Hey in an article I added some info about JC bose and his discovery of radio signals before Marconi.But 2 users keep deleting that part even though I added 5 sources.
What should I do?Can I take actions? --SuvGh (talk) 04:24, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello SuvGh, thanks for reaching out for help here. It looks like, shortly after your question to me, you received a response on the talk page, which captures the same advice I would have given you. More broadly, if you find that you are not reaching consensus through back-and-forth editing of an article, making a new topic on the Talk page is the best next step. If you think there is still a change that ought to be made at Guglielmo Marconi, you could try suggesting it on the Talk page and see if the editors there can assist with making it fit with the writing style, referencing, etc of a wikipedia article. I am happy to answer additional questions you may have, or for a faster reply you can also ask the mentors at the Teahouse. Happy editing! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:36, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This award is given in recognition to LEvalyn for accumulating at least 10 points during the September 2024 NPP backlog drive. Your contributions helped play a part in the 19,000+ articles and 35,000+ redirects reviewed (for a total of 26,884.6 points) completed during the drive. Thank you so much for taking part and contributing to help reduce the backlog! Hey man im josh (talk) 15:34, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The process will have a one week call for candidates phase, a one week pause to set up SecurePoll, a three-day period of public discussion, followed by 7 days of no public discussion and a private vote using SecurePoll.
The outcomes of this process are identical to making requests for adminship. There is no official difference between an administrator appointed through RFA or administrator elections.
Ask any questions about the process at the talk page. A separate user talk message will be sent to official candidates with additional information about the process.
To avoid sending too many messages, this will be the last mass message sent about administrator elections. If you are interested in the process, please make sure to watchlist the appropriate pages. A watchlist notice will be added when the discussion phase opens, and again when the voting phase opens.
You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.
Hello! I just want to edit one specific article, which is one-sided (and I have legal documentation to that effect), and I want to create a page as well. Do I need to build up my experience? Can I go right into that edit?
Hi AmritAtman, welcome to Wikipedia. In principle, Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, and only a few articles will prevent inexperienced articles from working on them. But your question here raises some red flags for me, so I don't want to encourage you too strongly without knowing more. It's extremely unusual for legal documentation to be relevant to writing a Wikipedia article, because Wikipedia is a tertiary source which just tries to summarize what has been published elsewhere (eg in newspapers, books, and scholarly research). What is the article that concerns you, and what seems to be the problem with it? ~ L 🌸 (talk) 02:55, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Concerning the page I wanted to edit, I was surprised to learn this morning that it's been deleted. It's a page on Eren Niazi. People have been engaged in slandering him on his wikipedia page, and I guess someone deleted it in the last week, so the question I posed to you is moot--probably due to such gross and baseless accusations. Anyway, I'll just create a new page. I've known Eren for 30 years, and am uniquely qualified to write a simple bio on him as the founder of Open Source Storage. AmritAtman (talk) 17:03, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello AmritAtman, I do not advise re-creating the article. Please read this guide on writing about people you know. Sources cited on Wikipedia must meet the criteria described at WP:RS, particularly in being published and independent; legal documentation and personal knowledge do not qualify. Articles are deleted when there are not enough of that kind of source for a summary-style encyclopedia article to be written. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 16:18, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On October 25, we will start the voting phase. The candidate subpages will close again to public questions and discussion, and everyone will have a week to use the SecurePoll software to vote, which uses a secret ballot. You can see who voted, but not who they voted for. Please note that the vote tallies cannot be made public until after voting has ended and as such, it will not be possible for you to see an individual candidate's tally during the election. The suffrage requirements are different from those at RFA.
Once voting concludes, we will begin the scrutineering phase, which will last for an indeterminate amount of time, perhaps a week or two. Once everything is certified, the results will be posted on the main election page. In order to be granted adminship, a candidate must have received at least 70.0% support, calculated as Support / (Support + Oppose). As this is a vote and not a consensus, there are no bureaucrat discussions ("crat chats").
Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.
You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.
Question from DCfootball09 (13:51, 24 October 2024)
Hi! I submitted my first article and it was denied and need some editing. I completed the step suggested. It there a way to alert the original reader to review again? --DCfootball09 (talk) 13:51, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello DCfootball09, and welcome to Wikipedia! To request that a draft be re-reviewed after your edits, there is a "Resubmit" link at the very bottom of that big box above the article. In future, please don't remove that big box, since it's how Wikipedia tracks the progress of drafts. I put it back for you, so you should now be able to see a blue "Resubmit" button. If you have any other trouble, feel free to ask, and happy editing! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 16:16, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Learning to edit Wikipedia can be like trying to drink from a firehose -- lots of details to keep track of all at once! The best way to learn is by doing. Glad I could help in this instance and good luck with your future work. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 19:51, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you're asking about Pat Bastien, it looks like that was already approved through AfC! I made a few polishing edits myself just now. If you want to continue improving the article, the first thing I notice that the page is an orphan (meaning no other pages link to it). The biography is also lacking a lot of info on his life before college. And it would be nice to add the page to some more categories -- I personally use Wikipedia:HotCat for that. Of all those, the orphan status seems most urgent to me. You could also start planning your next article! My advice there would be to start with a magazine or newspaper that covers topics of interest to you, and the next time you read an interesting, in-depth profile, go and see if you can use it to make or expand a Wiki article. I hope you have fun! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 18:55, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again! I noticed some of the content at Pat Bastien was removed because it didn't match the source it was cited to. I wanted to emphasize that verifiability is a crucial part of writing Wikipedia articles, so even if you know something is true from your familiarity with the topic, it needs to be in a published source somewhere else before we put it in the Wiki article. If you'd like help researching sources to put some info on Bastian's coaching philosophy back in the article, just let me know.
Regarding the tags for promotional language, spammers often remove those tags in bad faith, so it can look a little shady when a newbie removes their own promo/NPOV tag. It can also take a while to really learn how to write in Wikipedia's dry, factual style, so it's hard for a newbie to evaluate whether the tag is still appropriate. If you think you've fixed up an article enough that it's not promotional anymore, a good idea is to ask for a second look at the Teahouse.
Anyway, that's my unsolicited advice for now -- if you have any questions as you edit, or want to solicit more advice, just let me know! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 20:45, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will accept ALL of the advice! This is really fun just have to continue to refine until I get it just right. I truly appreciate you taking the time to explain. DCfootball09 (talk) 21:15, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the voting phase, the candidate subpages will close to public questions and discussion, and everyone who qualifies for a vote will have a week to use the SecurePoll software to vote, which uses a secret ballot. You can see who voted, but not who they voted for. Please note that the vote tallies cannot be made public until after voting has ended and as such, it will not be possible for you to see an individual candidate's tally during the election. The suffrage requirements are different from those at RFA.
Once voting concludes, we will begin the scrutineering phase, which will last for an indeterminate amount of time, perhaps a week or two. Once everything is certified, the results will be posted on the main election page. In order to be granted adminship, a candidate must have received at least 70.0% support, calculated as Support / (Support + Oppose). As this is a vote and not a consensus, there are no bureaucrat discussions ("crat chats").
Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.
You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.
The 2024 WikiCup has come to an end, with the final round being a very tight race. Our new champion is AirshipJungleman29 (submissions), who scored 2,283 points mainly through 3 high-multiplier FAs and 3 GAs on military history topics. By a 1% margin, Airship beat out last year's champion, BeanieFan11 (submissions), who scored second with 2,264 points, mainly from an impressive 58 GAs about athletes. In third place, Generalissima (submissions) scored 1,528 points, primarily from two FAs on U.S. Librarians of Congress and 20 GAs about various historical topics. Our other finalists are: Sammi Brie (submissions) with 879 points, Hey man im josh (submissions) with 533 points, BennyOnTheLoose (submissions) with 432 points, Arconning (submissions) with 244 points, and AryKun (submissions) with 15 points. Congratulations to our finalists and all who participated!
The final round was very productive, and contestants had 7 FAs, 9 FLs, 94 GAs, 73 FAC reviews, and 79 GAN reviews and peer reviews. Altogether, Wikipedia has benefited greatly from the activities of WikiCup competitors all through the contest. Well done everyone!
All those who reached the final will receive awards and the following special awards will be made, based on high performance in particular areas of content creation. So that the finalists do not have an undue advantage, these prizes are awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field in a single round, or in the event of a tie, to the overall leader in this field.
Generalissima (submissions) wins the featured article prize for 3 FAs in round 4, and 7 FAs overall.
Muboshgu (submissions) wins the ITN prize, for 15 In the news articles in round 1, and 36 overall.
Next year's competition will begin on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; the WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors, and we hope to see you all in the 2025 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement!
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Question from Tres Libras (18:31, 23 November 2024)
Hello,
I’d like to create an article, but I’m not sure where to find good ideas for a topic. I’m open to working on anything and plan to draft it slowly in my sandbox. I won’t publish it until I’ve received your feedback.
Hello Tres Libras, and welcome to Wikipedia! Personally, I think it's easiest to start with a source of information first, and then see what articles it leads you to. (And keep in mind that expanding an existing article is often much more useful than making a new article.) So, I'd grab any book or long magazine article that interests you, and as you read, see if it has information that could be added to existing Wikipedia articles on related topics. If you really do want to do a whole article from scratch, I think a similar approach still applies -- look for some topic where you can find 2-3 in-depth sources about it but there's no Wikipedia article. WP:BACKWARD has more advice in this vein. Personally, I find there are a lot of books where there is plenty of information in book reviews but no Wikipedia article, so I work on those a lot. If you have more specific questions as you work, feel free to ask, and happy editing! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 21:59, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Women in Red December 2024
Women in Red | December 2024, Vol 10, Issue 12, Nos 293, 294, 324, 325
Women in Religion have a monthly virtual edit-a-thon and the next session is December 2nd 4:00 - 5:00 p.m. CST. For Zoom meeting details, contact Dzingle1 or RosPost. Women in Red members are welcome to join the Zoom Meeting here
Tip of the month:
Think of rewarding contributors, especially newcomers, with a barnstar.
On 1 January 2025, a one-month backlog drive for good article nomination reviews will begin in hopes of addressing the growing backlog.
Barnstars will be awarded based on the number, length, and age of nominations reviewed.
Each article review will earn 1 point; for each 90 days an article has been in the backlog, an additional half-point is awarded; one extra point will be awarded for every 2500 total reviewed words.
