The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.
I registered the wikipedia page Miracle at Manchester and when I looked someone else was in control of the page. How is that possible? Faith & Family (talk) 01:12, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't 'register' anything. You edited an existing article. An article which like any other is open to edits from multiple contributors. And given the largely unsourced and clearly promotional nature of your edits, the subsequent revert seems appropriate. If you wish to discuss this further, I suggest you do so on the article talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:17, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How do I create a page for a notable person? Violet Windsor (talk) 02:04, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
User:Violet Windsor, the first thing you'll want to do is to ensure the sources you have for the biography you wish to write meet the golden criteria: reliable sources, independent of the subject, providing significant coverage. Please know that this is what "notable" means on Wikipedia. It's a word about sourcing, not fame or importance. You may find WP:BACKWARDS a good simple introduction, and if you believe your subject to meet the sourcing requirements mentioned, see Help:Your first article for the remaining steps. If your subject is still living, WP:BLP will also apply. Best luck and happy editing! Folly Mox (talk) 02:47, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much Folly. Will start putting together a heap of info with official sources & see how that goes. Violet Windsor (talk) 03:36, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please note, Violet Windsor, that "official sources" are usually not what we want: they are usually primary sources, that can be used in only limited ways. Reliable, independent, secondary sources are what a wikipedia article should be based on.
I will also point out that editors who plunge into the challenging task of creating an article before they have spent time learning how Wikipedia works often have a frustrating and disppointing time, so I always advise spending a few weeks or months learning about Wikipedia by making improvements to existing articles (especially to their sourcing and referencing before trying it. ColinFine (talk) 10:32, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Violet Windsor: First, make sure you understand the Wikipedia definition of notability: See WP:N. Notability is the only absolute requirement for an article. If your subject is not notable, you will be wasting a lot of your time and some of ours, so don't skip this step. Next, find published reliable sources (WP:RS) that document this notability. Then read some of our articles that are about people more or less like your subject to get a feel for the proper tone and format. After all that, proceed to WP:YFA. -Arch dude (talk) 02:51, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou so much. The person I wish to publish has an Order of Australia Medal for services to the Country as well, I'll look into whether that meets the "Notable" criteria. Violet Windsor (talk) 03:35, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Violet Windsor, that sounds like a promising start! I wasn't able to determine with a very brief search whether the Order of Australia Medal contributes to notability, but it turns out a brief list of potential sources already exists to help you get started. You may also be able to get clarity on the subject's notability at Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Australia, where the subject matter experts are likely able to weigh in and potentially assist you. Folly Mox (talk) 03:49, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If mortadella, bresaola, ricotta and others are world-famous foods, why are they listed in italics on the page salumi? I have noticed that in en.wiki the italics for Italian foods are either put in completely at random or omitted when needed. JackkBrown (talk) 02:22, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes setting non-English terms in oblique is applied inconsistently, yes. Folly Mox (talk) 02:38, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, JackkBrown. If you see something in an article which you don't think is right, then be bold and edit it. I really don't understand what your purpose is in posting about it here. ColinFine (talk) 10:34, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ColinFine: since I cannot edit every page of every Italian food (I am one person, not a hundred thousand), I ask here so that I can find someone to help me (apparently, no one wants to help me). JackkBrown (talk) 11:50, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I apologise for the dismissive tone of my original reply, and note that the title of this thread at the time was "Serious problem", but still only talked about text formatting. User:JackkBrown, sometimes we are the only active editor who cares about something enough to bother "fixing" it en masse. I've had this experience a number of times. If this is something that is really important to you, you're definitely personally capable of standardising mortadella, ricotta, etc, to either italic or non-italic depending on what you may strongly feel is correct. It will just take a long time. Wikipedia is a big project, with a lot of problems, and will never be perfect or complete.If you're able to generate consensus somewhere applicable (maybe Talk:Mortadella or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Italy or something, including all the terms you feel are problematic so people can discuss them each at the same place, and with neutral notifications elsewhere so that interested editors will be able to find the discussion and weigh in), you could probably submit a successful AWB request to have whatever text formatting gains consensus applied by script to all the appropriate articles.It's not that nobody wants to help you, but nobody wants to do the work that – as far as we can determine from your post here – only you think urgently requires repair. There's a bit of a misconception some editors have that the Help Desk is less about learning how to perform a particular task on Wikipedia, or learning what should be done in a particular situation, and more about recruiting editors with nothing on their own plates to do work on your behalf. Sometimes we will just fix something an editor brings up here, especially if it's a quick fix, but it's an unreasonable expectation that we'll take over your pet project instead of helping empower you to complete it yourself. With kindness, Folly Mox (talk) 21:22, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, JackkBrown, I am an anglophone in my seventh decade, and have never heard of any of those four foods before: this suggests to me that they are less than "world famous", although doubtless non-Italian chefs and gourmets know of them. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 46.65.231.103 (talk) 21:25, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On the Provinces of Italy page, there are both upper and lowercase "Provinces" in the list (e.g.: "province of Arezzo", and "Province of Naples"). Could someone very kindly fix this for all the provinces of Italy? Thanks in advance. JackkBrown (talk) 03:05, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are a well-known Italian speaking editor with quite a bit of experience, JackkBrown. Why don't you just fix the problem yourself? Do you really think that more experienced Italian speaking editors are also Teahouse hosts? Cullen328 (talk) 07:14, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If I select the wikilink Vasto from another page (in my case, brudet) the preview shows "City in Rome" (Vasto is in Abruzzo, not Rome). JackkBrown (talk) 03:18, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you would care to fix this error, JackkBrown. -- Hoary (talk) 04:25, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Hoary: I cannot correct the preview, it's a very technical thing that cannot be solved by users without special privileges. JackkBrown (talk) 11:46, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My edit to Vastohere (which you could have made) should fix the problem. Deor (talk) 13:00, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a file of the crest of the Martineau family - on a chair - (top of article). Perhaps it should be on the right hand side of the page. Please can you get a close up of the crest to replace the one I just uploaded - the crest on the seat is what is important. Thank you58.179.137.31 (talk) 03:24, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So many points here.
In order to switch from the left to the right, simply replace "|left|" with "|right|" within the "File:" link.
In order to crop photos, please use GIMP. This runs on any computer, costs nothing, and (for purposes such as cropping) is easy to use.
Is it too much to give each discussion thread a distinctive title, or should other people here retitle your threads?
In your earlier thread with this title, you seemed to be complaining about your "device". What device is it, and what trouble are you having with it?
I cannot do the GIMP activity - I was able to change the top image from left to right.
Please help with an enlargement / closeup of the Martineau coat of arms on the seat of the chair as seen in the top image of the article
Use GIMP which I failed to understand. Thank you in advance175.38.42.62 (talk) 07:05, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please help with an enlargement / closeup of the Martineau coat of arms on the seat of the chair as seen in the top image of the article Use GIMP which I failed to understand. Thank you in advanc.
Click on the rectangle icon (the first among a lot of icons; it has a tooltip [pop-up description], "Rectangle Select Tool").
Imagine a rectangle that contains what you want, and excludes what you don't want. Choose any one of its four corners. Press down the mouse button there, move the cursor to the opposite corner, and release the mouse button. You'll see a rectangle.
Menu: "Image | Crop to selection".
Menu: "File | Export as". "Select File Type (by Extension)": choose "JPEG image". Specify the quality (86 should be enough).
Upload the file to Commons (with a new filename, of course). Describe the file informatively, put it in relevant categories, and do all the other necessary administrative stuff. (Of course, do not pretend that the file is your own work. Instead, it's in the public domain.)
If something is unclear, don't hesitate to ask. -- Hoary (talk) 08:58, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, please help with an enlargement / closeup of the Martineau coat of arms on the seat of the chair (and rotated so that it is straight please if possible) as seen in the top image of the article. I cannot use GIMP which I failed to understand. Thank you in advance and sorry. 08:52, 21 October 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.38.42.62 (talk)
For rotation and cropping in GIMP, first do the rotation, and only then do the cropping. Cropping is explained above. For rotation, "Tools | Transform tools | Rotate" brings up a little menu saying (among other stuff that you can safely ignore) "Angle 0.00" with a little up and a little down triangle. Play with these triangles; don't worry if you overshoot (you won't damage anything). When you're happy with the angle, click "Rotate". -- Hoary (talk) 09:10, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can download the file but I cannot "Open the file with GIMP" - I dont know how to do that - I can go to the GIMP website but then I loose the original file of the chair. Im so sorry 175.38.42.62 (talk) 09:38, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are unlikely to achieve what I suspect you are aiming for, which is a presentation of the family arms, similar to this one. Because the picture of a chair was not taken directly above the seat, you need to not only rotate the image, but also skew it.
I suggest you instead aim for a simple close-up of the chair seat; you can do this using an image editor such as GIMP (see Hoary's comments above), or with the {{CSS image crop}} template. I am happy to help on the latter if needed.
You might consider constructing your own SVG version; again, happy to help if requested. Bazza (talk) 09:56, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
GIMP will let you correct skew. In practice, it's very difficult to do this convincingly. (I long ago gave up trying.) Better to say that GIMP will let you ameliorate skew. This isn't at all hard to do: "Tools | Transform Tools | Perspective". -- Hoary (talk) 10:04, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Like Chrome, Safari, Firefox, Excel, and so forth, GIMP is software that has to be installed on your computer before you can use it. Download it from either a source that you know is trustworthy, or from gimp.org. (You may be asked if you also want any of a list of add-ons; you won't need any of these.) -- Hoary (talk) 09:58, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would be truly appreciative of your efforts to do this - as long as the image is not blurred. I simply don't have the skills for this at all. Thanks in advance175.38.42.62 (talk) 10:41, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Who are you addressing your reply to?
And what exactly is it that you require to be placed on the page? Bazza (talk) 12:04, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To Bazza, Please make the image of chair on the top of the Martineau family page slightly closer up of the coat of arms and rotate it so that it is "straighter", I cannot do this, it is beyond me. Thanks 175.38.42.62 (talk) 13:00, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have cropped it as requested. There is no mechanism within Wikipedia to rotate an image; in any case, it would look strange because, as I noted above, the image needs skewing as well in order to appear "straight". Bazza (talk) 14:10, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be an archiving glitch at Talk:Bog. One discussion, unhelpfully called Untitled, seems to be out of place, being from 2002 but near the bottom of the talk page. Meanwhile, the current talk page has three discussions from 2006-7 which have somehow escaped the notice of the archiving bot. Can these errors be rectified, please? Many thanks. --Viennese Waltz 07:44, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Viennese Waltz: None of the three discussions have a signature with a valid time stamp ending in "(UTC)" so the bot can probably not read when they are from. Talk:Bog/Archive 1#Untitled had a signed edit from 2023 when it was archived.[1]PrimeHunter (talk) 10:55, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Viennese Waltz: I've fixed the dates in the discussions, so the bot should eventually archive them. GoingBatty (talk) 18:17, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wanted write article on a particular subject how to rite it. Also on 20/10/2023 wrote an article on "BLUE BIRD let's play a game" a toys and games manufacturing company from Bengaluru, India. What is the status of that. Kindly do the needful. Vijay Dhwaja (talk) 08:31, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See Your first article. Also please note that a user page such as User:Vijay Dhwaja is not an article, and should not contain anything that is basically a promo for yourself, your company etc.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me) 08:35, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article you wrote in your userpage was deleted per WP:G11 - in other words, it was blatant advertising. There is a message on your talkpage explaining this. Before going any further, you need to read WP:PAID, which discusses the steps that people who are writing as a part of their job need to go through before editing; you also need to read WP:COI and WP:NOTPROMO. If you try to publish another advert about this company, your account will likely be blocked from editing. GirthSummit (blether) 08:37, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Needed add information on the same considering as paid kindly help me to proceed. Vijay Dhwaja (talk) 08:44, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't, just don't add things to Wikipedia because you have been WP:PAID to do it. As Girth Summit said, this will get the account blocked. Even if you are not getting paid, you should not create articles about things that you are involved with, because this creates a conflict of interest. Also, if "BLUE BIRD let's play a game" does not have significant coverage in reliable secondary sources (it doesn't appear to) then it would not be suitable for a standalone article. There is a Facebook page about the company here, that is literally all I could find in a web search.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me) 09:13, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Vijay Dhwaja: Let's start over. We have ways to help you recover from "paid" and "promo", but we have no way to help you recover from a lack of what we call "notability". Therefore the first thing for you to do is to determine if the subject is notable by our definition. See WP:NCORP, then look at WP:AMOUNT. It is unlikely that your subject is notable. There is no way to fix this, so you will get extremely frustrated if you try and will waste your time and ours. -Arch dude (talk) 13:06, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On Commons a file has been deleted because of copyright violation of the sculptor. That file is also here on EN-WP, see the talk page of File:Sculpture exhibition, NWU Botanical Garden.jpg. See my requests there (adjusting this file + perhaps delete it here too). I have no idea how that works here (I am mainly a Commons volunteer). Can you please address these requests? JopkeB (talk) 14:22, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
JopkeB I am afraid this is a bit confusing. File:Sculpture exhibition, NWU Botanical Garden.jpg is on Commons, see the message "This is a file from the Wikimedia Commons. Information from its description page there is shown below." You have now created a talk page for it on Wikipedia. The deleted file was File:Sculpture in the NWU Botanical Garden.jpg, which does not exist on en Wikipedia, if you click on the link you will see that it was deleted on en Wikipedia after it had been up loaded to Commons. You could request deletion of the remaining image on Commons there if necessary. TSventon (talk) 14:52, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, this is confusing. I guess there were two files on Commons, with nearly the same name. The deleted one probably had the sculpture in the foreground of the photo, and this one has it less prominent (and then it can stay because of "De minimis"). I am sorry.
I'll ask for deletion of the page I created here because it is obviously wrong. JopkeB (talk) 04:40, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you refer me to information on since when Criticism/Controversy sections are discouraged[edit]
I'm seeing users deleting Controversy sections from at least 2 universities, but I can't understand exactly when and why it was decided to delete this sections, as there are lots of information being deleted, and apparently to me this sections are following the proper guidelines stated in Criticism, properly cited and neutral, but are tagged indiscriminately as WP:NotAdvocacy or WP:Indiscriminate. Antiinterference (talk) 16:46, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Have you discussed this with the users involved? 331dot (talk) 16:48, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not yet, I'm asking because I'm seeing at least 1 very active users, deleting this section making this statements "no, per WP:NOTNEWS, WP:UNDUE, and because "controversy" sections are discouraged. Those are all well-accepted guidelines, and weigh more heavily than some individual's opinion" and deleting whole sections, so again, this seems serious, and before getting into an actual discussion I need to understand if there is some true to this statement that controversy is discouraged or are just power users making some kind of abuse of power... Antiinterference (talk) 17:09, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Antiinterference, you mentioned WP:CRITICISM. That essay says In most cases separate sections devoted to criticism, controversies, or the like should be avoided in an article because these sections call undue attention to negative viewpoints. Articles should present the prevailing viewpoints from reliable sources, whether positive or negative. Segregation of text or other content into different subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself, may result in an unencyclopedic structure, such as a back-and-forth dialogue between proponents and opponents. This is not a matter of policy, but I think it is fair to say that many experienced editors agree with the essay on this point. Cullen328 (talk) 18:36, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Suddenly deleting criticism from multiple wikipedia pages, on similar dates, seems like a policy.
But yeah not my issue I guess, and there is probably no one monitoring that.
Or if you, or a group, suddenly decide to delete criticism that was there for years, information that was a very useful source for many people using Wikipedia for years, and suddenly there is a change in attitude from multiple super users, and maybe admins, a new editor will not have much to do, as there is no proper way to denounce arbitrary citations of "What Wikipedia is not", and you have to expend extra effort in trying to defend your case of why that criticism should be there, while someone just arbitrarily labeling criticism as not welcomed is accepted by default.
Sorry but this is weird, somehow after a conversation with someone in reddit saying wikipedia is not reliable, few hours later I go check what I had just cited and it was deleted, in my opinion arbitrarily, and somehow it coincides with the deletion of the criticism section of several universities of the united states...
Hope this is not some hidden policy and just me being new here... Antiinterference (talk) 22:34, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Antiinterference, discouragement of article sections devoted to controversy or criticism is not the same as discouragement of controversy or criticism. Article sections devoted to controversy or criticism are discouraged; however, coverage of controversy or criticism is not discouraged. (This doesn't mean that such coverage is always acceptable: policies about neutrality, sourcing, etc also come into play.) It's sometimes pretty obvious that the content of an article about this or that university is monitored by one or more persons who are intent on presenting the university in the best possible light, and perhaps you are seeing this. If you do see it, avoid charging the other editor with being a censor, a PR flack or whatever and avoid speculating openly about motives; instead, simply ask for the reason(s) for the deletion of well-referenced facts about the university. -- Hoary (talk) 01:39, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What do I do when I propose an article be split, but I cannot perform the split myself (assuming that the split is accepted by consensus)? Is there somewhere I can ask for someone to perform the split for me? If yes, how and where do I ask? – Treetoes023 (talk) 16:49, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some time ago I created a page for the former business Bullwinkles (gentlemen's club) and thought I'd finished it for publish, but have not seen it nor a hyperlink appear anytime during Google searches. Could you look into this for me please? I wasn't a huge article, roughly one full paragraph. But I don't wish to feel that I wasted all that time, for it to get lost in cyberspace.
You seem to be referring to your sandbox, User:Cugrad16/sandbox. Sandboxes are not part of the encyclopedia. You need to submit it for review via the Article Wizard. 331dot (talk) 17:05, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Publish changes" realy means "save changes", it doesn't mean "publish this to the encyclopedia". The reason the button was labeled this way is because every edit on Wikipedia is publicitely viewable, assuming one knows where to look. User:Cugrad16/sandbox has a long way ahead before it can be promoted to an article, amongst other things its lacking sources. Pleasee see your first article. Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:26, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to Victor Schmidt's suggestion, I also suggest reading BACKWARDS. ColinFine (talk) 20:34, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there, I'm having trouble with Wikipedia in general, but particularly because I tried posting an article about a person, and when I went back to see if it was published, it seemed to be removed from my account. I can't find it anywhere. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Isabelleresnick (talk) 17:15, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Plenty of work needed, it wouldn't be anywhere near acceptance as an article at the moment.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me) 17:21, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks. I have a lot of questions for parts where I'm having trouble formatting. Is there someone who can help me? Isabelleresnick (talk) 17:48, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In some ways the formatting is indeed very strange, Isabelleresnick. But more importantly, you'll have to demonstrate notability. (For a subject who makes a living off "astrology-based products and services", this is likely to be a tall order.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:03, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I forget how to ask draw attention to a question that's not a dispute. I'd like the article Kenneth Chesebro to be rated as more important than "Low," and posted that on talk, but don't know how to get eyes on it. YoPienso (talk) 20:57, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
User:Yopienso, you could post a neutral notification to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Donald Trump, but I'm not sure to what extent (if any) the WikiProject "importance" ratings are used for anything or by anyone. It seems like they're mostly a relic of a bygone era when WikiProjects were well staffed and had lots of missing content to create or substandard content that they felt core to their topic area. What outcome are you hoping to achieve by increasing the "importance" assessment of this article? Whatever it is, there's almost certainly a more effective and more direct approach than twiddling a parameter that no one pays attention to. Folly Mox (talk) 21:30, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for responding. YoPienso (talk) 05:03, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yopienso, I changed to mid-importance for the Trump project. Give that Chesebro has pled guilty and probably will be testifying against Trump and his co-defendants, that seems reasonable. Cullen328 (talk) 02:16, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Cullen328:What do you think of bumping it up to B class for content? A great deal of editing has been done in the past couple of days. The article is quite substantial and organized. YoPienso (talk) 05:10, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's a bunch of Venezuelan census data on the official government website and I'm trying to update some pages to reflect that (namely of the states) since, except for one page, they don't have any historical population info. I created a template to facilitate adding this information.
I keep encountering two errors:
1. I keep having to do CAPTCHAs for all the http://www.ine.gob.ve URLs I cite as I always get this:
Your edit includes new external links. These may be much welcomed links to references. Please note that the nofollow HTML attribute is applied to external links in Wikipedia, instructing search engines to ignore these links when computing page ranks. For information on our standards for adding links, please see our External links Guideline.
2. Due to the efficiency of the template and knowing exactly where to get the numbers, the pace of my edits keeps running into this:
It appears you are adding external links to many different Wikipedia pages in rapid succession. This is often a sign of people spamming Wikipedia. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted, preventing anyone from linking to them from all Wikimedia sites. Before you continue you may wish to review Wikipedia's guidelines about external links and spam as these may help you decide whether these links are appropriate for Wikipedia. Please feel free to ask at the Help Desk if you have any questions.
So my questions are,
1. Is there a way to avoid the CAPTCHAs? http://www.ine.gob.ve/ is the official Venezuelan government site of statistics. Plenty of the pages I've edited have direct links to pages from it as well.
2. Any way to get around the pace limit? The edits are pretty trivial. I'm literally just copying numbers from a PDF published by the government.
Hi AnonymousJaguar777, there is a way around the limits if you can convince an administrator that someone performing template magic in their first edits is unusually not a sockpuppet in this case. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:27, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ToBeFree, is being a software engineer with familiarity of macros and reverse engineering source code enough? I would provide more details but this is a public forum as far as I can tell. AnonymousJaguar777 (talk) 23:36, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unsure. I'd recommend waiting a few days until your account is autoconfirmed, which already solves most of the issues you're describing. Manual confirmation exists but is relatively unlikely to happen, I think. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:39, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. I just hope I don't get blocked for being a quick learner xD AnonymousJaguar777 (talk) 23:44, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
