenerations, and also because they introduced John Hurt as the War Doctor regeneration # 9, Christopher Eccleston #10, David Tennant as #11 and Matt Smith as the 12th regeneration. See easy peasy fix, I know this is also a Hot Topic because they keep Changing some of the Canon but right now Peter Capaldi is the 13th doctor. --SmeatOne (talk) 19:21, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi! I suggest you start a section to discuss the matter with the other editors on the talk page (link). It's possible this is an issue which has already been discussed. —Ganesha811 (talk) 19:36, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

2024



Die Zeit, die Tag und Jahre macht

Happy New Year

2024

Same location pictured as 2019. - Thank you for sharing about experiencing Messiah. My favourite is He was despised. When Andreas Scholl sang it for us, the audience was silent in listening. All these rests ... -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:00, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that's another beautiful movement! —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:04, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
Thank you! - On the Main page: the person who made the pictured festival possible --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:08, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
story · music · places
Yesterday was a friend's birthday, with related music. - I'm on vacation - see places. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:27, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Question from LeonieKaren1953 on Hypertrichosis (05:12, 31 January 2024)

Hello. I would like to add additional information in the History section of the Wikipedia article on Hypertrichosis where it states that 'The first recorded case of hypertrichosis was Peru's Gonsalvus........in 1642. However, the first recorded case of Congenital Hypertrichosis is recorded in the book of Genesis in the Bible (chapter 25, verses 21 to 25) where Isaac's wife Rebekah gave birth to twins and the first one born was red and hairy (Esau.) Later, in Genesis chapter 27, verse 11, when the twins are grown and Esau is a hunter, Jacob, his brother, mentions that Esau is a hairy man, so the condition continued into adulthood. --LeonieKaren1953 (talk) 05:12, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I think to add this, we would want a reliable medical source (see WP:MEDRS) which mentions that specific case from the Bible. Happy to help assess a source if you find one! —Ganesha811 (talk) 20:38, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2024).

CheckUser changes

removed Wugapodes

Interface administrator changes

removed

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC about increasing the inactivity requirement for Interface administrators is open for feedback.

Technical news

  • Pages that use the JSON contentmodel will now use tabs instead of spaces for auto-indentation. This will significantly reduce the page size. (T326065)

Arbitration

  • Following a motion, the Arbitration Committee adopted a new enforcement restriction on January 4, 2024, wherein the Committee may apply the 'Reliable source consensus-required restriction' to specified topic areas.
  • Community feedback is requested for a draft to replace the "Information for administrators processing requests" section at WP:AE.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:02, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Question from Ayeesha81 on Gabriele Gast (03:57, 2 February 2024)

What are your first few tips on editing as I learn? Thanks --Ayeesha81 (talk) 03:57, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Honestly, the best way to learn is to do - just dive in. There are a lot of Wikipedia policies, but they all come back to the same foundation - the five pillars (WP:5P). Read that, and then start editing. The more you contribute, the more you'll learn. The basic idea is that material you add should be non-copyrighted and use a reference to a reliable source.
Occasionally, someone will come along and revert your edit. It happens to everyone, including me. Don't take it personally. Sometimes, you can start a good discussion from it and learn something - other times, it's just a drive-by. More often, you'll find Wikipedians happy to help a newbie. Cite your sources, avoid promotionalism, and contribute however it makes you happy. If you're looking for something specific, The Guild of Copyeditors (WP:GUILD) could always use folks willing to catch typos, or the Task Center (WP:TASK) has a bunch of good suggestions. But more than anything, do what you find interesting and engaging, whether that's adding stuff to articles on espionage, taking images of local landmarks for pictureless pages, or just fixing typos.
I'd be glad to keep on answering questions as you have them. Happy editing! —Ganesha811 (talk) 05:34, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

In appreciation

The DYK Barnstar
For your reliability in getting prep sets promoted to queue during this 12-hour-rotation period. I think that if we get up to five filled queues on the 8th or 9th we might be able to switch back to 24 hours. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:38, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Thank you! Hopefully I'll have time to do a couple more tomorrow. —Ganesha811 (talk) 02:04, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Question from Juvi T-Rex (05:35, 5 February 2024)

I accidentally made an edit while logged out of my account. Can you help me remove my IP Address? --Juvi T-Rex (talk) 05:35, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi! You can submit a request at WP:OVERSIGHT via email, but your request might not be approved. To be honest, if I were you, I wouldn't worry about it. Unless you "claim" it in some way, it's not really possible for someone to work out which of the thousands of IP edits a day yours might have been and learn your IP. Just keep using your account and making edits under it. —Ganesha811 (talk) 17:51, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
Thank you very much! Juvi T-Rex (talk) 04:29, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Question from Deguiakyut (15:56, 7 February 2024)

How can I create a content? --Deguiakyut (talk) 15:56, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

What are you interested in writing about? —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:18, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Maria Trubnikova

On 10 February 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Maria Trubnikova, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that after dying in her daughter's arms in an asylum in 1897, Maria Trubnikova (pictured) was remembered as the "heart and soul" of feminist activism in Russia? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Maria Trubnikova. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Maria Trubnikova), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

—Kusma (talk) 00:02, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Question from BusiedMold47220 (01:37, 10 February 2024)

Hello! --BusiedMold47220 (talk) 01:37, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello! Welcome to Wikipedia. —Ganesha811 (talk) 17:40, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Question from YourLocalDonsFan (17:23, 11 February 2024)

Hello, Im just messaging to ask about how to put hyperlinks to the bit of the page I edited into my edit summary --YourLocalDonsFan (talk) 17:23, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi! Wikipedia formatting works the same in edit summaries as it does on pages, so you can put links in the edit summary by putting [[ and ]] on either side of the text you want to link. —Ganesha811 (talk) 17:39, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

WP:ARC

Noting that I have mentioned your close & collapse of an WP:AN discussion, and my revert of that collapse at a current request for arbitration at WP:ARC. Rotary Engine talk 13:03, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know! —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:09, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2024).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The mobile site history pages now use the same HTML as the desktop history pages. (T353388)

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:21, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Anna Filosofova

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Anna Filosofova you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Rusalkii -- Rusalkii (talk) 08:25, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Conflict of interest management: Case opened

Hello Ganesha811,

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conflict of interest management. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conflict of interest management/Evidence. Please add your evidence by March 20, 2024, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conflict of interest management/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

For the Arbitration Committee,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:02, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Should I join the GA backlog drive?

I'm interested in joining the March GA backlog drive, but even after doing a bit of reading on how to participate, including reading all the recommended pages, I'm still uncertain whether I should just add my name to the list and start. Since you are one of the coordinators for it, I thought I would ask you. I started to copy-paste the template for GA reviewers, and realized I didn't really understand it. Is there someone who might zoom with me and explain? Either you or another coordinator? Thank you! Fortunaa (talk) 02:01, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi! I'm glad you're thinking about joining. The only really key thing to make sure when doing any GA review is to check that the article meets the 6 GA criteria. Different reviewers might use different templates or formats that they like, but you can write up a review any way you like, in the end. The best way to learn is to just dive in. I'm can't Zoom, but I'm happy to take a look at a review after you start it and provide advice. To begin, just go to the WP:GAN page, find a review on an article you're interested in or knowledgeable about or that simply intrigues you, and click "start review". I'll keep an eye on it. :) —Ganesha811 (talk) 02:35, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Question from Auqool (17:43, 7 March 2024)

Hello,

I want to create a biography for a popular person in Doha and I want it to appear on wikipedia search --Auqool (talk) 17:43, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Is the person notable? Have they been extensively covered in independent, reliable sources? —Ganesha811 (talk) 18:24, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Question from Buyondo Alex Steven (08:23, 8 March 2024)

alright. I am Alex Steven Buyondo new here and ready to explore --Buyondo Alex Steven (talk) 08:23, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia! —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:51, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Question from GeoTwode (20:27, 11 March 2024)

Hello, is it possible to change your username (not that I want to do it; I just want to know if it's possible)? --GeoTwode (talk) 20:27, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Question from JohnSilva123 (08:52, 13 March 2024)

What are the latest advancements in metal detector technology, and how do they impact the field of archaeology? Seeking insights and discussions within the Metal Detector community on en.wikipedia. --JohnSilva123 (talk) 08:52, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi! You can ask questions like this at the WP:Reference desk. Good luck! —Ganesha811 (talk) 11:04, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Overhaul of California High-Speed Rail

Hi @Ganesha811:, I see you have been making some edits to California High-Speed Rail. Just wanted to flag that there is currently a collaborative effort going on to completely rewrite the article, and to declutter it from all the unsuitable paragraphs like the ones you removed: see current talk page discussion and the work-in-progress. DracaenaGuianensis (talk) 23:02, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Appreciated! I made a comment on the talk page; thanks for pointing me to the sandbox page, I'd missed that in the discussion. —Ganesha811 (talk) 23:04, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

RFA2024 update: no longer accepting new proposals in phase I

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

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

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

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

WP:PERM/AP

Dear Ganesha811, Hello and can you proceed my request at WP:PERM/AP. 😊~~ αvírαm|(tαlk) 07:26, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello! I don't see a recent record of you making such a request, and I'm sure that the admins there can help if you do make such a request. —Ganesha811 (talk) 01:13, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Question from Namexre (01:11, 22 March 2024)

Hello! I have a question, please. I'm looking to create a page here, but before I do, I'd appreciate some advice regarding a previous page I created, which was deleted. I'm unclear about the current criteria for a page to remain published, as my previous submission included all necessary references and demonstrated notability within the sport of squash. Upon comparing it to other pages in similar fields, I noticed no significant differences. --Namexre (talk) 01:11, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I assume you are referring to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ziad Sakr? It looks like that discussion resulted in a clear consensus that Sakr was, in fact, not notable. While it always sucks when a page you created gets deleted, Wikipedia operates on consensus and it's important to respect that. In the future, if Sakr receives more reliable, independent coverage, he may become notable and the page could then be re-created. For now, I advise you to be patient and focus your editing efforts on other subjects that interest you. —Ganesha811 (talk) 01:16, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Question from Dsljeb (14:08, 23 March 2024)

how can i write my own article --Dsljeb (talk) 14:08, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello! Any Wikipedian in good standing with a little experience can publish articles, but it is difficult to do so! I recommend starting out by making fixes to pages which already exist. What topics are you interested in editing about? —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:45, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Questions from Birdinator

Question from TheBirdinator3000 (16:47, 22 March 2024)

What is source editing? --TheBirdinator3000 (talk) 16:47, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Question from TheBirdinator3000 (17:04, 22 March 2024)

Before I ask this, I would like to thank you, and state that I think this mentor system was a clever idea on Wikipedia’s part. Could you give me a basic introduction to editing-specifically, what should I do, how can I do it (on mobile), and what should I avoid doing? Please and thank you. --TheBirdinator3000 (talk) 17:04, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! I would recommend starting with Help:Introduction - that will guide you through the basics of how to edit. As to what to edit, whatever you're interested in! The best way to learn is to do, so just think of a page you are interested in and want to improve, and start making improvements. One thing to avoid; removing sources that are already in the article and appear to be reliable. However, otherwise, don't be afraid to jump in feet first - you will probably make a mistake or two, but that's ok - we all do! Wikipedia explicitly encourages us to be WP:BOLD. Feel free to continue asking me questions as you go, and I'll keep an eye out for your changes. —Ganesha811 (talk) 17:12, 22 March 2024 (UTC)


Question from TheBirdinator3000 (15:46, 23 March 2024)

Good morning (or afternoon, evening, or night, if you happen to live in a different time zone)! I’ve happened to notice that you gave me a “thank you” on one of my edits (responses to previous question). How can I do that and what is the etiquette for doing that? As always, please and thank you. --TheBirdinator3000 (talk) 15:46, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Good question! If you go to any article's history (for example, this page) or a user's contribution history (for example, mine), you will see a little (thank) link next to the listing for each edit. Early in Wikipedia's history, while it was easy to disagree with someone's edit, there was no simple way to show appreciation for an edit; the (thank) feature was added to improve collegiality. There's no strict etiquette, and it doesn't need to be used to literally mean "thank you" - feel free to send a thanks someone's way whenever they do something you want to acknowledge, or if you see a positive contribution and you want them to know someone else cares. You can read more here. Thanks are public, but no one other than the recipient will ever pay them much attention. —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:52, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Question from TheBirdinator3000 (16:18, 23 March 2024)

How can I see when and/or if my edits are accepted, and if they are rejected, where/will I be able to find reasons explaining what I did wrong and what I can improve? Is it better to make a possibly bad edit or to not make a possibly good one? --TheBirdinator3000 (talk) 16:18, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Your edits will always be automatically accepted - anyone can edit Wikipedia. If another user reverts your edit, you will receive a notification, and hopefully they will have explained their reasoning in the edit summary (found on the article history page). At that point, it's usually best to start a discussion on the talk page. Everyone has edits reverted occasionally - it's not a big deal, and usually is just a an opportunity to talk it over and try and come to consensus. It's always better to be WP:BOLD and make an improvement. If you accidentally screw up, don't worry - nothing is permanent on Wikipedia and any error is easily reversible. —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:23, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Question from TheBirdinator3000 (16:22, 23 March 2024)

How much comments/hidden text is too much? I often find myself better at noticing rather than fixing errors, so I often find myself using hidden text to point out areas that could possibly use improvement, but the page mentions (albeit only once) to “Avoid adding too many invisible comments because they can clutter the wiki source for other editors.” How can I know when I reached this point, and how can I trim comments? --TheBirdinator3000 (talk) 16:22, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

It's a question of judgment, but in general, hidden text is not as useful as just fixing errors where you see them. If you see an error you don't have the time or ability to fix, you can tag it with a template like [citation needed] or [excessive citations], as I see you did already. —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:25, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Question from TheBirdinator3000 (17:33, 23 March 2024)

I was attempting to copyedit a page when I got stuck; on the article for Albert Gilles (I have yet to figure out how to add links to things), it is marked for Conflict of Interest and Subjective Tone, and in the first sentence it states that he is “known for his metalworking technique of shaping malleable metals.” I know opinions like this typically need to be cited, but it could be a ‘don’t cite the sky is blue’ situation where it’s blatantly obvious that that is what he is famous for. What should I do? Should I add citation needed? As always, please and thank you. --TheBirdinator3000 (talk) 17:33, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

The lead is a summary of the article, so it doesn't necessarily need to have citations, as long as the information is in the body of the article. The policy on this is at WP:LEADCITE, and generally I'd advise putting citations in the lead for direct quotes from sources and for potentially controversial statements. You're right that generally, you don't need to cite that the sky is blue, though opinions vary. Finally, to add a link to something, you can either highlight the word and click the 🔗 symbol above (if editing visually) or put double brackets on either side of the words you want to link, like this - [[Portugal]] (if editing in source code). —Ganesha811 (talk) 18:16, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Question from TheBirdinator3000 (17:47, 23 March 2024)

How do I know what sentences need inline citations and which don’t? I’ve been having trouble trying to come up with a consistent answer. --TheBirdinator3000 (talk) 17:47, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

This is a good question, and the answer is that there is no consistent answer. But this short essay on the verifiability policy might be helpful to read. Basically, if it's not in the lead and not an obvious statement of widely-known facts (like "Thailand is a country" or "Taxes fund the government"), it should probably have an inline citation. Sometimes a few consecutive sentences are cited to the same source, in which case it's fine to put the citation at the end of the whole passage. —Ganesha811 (talk) 18:18, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Question from TheBirdinator3000 (16:02, 24 March 2024)

Hello again, I hope you’re having a wonderful time of day. I have two questions today! First off, I’ve realized I could study editing by looking at a page’s history and slowly going forward, noting the edits that were made. Are there any good articles for this, like ones that have been copy edited multiple times and never had an edit war? Second, what are the rules on user customization, especially signature customization? What ARE signatures anyway? As always, please and thank you! --TheBirdinator3000 (talk) 16:02, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi! The details on signatures can be found here - basically, feel free to customize your signature as much as you like, just keep it readable and not distracting to others. As to pages to look at, you could try any at the list of featured articles; pick a topic you're interested in. —Ganesha811 (talk) 17:55, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Question from TheBirdinator3000 (16:37, 24 March 2024)

I’m back again, and I know it’s probably not there, but is there a tool to add notes specifically for yourself when editing? As in i can leave a note to not change something and why and not have to go back through all of what I did to delete the notes? Basically, hidden text that deletes itself once an edit is published. Please and thank you. --TheBirdinator3000 (talk) 16:37, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

I've never heard of such a thing. Maybe it's possible, but I don't know how. If you want to keep notes for yourself, you can use your Sandbox. Although it isn't secret, your sandbox is in your own userspace and generally out of the way. Here's mine, for an example - I keep some links to useful tools and sources for future articles I want to create. —Ganesha811 (talk) 17:59, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Question from TheBirdinator3000 (15:08, 28 March 2024)

I’ve been going through my suggested edits, and nearly all of them are ones that are ones tagged as “Written like advertisement”, and I can very well see it and vaguely where it’s becoming advertising, but I can never seem to figure out how to fix it. How can i fix things like these? How can you fix neutrality issues in general? Please and thanks. --TheBirdinator3000 (talk) 15:08, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

That's just up to your best judgment as an editor. You can read through some featured articles to get a sense for high-quality encyclopedic writing on Wikipedia, or check out the Manual of Style for specific guidelines. —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:12, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Anna Filosofova

On 28 March 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Anna Filosofova, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that after being criticized for dressing "like a doll" at an important meeting, pioneering Russian feminist Anna Filosofova (pictured) replied that "clothes do not make the woman"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Anna Filosofova. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Anna Filosofova), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Z1720 (talk) 00:02, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ganesha811/Archive_7&oldid=1221080552"