Welcome to my talk page! I'm in a pretty busy time of my life right now, so if you’re a newcomer with a question about editing, you can try the Teahouse for a faster answer.
I archive my talk page pretty regularly, so if you're wondering where a recent conversation went, check the links in the archive box.
Feel free to drop me a message and I'll get back to ya when I can! :)
Hello again, NoBrainFound! The short definition of reliable sources is sources that are independent, published, and have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. So an article should be based on sources that are generally considered to be correct (e.g. an article about a biology process based on a biology textbook). The longer definition can be found at reliable sources, and I'd highly recommend reading at least the Reputable section there. However, if you're looking for how to cite sources, Referencing for beginners should give you a good overview. Let me know if you have any more questions! Happy editing, Perfect4th (talk) 00:35, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, NoBrainFound! That reference (source) is definitely more on track, but I'm not sure which article you're talking about that has barely any info. If you're referring to Network, that is because it is a disambiguation page – that word could refer to multiple different topics, so the disambiguation page's job is to briefly describe and link the different topics so that they're easier to find. Looks like you're referring to the linked topic Computer network – is that the article you looked at? You could see if there is a place on that article where the information in your reference would be useful. Happy editing, Perfect4th (talk) 21:16, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No need for an apology! Articles aren't owned by anyone anyway – we all work on many different articles here, and just because someone created an article doesn't mean that they take control of it or even have to watch it very closely (though many do). The important thing is to pay attention to feedback and try to listen and learn. Many new editors feel like the best way to contribute to Wikipedia is to create a new article, but that's not the only way or even the best way to start.
I always feel like another editor, Bonadea, said it best in a Teahouse conversation here: ...It is a little unfortunate that many newly-registered editors seem to believe that the best and only way to contribute to Wikipedia is to add new articles. It's unfortunate for two reasons. First, there are many other editing activities that are as important as (or more important than) creating new articles: for instance adding information to existing articles, updating references, fixing errors, adding links between Wikipedia articles, removing inappropriate text or sources, etc. Many of these things are a bit tricky, and it can be easy to get them wrong by (for instance) adding a source link to a website that is deprecated or adding too many Wikipedia links. But that's usually okay! Every single experienced editor has made a bunch of mistakes along the way (and I suspect all of us still make bloopers from time to time), and very few mistakes are truly egregious. Second, creating a new article is pretty much the hardest thing to do for a new editor – mainly because it involves all the tricky stuff such as evaluating notability, writing neutrally, using sources responsibly, picking the right sources, formatting the references, including a reasonable amount of detail in the text, etc. Once you have made a couple of thousand edits, most of those things will be much easier. And there will still be no shortage of notable topics to write about! :-)...
If you'd like help figuring out what to edit about, you can let me know what kinds of things you're interested in and we can try to find something you'd like to edit. Just respond here or on your talk page! Happy editing, Perfect4th (talk) 21:42, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, NoBrainFound! Which talk page are you watning me to check? I can't find an article or draft article about Protoverse. I did see the conversation at the reference desk (permalink), but that conversation doesn't seem to refer to that subject.
When you are referring to a page on Wikipedia, whether it be an article or a talk page or a project page, you can link it by surrounding the page title with [[]], just like in your drafts and normal articles. You can link to, for instance, the Teahouse like this: [[Wikipedia:Teahouse]]. So you can link the talk page you'd like me to check by surrounding it with square brackets, and then it'll be easier for me to know where to check and help you out :) Happy editing, Perfect4th (talk) 04:07, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question from Fahadotaibi (00:49, 5 November 2024)
Hi, I was working tirelessly to added citations and reliable sources for Shaqra University page, all credible sources, but someone who wasn't happy about giving a balanced view of reality deleted all my content. If Wikipedia agrees with this manipulation of content, I will stop editing for Wiki. Wiki now is a PR content only it seems. Thanks. --Fahadotaibi (talk) 00:49, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Fahadotaibi! Let's break this down a bit. You added information to Shaqra University across several days regarding various controversies, correct? Another new editor then removed a portion of the material you added. It's always best to assume good faith about other editors' reasons, as there can be several reasons for an editor removing content like that. One of them is that the editor felt that undue weight was given to claims that had less total significance for the overall subject than the amount of space devoted to them in the article implied. Another is that the editor doesn't wish the information to appear there, which could be because they don't like it or because they have a different point of view on the material than you do, or any number of other reasons or variations on those reasons.
So what do you do about it? Here on Wikipedia there's a cycle that editors use for content disputes called Be Bold, Revert, Discuss. If you make an edit, and another editor removes/reverts part of it, the next step is to discuss it. Usually, the best place for that is the talk page of the article – in this case, Talk:Shaqra University. I'd suggest making a new section there and explaining your edits to the article and politely inviting the other editor to discuss with you. (This works best if you listen to their position as well as explain yours, and make your original post without making them feel attacked.)
Once that conversation is had, there can be several outcomes – hopefully, you can reach a consensus on article content and edit accordingly. You could also run into an issue such as no response, in which case you could then determine the best course of action, or still not have consensus, in which case there are other avenues you can try to better reach consensus and get the eyes of other editors on the article. But you won't be able to reach consensus or determine any other outcome until you start the conversation, and a talk page discussion is the first step for any resolution.
I'm not saying you're wrong, or that the information shouldn't be in the article, but Wikipedia is made up of all kinds of editors with all kinds of points of view, and the content is made better when we can work together through those differences.
Thank you. Unfortunately, I dont have time for this. I have added sections with credible sources and they were all deleted. We can't work against paid PR firms. I will quit editing Wikipedia pages from today. Thanks! Fahadotaibi (talk) 03:14, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have started a talk page, but this editor deleted all my edits and the editors before me calling our edits "anarchy" and that we are trying to have "free speech". Is wikipedia a PR page only? Any negative stories with credible sources and citations are deleted because they are "allegations" and "controversies"? If so, I will quit. Senior editors needs to look into this ASAP. Many thanks Fahadotaibi (talk) 19:05, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Every time I make edits, this other editor would delete them along with a controversy section that someone else has added in 2020. Should I quit editing for Wiki now? Will someone with a revert power take a look? Thank you. Fahadotaibi (talk) 02:21, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Fahadotaibi! Apologies for the unfortunate delay – real-life stuff got in the way and I didn't have the time to devote to this as it deserves. I was going to warn you about the three-revert rule but I see I was too late this time. Basically, in order to avoid endless back-and-forth content addition and removal, there's a pretty hardline rule on Wikipedia that you cannot revert more than three times on one page. Good news is that it's not hard to come back from or avoid getting blocked for it again – the block expires automatically 24 hours from when it was placed (and has already at the time of writing), and you just need to follow the rules at the three-revert rule I linked to earlier to not get blocked. More importantly, though, revert-warring back and forth is not going to improve the article. Currently, the history is full of two editors disagreeing without reaching consensus, and that's never good.
I've read over the talk page discussion. Now, a disclaimer: I cannot read Arabic and don't have the time to do the extra research myself to evaluate source reliability. (A partial side note: it's good for new editors to practice – if you wish to and you're familiar with templates, check out {{Source assess table}} and look at the table titled "Source assessment table: prepared by User:Example". Try it with each source to see how you can quantify them in each category – especially independent and reliable. See if they have, for instance, a page describing how they handle fact-checking. Yes, this can take some time when you're unpracticed, but it is certainly helpful; just start with one and see how it goes.) I appreciate that Arbitorya mentioned one wording compromise that both incorporated your sources and was mindful of sticking to what the source itself says, as best as I can read that discussion. Did you have a concern about that specific solution? I hope that question doesn't come across as accusatory – I'm genuinely unsure what your concern is and I'm trying to understand so that I can help you better. That can give us a starting point to keep going.
And yes, I should warn you that conflicts where you are invested like this can take time. I'm willing to try and help you out with understanding how to handle it according to the Wikipedia rules if you're wanting to, but if you want to be the most successful, you'll have to put some time into it and also be willing to listen and compromise (and so will whoever you're in conversation with, but that part is not in your control). If you don't have time to invest in this right now, probably the best thing to do is to say so and walk away for now. Wikipedia welcomes your contributions, but when there's conflict you have to have conversations to solve it and if you don't have time you won't be able to be an effective editor in that area of conflict.
I really appreciate you taking the time to respond and look into the matter. The other editor told me point black that they have a vested interest in creating a PR page on Wikipedia and it looks like they have hired a professional copy editor, too. This is why they deleted the controversy section and everything else.
The funny thing is that I was asked to donate to Wikimedia as I was trying to access the page, but I find it so hard to donate when Wikipedia has turned into a PR marketing pages for organisations.
"Regular" editors shouldnt have the power to delete whole sections without a valid reason. I am quiting this because I dont have time for editing wars and wikipedia doesnt value my research and contributions honestly. I have spent hours researching, locating sources and writing, but all my contributions got deleted. Fahadotaibi (talk) 07:11, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fahadotaibi, were you referring to this comment as the vested interest in creating a PR page on Wikipedia? I only just found that diff – it's also in a language I don't speak, so I needed some Google Translate for it. I hadn't previously seen anything blatant enough for me to be certain as I haven't notified many editors of that yet, but Wikipedia does have specific guidelines for editors who have a conflict of interest. It appears the other editor has hardly edited since their 3RR block, but if they return I may leave them a notice about conflict of interest editing.
(As for donating, I suppose the distinction doesn't matter to just about anyone other than editors, but the majority of people you interact with here are volunteers who don't care about the fundraising. That's Wikimedia/WMF business, not editor business.)
You are correct that removal of content without any reason is not allowed, but when there is disagreement it is usually best discussed on the talk page to come to a consensus. If you are interested in pursuing the conversation further, you could look into a third opinion to get someone else's voice in the matter. Regardless of whether or not you want to keep working on the issue, I thank you for putting time into Wikipedia and I wish you well. Let me know if you have any other questions, and happy editing, Perfect4th (talk) 20:22, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Pefect4th. I really appreciate your feedback. The other editor is now back deleting my contributions and those before me. What course of action I should do now? Thanks. Fahadotaibi (talk) 11:09, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again, Fahadotaibi! First off, I would advise that you completely stop editing the article itself. Almost the entirety of the last 100 revisions are reversions back and forth between you and one other editor, which is most definitely an edit war even if it isn't a 3RR one. Talk on the talk page by all means to try to reach consensus, but don't edit the article directly, even if it's left as the version you wouldn't prefer.
As to the dispute itself, one thing you could do is get input on the reliability of the sources supporting the claims at the reliable sources noticeboard. Try to succinctly list some claims and the sources that back them up and ask for input. You can also take a look at a third opinion option as I mentioned above. I don't have a further opinion on or time to thoroughly investigate the dispute, but either one would be better than edit warring. Also, for fairness & neutrality's sake: if you do have connections to the subject, please keep in mind the conflict of interest editing guideline as it's very hard to edit neutrally in that case.
Hi, NoBrainFound! Looks like there's no article about the subject on Wikipedia so far, which is a start. Your next step should be to prove notability, shown by demonstrating that there is significant coverage of the subject itself in multiple reliable sources. (If you're unsure whether a source fits that bill, feel free to link it here or ask at the Teahouse for more info about that.) If the subject is notable, then you can keep improving the article and eventually submit it to the mainspace. Let me know if you have any questions, & happy editing, Perfect4th (talk) 05:24, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'd want to switch mentors to someone with experience writing and editing battle and war-related Wikipedia pages. I'm especially interested about the best ways to write and organize a Wikipedia article about a historical war or military engagement. Would you kindly pair me with a mentor with experience in military history?
Hello, HerakliosJulianus, and welcome! I'm afraid I'm not aware of a specific mentor with an interest in that area, although it's quite possible there is one. However, Wikipedians in general like grouping themselves together based on interests, and you're in luck – there is a Wiki[pedia]Project called WikiProject Military history (MILHIST for short) that you may be interested in. The main page lists some info and resource links, but you see the talk page to ask for help there.
Many WikiProjects are inactive, but I believe MILHIST is one of the most active and should have plenty of contributors who can help you out with any specific questions. I'll add my usual note for new editors: keep in mind creating an article here can be pretty tricky as a newcomer so you may want to edit a bit in existing articles to get a feel for policies here, but once you're familiar there should be plenty of folks in that project knowledgeable enough to help you out.
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.
Hello, HimakA380! The pictures help page explains how to add an image to an article. If you want to add an image that's not yet on Wikimedia Commons (a sister website hosting many of Wikipedia's pictures), Wikipedia:Uploading images has an explanation. You can also check out Wikipedia:Image use policy (policies about using images – copyright is important).
Hello, and welcome to the December newsletter, a quarterly digest of Guild activities since September. If you no longer want this newsletter, you can unsubscribe at any time; see below. If you'd like to be notified of upcoming drives and blitzes, and other GOCE activities, the best method is to add our announcements box to your watchlist.
Election news: The Guild's coordinators play an important role in the WikiProject, making sure nearly everything runs smoothly and on time. Editors in good standing (unblocked and without sanctions) are invited to nominate themselves or another editor to be a Guild coordinator (with their permission, of course) until 23:59 on 15 December (UTC). The voting phase begins at 00:01 on 16 December and runs until 23:59 on 31 December. Questions may be asked of candidates at any stage in the process. Elected coordinators will serve a six-month term from 1 January through 30 June.
Drive: In our September Backlog Elimination Drive, 67 editors signed up, 39 completed at least one copy edit, and between them they edited 682,696 words comprising 507 articles. Barnstars awarded are here.
Blitz: The October Copy Editing Blitz saw 16 editors sign-up, 15 of whom completed at least one copy edit. They edited 76,776 words comprising 35 articles. Barnstars awarded are here.
Drive: In our November Backlog Elimination Drive, 432,320 words in 151 articles were copy edited. Of the 54 users who signed up, 33 copy edited at least one article. Barnstars awarded are posted here.
Blitz: The December Blitz will begin at 00:00 on 15 December (UTC) and will end on 21 December at 23:59. Sign up here. Barnstars awarded will be posted here.
Progress report: As of 22:12, 7 December 2024 (UTC), GOCE copy editors have completed 333 requests since 1 January, and the backlog of tagged articles stands at 2,401 articles.
Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators, Dhtwiki, Miniapolis, Mox Eden and Wracking.
To stop receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.
Hello everyone, and welcome to the 26th issue of the Wikipedia Scripts++ Newsletter, covering all our favorite new and updated user scripts since 1 August 2024. At press time, over 94% of the world has legally fallen prey to the merry celebrations of "Christmas", and so shall you soon. It's been a quiet 4 months, and we hope to see you with way more new scripts next year. Happy holidays! Aaron Liu (talk) 05:06, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Got anything good? Tell us about your new, improved, old, or messed-up script here!
Featured script
Very useful for changelist patrollers, DiffUndo, by Nardog, is this edition's featured script. Taking inspiration from WP:AutoWikiBrowser's double-click-to-undo feature, it adds an undo button to every line of every diff from "show changes", optimizing partial reverts with your favorite magic spell and nearly fulfilling m:Community Wishlist/Wishes/Partial revert undo.
Miscellaneous
Doğu/Adiutor, a recent WP:Twinkle/WP:RedWarn-like userscript that follows modern WMF UI design, is now an extension. However, its sole maintainer has left the project, which still awaits WMF mw:code stewardship (among some audits) to be installed on your favorite WMF wikis.
DannyS712, our former chief editor, has ascended to MediaWiki and the greener purpley pastures of PHP with commits creating Special:NamespaceInfo and the __EXPECTUNUSEDTEMPLATE__ magic word to exclude a template from Special:UnusedTemplates! I wonder if Wikipedia has a templaters' newsletter...
BilledMammal/Move+ needs updating to order list of pages handle lists of pages to move correctly regardless of the discussion's page, so that we may avoid repeating fiasco history.
Andrybak/Unsigned helper forks Anomie/unsignedhelper to add support for binary search, automatic edit summaries after generating the {{unsigned}} template, support for {{undated}}, and support for generating while syntax highlighting is on.
Polygnotus/Move+ updates BilledMammal's classic Move+ to add automattic watchlisting of all pages—except the target page(s)—changed while processing a move.
