If you start a new conversation here, I will respond to you here. If I start a conversation on your talk page, please respond to me there, I will have your talk page on my watch list.
Good day. I'm new to Wikipedia editing. I would like to add (edit) basic information on this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_House_of_Representatives then under this heading: Current members (33rd Alaska State Legislature). Specifically, I wish to edit this section to add basic information for Representative Cliff Groh, #18 on this list. Thank you, Zamino926. Zamino926 (talk) 20:53, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Zamino926, thank you for aiming to contribute to Wikipedia. (I've moved your question from the top of this page to the bottom of the page, which is the normal place to add new discussions.)
Hello,
Over at Wikipedia:Teahouse, you said that if I should put something like Wikipedia edits from the IP address 92.93.94.95 are by me, see Special:Contributions/92.93.94.95 on my userpage. I have done part of that job on my userpage, but when I do that, what happens? Does a bot or someone put those edits under my name or does it just sit on my userpage for the foreseeable future so editors can look at my contributions as an IP address? Roads4117 (talk) 09:03, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hiello Roads4117. I don't see that on your user page, just this: "I started editing Wikipedia on 24 August 2021 under an IP address, although I started contributing more to Wikipedia from December 2021 onwards. On the 20 June 2022, I made my Wikipedia account", with nothing to say what IP address. Anyway, nothing will automatically happen. The edits will still be attributed in Wikipedia's database to the IP address, you'll just be allowing anyone interested in your edit history to look at those edits. Maproom (talk) 10:01, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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.
Thanks for catching another false citation on ABL Group draft!
I feel a bit silly because I reviewed that highly promotional draft with a fine-toothed comb, but somehow missed checking the very first source. Trying to AGF, I can only assume the editor working on the draft somehow mixed up the citations as they added them in, because they all seem to be titled wrong and attached to statements they don't support.
From my initial search, I don't think the article will survive anyways due to notability, but I find copyediting and source-checking strangely soothing even if it might get deleted. Seeing users with an impressive track record like your own makes me want to strive more though, I'm planning to try to start contributing to more new content and get hands-on with citing references, which has unnecessarily intimidated me for awhile, lol. Thanks for all your contributions to en.wiki, you're an inspiration! 🙌 Chiselinccc (talk) 08:50, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Theroadislong (talk) 18:26, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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:
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 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.
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:
I believe my edit was a clear improvement. It does not change the intended sense of the sentence, it just makes it clearer. I don't understand Scrambled Jag's reason for reverting it (and I see he has been blocked by Firefangledfeathers and his contribution deleted). Maproom (talk) 16:40, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No one reverted your edit (which as of now is the most recent edit to that article.) The point is that a different version should be restored; the reasons were articulated in the now-deleted talk-page comment. When that version is restored, your edit will need to be reintegrated, but that will be easy. The reverts in question have nothing to do with actual content, so don't be afraid to restore the superior version. 182.160.124.214 (talk) 18:04, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
hiya. im bird244. a few months back you contacted me about making some maps i could use for articles. how should we proceed? Bird244 (talk) 20:14, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
RFA2024 update: phase I concluded, phase II begins
Hi there! Phase I of the Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review has concluded, with several impactful changes gaining community consensus and proceeding to various stages of implementation. Some proposals will be implemented in full outright; others will be discussed at phase II before being implemented; and still others will proceed on a trial basis before being brought to phase II. The following proposals have gained consensus:
hi you recently edited a page I created. Could you please take another look at it and share your opinion? I would appreciate any feedback you have. thank you Privetjournalist (talk) 22:25, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The "Classical" section says that he "was chosen", and "They selected him". Who were "they"? What did they select him for?
After the opening section, the article should refer to him as "Rahal" throughout, not as "Moslem Rahal".
"Concert performances in Italy, Germany, Turkey, Syria, Lebanon, and Algeria under the conduction of Maestro Missak Baghboudarian (2002-2021) like the Ney concerto, Song from al furat- by shafi badereddine, The ecstasy of victory- Abdel Salam Safar and more" has several flaws. "like" and "and more" suggest that you're not quite sure about your facts, like a schoolchild writing an essay; it's better just to write "incuded". Names of works should be italicised: The ecstasy of victory. "Conduction" is a word, but refers to the flow of heat or electricity; you mean "conductorship". (You could also write "under the baton of", or "with Baghboudarian as conductor".)
Instead of writing "Maestro Missak Baghboudarian (2002-2021)", it's better to use a piped wikilink Baghboudarian, omitting the word "Maestro", his forename, and his data of birth. Any reader who wants to know more about Baghboudarian can follow the wikilink.
Thank you so much for your assistance. i will take your input and fix it As a relatively new contributor to Wikipedia, creating this article took a considerable amount of time and effort. I aimed to ensure it met all guidelines, so discovering it did not make the cut was quite disappointing. Thank you again for your help. You are welcome to check on the article anytime, and I would appreciate your feedback. Privetjournalist (talk) 08:16, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have made corrections to the page and would appreciate it if you could review it again to confirm if it now meets the appropriate standards. If possible, could you also check the template and see if I have made the correct changes for it to be removed? If so, could you remove it since you clearly know your way around? I am hesitant to remove the template myself as I want to ensure I am following all guidelines properly and not solely focusing on the content. Thank you for your assistance. Privetjournalist (talk) 09:32, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've had another quick look (I'm quite busy this morning). Here's some more things:
The "Teaching and Research" section has boldface marks around the section headers. Those should be removed.
That section should be written in sentences, not as a list.
In that section, "Beirut" should be capitalised.
In the "Projects" section, It's not clear which of the boldface items are meant to be section headers.
In that section, "soloist" has two "o"s.
In that section, you describe Jordi Savall as "famous". Don't do that, it's promotional. There's a wikilink to an article about him, let readers judge for themselves. If you sprinkle the text with "famous", "maestro", and similar words, it will give a bad impression to reviewers.
In that section, you use seven references to support an uncontroversial statement which isn't even about the subject. That looks bad, it suggests that you are desperate for acceptable references.
A reviewer of your draft will be concerned mainly with whether the references establish that the subject is notable. References are assessed on quality (independent, and with extensive discussion of the subject), not on quantity. When they find that the first two English-language sources are both to the same content, which only has a passing mention of Rahal, they may give up, leave your draft in the waiting list, and find a better use for their time, rather than checking the other 97. Maproom (talk) 10:22, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have made changes based on your inputs and referenced many sources that Wikipedia considers reliable, such as BBC News (both the English and Arabic versions in different contexts), Proceso (a famous Mexican newspaper), The New Criterion, The Sonar (a Catalan newspaper), and many national Syrian newspapers. I understand that Wikipedia does not consider the Syrian papers reliable, but for Middle Eastern people, these sources are generally trusted when it comes to art articles.You were a great help for me, and I would appreciate it if you could check my work one last time and consider removing the template if it meets the guidelines.(if you have the time of course)
one last thing and sorry that i took this much of your time, could you let me know when the review process ends and what types of users are considered reviewers? Will the article appear on the main page, or have I just wasted my time? Privetjournalist (talk) 13:21, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot read Arabic, and know little about music. My own judgment is that Rahal is probably notable; but I have seen no evidence of that in the form of reliable indepedent published sources with in-depth discussion of him in a language I can read (English, with difficulty French). I am not a reviewer. Some editors have been accepted as reviewers, they don't need to be admins to qualify as reviewers. Once you submit the draft for review, there are four possibilities:
It will be rejected, meaning that in the opinion of the reviewer the subject is definitely not notable. In this case, that is most unlikely.
It will be declined, meaning that in the opinion of the reviewer the subject has not been shown to be notable, but this may be possible with further work.
It will be accepted,and the reviewer will move it to article space.
It will stay in the waiting list for months, because no reviewer is willing to take the time to assess it fully. In my opinion this is likely. The first six English-language sources cited do nothing to help establish notability. I have no reason to think that the Arabic-language sources are better. If I were a reviewer I would certainly not look any further, I'd just leave it in the waiting list and find something else to review.
If I had the task of getting this draft accepted, I'd go through the sources, starting with the English-language ones as this is English-language Wikipedia, until I'd found three or four reliable independent sources with in-depth discussion of Rahal. Then I'd rewrite the draft from the beginning, basing it entirely on what they say. It would be a much shorter article, and much easier to review. Once it was accepted, it would be possible to add more material. Maproom (talk) 16:25, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings from afar. Thanks for your thanks re donations elsewhere - I was hoping that at least one other person held the same views, and it turned out to be you – ahead of several others. :) >MinorProphet (talk) 00:05, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comment on my draft. I am just getting back to you. The topic of my draft article is all three: Mary Rutan Hospital, Health Center, and Foundation. The three branch organizations are known under the umbrella heading of Mary Rutan Health. Is this concept admissable in Wikipedia articles? How would you handle it? Thank you. Stella Worth (talk) 19:50, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Stella Worth, I've moved your question to its chronological place, at the bottom of my talk page.
Every Wikipedia article should have a topic, or subject, that it's about. If each of those three topics is notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article, then you should write a separate article about each of them. If you acknowledge that none of them is notable enough, you should do nothing. If only the health centre is notable, then you should wite an article about that, and not about the other two. If more than one of them is notable, the articles about them can link to one another; but their notability will be judged seperately. Maproom (talk) 23:21, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message
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.
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Farnborough Hall, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page St Botolph's Church.
Thank you for helping me out in the teahouse! I wanted to leave this perspective just in case it is a useful lens for talking with other newcomers like me, no need to respond unless you want to. I really appreciate your taking the time to look into the notability of my page since you were putting time in to help me out, but unfortunately that is not how I felt when I read your comment in the teahouse. Instead, when I read it, it felt dismissive and condescending because you started the comment by disregarding my questions and pointing out where you thought I was incorrect, then answering another question. As a sidenote, in this case the other answer felt more frustrating to me because I had already put in a lot of time myself answering that question via wikipedia policy pages, so I didn't need it answered. I'm sure this impact wasn't your intention, and the general tone of your comment was friendly which was lovely! I'm sure that newcomers often don't know the right question to ask or are missing a ton of context on wikipedia policies, so there's a lot of judgment calls to make when helping them. I also appreciate that you left room for discussion in your comment and didn't leave a final word on the article's notability.
The only reason I'm writing here is that I really appreciate the work you're doing and I think a slightly different phrasing could hopefully feel more friendly to newcomers in the future and not add too much time for you. One thing that might've been helpful would be to change how your comment began, rather than dismissing my questions from the start. Another thing would've been to throw me a bone with a pointer or two on my actual question before answering a different question, like explaining or linking to how article talk pages work like another commenter did. A last thing to look for might be that you aren't skipping any key info points in my question before disputing what I've said: in this case, I'd started off with her awards in the sentence about notability but you did not address this in your response. I think any of that would've felt friendlier even if you'd disagreed with my premise coming into the teahouse; I think it's just extra helpful to be nice and supportive in the teahouse when someone is entering there already feeling deflated because other editors have told them they've made mistakes. Hobbitina (talk) 23:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
