User talk:Michael D. Turnbull

Archives

2021, 2022, 2023, 2024, 2025

This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be auto-archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

I didn't start it, but

Reliable sources/Perennial sources is now a WP-article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:27, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. As it stands, it seems to be missing the fact that we don't consider Wikipedia reliable and that we have even higher standards for medical claims. I don't know whether these parts can be cited to RS! Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:07, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång I've just found an interesting article about the arguments around the COVID lab leak theory (at cnet) which I've used to make a brief addition about medical sources. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:56, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But does that article mention RSP at all? MEDRS =/= RSP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:09, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The cnet cite is a long article which mentions reliable sources in general and says things like One of the site's three key principles is to represent "all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.", so I think that's OK. The new article is, arguably, discussing two separate topics: reliable sources and perennial sources. The "RS" in MEDRS makes that guidance in-scope, I think and I know that it is widely quoted by editors here. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:20, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, the new article is about the WP:RSP page. See first sentence. That is what makes it a bit special, we don't usually have WP-articles about project pages. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:35, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A little discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Wikipedia_article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:40, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Now I'm confused. The bulk of the article seems to be about sources (e.g. the Daily Mail) which are deemed not to be either reliable or perennial! I think I'll leave it to others to debate what should happen to the article and its title, which I see is now under discussion. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:30, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But Daily Mail is on the WP:RSP page and discussed in sources in relation to it: "The Wikipedia verdict on sources like the Daily Mail can be found by searching Wikipedia for “WP:RSP,” which leads to a list of so-called Perennial Sources. According to Wikipedia, Slate is considered generally reliable, which has us feeling chuffed. Traditional newspapers like the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and the Washington Post have also received Wikipedia’s greenlight." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:37, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To compare to something, Reliability of Wikipedia and Health information on Wikipedia also exists, but Reliable sources/Perennial sources has a narrower topic. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:42, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Off topic, you might find Is Wikipedia a cesspool of antisemitism? Don’t trust the ADL’s answer. interesting. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:45, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question from FranklinFirstUMC (22:32, 21 May 2025)

I'm just trying to create a page for a historic church --FranklinFirstUMC (talk) 22:32, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @FranklinFirstUMC. I note that your account has been blocked as it does not meet Wikipedia's naming policy. Assuming you will create an acceptable name and may come back here, the things you need to know are available at this help page. Writing articles is much more difficult than it may appear because Wikipedia insists that information is properly sourced to already-published material and has many other quirks, for example of style and wikinotability! Don't place drafts on your userpage: instead use the articles for creation process. Good luck. Mike Turnbull (talk) 07:31, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Ajaz.a1 on Kashmiris in Azad Kashmir (22:08, 23 May 2025)

The description of Azad Kashmiris not being Kashmiri and citing an distance article is pure propaganda. The people of Azad Kashmir are kashmiri. I have cited an article and can produce more evidence.

Please help me to correct this --Ajaz.a1 (talk) 22:08, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Ajaz.a1 and welcome to Wikipedia. I am not an expert on the topic you are interested in but, in general, Wikipedia articles are based on what published reliable sources have said. In particular we prefer secondary, scholarly sources. The links I have provided give more detail. Your edit here is the very first you have made with this account, so you may not be familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidlines. You should raise any concern at Talk:Kashmiris in Azad Kashmir, giving the citation to the article(s) that support your interpretation and trying to come to a consensus with other editors what should appear in the main text. It isn't helpful to call something "pure propaganda". As editors, it is our task to describe in a neutral way any opposing views. Mike Turnbull (talk) 09:59, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question from OwlbearCamus (03:56, 27 May 2025)

Hello Mentor,

I wanted to update the RCN River-class destroyer article, and possibly restructure it.

I want to update it because one of the sources cited has a newer version (costs are cited based on a 2021 report when there is a 2022 report). How would I go about updating this, would I replace the citation, or just keep it in place while updating the link and the information in the article? Also in this vein I noticed that the source cited has their years based on the Canadian government's fiscal year, but fiscal year was not mentioned in the infobox (unlike in the Arleigh-Burke article) or Wikipedia article at large. Would it be correct to have the "Built range" infobox entry have FY before the year and hyperlink to the Canadian part of the Fiscal Year article?

I guess more ambitiously I would like to shift the style of the page to be more inline with other pages of modern ships, here I specifically refer to the Arleigh Burke-class page. But more specifically I mean to focus the introductory paragraphs to focus on summarizing rather than detailing. This would mean creating a new heading, something along the lines of the Development heading in the Arleigh Burke page, to put the current intro paragraphs. Maybe add a section on the Rolls-Royce Multimission bay based on a Navy Lookout article.

Sorry if this is a lot or too specific to the article, just am a bit overwhelmed and don't want to put a useless talk page topic. Also does the sandbox page have to be published? Could I work on edits to the infobox from the River-class page in my sandbox and then implement them on the actual page? I would assume not if the sandbox is actually treated like an article, which the page seems to imply, but not sure.

Thanks --OwlbearCamus (talk) 03:56, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @OwlbearCamus and welcome to Wikipedia. You have already posted your ideas at Talk:River-class_destroyer_(2030s)#Updating_Cost_Estimates, which is the right thing to do when you are unsure. 59 people are watching that article and its talk page, so I'd expect any objections within a few days. We are all encouraged to be bold in our editing, so if I were you I'd go right ahead and make the changes if no-one objects. Later, some-one may revert your edits but that's all part of the process we use when seeking consensus. (See these links.) It is perfectly fine to use your own sandbox to develop parts of articles. I do it all the time. If you "preview" your changes you actually don't need to "save/publish" them but can copy/paste out the results into the live article. However, there is no harm in saving your sandbox if you find that easier. It doesn't form part of the encyclopedia, although anyone who looks can see it, just as you can look at User:Michael D. Turnbull/sandbox and its history. Mike Turnbull (talk) 08:53, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Will do, thanks for the help! OwlbearCamus (talk) 05:02, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Article class upgrading

Mike, I think an article I've been editing (Muziris) merits a higher rating than it has now. As this kind of edit would be my first, I'd like to be a bit more sure how to do it. The article is now Start class, but I think it should be class B on the basis of what I've read about the requirements.

— The guidelines for content assessment encourage us to be bold ... but making this promotion would move the article up two levels at once. Is this okay, or should I move it up first to class C and then to B after some time?

— Whichever class change I make, I can't find the markup that I'll have to use on the article's Talk page because when I went to the Content Assessment guideline (I can't cite it directly for some reason, but here's the full link if you want to go there: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Content_assessment), I just don't see the codes.

— I went to an article that I knew was class B with the idea of cannibalizing its code, but that markup was so complex (many parts of it irrelevant to the article I wanted to use it on) that I couldn't figure out how to adapt it.

Help, please. Augnablik (talk) 18:02, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Augnablik. The shortcut I use when referring to that assessment page is WP:ASSESS, which is easy to remember. The alternative link is WP:Content assessment. Both start with WP because they are in the WP namespace. Personally I rarely bother with assessments, except when removing "stub" designations. There is a tool that some people use called WP:Rater but I just edit in source mode which makes it very simple (sorry!). So, at Talk:Muziris the top of the source code starts with various templates. The code at present begins {{Talk header}}{{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start|1= and all you need to do is edit the "Start" say "B" and save/publish. Like everything else in editing, you boldly make the change and see if anyone objects (v. unlikely). Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:46, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

.... incidentally, what's going on at Muziris#Location? There are a bunch of superscripted numbers that are not citations, although maybe someone thought they were. Looks like WP:Citation overkill even if that was the idea. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:07, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really glad you picked up on that! I sort of half-noticed that some of those quasi-citations didn't look right but let it go, probably thinking I wasn't seeing them right. But I should have addressed the clear citation overkill.What I can do about that is post a notice about the need for this to be fixed. Want to join the Guild? 🙂 Augnablik (talk) 13:00, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. I prefer to do my WikiGnoming elsewhere. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:07, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm being mentored by a gnome???!!! Augnablik (talk) 15:26, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. See some of the things listed at Wikipedia:WikiGnome#Common behaviors and e.g. some of my IMDb edits. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:08, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've actually run into another gnome, just didn't realize that you were one. Delighted to find out. That perhaps explains occasional lurks in unexpected parts of Wikidom.

Couldn't get your link to your IMDb edits to work ... Augnablik (talk) 16:31, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The link will work but is expensive on server time, so you may have to wait for a minute or so to get the hits. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:43, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Finally got the link to your IMDb edits to work. Definitely a delayed experience. But in order to see which specific edits you made on any of the articles listed there, I think it would require one more step: going to the article's History page.

It turned out to be a very helpful though serendipitous lesson because by going to your edits, I finally (1) learned what IMDb meant and (2) saw where the format came from for two articles on programs in a TV series that I just copy edited, which I really wanted to understand.

Additionally, I saw that it's possible to find edits done by any editor on any particular topic, though that hadn't been something I wanted to learn how to do because I even hadn't known about the feature.

So this time that you taught me something I wanted to learn, you did it without being aware of my questions! That's quite an impressive skill for a mentor ... Augnablik (talk) 16:51, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Telepathy! Note that the search was for specific text in my edit summary, not edits on a specific topic. When WikiGnoming like that I use a very limited type of summary (containing the "imdb" string in that case) so that it's easy to find these edits. There is no need for you to look more closely at them: they are explained on my userpage, together with the search I use to find articles needing that tweakment. See also WP:IMDB for why we don't consider that a reliable source and also the article IMDb about the website itself. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:18, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Worked perfectly. Thanks! I think it's only fair to make the little effort to raise the class because the article is listed as belonging to quite a few categories and I'm sure the related project teams or interest groups will be pleased.

As for your apology about the need to use Source code—no doubt made with tongue in cheek as you typed—I'm getting used to it enough not to squawk every time I have to use it. Augnablik (talk) 12:47, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Major screw-up with my User page

This IS one of the times I am squawking about using the Source editor. I have really screwed up the userboxes when I tried to add a new one, Nick Moyes' delightful box about promising to adhere to "old-fashioned Wikipedia values." I had the new box in place, but then I tried to put the topmost typewritten declaration into a plain box that I'd cannibalized and copied from elsewhere. I'm still not confident about how to transfer those typewritten declarations into boxes, but thought today I'd finally venture out and try. And now everything is way off.

Could you give me the code to make the three boxes line up vertically and also reposition the first typewritten declaration (about being a Washington, DC, native) go back where it's supposed to be? Augnablik (talk) 07:06, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Augnablik This is an issue that comes up frequently at the Teahouse. The trick is to place the template {{Userboxtop}} above the first userbox and after placing them in sequence, finish off with the template {{Userboxbottom}}. I've done that edit on your userpage a moment ago. You can readily move the whole set elsewhere on your userpage if you don't like them where they currently are and add new userboxes anywhere within the top to bottom list. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:49, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What you did looks much better but the boxes aren't one on top of each other and the first typewritten declaration isn't positioned correctly. Augnablik (talk) 15:34, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On my userpage I prefer to have the Babel box separate from the other boxes but I've now edited your page to place them consecutively. If you look at the diff for my edit, you'll see how that was easy to do. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:43, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

🙈 I was referring just to the three userboxes not involved in the Babel box grouping as not being on top of each other as I'd hoped for. When you did your repair work in reply to my SOS, those three userboxes were strung out horizontally rather than aligned vertically—and some of the words in the first declaration appeared to the right of the third one..

The three userboxes would have stayed on the left side of the page. Sorry for any confusion. Augnablik (talk) 06:04, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've tweaked them again today. The template {{Userboxtop}} defaults to putting the boxes on the right but has an "align" parameter to place them on the left if preferred. See that link for all the options. I've separated out the Babel box. I suggest you experiment with further tweaks of you don't like the current version. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:55, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Mike. That took care of the "major screw-up." I've got to learn how to create userboxes for the typewritten declarations soon to tighten up the page, but at least the boxes are no longer a visual nightmare.

I hope you won't mind if I piggyback two other User page questions onto this one, which I was reminded of just now when I went back to that page:

1- I'd like to indent from the righthand margin my reply at the top of the page to the barnstar TheWikiToby gave me. My reply is now in smaller font and indented from the left—much better visually—but I don't know how to indent from the other side.

2- I'd like to put the GOCE barnstar somewhere else, and add three more that just came because they'd take up too much room on this page that could be used for things I'd rather have there. I know how to create additional sandbox pages: would this be the best way to do it, with a link from my User page? Come to think of it, I could move the Thanks Received userbox onto that separate page too. That would put all of "that sort of thing" in the same place but somewhere else—except I'd leave TheWikiToby's barnstar because that one is special.

Augnablik (talk) 06:29, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When you say "indent from the righthand margin", what is really needed is for the block of text in question to be centred between the two margins. This could be done in various ways but in articles the usual template to use is {{blockquote}}. You just have to surround the text with that template and decide whether you want the text the usual size or, as you have it currently, with the <small> tags around it. You can play with various placement of other items, using the "preview" function to check how they look when experimenting. Mike Turnbull (talk) 08:50, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's perfect! Somehow it never crossed my mind to do a blockquote. (Still curious, though, if there is there a way to indent from the right margin.) 🚛 And about somewhere else to put barnstars and the thank-you template? Augnablik (talk) 10:10, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't used many ways to indent from the right margin but the template {{Quote box}} is very versatile, as you'll see from that linked page. As to where to put barnstars, etc. you have already made some suggestions: it is up to you. Personally, I leave them on my talkpage, where people put them originally, and let them archive. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:15, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mike, I like your idea of just letting barnstars "stay put" rather than prominently displaying them, though I sort of took for granted that was expected. What you're doing with yours is no doubt the sort of thing a humble gnome would do. You've inspired me. I think I'll follow suit, but leave that special first barnstar on my User page as a keepsake. Augnablik (talk) 16:07, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Saishirolepatil on Matías Ramón Mella (17:05, 5 June 2025)

शिरोळे घराणे - परिचय

शिरोळे घराणे हे महाराष्ट्रातील एक जुने आणि प्रतिष्ठित कुलपरिवार आहे. यांची उत्पत्ती प्रामुख्याने पुणे, कोकण आणि मराठवाडा (नांदेड भाग) या प्रदेशांत आढळते. शिरोळे घराण्याला पारंपरिक मराठी समाजात विशेष महत्त्व आहे, आणि त्यांचे वंशज विविध सामाजिक, धार्मिक आणि सांस्कृतिक क्षेत्रांमध्ये सक्रिय आहेत.

इतिहास आणि वंश

शिरोळे घराण्याचा मूळ ठिकाण म्हणजे शिरोळा नावाचे गाव, जे पुणे किंवा कोकण परिसरात असल्याचे मानले जाते.

हे घराणे प्रामुख्याने ब्राह्मण किंवा क्षत्रिय वंशीय असू शकते, ज्यांचे सामाजिक स्थान पारंपरिकदृष्ट्या उच्च आहे.

शिरोळे वंशजांनी विविध काळांत धार्मिक विधी, संस्कृतीचा प्रचार, आणि स्थानिक प्रशासनात महत्त्वाची भूमिका बजावली आहे. --Saishirolepatil (talk) 17:05, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Saishirolepatil This is the English Wikipedia and I don't understand your question, even after looking at a machine translation. Perhaps you should ask it in the version of Wikipedia which uses your native language: that may be here. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:28, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Ariisilmedia (08:52, 7 June 2025)

Hi, how do I know what to change and what not to? Can I add links and images. --Ariisilmedia (talk) 08:52, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Ariisilmedia and welcome to Wikipedia! You have asked a very broad question that is difficult to answer without more context. Basically, editors are encouraged to be bold, making whatever additions or changes they judge to improve the encyclopedia. If someone else disagrees with your edit, they may revert it. Then you should discuss it with them on the talk page of the article where the change was made. There are a few pitfalls you should be aware of. First, don't add links to very obvious target pages: there is no need to link the U.S. everywhere you see it. Think whether the link will help the reader understand the topic better, e.g. if the link is to a technical word that many readers would not know or to an article giving more detail. For images the main issue is copyright. You can't just insert some random picture you found on the Internet. We store images on Wikimedia Commons and you may be able to find a good image there. Or you can upload to Commons pictures you have taken with your own camera: say of an interesting landmark near where you live. Details of the technicalities at Help:Pictures. By all means ask further questions here in this thread once you have more experience. The Teahouse is another good place to ask questions or see what other new editors are asking about. Good luck. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:06, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Lasetunde (18:52, 10 June 2025)

Hello, I have only one chance to be kicked out of wikipedia, please. Advice me what to do. I am stranded and scared now! --Lasetunde (talk) 18:52, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Lasetunde Wikipedia is a large and complex environment in which to edit and you need to take time to learn about its policies and guidelines. When you add spammy links to external websites, for example, you are bound to attract attention and comment from experienced editors. Initially, we give some freedom for newcomers to learn from their mistakes but do expect these mistakes not to be repeated. Likewise, if you are indeed being paid to edit here, as you stated on your Userpage until you removed that part then you can hardly expect help from the majority of other editors who are contributing on a purely voluntary basis. My advice, therefore, is to proceed with care. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:20, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mike I really appreciate your thoughtful advice.

I will keep learning more about Wikipedia policies, and code of conducts. Lasetunde (talk) 14:53, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Mabassteven (16:18, 12 June 2025)

Hello. How do I publish an article? --Mabassteven (talk) 16:18, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Mabassteven and welcome to Wikipedia. My advice to new editors is to work on the seven million or so existing articles first, so you can learn about the policies and guidelines. Writing articles from scratch is a tricky task owing to the need to show that the topic you write about is notable in the quirky way that Wikipedia defines that word. There is more advice at Help:Your first article, when you feel more confident. Note that it is especially difficult to write about topics where you have a conflict of interest. Good luck! Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:19, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question from P vs NP; headblown (19:33, 13 June 2025)

I have a question about those little flags that usually are under the citizenship section in tables inside articles. The Russian article for the International Labour Organization currently has a table that doesn't have those, as contrasted by the English article for the same organization. How do I add those flags so that the table may be more comfortable for readers? --P vs NP; headblown (talk) 19:33, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to add: I have already written in the talk page on the Russian article for the International Labour Organization about this as well. P vs NP; headblown (talk) 20:03, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @P vs NP; headblown. On the English-language Wikipedia these little flags are added by using the template {{flagicon}}. If you click on that link, you'll see the instructions. I don't know anything about the Russian-language version of Wikipedia and each version runs as an independent project. Writing templates is a specialist area although I'm sure there are contributors there who could assist. Actually, I'd be surprised if someone hadn't already made the equivalent template in Russian, as it is heavily used here. You could ask at the Russian equivalent of the WP:Help desk, which should be here. . Mike Turnbull (talk) 08:31, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for linking the template. I put the same one in the article and it worked. P vs NP; headblown (talk) 15:41, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Naeemur rahman durjoy (06:30, 15 June 2025)

Could you please tell me how can I add pictures in wikipedia --Naeemur rahman durjoy (talk) 06:30, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Naeemur rahman durjoy and welcome to WIkipedia. There are full instructions at Help:Pictures. The images themselves are stored in a separate area of Wikipedia called Wikimedia Commons so that they can be used across all language versions of Wikipedia. The main mistake that beginners make is that you can't use some random image you find on the Internet and place it into an article. Most images are subject to copyright and must be suitably licensed under what are called creative commons licenses. Hence you can upload pictures you took with your own camera but not ones belonging to someone else unless they have explicitly given their permission to Wikimedia (see c:Commons:Email_templates and the help there). Mike Turnbull (talk) 09:45, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

E-mail gremlins

Mike ... twice over the past day, I've tried to send you something by e-mail as usual, but unsuccessfully. I received a notification from your server that the delivery failed because the [IP address] was found on industry IP blocklists, and that to protect their customers, they use leading industry providers of blacklists to ensure that only good senders can send email to them. They added that if I believe this is a mistake, I should contact the recipient directly as there is nothing the postmaster at your end could be able to do.

Each time this happened, the notification didn't come to me for quite a while after I sent you the message.

As I've somehow ended up as other than a "good sender" to your server, I just tried another strategy by using another e-account in which you'll recognize my name as the sender. But because the IP rather than the e-mail provider seems to be the problem, I don't know if that will work. Would you let me know if you receive it?

I can't imagine what's going on. Augnablik (talk) 09:36, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks Augnablik, I got the email and attachment from your gmail account. I haven't had time yet to read it and look at the pictures but I will enjoy that. It is indeed Father's Day here in the UK. Mike Turnbull (talk) 09:47, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's good news. It means the problem IS my e-mail account. I was concerned that the delivery issue was related to my IP address itself, because of the notification your server sent. 🤗

Augnablik (talk) 10:04, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly my 1,000th "how-to" question for you ...

I want to add a notable alumna of Catholic University of America (CUA) to the article of the same name, in the Notable alumni and faculty section. This alumna had an illustrious career as an opera singer, and Wikipedia has an article on her, Harolyn Blackwell. There's a photo of Harolyn in the article on her that I'd like to use in the article on CUA, but I haven't succeeded in making it happen.

The Source editor in the article about Harolyn gives this as the image markup: [ [ I m a g e : B l a c k w e l l K C . j p g | t h u m b | 2 5 0 p x ] ] (I stretched the letters because I couldn't get the file name to just show as markup but not display the photo, even though I tried several recommend ed ways to get it not to display).

Although that markup doesn't look like the markup for any other image I've seen so far in working with Wikipedia images and markup, that's what I copied and placed in the Notable alumni and faculty section of the CUA article, right after Charlene Barshefsky. What do I need to do to insert that image?

I'll later add as a caption the short description from the Wiki article on her, "American opera singer and actress," from the short description in her article. By the way, as she was a major star with rave reviews of almost every performance she gave, is it permissible to add an adjective such as famed preceding American? Augnablik (talk) 10:24, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are on the right lines but need to look at the source code for the gallery at the notable alumni page. You'll be adding Blackwell alphabetically immediately below Barshefsky, whose entry in the gallery looks like this:

File:Charlene Barshefsky official portrait.jpg|[[Charlene Barshefsky]], J.D. 1975, former U.S. Trade Representative ambassador under [[Bill Clinton]].

That tells you that you'll need to use the markup

File:Blackwell KC.jpg|[[Harolyn Blackwell]], American opera singer and actress

I've tested that and it works. Note 1) you had a blank missing in the filename 2) The gallery works slightly differently than an image box, so no "thumb" parameter or fixed pixel size (the latter is bad practice: it should use the "upright parameter": see Help:Pictures) 3) You could say "famed" but the standard Wikipedia adjective is "notable" and this is indeed a list of notable alumni so that would be unnecessary tautology. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:37, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Believe it or not, I was already working in the Source editor, Mike. In fact, that's all I used for this task. Please don't faint. 😅.

And that is why, after seeing how all the other notable alumni photos were named, I was surprised that the photo in the article on Harolyn—who I refer to familiarly in this message because I knew her somewhat, though not as a friend—literally appears as [ [ I m a g e : B l a c k w e l l K C . j p g | t h u m b | 2 5 0 p x ] ]. I just copied that, omitting a caption that wouldn't have worked for the CUA article. But if it worked in her article, what I still don't understand is why wouldn't it also work in the CUA article? Not a hugely important question, though, just curious.

I see your point about saying famed. Augnablik (talk) 14:01, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's all explained at Help:Pictures. The Blackwell article uses what the help page calls "thumbnails", hence the |thumb parameter, whereas the notable alumni page uses a special {{Gallery}} template that has all sorts of possible fancy tweaks, as you'll see if you click on the link to the template page. There is a third common method used in {{Infobox person}}, which the Blackwell article might benefit from to summarise her career (see infobox at Kiri Te Kanawa for an example). Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:19, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What a wonderful idea, to add an infobox to Harolyn's article! I will gladly take that on. Thank you for that idea, and also for sending me over to the article on Kiri Te Kanawa, one of my favorite singers. Plus the Help:Pictures link.

It will be an honor to add the infobox to Harolyn's article. I was sure that with that beautiful voice she was destined to someday reach the stratosphere when I first heard her sing in a church youth production, but I could never have predicted how far up there she'd go.

By the way, looking at your markup on the photo that I tried to send earlier, I see now what I didn't do right. I had the <nowiki> markup, but I didn't know that < c o d e >< / c o d e > was also required along with that. So once again you inadvertently taught me something else. Augnablik (talk) 10:33, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) @Augnablik: When giving examples of markup, the important tags are <nowiki>...</nowiki> (see Help:Nowiki) - the <code>...</code> tags are optional. There are a number of typing aids available - here I have used Template:Tag. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:22, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Redrose64, thank you for the helpful tag resource. I actually do understand about using codes in pairs, but in my message to Mike when I wrote "I had the <nowiki> markup," I did so because when I tried to produce <nowiki>...</nowiki> on the screen, I couldn't. By showing only a single <nowiki>, at least I could get across what I was referring to, even though it wasn't shown correctly as paired coding.

I'd still not know how to make an example of markup until I noticed in your message to me that you'd done the very thing I'd been agonizing over. When I went to the Source editor to see how you succeeded, I got the answer I wish I'd had when I was trying to figure out how to convey what I wanted to tell Mike. So you've also inadvertently taught me exactly what I wanted to know.Augnablik (talk) 19:00, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mike ... revisiting your suggestion of an infobox for Harolyn's existing article, I have a related question.

I created the infobox, but I'd really like to change her photo that was in the article in that same area. If I contacted her at her website and signed my request under the name she'd have known me by, would this be okay Wikipedically? We weren't friends, as I mentioned, but she'd probably remember me and that would open up something of a renewed connection.

Well, I just now thought of an alternative. Perhaps I could write her agent. This is totally new territory for me. Is there something of a template that editors can use to word this sort of request? Augnablik (talk) 06:17, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to mention that in addition to changing the photo, I also had in mind adding some new information about Harolyn as well. I'm sure that changing a photo wouldn't raise the COI question as adding new information might. Augnablik (talk) 08:29, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Augnablik Basically, no matter how you do it, the copyright holder (who may not be Harolyn unless the image is a selfie) must release the image under an acceptable Creative Commons license. There are email templates to do this at c:Commons:Email templates and that page has links to various other instructions. There is also relevant information for subjects of articles at WP:A picture of you. It is simplest if the copyright holder does the upload but it is also possible for you to do it on their behalf provided they are willing to email the volunteer response team at Commons to confirm you were acting with their knowledge and consent. See, for example, the image on my userpage (click through to Commons). Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:13, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Mike, I remember about the need for some work on my part at Commons. Since you picked up only on that, rather than my other question, would I be correct to interpret that to mean you don't think it would matter who I contact because COI with Harolyn won't likely turn into an issue by reconnecting, and that if I did contact the agent there's no recommended protocol to use in making such requests for a Wikipedia article and it's largely up to each editor as to what to say? Augnablik (talk) 12:17, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. There's no COI involved in contacting people to ask them to provide pictures. In theory, there's a possible COI if you later incorporate them into articles but I don't think anyone is going to object to that. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:37, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Of course COI wouldn't come up with the agent — who I hadn't even thought about at first but just Harolyn, and began to realize that if we reconnected, THAT might move in the direction of COI. (Remember RK?)

Okay, ready to move forward. Thanks. Augnablik (talk) 14:50, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Shihab8k (01:16, 18 June 2025)

YouTube --Shihab8k (talk) 01:17, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Shihab8k and welcome to Wikipedia. Do you have a question for me? We have an article on YouTube and a lot of discussion of whether it is a useful source for information (see WP:RSYT). It can sometimes be used as an external link at the end of articles (see WP:YOUTUBE). Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:53, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Starlitee (21:51, 22 June 2025)

Hi Michael, thanks for being my mentor lol fwiw. I’d like to find out how facts are verified before being edited. --Starlitee (talk) 21:51, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Starlitee and welcome to Wikipedia. Simple facts don't need to be verified, so I can say that the sky is blue on a clear sunny day! However, by policy, all statements made in Wikipedia articles must be capable of being verified in the source cited with a reference. The encyclopedia does not allow original research, so we editors can't say stuff we believe to be true from our experience: we must back everything up from already-published sources. I hope that makes sense. Mike Turnbull (talk) 09:06, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Gergess91 on Nokia 2720 Flip (14:58, 26 June 2025)

امتلك هاتف نوكيا 2720 لا يوجد واي فاي يدعم شريحتين 4g لايدعم انترنت او تحميل برامج والعاب لماذا --Gergess91 (talk) 14:58, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gergess91 This is the English Wikipedia. Please ask any questions in English as I don't understand the language you have used. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:21, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Liz MacLeod (17:26, 26 June 2025)

I was hoping to correct the relatives on Barbara Leigh-Hunts page. There is an error. Thanks --Liz MacLeod (talk) 17:26, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Liz MacLeod and welcome to Wikipedia. This looks to be a little tricky to fix. I assume from your talk page that you know that Ronald Leigh-Hunt was Barbara's uncle, not her cousin as it states on both their biographies. These statements use an obituary of Ronald in The Stage to source that information. As often happens in Wikipedia, the link currently in the articles has suffered from link rot and doesn't now click through to a working web page. That part is easily fixed using the Internet Archive, where I can find a working link to the original publication. Unfortunately, this shows that the obituary does indeed say His cousin is the actress Barbara Leigh-Hunt, wife of the actor Richard Pasco. Now we can see the real problem. By policy, Wikipedia relies on what can be verified in externally published sources, not what is the "truth"! So to fix the relationship we need either 1) a later publication from The Stage where they correct their error or 2) a different already-published source which gives the correct information. Can you supply either? If you can do that here, I can easily update the two articles, or you could. What we can't do is rely on your personal knowledge, as that is what Wikipedia calls original research, which is forbidden. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:50, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

... I've repaired the links to The Stage obituary. Unfortunately, another reference used in Ronald's article, from the BFI, repeats the wrong relationship, presumably because they relied on that obituary. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:12, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have found out I am wrong with regard to Ronald being Barbara’s uncle. He was her cousin. My apologies there. Research has shown me otherwise. However I am correct in regards to her surviving cousins - Wendy Martland nee Jones and Elizabeth Macleod nee Jones. Our cousin Ian I have no knowledge as to whether he is alive. Apologies with regard to error re Ronald. Please forgive me with regards to that. 2A00:23C5:6C23:6501:A8DE:B149:8AEA:CFC9 (talk) 13:41, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz MacLeod Please remember to log in before replying, or your edits will be associated with your IP address, not your account. In order to preserve the privacy of people such as children and relatives of those who have Wikipedia articles, names are not included unless the individual mentioned themselves have an article here, so other cousins would not be included in Barbara's biography. However, while we are on that topic, you could improve Wikipedia's coverage of Barbara by uploading a photograph of her for inclusion. It would need to be one you took with your own camera or was taken by someone (e.g. your parent) where you have inherited the copyright. Copyright is complicated, so please don't suggest an image where you are unsure of the legal position. Finally, if you have access to other sources (e.g. old newspaper clippings) with detail that would enhance either Ronald or Barbara's articles, please mention them and I'll advise about their use. Ronald's article in particular is lacking reliable sources. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:10, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Raj3456 (04:42, 28 June 2025)

Hello how to make your own wikipedia --Raj3456 (talk) 04:42, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Raj3456 No-one has their "own Wikipedia". Some people like Rakesh Pandey have articles written by editors here that are biographies, not autobiographies. Wikipedia is not social media and articles are not owned by their subjects, or, indeed, anyone else. I don't understand your edit here where you added (in Hindi) text referring to the book Gandhi and Hindi by Pandey. What were you trying to do? Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:46, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question from OneTalk7 (02:16, 1 July 2025)

I am a newbie and I want to write about a Lecturer, how do I do that? --OneTalk7 (talk) 02:16, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @OneTalk7 and welcome to Wikipedia. Writing articles from scratch is one of the toughest things to do here, since there a lot of pitfalls. One concept that newcomers have to learn about is that only what are called "notable" topics merit articles. For academics such as lecturers, the criteria are listed at this link. Assuming the person is still living there are additional firm rules. As a newcomer, you can't create articles directly but have to use a special process including a review. Much more detail at Help:Your first article, with additional advice in this essay. If all this sounds as if I'm trying to put you off diving in to create a biography, then that is correct: contributing to Wikipedia by improving the 7 million articles we already have is my recommended way to start. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:25, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse

Hi Mike, I noticed some disruptive users in the teahouse are getting the wrong responses because the users answering haven't checked their edit history.

I'm talking out of school here of course, but did think it was appropriate to bring up otherwise. 58.105.142.70 (talk) 16:02, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These three users

58.105.142.70 (talk) 16:09, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The system seems to be working. #1 got an appropriate response at the Teahouse, #2 was dealt with at ANI and I've just now admonished #3 at the Teahouse. Personally, I try to assume good faith when responding on help pages and almost never look at past contributions unless I'm very suspicious because of the nature of the question. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:06, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was something I noticed, and thought could be an issue, but I wasn't sure who or how to ask if it was even an issue to begin with.

Why I noticed in the first place is that I've been following along the Q and A's to learn how things work before I start making edits.

I just wanted to get a reality check from someone who helps a lot in teahouse and was active at the time, not because it was a rush but that it have been even weirder to ask someone who wasn't online. And it would have been wrong to ask in the teahouse itself like I'm Mr talkhouse police.

Hope that makes sense, sorry for the hassle.

58.105.142.70 (talk) 01:30, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! The Teahouse is indeed a good place to watch and learn. If you intend to stay long-term. I'd definitely recommend creating an account. It is actually more anonymous and prevents your edits getting muddled up if your IP address changes. Mike Turnbull (talk) 08:36, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Wikiblackbird48 (23:26, 3 July 2025)

Can I copy and paste an article in wikipedia to another site --Wikiblackbird48 (talk) 23:26, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikiblackbird48 Yes, that is allowed provided you mention where you got the information from. That's part of how Wikipedia is licensed. See WP:REUSE for details. Mike Turnbull (talk) 08:38, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Helping Hand Barnstar

		The Helping Hand Barnstar
		Thank you, User:Michael_D._Turnbull, for your generous and thoughtful support at the Teahouse regarding my draft on Fernando Casasempere. Your patience, clarity, and effort in locating relevant sources and explaining Commons policy were tremendously helpful. You made a daunting process much more manageable for someone still learning the ropes. I’m grateful for your time.Issac I Navarro (talk) 03:40, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse BS

Check teahouse, he has now created account and posting some BS, i think a block is needed. Sys64wiki (talk) 12:45, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sys64wiki I don't know who you are talking about: I post a lot at the Teahouse! Note that I'm not an admin and can't block anyone, although I do sometimes warn people that their behaviour may lead to them being blocked. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:41, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

sorry for being ambiguous, its irrelevant now though but there was a user which was being creative. Kangarooblock 16:47, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

COI author vs. COI editor role question

Is there more leeway for someone with COI to author an article as contrasted with edit an article? I got wondering about this when I noticed a recent Teahouse discussion ("Episcopal Church trial lawyer") in which a respected editor replied to the poster that it was okay to create an article as long as COI is declared. Although he went on to give the standard cautions, it seemed to me he was giving the poster a much more open door to authoring with COI than I would have anticipated.

If this is true, I can think of a few article topics I might go ahead and author despite COI that I'd sort of put to one side. Augnablik (talk) 06:59, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Augnablik Yes, this is perfectly acceptable provided the articles for creation process is used (i.e. the draft is reviewed by an experienced editor before being moved from draft space to mainspace). See the AfC link for details. Even paid editors are allowed to create drafts at AfC. Paid editors must declare their employer, whereas those with a COI just have to say that, although it helps if they also say why they believe they have a COI. Once the draft has been accepted, then paid/COI editors are supposed to use its talk page to propose further edits, so if you decide to go ahead an create such a draft, it will be easiest if you make it as comprehensive as possible before you submit it for review, as your later edits will be more of a hassle. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:27, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is encouraging news, Mike. But when you say that for COI editors in this scenario "it helps if they also say why they believe they have a COI," I have to ask — on a practical level — what is it about going into the specifics of the declared COI that's likely to make the reviewing editor feel more favorable toward the article? Augnablik (talk) 14:07, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it will alter the view of the reviewing editor but it might assist them understanding the sort of error that the person with the COI has made. I was involved with an article: see Talk:Derek Pratt (watchmaker)#Use of AI? where a relative of the article subject had added unsourced information that had led an experienced editor to think this was "hallucination" from using a chatbot. It wasn't, it was just the sort of error made by a beginner who knew more about the subject than they could back up with published sources. I'm not saying it is mandatory to disclose the relationship but for people attempting autobiography it is often obvious anyway and being upfront about it helps establish trust. In some cases, someone may think they have a COI when in fact no reasonable person would say that the relationship matters (e.g. is now a long-past connection). The term "COI" is very broad so if you can narrow it down that will help. More at WP:EXTERNALREL. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:27, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. 🤗 Augnablik (talk) 17:21, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question from T24boo (16:52, 9 July 2025)

How do I fix a copy edit I made using visual editor that resulted in nowiki tags? Do I just do a second edit using source edit and delete the tags with an edit summary such as removed unnecessary nowiki tags to restore formatting? --T24boo 16:52, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@T24boo I guess you are referring to this edit. The problem arose, I think because you wanted to use standard quote marks " but these got confused with two consecutive ' marks, which the Wikimedia software interprets as the start/end of italic text. So, yes, I suggest you just go back into the article in source code editing and delete what isn't needed, after ensuring you have replaced the double ' with single " where needed. Make sure you preview the result before saving, so you are getting what you want. An edit summary like you mention here will be fine. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:01, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question from MichalisXanthopoulos (07:10, 15 July 2025)

I noticed there is an article I'd like to edit, only it is semi-protected. I'd like to include an image at some point in the article-no major additions. How do I register my account? --MichalisXanthopoulos (talk) 07:10, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @MichalisXanthopoulos and welcome to Wikipedia. If the article is only WP:SEMI-protected, your account will be able to edit it in a couple of days. there is usually no hurry to edit here! However, if you are determined to make the edit suggestion now, you should be able to do that immediately on the Talk page of the article. Be specific in the change you want to make, so other editors are clear about what you want to do. If you WP:WIKILINK the article here in this thread, I can give more advice and maybe make the change for you. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:42, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to add a file of the mosaic of Saint Augustine from the Cappella Palatina in Palermo to his article (Cappella Palatina (Palermo) 16 07 2019 14.jpg) probably around citation 90. I'll suggest on the site page also I suppose. MichalisXanthopoulos (talk) 02:40, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MichalisXanthopoulos Adding that file to Augustine of Hippo seems perfectly reasonable to me and you can also add some text to confirm it is in the Cappella Palatina, using a suitable cited source. You will become autoconfirmed tomorrow or Friday, so I'd be inclined to wait until then and you won't need to go through the hassle of an edit request via the talk page. Note that the article on the Saint is already quite long and other editors may object to your adding an extra image. If they object and revert your edit, that would be the time to take it up on the talk page. That's a normal Wikipedia process described here. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:10, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Ahamosugu (01:14, 17 July 2025)

Good morning, Mr. Turnbull. It's not a question, just acknowledging that I'm your mentee.

But yeah, I might as well go ahead to ask a question, can I change my username? I think I like the way you wrote yours.

I look forward to working with you. --Ahamosugu (talk) 01:14, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To change your username, read the information here. Below the important information, there will be links to venues to actually make the request. However, if you are trying to say that you want to use your real name, think carefully about the privacy implications and risk of harrassment. Best regards, QwertyForest (talk) 08:06, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Ahamosugu and welcome to WIkipedia. I think that User:QwertyForest may have misinterpreted your question. I assume you mean that you wish to create what is called a customized signature. In my case, my account is the same as my full name (Michael D. Turnbull) but I prefer to sign talk pages with what my friends would call me, which is "Mike Turnbull". To achieve that, I have tweaked Special:Preferences so that the software displays the shorter version to other users. There are some rules about how you should avoid misleading people about your account's name and also ensure that your signature includes a link to your talk page (see WP:Signature tutorial). Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:19, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

I have thanked you as a test. It works. Thanks for letting me know. Rafael! (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 18:49, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Aineamani Boaz (06:45, 18 July 2025)

Hello and help to create my own Wikipedia page --Aineamani Boaz (talk) 06:45, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Aineamani Boaz and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to have started a page at User:Aineamani Boaz/Sample page, which is an obvious attempt at autobiography. In that sense you have "created your own Wikipedia page" but it will never be accepted as an article in the main encyclopedia. That's because it A) has no sources (see policy on biographies of living people) and B) does not demonstrate that you are "notable" in the quirky way that Wikipedia demands. Please read all these linked pages to understand the problem. There are about 7 billion people on the planet and most, myself included, are not "notable" and don't merit an article. You will have a very frustrating time if you persist in trying to promote yourself on this website. The good news is that you can contribute by adding to existing articles on topics that interest you and, once you know your way around, perhaps write about a new topic. Wikipedia editors are each given their own User Page where they can tell the editing community a little about their intentions as an editor here, as described at this help page. These user pages are not, however, indexed by search engines. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:37, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Pekiwi (14:40, 18 July 2025)

Hallo can I help your question! --Pekiwi (talk) 14:40, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Pekiwi and welcome to Wikipedia. I have been assigned as your mentor and I am happy to answer your questions. First, you will have to tell me what you want help with! Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:49, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Saywhatfoo (06:00, 19 July 2025)

Hello Micheal... Hope you are well. I wanted to have some guidance on contributing a new Wiki page. My boss wanted me to add his bio and information. What would be the easiest way to go about this. I am a bit confused with the navigation of this platform. What ever insight you can provide me that would be so helpful.

-Shar --Saywhatfoo (talk) 06:00, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Saywhatfoo and welcome to Wikipedia. You have been given a task by your boss that is nearly impossible for a newcomer. Please read WP:BOSS and show it to him. Also relevant are the page which warns of why having an article may be a bad idea and the policy regarding biographies of living people, where the main constraint is revealed to be that a biography needs impeccable published sources that show how your boss is notable in the quirky way that Wikipedia defines that word. If after reading all this information you are still determined to try to create a draft (and I hope you aren't), then come back here and I'll explain the next steps. Mike Turnbull (talk) 08:51, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes... Well what would be the best ethical way for my boss to have a page created for himself. He is a notable writer / show runner for TV, who has had numerous article and interviews done on him. I have already created a draft of his page in the sandbox, and have included citations and links. 2603:8000:DCF0:1FE0:55C:EE6A:3AF3:3FEB (talk) 00:32, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Saywhatfoo Please log in before editing or your contributions will be held against an IP address, not your account. The crucial word here is "notable", which in Wikipedia has a specific meaning which for your boss is probably WP:Notability (people)#Creative professionals. Read that carefully in combination with this policy. Now, your draft includes Sanjay Shah was born in San Jose, CA. He graduated from the University of California, Berkeley where he was a competitive boxer. Prior to his career in entertainment, Shah worked as a legislative aide in the California State Capitol, as a stock broker on the Pacific Stock Exchange, and volunteered as a writing tutor at San Quentin State Prison. None of that is cited to a source, so how is a reader supposed to verify that as accurate? Do you see the problem? You are writing the draft backwards: that is, you are writing it from what you know or have been told and then trying to find published sources to back things up. The correct way to write articles is exactly the opposite: find the sources and base the draft solely on what they say. More problems: 1) to demonstrate notability you need independent sources, so publications based mainly on interviews are no use! 2) IMDb is not considered a reliable source, as it is user-generated, although it is allowed as an external link using the template {{IMDb name}}. Also, please make the paid editing disclosure on your own user page (currently a redlink) as well as on the draft.

As you will now realise, you are running into a world of problems. That's fine if your boss is prepared to pay you to try to get through them but beware that my patience may run thin since I am not being paid. Like most editors here, I'm giving up my spare time. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:01, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestions Mike, I went ahead and added the citations to prove the facts in question. Will likely continue to add in the coming days. Appreciate you taking the time. Saywhatfoo (talk) 04:58, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Wrozan917 (16:20, 19 July 2025)

Under COMPRESSED AIR ENERGY STORAGE

Provide a Formula to calculate the Energy in Joules and L-atm stored in a cylinder IF the cylinder exploded. Here: 100.00atm, 10 Liters, air is 1.4 Cp/Ch So I think Work= Pexternal *dV where dV=Vfinal -Vinitial. PiVi=Pf*Vf, then 100*10/1 = Vf = 1,000 Liters W = 100atm * (1000-1) = 100atm * 99L = 9,900L-atm 9,900 x 101.325 J/L-atm = 1,003,118 Joules. I think this is Correct. Thanks, Wayne --Wrozan917 (talk) 16:20, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Wayne and welcome to Wikipedia. Is this a homework question you are trying to get me to check? I don't see that exact calculation within compressed-air energy storage and my ability to do physics exams has never been great! On the other hand, that article could do with extra citations, so if you can find any relevant reliable sources, please add them. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:30, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

About small settlements

I've been thinking about an approach to small settlements that doesn't involve re-litigating NGEOLAND: User:DandelionAndBurdock/Settlement Threshold. I'd be curious to hear your thoughts. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 15:00, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DandelionAndBurdock That's an interesting essay and if you make a shortcut to it I'll start quoting it! The key part is, I think, also the wording at WP:NPLACE, namely is "typically presumed to be notable". I want to interpret that not as a "free pass" to notability but, as your essay makes clear, a presumption that something factual and well-sourced can be said about the place. If you like, it is saying you have to combine the fact of existence (e.g. a map reference) with a single additional source meeting WP:42. A bit like our WP:THREE guideline but instead what would be WP:ONE! There was an even more extreme discussion yesterday at WP:Help desk#Requesting review of recent edits on Kullikare. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:30, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've created a shortcut WP:SETTLETHRESH. I was thinking SETTTRESH but three T's in a row just looks off. Hopefully it proves useful. (feel free to make tweaks). -- D'n'B-📞 -- 14:55, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DandelionAndBurdock I thought of both WP:ONE and WP:HAMLET but I guess these might cause a stir! Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:04, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question from WikiMe220 (16:03, 22 July 2025)

Hi Michael,

I hope you're doing well.

I recently created a page for the company I work for and did my best to follow all the appropriate steps. I’ve been using the Talk page to suggest edits and also posted on the Teahouse yesterday, as the page seemed to be stuck in review for quite some time without moving forward.

Unfortunately, it’s now been nominated for deletion. I’d really appreciate your guidance on how I might prevent this from happening—either now or in the future. I’m committed to following Wikipedia’s guidelines and would be grateful for any advice you can offer.

Thanks so much. --WikiMe220 (talk) 16:03, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiMe220 I've taken a look at WP:Articles for deletion/Corix and your prior Teahouse thread. The AfD process will take its usual course, whereby after about a week an uninvolved admin will decide which editors' views are most convincing according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. My own opinion is that the article only demonstrates a company doing what all companies do and nothing that would meet our notability requirements. There may be other sources somewhere with significant coverage but it is up to you to find them. You can add them to the article while the discussion is taking place. I've already told another editor in a similar position to you today that the easiest way for companies to get articles here is to do something controversial or make a mistake that is widely reported, which is probably not what you want to hear! More at this essay, which points out some of the pitfalls of having a Wikipedia article. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:15, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Michael, I really appreciate the explanation and resources. I have made a request to reconsider the deletion on the discussion page, and proposed another new draft with a decent amount of sources, I also included this on the talk page as well with hopes this could be reversed. I hope this will qualify as notable by Wikipedia's standards. Can I ask what your thoughts are on this new version proposed? WikiMe220 (talk) 22:41, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiMe220 The AfD process does not work by the consideration of a "new draft". As I said in my previous response, you may edit the current article to include new sources and text, pointing out that you have done so on the deletion discussion. Your use of LLM to create content is doing you no favours. When I discovered that the awards section was backed up by a citation which didn't even include the word "Corix", I concluded that the current article should be deleted. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:23, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question from TheKoolAidManw (01:25, 23 July 2025)

How can I write an article about myself --TheKoolAidManw (talk) 01:25, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TheKoolAidManw: In short, you don't. See Wikipedia:Autobiography. (sorry for the intrusion Michael) --Hammersoft (talk) 01:40, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TheKoolAidManw As Hammersoft said, that's a really bad idea because Wikipedia is not a social media site and you are, like me and most of the 7 billion people on the planet, unlikely to be notable as defined by Wikipedia. There are also several disadvantages to having an article here and anything you write has to be backed up by reliable already-published sources. Do these exist for you? Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:07, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"You've got mail!"

A heads-up, Mike.

But also a new question: what is your take on a desirable number of photos or other graphics in an article? Would it depend mainly on the notability of the subject of the article, or on the length of the text in the article? Augnablik (talk) 17:15, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, got that today: may take a while to reply. As to images, there's a bit of policy at WP:IMGCONTENT but I think the "right" answer will be "it depends". Articles going through the formal GA or FA process can have lengthy discussions on their talk pages about this. Also, bear in mind that there is often a link to Commons at the foot of articles, where dozens of related images may be stored. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:22, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Ed_Gold#Wikipediocracy

Perhaps you'll find it interesting. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:22, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It inspired me to read through User talk:EddieLeVisco/Archive 1. I won't mention to him that that's public too. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:09, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, 2020, an interesting year. COVID, was it that sent us all mad? Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:09, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The unforgettable year we'd like to forget, someone wrote. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:14, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Denning1899 (20:42, 28 July 2025)

Someone is already deleting my edits because they say my edit was unsourced. The legislation is itself the source and that legislation has a detailed citation on the page. I have replied to the person who deleted my edit - but this is so frustrating. The speed with which the reversal occurred makes me question how much thought went into the decision to reverse it. Especially when the longer standing disclosure on the page (that either is equally OK or equally flawed) was left intact. I think the existing provision was adequately sourced because it was a description of the legislation (which is a very legitimate source) and I think my addition was equally adequately sourced. --Denning1899 (talk) 20:42, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Denning1899 I note that after you posted this on my talk page you have had a fairly extensive discussion with the other editor on your own talk page. That is the correct way to proceed, although it is usually better to have article-specific discussions on the talk page of the article in question so that other page watchers will see it and can chip in to help form a WP:CONSENSUS. As it happens, Dominion Lands Act has <30 watchers, so you may need to use Wikipedia's various forms of WP:Dispute resolution. bear in mind that it is usually fun to find another editor who is as interested in a topic as you are and you need to assume good faith, which in this context means focusing on the content of their edits and yours and never on their motivations or conduct. Wikipedia is built on the bold, revert, discuss cycle and what you have run into is absolutely standard practice. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:46, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Otterman574 (05:53, 29 July 2025)

Otterman574's mentor Liu1126 is away.

Hello Liu! I’ve tried multiple times to add additional reporting about a media incident involving a politician—MP Nahanni Fontaine of the Manitoba Legislature—and I’ve been very particular about my writing, following Wikipedia’s style and providing a citation from a reliable media outlet. However, time after time, I get the same error message from Wikipedia in red text that reads, “Unable to determine wiki text upload result.” I couldn’t find anything online about that error message. I’ve tried (instead of copy-pasting from a note) typing everything into the Editor, including doing the code for the citation by hand, and even that didn’t help. Do you have any idea what might be causing this? Thank you. --Otterman574 (talk) 05:53, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Otterman574. I see that you used the mobile app to edit Nahanni Fontaine and have been successful at that on several occasions. I don't know anything about the quirks of the app but could suggest you try a browser to view and edit the site instead. If that doesn't work for that particular edit, then you will have to seek technical help at the specialist helpdesk WP:VPT. Give a full description of the device and software you have used and the error message(s) you see. Good luck! Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:33, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mike, thanks for your reply and suggestion. I'll give it a shot, and if that doesn't work out, I'll do as recommended and contact the tech squad. Cheers. Otterman574 (talk) 12:37, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Wikweb12 (11:29, 31 July 2025)

Hello Mentor, could you please help me with creating inline citations to meet the requirements? I believe the subject is notable, but it lacks references. Thank you. --Wikweb12 (talk) 11:29, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Wikweb12 and welcome to Wikipedia. The problem, I think, is that you have only just created a Wikipedia account and then rushed into trying to create an article on a new topic. You would do better to focus first on existing articles that interest you and add content, with references to reliable sources to build up experience of how we WP:CITE sources. For a topic like the Codex, there are two well-trodden paths to finding such sources: one is Google Scholar and the other a specialist Google search engine developed to find good sources. Here is "Lailashi Codex" - Google Scholar and here is the result for the Programmable Search Engine. Once you have read these and selected the ones you want to use, turn them into citations using a tool like Citer at toolforge. You may find an essay about how to proceed once you have sources useful, as well as our more comprehensive Help:Introduction. Good luck! Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:20, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mike, thank you very much for your kind reply. I find it very useful. With gratitude! Wikweb12 (talk) 19:44, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Tomjungle on Help:Your first article (06:11, 4 August 2025)

Hello,how can I create a citation --Tomjungle (talk) 06:11, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tomjungle Welcome to Wikipedia. Citations are used to tell our readers where you obtained the information you are adding to a Wikipedia article. There is basic help at Help:Referencing for beginners and I can give you more assistance if you tell me a bit about what sort of citation you want to create: a {{cite book}}, {{cite news}} or {{cite web}}, for example. Note that I don't recommend that a beginner to Wikipedia try to write a full article from scratch. It is much better to learn the ropes by expanding existing articles on topics that interest you. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:55, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question from PaulGum1 (08:39, 7 August 2025)

Hi Michael,

Thanks for volunteering to mentor new editors like me — I really appreciate it.

I’ve received a message from another editor suggesting that my contributions might fall under paid advocacy or conflict of interest (COI) editing. I want to make sure I fully understand what the rules are and that I’m complying with Wikipedia’s policies.

To clarify:

I am not being paid to make edits, nor am I receiving any form of compensation.

I’m working on topics I’m passionate about and trying to improve coverage on newer companies and brands that I think meet notability guidelines.

That said, I’d like to ask:

What steps should I take to ensure my edits are neutral and policy-compliant, especially if I’m writing about something I’m personally involved in or passionate about?

What is the best process to get a new article approved, especially if I’ve drafted it in my sandbox?

When (if ever) is it okay to directly create a new article, vs submitting it through Articles for Creation (AfC)?

I’m happy to make any needed disclosures or follow the proper process — just want to be sure I do everything by the book.

Thanks in advance for any guidance you can offer! --PaulGum1 (talk) 08:39, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Paul and welcome to Wikipedia. We all have conflicts of interest to a greater or lesser extent and as explained at this summary there is no shame in being passionate on topics we are interested in! However, Wikipedia is built on trust between its many editors and relies on the principle that full disclosure is the best practice. For paid editors (which can include interns and those whose editing is only something their boss has dropped hints about), then there is a mandatory disclosure that is part of the terms and conditions of using the website: see the "paid" link.

Looking at your first edits, I can see a couple of newbie errors. For example, you have marked many of them as "minor" but that has a very limited meaning described at Help:Minor edit which limits it to things like fixing typos. The idea is that other editors could not possibly object to the change you have made and don't need to check it if that's all they see on their watchlist. Secondly, almost all content you add needs to come with a citation that will allow readers to verify that what you added is based on a reliable, already-published source. So, for example, your edit to Šarūnas Birutis was not only marked "minor" but added a paragraph which was entirely uncited. That's the sort of thing that worries other editors and probably led to your being asked whether you are being paid to edit: such editors often add content not backed up by sources that are, basically, what their employer told them to add. The statements may even be accurate but that's not the point: readers need to be able to check out the details if they want to, based on the cited source.

I always advise new editors to stick to editing existing articles until they have built up some experience (see the very many examples on my talk page here). Pedantically, you only need 10 edits and an account that is more than 4 days old to be able to create in mainspace (the jargon is that you become WP:AUTOCONFIRMed) but any editor who does that is likely to come unstuck. All new pages are reviewed by the new pages patrol and won't be indexed by search engines until approved by them. The NPP can be quite harsh with poor articles and don't provide much if any feedback. They can just delete non-compliant material, for example. Hence it is much better for newbies and even experienced folk to create drafts using the WP:AfC process fully described at Help:Your first article. Such drafts are reviewed by experienced editors and are given feedback intended to be encouraging even if the draft is "declined", which means it needs more work but can be re-submitted. You can create and submit drafts from your sandbox but using the draft namespace is recommended as then your sandbox can be reserved for small part-edits and tests. You don't even need to publish/save stuff in your sandbox but can just "preview" it to see how it will look and copy/paste material out into the article or draft you are working on once it all looks good. Take a look at the pages I've linked in my reply and come back with more questions if needed. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:15, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Eccdoteudotnet (11:12, 7 August 2025)

How do I create an article? --Eccdoteudotnet (talk) 11:12, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Eccdoteudotnet and welcome to Wikipedia. There is extensive help at Help:Your first article. However, I strongly advise you not to jump straight to drafting a new article until you have built up some experience in editing existing articles on topics which interest you. There are over 7 million articles here and there must be some which you could help expand! There are a lot of policies and guidelines to become familiar with, of which the most important one is that new topics must be notable in the quirky way that Wikipedia defines that word. By all means ask me for further guidance as you develop your skills. Good luck! Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:21, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question from AvaMoolie123 (11:45, 8 August 2025)

Hi - I work for Elastic NV but have noticed several sections on the Wiki entries for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elasticsearch and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elastic_NV that are out of date or that additions could be considered. What's the best way for me to go about requesting the changes? --AvaMoolie123 (talk) 11:45, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@AvaMoolie123 Welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for mentioning your affiliation to the company, rather than just wading in to edit the article, which is what many editors with a conflict of interest do and end up in trouble! In Wikipedia terms, you are a paid editor and need to make a mandatory disclosure as described at that link. Then you can suggest edits to the article, which you should not do directly except in limited cases. Instead, post at Talk:Elasticsearch with reliable sourcing to back up the changes you want to suggest. If you use our edit request Wizard, that will alert other people who specialise in fulfilling (or not) such requests. If you get stuck, let me know and I'll try to help out. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:33, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Azerbaijan technology university (17:49, 12 August 2025)

Hello, I'd like to make pages about Azerbaijan and azeri related things. What can I do? Are there drafts that I can create? And i want to apologize if i seem unprofessional I'm just new to Wikipedia. Thanks for your time --Azerbaijan technology university (talk) 17:49, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I figured it out, don't reply. thanks Azerbaijan technology university (talk) 05:10, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Jafari Azeri Welcome to Wikipedia. I see that you have already been advised to change your username and have been successful in creating your first draft article ready for submission to review. In a moment, I'll add some links to your talk page that may be helpful as you learn how things work around here. Don't forget that one of the best ways to contribute is to add well-referenced new information to existing articles. For example, I once made major changes to the article on Naftalan oil (see its talk page) and that article and others related to it would benefit from a native speaker looking into new sources which might not be in English, which we encourage according to WP:NONENG. Good luck! Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:08, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on contribute (already up for review)

Hello Mike,

I did a lot of extra work on the page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Bloch_sphere_representation_in_mode-counting_quantum_models
Do you have time to look at it and maybe comment it?

Thanks !

Harold Foppele (talk) 17:55, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Harold Foppele. I can see that you have put a lot of time into your draft but I can only comment in general terms because I'm not a expert on this area, although I have a PhD in organic chemistry. I can suggest a few things you should do based on my experience with writing for Wikipedia in both my speciality and in topics where I can find and summarise the reliable, secondary sources which are the basis of any article here. There are, I think, two fundamental questions you need to ask yourself. 1) Are you absolutely sure that the draft doesn't contain any original research, i.e. material which is your interpretation and synthesis of the literature? Our role as editors is to follow, not lead, the consensus of experts (see WP:Expert for more on this). 2) Why are you not putting your content into the existing article on the Bloch sphere? Is it because you think that there is more kudos in creating an article than in expanding an existing article? That is a very bad reason: the good reason would be because the topic is notable in its own right and the existing article is already so large that creating subsection(s) within it is impractical. I don't see that: as I said in a previous exchange with you, the Bloch sphere article could do with some simpler explanations of the sort that would be given in the first-year of a graduate degree and which you do seem capable of writing based on your draft. By the way, we have a template {{Main}} for cases where one overview article covers a topic in brief while pointing to a more detailed article elsewhere. For an example of that, see Vitamin B12, where I wrote most of the sub-topic article on Cobalamin biosynthesis which would have swamped the main article with detail that most readers would not want.

Have you read the policy at WP:OWN? This puts in a nutshell one of the main things that has made Wikipedia a success. No-one owns an article and by writing here you have both to a) be prepared for others to amend what you write and b) give up your copyright by licensing it as CC BY SA 4.0. Please think of that as a positive: you would be surprised how much other editors can improve articles which you feel are pretty perfect as written! As to practicalities. I think that you should be seeking the advice of other members of the Physics Project or editors such as User:Roffaduft, who has contributed to the main article, to get a more specialist view than I can provide. Good luck! Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:42, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mike,

Thank you so much for the time you took to look at my work. You have no idea how it makes me feel good. Unfortunately the page is rejected again 🥲 I told User:Ldm1954 that i give up. I did spend many years in evolving the page (from c-wave.... to the last page) doing reseach and the last days making al the requested cites as you saw, it was a lot of work. As a last resort i try to contact Roffadutt, maybe that he can help me. Meanwhile, thanks for your kind words and your time! i really appriciate it. Sorry for spelliing mistakes, since i am Dutch😁

Greetings Harold Foppele (talk) 14:13, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Harold, I've edited your reply to be a bit neater. Your draft has not been rejected (which in Wikijargon means "STOP") but merely declined, which means you can address the issues and re-submit. However, you should not do that unless you can clearly show that Ldm1954's concerns are not warranted. Incidentally, I suspect that Roffaduft is also Dutch.... Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:25, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Michael D. Turnbull, thank you for this can of worms. Your suspicion is correct; I am indeed Dutch. My opinion on the matter will probably reflect this as well.

This draft, as well as @Harold Foppele contributions, contains so many red flags to the extent that it is borderline monomaniacal. None of the references/inline citations actually support any of the claims being made. The user might as well reference The Very Hungry Caterpillar at this point.

What annoys me the most is that time and time again the user has been made aware of the issues with his draft. Yet, the user completely ignores these critiques, instead clinging on to his interpretation of your (typically British ;-) ) response. I am 100% behind @Ldm1954 on this one.

This is also the reason I will not discuss the content of the draft. It will only give false hope that this draft will surmount to anything.

Kind regards, Roffaduft (talk) 07:38, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question from PrimadonnaBoi (13:56, 24 August 2025)

Hey! How can I do the tag thingy when editing. I'm going to update a page's population number since it is citing from outdated sources and there is a more recent and often cited government census that has the updated numbers. TY! --PrimadonnaBoi (talk) 13:56, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@PrimadonnaBoi Welcome to Wikipedia. If by "tag thingy" you mean how to cite sources correctly, then see Help:Referencing for beginners. As you have only made the edit here, I don't know which article you intend to work on. If you need more help, let me know, giving a link to the article. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:20, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subanon_people this is the article I wanted to work on (I already worked on it sorry). I'm 70% sure I did things the way it is supposed to I think. PrimadonnaBoi (talk) 14:29, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@PrimadonnaBoi What you wanted to do is fine. So as not to repeat multiple copies of the same source and clutter the article, we use what are called WP:Named references. I've made an update to do that so you can see what I mean. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:51, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oooh I see. Thanks for the notice for the sources! I'll do as you say so people won't have to clean up after me too much after I've updated some stats of the other pages. Thanks for the fixes for the one I did! PrimadonnaBoi (talk) 15:02, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Yosf22ww (21:55, 27 August 2025)

Hello and welcome Mr. Murshid, since Wikipedia says that I have the right to ask about anything, I am generally interested in the field of history and civilization. Recently, I wrote an edit on Wikipedia about the Mamluk state, where in the name section there were a claim that the name was the Turkish state or the Circassian state, so I submitted a semi-long edit in which I explained the confusion between the ancient Arabic language and the truth in the name, but in the end someone intervened and corrected it to its previous state. This was not because my words were wrong or that my academic and historical sources were incorrect, but because it contained a POV view and attack. But in general, if I rewrote the same articles but with a more neutral formulation, they do not have the right to edit them again unless they have a clear reason. But how do I know that Wikipedia can confirm whether my articles do not deserve editing if they are neutral and confirmed by sources, or is it unacceptable in Wikipedia’s policy to deviate from the main topic to explain something that is secondary? --Yosf22ww (talk) 21:55, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Yosf22ww and welcome to Wikipedia. (My name is Mike Turnbull, not Mr Murshid). You appear to be in danger of starting an edit war at Mamluk Sultanate because you are insisting on a particular version of the content which an experienced editor, User:R Prazeres believes is your personal commentary. If it were, that's not allowed since Wikipedia does not publish original research. The correct thing for you to do now is to discuss the issue with other editors on the talk page of the article, which I see that you have begun to do. This is standard procedure summarised at this guidance: the aim is to achieve consensus, if necessary after possible dispute resolution . I have no wish to become involved in that process but can advise you on Wikipedia's norms. One minor point I can immediately see in your text is that you use phrases like "but if we want to research the" (my emphasis). This is against Wikipedia's manual of style, which says that an article should never refer to its editors or readers using I, my, we, us, our, or similar words. I also suggest that you read the essay WP:EXPERT. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:21, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your reply and valuable information, and I offer my full apologies for mentioning your name incorrectly, Mr. Mike Turnbull. In general, I did not mean to refer to me, us, or others, to present a personal opinion. I intended to make some kind of edit so that it would appear appropriate, but I edited it immediately after I knew that this is not allowed (thanks again for this). However, I was surprised by Wikipedia's policy in judging articles in terms of content more than sources, as I thought it would be difficult to bypass my edit because I mentioned several pieces of evidence, but they were easily breached due to Wikipedia's policy, and this is what R Prazeres exploited as a weak point. I try as much as possible to apply the required policy in Wikipedia so that my edits (and my future articles) do not have any loopholes, but my question is, wouldn't the moderator then either bring stronger evidence or edit the sources and prove the opposite of what was written? Or can he simply edit? Also about me, I am a lover of history and sciences and those who delve into it and also into the deep analysis of the meanings of the Arabic language and its dimensions. For a while, I noticed the rise of large trends on the Internet, whether for nationalism or glorifying a certain entity or something like that. For example, I found Turkish nationalists claiming that the Mamluk state is attributed to them completely on an ethnic basis, and among the articles they exploit is this article. However, the misunderstanding of the word “dawla” leads to a completely different understanding of history itself. This is not limited to this only, but also to many articles that may have used Arabic terms and conditions incorrectly. That is why I came to Wikipedia because I wanted to put my mark so that the origins of Arabic words and how to use them are revived, especially in history. But regarding what happened on the discussion page with my opponent, he misunderstood me more than he tried to understand me. He said that the amendment does not say the state of the Turks or the state of the Circassians, while the amendment that he returned literally says that he means the state of the Turks. He tried to say that this has no value (he does not have (There is a problem with the amendment, but he sees it as unnecessary) but he does not realize how nationalities exploit these things, and this is what I tried to explain from the beginning. The strangest thing is that when I bring sources, I bring sources that support my theory, but despite that, they remain next to the term “Turkish State,” which weakens it more than it protects it. But it seems that I need to learn more so that I know how to use these terms. Yosf22ww (talk) 11:19, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question from JLG2029 (17:38, 31 August 2025)

Hi Mr. Turnbull! I'm new to Wikipedia, and i'm wondering how to create a wikipedia page to make one for my dad as a present. --JLG2029 (talk) 17:38, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JLG2029 I'm afraid that you are trying to do something that is among the things that Wikipedia does not allow. As you have discovered, there are strict criteria for the topics which the encyclopedia covers, summarised for individuals at this page. It is possible that your grandfather was written about in reliable sources in a way that would allow you to create an acceptable article but it is more likely that he wasn't, just as I don't have an article here and neither do most of the 8 billion other people on the planet. You will have to find an alternative outlet. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:21, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question

How exactly does Wikipedia work with the articles? What subjects can or can’t you write about? Eccdoteudotnet (talk) 19:30, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Eccdoteudotnet Welcome to Wikipedia. There is only one real constraint on subjects suitable for Wikipedia: they have to be notable in the quirky way that word is used on this website, as I already told you the last time you asked me a question. Please read the summary at that link. There are several things that Wikipedia is not suitable for and you may find yourself blocked from editing if all you contribute is the sort of stuff you have placed on your user page currently, either because it is promotional or not relevant to the purposes of the encyclopedia. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:09, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Legend7583 (13:43, 5 September 2025)

Note: Legend7583's mentor Snowmanonahoe is away.

Hi Snowmanonahoe,

I need your help ... do you know why the Andrea Dupe page is in "no index" statuts ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrea_Dup%C3%A9 <meta name="robots" content="noindex,nofollow,max-image-preview:standard"> --Legend7583 (talk) 13:43, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Legend7583 Although the article was accepted via the articles for creation process, the AfC reviewer does not have the WP:AUTOPATROLLED right, so before search engines are allowed to index it, a new page patroller has to also perform a review. The Main public logs show that no such review has yet taken place. If 90 days elapse without review, articles automatically get marked as OK to index. There has been some WP:COPYVIO with images in the article, which may be why the review has been delayed, apart from the usual NPP backlog. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:21, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your explication Legend7583 (talk) 14:40, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Fabejo (19:54, 7 September 2025)

Hello sir, I'm glad to have you as my mentor. Seeing a biography of many notable persons inspired my passion to join the global editors and article writers in wikipedia to make my contribution. You can guide and teach me simultaneously to the world of free contributors. Thank you --Fabejo (talk) 19:54, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Fabejo and welcome to Wikipedia. I'll be happy to answer any questions you have if you post them here on my talk page. You could also use the Teahouse if you want a quicker reply from experienced editors. You are correct in thinking that Wikipedia only has articles about people who are notable in the specific way that word is used here. The other relevant policy is the one about biographies of living people. Please don't try to draft an autobiography as that is likely to fail: you can put some limited description of yourself on your user page, as you have already done. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:09, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much sir@@Michael D. Turnbull,how should I start a fresh article for well known academia who had authored many publication and made a contribution to the world of science? Fabejo (talk) 11:26, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For academics, we have some special guidance about notability: see WP:NACADEMIC and notice that they only need to meet one of the criteria but must do so in a way that any draft makes clear with reliable sources. There is general advice about how to start drafting articles at Help:Your first article but unless you have prior experience with Wikipedia (e.g. because you have edited without bothering to create an account until now), I would strongly advise you to begin by contributing to existing articles so as to learn more about our policies and guidelines. Writing articles from scratch is quite difficult and we have a good essay about that. Is the academic you want to write about personally known to you? If so, there are some additional considerations regarding conflicts of interest. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:51, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know him personally but his outstanding performance when he was an undergraduate student, master degree and PhD and his current publication deserves a wikipedia page sir.

I'll be glad if you could put me through. Fabejo (talk) 12:14, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you mean by "put me through": perhaps you could explain? Please don't call me "sir" as here in England that sort of title is only used for Knights! If you mention here the name and academic affiliation of the person you intend to write about, I may be able to give further advice. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:10, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yahaya saidu

https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=rkKeSr8AAAAJ&hl=en

The above link is his research. Overall best graduating student of taraba state University jalingo. Best graduating student in msc. computer science bayero university kano. Currently PhD Student, Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS Course: information communication technology. Fabejo (talk) 13:56, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Fabejo With a H-index of only 6, I don't see how this person could meet any of the requirements of WP:NACADEMIC. We tend to say that a biography of him would be too soon to establish notability. He's not even finished his PhD and found permanent employment, yet. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:07, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He is currently a lecturer in the university.

Okay thank you very much I really appreciate. Fabejo (talk) 16:57, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reference questions

Mike ... I have a few questions about references:

— Can reference lists be annotated?

— Can COI references be placed under See also?

One last question, related to my last message elsewhere: were you able to get that screenshot? Augnablik (talk) 12:36, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Augnablik Not sure what you mean by annotated references. Maybe explanatory footnotes (separate from references) using {{efn}} are what you mean? The WP:SEEALSO section of an article is only for wikilinks to related articles but you can have a "further reading" section where you can, as far as I know, put any citation but are usually to books. I've been busy, so not yet done the screenshots but will get round to it, probably tomorrow. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:16, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, Mike, I didn't mean explanatory footnotes ... having more or less forgotten that they even exist in Wikipedia, as I'd only heard about what they were but I don't recall ever seeing any in articles I've edited. What I had in mind by a "reference list" was like a bibliography in which all the entries have a brief mention of what's important about them for readers interested to know more about the subject of the article, which is what efn's seem to also be.

You've given me a pile of homework with those efn and SEEALSO articles from just a cursory glance! Do you know of any further Wiki guidance with suggestions about which layouts might be of particular value for references in different circumstances?

As for the screenshot, very low priority. I asked only because I wasn't sure whether it might still be forthcoming. Augnablik (talk) 07:59, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For layouts in particular circumstances, I think your best bet will be to look at good and featured articles associated with Projects of relevance to the topic you are interested in, for example from the table at WP:WikiProject Biography/Arts and entertainment: most other Projects have similar tables. (Screenshots now sent.) Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:52, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for both your advice and the screenshots, Mike. If my earlier comment about your giving me a pile of homework came across as anything but a lighthearted way to send appreciation for such a large stash of information, please be assured that's how it was meant. Augnablik (talk) 00:37, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Diacetonamine

Hi Mike, i'm making a draft on Diacetonamine.

I was wondering if you can use your knowledge of chemistry to make any edits? Many thanks in advance.2.101.56.53 (talk) 06:20, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Diacetonamine

Hi IP editor. The problem is that there are always dozens of references that could be used for simple chemicals and I prefer to write about things that are clearly notable: pesticides and pharmaceutical drugs being obvious examples. I see that there are 85 citations to diacetonamine just in RSC journals (from the Chemspider entry) and the trick is to find the ones that confirm notability, preferably in secondary sources so the person who reviews your draft will find it easy to accept. You could look at its Wikidata entry for ideas: you should certainly mention its occurrence in Carteriospongia, for example. it doesn't seem to be on the REACH list of large-scale intermediares (we keep that list at User:Marbletan/REACH), which is a pity as that would be a good pointer to notability. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:05, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion of gimba kakanda's notability required by wikipedia

Good morning, I trust you are doing good? I am requesting for a suggestion of whether gimba kakanda is notable enough to have a wikipedia page.

Kakanda is a writer,journalist and public intellectual whose work span literature he gained recognition with his poetry collection "Safari pants"

He has contributed to national discourse through columns in respected outlets such as Daily Trust, Al Jazeera, and The Guardian (Nigeria). His commentary often influences public debate, particularly among Nigeria’s politically aware youth. Fabejo (talk) 06:03, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Fabejo. The first thing you need to ask yourself is "can I find reliable sources that have significant coverage about Kakanda but are independent from him?" (so not mainly based on interviews). I know little about Nigerian journalists/poets so I can't answer that question but you may be motivated to find these sources. Anything confirming that he does indeed influence public debate would be great! If you can place your three "best" sources here in the form of links or brief descriptions, I can give more advice. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:11, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Links for gimba kakanda

https://literaturevoices.com.ng/literary-fraternity-in-nigeria-today-tends-to-be-more-political-than-literary-an-interview-with-gimba-kakanda-by-hussaina-shabafu/

Interview, not independent!

https://gimbakakanda.wordpress.com

Wordpress is a generally unreliable source. See WP:RSPWORDPRESS

https://www.premiumtimesng.com/opinion/730778-shettima-at-58-a-study-in-the-art-of-salesmanship-by-gimba-kakanda.html

By him, not about him, so no use.

https://www.thecable.ng/book-hunting-with-mr-vice-president/

By him, not about him, so no use.

https://www.thecable.ng/sokotos-grant-application-template/

By him, not about him, so no use.

https://www.thecable.ng/author/gimba-kakanda/

All by him: useful only as an example of his writing.

https://www.gimba kakanda.com

His website, so clearly not independent.

These are the links. Fabejo (talk) 11:33, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I only asked for your three best about him and this set is very thin on that front. Finding good sources is, I know, tricky to do but it is vital if a Wikipedia article is going to be possible. We don't need evidence that people exist, we need evidence they are notable as required for this encyclopedia. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:54, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Mike Turnbull I'm sorry for the distraction I am just curious to start writing an article for a living person. I don't know if you could refer me to some few notable persons that were not not on Wikipedia so as I can start writing under your supervision. Thank you. Fabejo (talk) 12:08, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an expert in notable people but we have a great Project to increase the content of the encyclopedia about women, who are under-represented in biographies. Take a look at WP:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/348 for a current initiative and maybe think about female authors in your country who don't yet have articles. It is often easier to find sources for authors because newspapers and magazines review their books and give a bit of background about them. My other advice is that you can equally well contribute by adding to existing articles. Wikipedia is a work-in-progress and when you see a good source (e.g. a film review, a book review, a new review of a biotech breakthrough or whatever), you could summarise it and add the citation to the relevant article. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:04, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Word length in article leads

Mike ... in addition to the other major article you know I'm working on, I'm also doing a little copy editing for the September GOCE backlog drive. When I copy edit, I often do some actual editing in addition, if not too time-consuming; and I have a related editing question about an article I'm working on about a major celebrity:

I've tightened up the lead a bit but it's currently 439 words, which is slightly longer than the general recommendation of 400-max. But I also know the word count in a lead can vary with the article's size and complexity.

Since I can't find any supporting MOS information about suggested ratios of lead length for varying lengths of the body of an article, do you think 439 words is okay for an article of 9,400+ words? Or do you know somewhere that does give that sort of guidance? Augnablik (talk) 10:17, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The lead section should be a concise summary of the article, not a repetition of bits of the article. It should be written in a summary style. Its purpose is mainly to give an accessible overview of the whole article. It should not repeat the information in the article word for word, nor should it introduce new information: see WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. The length of the lead needs to be balanced against the length of the article. While a featured article might have a lead of between 250 and 400 words, that would be an upper limit. A Start-class article might only need a lead that is between 100 to 250 words long to summarize the article. That said, I wouldn't sweat this too much if you are following the advice I've linked. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:04, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ensuring that the lead in this article isn't a repetition of bits of the article elsewhere is my next task. I'm about to do a final check on that by using a strategy that just came to me earlier today, which I think will make the task much easier in such a long article. Which is:

— Having the same article open on the screen in two browser windows at the same time, side by side.

— Keeping the lead open in the window where I'm editing, but the rest of the article in the other window I'm checking.

Since I'm following your linked advice, it's nice to know I shouldn't "sweat this too much"! Augnablik (talk) 15:34, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Turnbull, well, even though I was delighted with my "find" yesterday of a time-saving way to do a final check on an article lead, I decided that using it would be too much time to spend on a task that requires just basic copy editing when I've already done quite a bit of quick editing as I went along — and have other pending work. I'll use the discovery for other times and instead just add the need for careful editing of the lead on a list of suggested editing tasks to go on the article's Talk page after giving the article one last look.

I'd like to share that "find," though. I'll check that it's not already somewhere in Wiki documentation — but assuming it's not, what would you recommend as the best way to take the idea forward there? Augnablik (talk) 07:55, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There must be some "how to" pages where you could add your tip, although I must say I don't immediately know of a good one. Personally, I regularly open multiple tabs for all sorts of purposes including having my cited text/source in one tab and the place I'm editing in another. Since I know you don't use the source editor very much, you might not be aware that if you edit an article like Judy Garland in that editor, you can hit the "preview" button to the right in the top row of icons (not "show preview" at the foot of your screen outside the edit window). This will split the edit window into two parts: on the left is the source editor and on the right is the rendered article which can be scrolled independently! Hence you can be looking at the full article somewhere while source editing the lead section. It helps to have a PC with a decent wide screen if you are working like that but that is indeed my setup. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:12, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know about the Source editor being on the left side of the screen and the Visual editor on the right, and I use it when inserting things like an infobox or other major template. But my "find" is a way to show the article in the Visual editor on both sides of the screen, which to me is so much easier to work with while on a task like the one I described.

I wonder if there's some sort of Wiki documentation about what might be called technological tips, in contrast to content policy and guidance. Perhaps that's where my "find" would best fit. Augnablik (talk) 14:33, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See Help:Editing and the various pages it links to. Maybe we need an "advanced editing tips" linked or included there. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:20, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a great idea. At first it seemed better if the tips would appear in a separate article and linked to because I thought of my "find" as more related to technological choices than to content about editing. But as I looked at the article more closely — especially where it gets into the important issue of how often to publish — I could see that my idea of using two Visual editor screens is just as much an editing strategy as a technological one.

Surely what I came up with is directly related to the even more basic strategy of why some editors feel more at home with the SE and others with the VE. Which is due — I believe — to personality differences that could simply boil down to left/right brain preferences.

So it would be wonderful for the Help:Editing article to include a section on the "best fit" of the SE or the VE for the bulk of our individual editing work, although of course even those of us who strongly favor the VE must use the SE for at least some of our work (even if it seems unfair that those who favor the SE don't have the same switch-hitting requirement!). Then the idea of editing on two halves of the same screen would immediately follow that discussion, both the existing way you reminded me of with (1) SE on one side, VE on the other and (2) VE on both sides.

Boxing and shading the tips could really help call the readers' attention to them, helping to set them off from all the surrounding content.

Maybe you could take all this forward, stepping away momentarily from your mushroom or whatever gnomes live under ... Augnablik (talk) 13:11, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you place your ideas on the talk page of Help:Editing if you are not confident to just place them straight into the text. It is only semi-protected and improvement is welcome. I don't use VE enough to make decent suggestions. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:18, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I seem to have misinterpreted your earlier message ("Maybe we need an 'advanced editing tips' linked or included there") a little more inclusively than you intended. Augnablik (talk) 18:33, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"We" just meant the Wikipedia editing community. For various reasons, I'm not the best person to actually create the tip section. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:10, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, yes, I got it. My miss. Happens occasionally. Meanwhile, hope things stay relatively quiet for you and your compatriots this week as you give our president another royal welcome. No one does pageantry better than you Brits! Augnablik (talk) 11:30, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question from MewXacata81 (23:46, 14 September 2025)

Greetings. Where do we post comments regarding the quality of Wikipedia's articles? --MewXacata81 (talk) 23:46, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @MewXacata81. That's rather a broad question and hence it is difficult to give a good answer. For an individual article, you can go to its talk page and suggest why you think it is good or bad and maybe even suggest ways it could be improved. It is also on talk pages that there is an article assessment, which you are allowed to modify based on your own reading of the article, up to "B" rating. The process to rate articles as good or featured is a formal one. If you want to comment on groups of articles on similar subjects, say biographies, then the best place to do so would be on one of the talk pages of a relevant project, like WP:WikiProject Biography/Politics and government. Don't forget that if you feel an article needs improvement, you can just find suitable reliable sources to cite and be bold in improving it yourself! Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:58, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Your advice is worth everything. MewXacata81 (talk) 19:42, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Nhknhisan178 on Search Engine Watch (08:30, 18 September 2025)

Food afternoon miss --Nhknhisan178 (talk) 08:30, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Nhknhisan178. This is the first and only edit you appear to have made and I don't understand what question you have for me. You will need to explain before I can respond. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:14, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Icantreadalphabetically (00:28, 29 September 2025)

Hi Mentor!

I recently stumbled upon (in my opinion) a pretty badly formatted article. I have seen that the Spanish version of this article is at least quite nicely formatted and seems to have more content. I do not speak Spanish. What is the best way to go about trying to get it translated or at least improved in a meaningful way considering most sources even in the English article are in Spanish?

Juan Pablo Pérez Alfonzo --Icantreadalphabetically (talk) 00:28, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Icantreadalphabetically! I've reformatted your URL link as a plain wikilink as that makes it easier to read. We have a template {{Expand Spanish}} which can be placed at the top of articles to suggest they might be improved from another-language Wikipedia. See for example Alfonso Leng for how that looks when in use. In this case the English article is not too bad in my opinion: I've seen much worse! One of the problems is that Spanish article uses only two sources, one being a BBC report, while ours has 15. Thus huge amounts in Spanish are completely unsourced, which we try avoid here owing to the verification policy. This means that even a good Spanish/English translator would have to seek out the original sources, which is a lot of work. I see that you have already mentioned your concerns on the article's talk page, which a good thing to do but as there are fewer than 30 editors with that page on their watchlist, I doubt that much will happen as a result. I know that's not very encouraging but Wikipedia is imperfect just because volunteers here only work on what interests them. I hope you will do the same, whether on that article or the millions of others. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:33, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Aaryabhattraman (07:35, 29 September 2025)

I know about a freedom fighter in my family. To write article. What I've to do? --Aaryabhattraman (talk) 07:35, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Aaryabhattraman Welcome to Wikipedia. My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. Additionally, you will have a conflict of interest if you are writing about a family member you know well. Please read the pages I have linked and ask any other question here in this thread if anything is unclear. If you are still determined to write about your "freedom fighter", I may be able to assist in judging whether they are likely to be notable as we use that word for Wikipedia biographies if you tell me their full name and country of origin. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:44, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

September music

story · music · places

Thinking of you on St. Michael's Day: on top of The Company of Heaven and a Bach cantata, I show a collection of DYK around people called Michael on my user page ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:22, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Help with Draft Article: Sein Lyan Tun

Dear Michael,

I have a draft article about Burmese film director Sein Lyan Tun: Draft:Sein_Lyan_Tun. My main Wikipedia account is currently blocked, and the draft was originally created by staff connected to the subject. I have prepared a neutral, fully sourced draft with inline citations. Brief summary of the draft:** - Sein Lyan Tun is a Burmese film director based in Paris. - His short films include *Everybody’s Gotta Love Sometimes* (2023) and *Late Blooming In A Lonely Summer Day* (2021), which have been selected at international film festivals. - He has directed documentaries such as *Unsilent Potato* and *For Me and Others Like Me*, winning several awards in Asia and Europe. - The draft includes early life, education, career details, filmography, and awards with references. I would greatly appreciate your guidance or help submitting it for review in the Articles for Creation (AfC) process. Please note that because the draft was created by someone connected to the subject, independent review is required. Thank you very much for your time and support. PNDec93 (talk) 12:17, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@PNDec93 I have merged your duplicate question. Assuming the "main Wikipedia account" you are referring to is User:PS Films then the block may be because that username is not permitted as it appears to be an account for multiple people associated with PS Films. Wikipedia insists that only one person have access to each account. Also, if an account is blocked you may not create another account to circumvent the block, which applies to you personally: we call such evasion attempts sockpuppetry. You must instead appeal the block using the method described at the link "appeal for your block to be lifted". As to your draft, it is currently unacceptable (aside from your block) as it violates our policy on biographies of living people, since it lacks inline citations. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:49, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Michael,

Thank you for your response earlier regarding Draft:Sein Lyan Tun. I’m writing from my new personal account, PNDec93, because my previous account (PS Films) was blocked for appearing to represent an organization. I have already submitted an unblock request and understand the username and promotion issues — that will not happen again.

I appreciate your feedback about inline citations. I have now added reliable, independent references throughout the draft and ensured that it follows the Biographies of Living Persons policy.

Here is the updated draft:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Sein_Lyan_Tun

Could you please take a quick look or let me know if I should resubmit it to Articles for Creation (AfC) for review?

Thank you very much for your time and advice.

PNDec93 (talk) 12:37, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@PNDec93 Your URL link points to the same draft as you linked originally and Draft:Sein Lyan Tun: Revision history - Wikipedia shows that was last edited on 25 May. Your present account shows edits only to user talk pages, so I can't figure out where you have saved what you say you added. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:05, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Potatus.pototus on Adams Morgan (14:26, 5 October 2025)

Hei.I'M Potatus joy J.T Saya anak Cristina leaner yg berada di Riau pekanbaruStatus surat kemerdekaan Amerika Serikat. Saya ingin pulang.saya pernah ingin di jemput Ke Dubes US di Riau pekanbaru.terhalang Jepang yg menyamar ke masyarakat. +081378750868. Tlvn my Mom.jangan tlvn Jon homo. President demokrasi. Terimakasih. Saya mau pulang --Potatus.pototus (talk) 14:26, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Potatus.pototus This is the English Wikipedia, so please communicate in English. A Google translation of what appears to be Indonesian (above) still makes no sense to me. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:21, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question from La-provence-wood on Draft:Paul Stephen Boyington (20:08, 11 October 2025)

Michael , I need some help editing a page that I put up that is my bio. I know it it’s looked negatively to a degree if you’re putting yourself up but I’ve been interviewed many times have many both awards citations and I’ve put that in I had ChatGPT put a page together, which I uploaded and I was wondering if you could go in and see what I need to fix on it if I had somebody else to do it I obviously wouldn’t be doing it myself. Let me know if you can do that thank you and the pages on my page here it says draft Paul Stephen Boyington I’m a film director and I’ve had a long career in Hollywood. --La-provence-wood (talk) 20:08, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@La-provence-wood I took a look at your draft and it has all the hallmarks of AI slop. Chatbots are hopeless at writing articles from scratch, even if they sometimes manage to clean up poor text written by humans. Basically, you have one valid reference, which correctly written using the {{cite news}} template would be Lipton, Lauren (16 July 1990). "Designer Paul Boyington: Holywood's Master Miniaturist". Los Angeles Times. p. 206 – via newspapers.com.. Note how the bot appears to have hallucinated the name of the author of that piece! This is based on an interview with you, so doesn't establish notability as required by Wikipedia, since it is not independent of you. IMDb is not a reliable source, although it may be added as an external link. There may well be other, more independent, commentaries about you in reliable newspapers but it is up to you to find them. You also need any draft to conform to the policy on biographies of living people. Even something as "simple" as your birthplace need a valid inline citation. Bottom line: autobiography is frowned upon for good reasons. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:36, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I get the problem. It's not like I don't understand it. That's why I hardly ever spend any time on this medium because I find it abstracted best I mean obviously I've worked with many well-known people and I've done some pretty well-known stuff myself all I'm trying to do is present it so it's a source it doesn't matter to me how long it is or how short it is etc. just that it's accurate. I'm sure I'm not the only one on the planet that wants to have some accurate biography on Wikipedia or any other source that's a public source just like Imdb with that you mentioned I have no control over that they write their own tracking of our credits so I'm looking just for help. I'm not looking for you know Criticism I use chat because they understand your format. I don't and I'm a screenwriter, but your format is abstract and it's not my forte. I even went to Law School recently and it's not even what we've learned in Law School about citations so you know rather than lecture me you know I'm a 72 year old man just try to help me find what's reasonable in the biography. If you need more support, I've had enough written about me over the years. I'm just trying to put something accurate in there. I see people with a lot less experience posted in your database so I'm just trying to help it I can carry a PR for him to do it or something, but I'd rather at least start with something that I believe is accurate and who's better to do it than the living person where we're writing about I mean, I appreciate the uniqueness but part of the problem is so you have nothing when if I don't write it or go out of my way to have somebody who's a fan of the site write it or created or manipulated all I'm asking for you. It says you're my mentor or you're my go to just do your thing but obviously it's your area of expertise is not mine and all I'm asking for is unbiased help I'm not trying to misrepresent anything. I'm trying to do it as accurately as you do it, but I don't have that much time. I've got many projects and I'm just trying to have something that's reasonably accurate. I mean when people write in the LA times about you, you're not writing the article they are so what's a better source than that your critical of that your critical of me your critical of all these sources so as we say in the movie business the balls in your court I'm not trying to dictate anything I just want something accurate I have done some things in my life that I think are reasonable for this kind of format. You tell me how you approach it and then help me do it is not what a mentor is for. Why are you even in on this chain if you're not there to to enlighten I've enlighten many people throughout my career that are a lot less experience because they're passionate about making movies as well. I'm obviously passionate and I've created movie studio I've created great work with people like Tim BurtonJohnny Depp, and Keith Richards and all the different credits I have and I even got going to law school the age of 67 so I'm not apprehensive on taking on challenges. I just don't understand clearly what you and your Wikipedia cohorts are looking for so help me out. That's why they referred you to me. If not, give me somebody else who is more reasonable to work with? La-provence-wood (talk) 14:13, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@La-provence-wood It's not my database and I'm older than you. Beware of scammers who will read the above and contact you suggesting they can write an acceptable article about you. They can't unless there are appropriate sources out there: which need to meet these criteria. If you have such sources, place them on the talk page of your draft and I'll take a look. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:23, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Michael so you see the problem, you don't like chat, which is the game changer in our lifetime just like computer animation was when I started working on that in Silicon Valley and did work with both the first commercial ever shot at Lucas Films and also went to Apple to help concept their rollout of the Mac office and 84 it changed the landscape of movie making so why wouldn't I use ChatGPT to write something that you guys found accurate to your format not so much creatively accurate but accurate. I didn't find anything that wrote and I'm the subject matter in accurate. I thought it was quite accurate and it got rid of a lot of other sources that I didn't have references for us. Oh, I'm trying to define is what sources since you're so critical of everything. My bio that I had an article up there for months that had many is the television Academy. It was the LA Times. It was the Seattle Times. It was Lewiston morning tribune from my hometown area and all people that have written articles. There's cinema magazines is. It was the tv show "Entertainment tonight", and all people that have written articles. There's magazines that have written articles effects has written articles on me. The defunct visual effects magazine "Cinefxs" that was published in the 80s and 90s wrote a in-depth article on the work I did on "Ed Wood". They spent several weeks on it interviewing me. Are those not legitimate sources if not who in the cinema world is where people write about what we do because it's interesting is legitimate in your mind since you're so seasoned and older give me the 411 as we say in the hip-hop culture.

Help a OG brother out. I'm sure you know what an "old G" is. I try to have fun at this point in my life and I hope you do too cause you're spending your time writing on this stuff so give legitimate critical suggestions rather than referring me to you know generic Wikipedia guidelines that doesn't help anybody.

The reason I appreciate why Wikipedia case and Point I'm currently writing a movie about the life of Paul Butterfield who is a well-known blues harmonica player in the 1960s I used Wikipedia for the basic outline of his life before I ever undertook developing my screenplay and the structure now it's been filled in from interviews throughout his life and now I've interviewed over 40 people that knew him played music with him, including his son is helping me and his widow so how else do we in the modern world not want to have as a source something that is written objectively I like Wikipedia for that, a starting place for anybody that I want to find something out about. so what would be the way to curate the many things that have been written about me and personally having a PR firm or Wikipedia experts outside source write it about it like you're concerned Which is probably very legitimate since you do this all the time. I'm just trying I am actually the person that we're trying to define from objective sources some of the things that I've worked on and created just like in the case of Paul Butterfield I am going to the actual people that knew him that lived with them that were married to him that were the children of and players, including David Sanborn six time Grammy award and other people blues musican Elvin Bishop, and all the former band members and anybody who knew him that worked professionally with him that are still alive and they've all given me their opinion and what the experience was like out of that I'm writing a screenplay and hopefully we'll shoot it as a movie so what is different other than Paul Butterfield who is Desceased about this kind of article? I'm just trying to understand What you consider an objective source like I said "Cinefx" monthly magazine which is probably the most renowned visual effects reference in the 80s and 90s when I was doing a lot of that work which is really all I am interested in having mentioned because it's notable work. Today mostly I'm focusing on my own movies and TV writing producing and directing, but when it was in its heyday it was considered a great source for all of us. It was highly respected it in the industry I could easily upload what the interview or his name is Paul and he wrote the great book about the making a Blade Runner. I could get his last name if you felt it would be a reference because he wrote the Edwood article about me. There's nobody in my film visual effects business that didn't consider it a great source at the time unfortunately, it was a highly expensive monthly periodical if you're not familiar with it and eventually it no longer exists I guess because of the change to digital format, but you can get the articles if you order them from the Cine effects website. La-provence-wood (talk) 14:49, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cineplex magazine that did it end up the article on me for the movie Edwood.

I referenced Cineplex magazine that did it end up the article on me for the movie Edwood. I think it was the best article that I ever had written about myself and I didn't write it. The guy that actually wrote the book about the making of Blade Runner wrote it and I'm gonna get you his name but here's the connection to the site. They're now defunct but they're sold copies sold on Amazon. They were great. If you didn't know about them.

Cinefex Magazine 1980-2021 Catalog Index by Don Shay, Gregg Shay

Publication date 2021 Topics CineFex, VFX, Visual Effects, Cinema Collection cinefex-magazine; cinemamagazines; magazine_rack Language English Item Size 2.4M CineFex Magazine 1980-2021

CINEFEX, launched in 1980, was a quarterly journal covering visual effects in films founded by Don Shay. Each issue featured lengthy, detailed articles that described the creative and technical processes behind current films, the information drawn from interviews with the effects artists and technicians involved.

In its February 2021 issue, #172, Cinefex announced its final issue of the magazine after 40 years of publications.

The entire 40 year catalog would remain available online through the iOS CINEFEX application until the release of iOS 17, under which the CINEFEX application (v.2.3.0) no longer functions, severing the only access to this significant publication.

The official development and application support sites link to a dead 404 page, and the application has not been updated since early 2022.

These uploads are intended to act as a historical record of this important publication. It truly "belongs in a museum".

Please note that this is an on-going project. I hope to eventually fill in metadata to correctly credit all artists involved with the creation of this wonderful magazine.

Archive.org pre-sorted and filtered: https://archive.org/search?query=subject%3A%22CineFex%22&sort=date So let me know if I get the publication uploaded as a source since it's now a defunct magazine published and then 1980s through early 2000s and upload the article and it's an in-depth article on the making of "Edwood" and the visual effects I did for the project Paul Samon the article and he was a very knowledgeable writer of visual effects journalism, here is details on the article. I have a printed copy that I could find in my archives.

. "Show them the bibliographic information Bring the citation: Cinefex #61, March 1995, “Wood Works” by Paul Sammon, pages ~107–110 — this helps staff verify whether they indeed have the issue even if not in electronic catalog."

An objective third-party source he did that he's a journalist and a well-known writer for this area. Look at the book he wrote on the making of blood Blade Runner with Billy Scott. La-provence-wood (talk) 16:01, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@La-provence-wood That Cinefex article may well meet our golden rule for sources: I can't tell as the article itself is not archived. My role as mentor is to help you learn how to contribute to Wikipedia, not to write your biography for you. The draft you have created can be submitted for review as described at WP:AFCREVIEW but as I've said above it is likely to be declined in its current state as failing to show wikinotability. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:51, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since I have the article in storage I will uploaded soon as I locate it I understand your a guide through the world of Wikipedia but I don't understand when you use sources such as The television academy for my Emmy award, and nomination, Canadian tv a academy for the Gemini nomination for my work they are well known and not manipulated by the industry or sources like the LA time or entertainment tonight why wouldn't those be considered legitimate sources and citations just asking and trying to understand your criteria for Wikipedia La-provence-wood (talk) 20:09, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@La-provence-wood Yes, those sources are fine to confirm simple facts. However, they are primary sources, not secondary ones which should form the basis of Wikipedia articles, as we need significant coverage of topics (i.e. discussion of what someone did and why their work was important). Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:24, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Finisterre44 (00:38, 16 October 2025)

Hello, I have a question regarding proper style and readability. For example, in a page regarding Patrick Carnegie Simpson "Ten years later, he [Carnegie's father] returned to Scotland. following the death of his wife, Carnegie's mother." which I changed to "Ten years later, he [his father] returned to Scotland, following the death of Carnegie's mother." thank you for any advice you give. --Finisterre44 (talk) 00:38, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Finisterre44 Welcome! That sort of change, for readability, is fine and we even have a group called the guild of copy editors who specialise in this aspect of Wikipedia. The general advice is to be bold when editing but allow for the fact that others may revert a change you have made. One small point: you marked your edit as "minor", which is a very specific bit of Wikipedia jargon. See WP:MINOR for why some people might think that your edit wasn't minor. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:20, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That makes a lot of sense, thank you very much! Finisterre44 (talk) 19:45, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Photo question

Hello Michael! Thank you so much for your guidance on teahouse. I was wondering if I could trouble you with another question, considering that you have mentored other editors! I am overall curious how wikipedia commons works and what exactly is the difference between commons versus this version of wikipedia. I'm building out my userpage and would love to insert images to show my personality. Seems that commons is the go-to for all things image related, no? Is this where I can find images to use? If I am totally misunderstanding how commons functions and there is another template that I can instead consult pls lmk! (and share that link hehe) thank you :) Spindella000 (talk) 17:46, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again @Spindella000. The idea behind Commons is that it stores all the images that are licensed in such a way that they can be used in any language version of Wikipedia (well over 300!). Obviously, that's much more efficient than having each language store locally the images they use. Similarly, there is Wikidata, which among other things has basic information about each article in English and links it to articles on the same topic in other languages.

Finding images in Commons can be tricky, although it uses categories like commons:Category:Cats which can act as starting points for a search. An alternative is to use Google image search and then use the Google "tools" menu to restrict the results to creative commons licenses: in practice, these will often be ones stored here, as Google indexes them all. Or you can start with an article on a topic of interest and click through one of the images to reach Commons. Then you should see how that image has been categorised and can find related images. Each image on Commons has a box just above the picture which shows the link you need when inserting that image into a Wiki page. Hope this helps! Mike Turnbull (talk) 09:22, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you SO SO much! I had no idea there was even a Wikidata vs. Commons wow. I'll start Googling now hehe truly thank you so much Mike! Spindella000 (talk) 13:15, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

“Langvar” protection question

Hi, Mike. I wonder if there is any way to protect against mismatches between the variety of English posted in articles as what to follow in the article and what's actually ended up there.

I thought to ask because I've now seen so many mismatches of this sort on articles I've edited during GOCE clean-up campaigns that it's become a bit discouraging. I think editors don't always understand, follow, or in some cases even notice, posted "Use British English format" or "Use American English format" signs. Which of course means there can be a format mishmash in the same article through no fault of the main author, and without the author being aware. Augnablik (talk) 20:14, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know of any existing way to enforce the agreed format and of course many articles don't have the relevant templates, they just start out with whatever their creator used. Similarly with date formats and citation methods. As an aside, I get very irritated by a well-known editor who uses a bot to convert |last= |first= author lists to the |vauthor= format on the grounds of "consistent citation formatting", just because that's how the first citation was created. (He never uses a bot to go in the other direction.) If you feel strongly about the issue, you could raise it at WP:VPI, since there could be a technical solution whereby editors were reminded about the existing conventions within an article when they go into edit mode. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:50, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for the Village Pump idea. Something like a little flashing caution message with a raised hand would be just the thing. 😅

Augnablik (talk) 21:06, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just realized I used the wrong term in the title I gave this thread and that I should have used "Engvar" instead. And you didn't even scold me! Augnablik (talk) 05:34, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It didn't occur that you would want to be scolded and I certainly knew what you meant! Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:17, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did I say I would want to be scolded? 😅Augnablik (talk) 10:21, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Augnablik I've only just noticed when editing Temujin Kensu using the visual editor, which as you know I almost never do, that the various templates like the "Use American English" one are immediately visible top left of the editing window just below the toolbar. So I guess the real problem is that you can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it drink! Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:32, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, Mike, I wrote you another message on what I thought at the time was a refreshed version of your Talk page because I saw only one other message above the one I wrote. And it was 4 days ago.

As I can't recall waiting for an answer from you more than 3 days at the very most since you adopted me, I realized something strange was going on. Long story short, I finally figured out that the page I wrote that message on had a slightly different version of your name as a URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ User_talk:Mike_Turnbull.

I just deleted my message from that page. The only reason I'm mentioning this is that the other editor's message is still there, dating back to May; so if you and he haven't connected since then, he may be wondering what's what.

Augnablik (talk) 09:56, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Augnablik Thanks very much for pointing out the existence of User talk:Mike Turnbull. I've no idea how the original editor managed to create it in error but I've now turned it into a redirect so hopefully no-one else can make that mistake. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:02, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you hadn't responded to an earlier message of mine on this Talk page, Mike, I might never have gotten back here from your phantom page, or at least for a long time! Augnablik (talk) 16:56, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For editors aware of the Engvar template, it's almost impossible to miss the "Use American English" (also the "Use dd/mm/yyyy template") at the top left of articles when you edit with the VE.

But the templates are in a very pale font in the VE … which is why I said it's almost impossible to miss. I actually did miss those templates for awhile as a newbie editor, though I did take care to be consistent with what seemed the author's original intent.

Augnablik (talk) 09:18, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Sajini Varghese on Wikipedia:Text of the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License (04:23, 23 October 2025)

Dear Sir,

I am grateful to have you as my mentor. I have written two articles in English; however, they were published on the Malayalam page of the publication. Could you please guide me on how to have them posted on the English page? I would greatly appreciate your help with this.

Thank you! --Sajini Varghese (talk) 04:23, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sajini Varghese Each language variation of Wikipedia is an independent Project and what is published in Malayalam may or may not be suitable for publication here. The main thing that has to be demonstrated in this Project is that the topic is notable as that word is defined at this link. This means that articles must show how independent, reliable, sources that have no connection with the subject have published about it in detail. I can't see your strangely titled page about Kuriakose as the main text appears to have been deleted, perhaps because it was in English not Malayalam. I don't advise you try to create it here unless you can show how this person meets the notability requirements, with sources of the type I've already mentioned. Incidentally, for living people, English Wikipedia has a policy that demands inline citations for all facts. As a newcomer to editing, you will be expected to use the articles for creation process but I recommend not even trying until you have gained experience by editing existing articles on topics that interest you. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:34, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

page notability

Does CID The Dummy have WP:SIGCOV rights? Thanks! Monopurpose account (talk) 23:04, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Monopurpose account. I'm no expert on video games but the basis of an article on any given game will be the evidence of notability based on the reception and critical commentary the game received. There is a section on this, with several citations, in this article. \whether this is significant enough is a matter of opinion and if you are concerned, you should probably ask at WT:VG, as well as on the talk page of the article itself, which I see you have already done. Ultimately, a non-notable topic can be proposed for a deletion discussion. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:19, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question from XdaDezana (07:03, 27 October 2025)

Good Day Mr. Micheal, My name is Xolani I am based in South Africa --XdaDezana (talk) 07:03, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is this like a Job? for me? --XdaDezana (talk) 07:04, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I thought i was gonna edit stuff for myself, but i like how professional it feels --XdaDezana (talk) 07:05, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @XdaDezana and welcome to Wikipedia. I've combined your three edits into one section. This website is almost entirely based on contributions from volunteer editors, so there is no "job" on offer and you should only give as much of your time as you can spare. The good news is that you are helping to build one of the Internet's biggest and most visited sites. I suggest you begin by adding to existing articles on topics that interest you: for example you could look at some articles about South Africa and see whether they can be improved. Please always include citations to reliable sources for anything you add, since an encyclopedia like this doesn't use personal knowledge, only already-published information. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:24, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for the response sir, will there be an in income in return? 154.117.134.242 (talk) 11:11, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@XdaDezana No, as I implied above, I am giving my time voluntarily and neither of us gets paid! Make sure you log in before editing, or your edits will be associated with your IP address, not your account. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:14, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK no problem sir, WIll do and I am happy to help, thank you so much for everything 154.117.134.242 (talk) 11:18, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Sannimudi on Indian English (07:04, 29 October 2025)

Sannimudi --Sannimudi (talk) 07:04, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Sannimudi. You don't seem to have asked me a question! I can guess that perhaps you are interested in the various written forms of English that Wikipedia uses. There are varieties of English that differ in spelling: color (American) and colour (British) being an obvious example. Wikipedia has a convention of using whatever version of English is most appropriate for an article (see WP:ENGVAR) and has templates to remind editors of which one to use to be consistent within any given article. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:03, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can we go directly to a numbered reference within an article?

Hi, Mike. I'm doing a lot of re-editing on one of my knotty problems articles and sometimes I want to go directly to a reference that I've used several times in the article. If I want to go to another place where that same reference is used, is there a way to do it? Like, let's say I want to go to one of the other places in the article where ref. #9 occurs, how can I search for the next occurrence of that reference?

In word processing programs, I think I recall correctly that it's possible. But what I've read so far in Wiki guidance doesn't seem to address this particular question. If it is possible, it would save time and eyestrain. Augnablik (talk) 14:39, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Augnablik Taking your sandbox as an example, I see currently that reference #9 is used twice. In the reference list, there are tiny superscript "a" and "b" alongside the citation to the 12 September 2022 article. Clicking on these individual letters takes you directly in the rendered text to the place where these citations are used, highlighting the "9". You can also go in the opposite direction, so clicking on any superscript "9" in the main text jumps to the reference list with that citation highlighted. Is that what you need? Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:39, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite, though I'm glad to find out or be reminded (not sure which, at this point) that it's possible to click on the small letters in references used more than once in the article -- assuming I can get my cursor to land on such tiny real estate.

What I'm hoping for is a way to go directly to a previous or a later use of ref. #9 in the article when I'm not currently near one of the other places where ref. #9 is located, in which case I could do what you suggested above. I'd like the equivalent of a Go To command in word processing, in other words. Augnablik (talk) 04:54, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are two main possibilities. Your browser has a "Find" function accessed by the Ctrl-F key combination. then the issue is what is the Go To you want? The citation #9 will be a named reference so you could search for the author (Hassan), if that's what you can remember, in the source code. It will only be there once, where the full citation has been written out. In other places it will occur as <ref name=something/>. The visual editor is very unhelpful in this regard as I can see that it has automatically generated the name ":6", which is a meaningless string that has no relationship to the #9 which appears when the page is rendered. When I use named references, I always give them a meaningful name: maybe "Hassan2014" in this case. To find the other instances of that Hassan reference, you currently have to search for <ref name=":6"/> (note the / at the end) having first established that this is how the visual editor has named that reference.

The second method, which is not really any easier, is to use the "Find-and-replace" functionality of the source editor. That's accessed via the small magnifying glass icon to the right end of the menu bar in the source editor (to the left of its "Preview" function). You would first search for something you could remember as being part of the citation (Hassan in our example) and that would jump to its citation, where you would discover what name had been used (":6" in this instance). Then you would search for ref name=":6" as above. If all this doesn't do what you have in mind, you will need to be more specific about the problems you run into. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:59, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot that you'd be thinking in terms of the Source editor, which I use only when I have to. If I had to switch from the Visual editor to Source to search for the next or previous occurrence of ref. #9, I doubt it would be worth the extra time.

Maybe I could ask the Visual editor tekkies to create such a feature, if there isn't one already. Would you know where to do that?

Irrespective of wishing for that feature, I'm really glad I went back over the article again after it sat and sat on the COI edit request shelf waiting to be picked up again by whoever was going to come along after Encode left again. I hadn't looked at it in a long time. I found so much I could do to tighten the text, further clarify, make use of Wikipedia citations, and sometimes even find new references.

There's a new editor on the scene now, someone I've occasionally "talked with" from GOCE. He gave me the cheerful news that my edit request is one of the oldest in the COI queue. With that in mind, I hope he can help speed things up once I resubmit the work. I'm aiming for tomorrow. Augnablik (talk) 18:16, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Full details on the VE are at Help:VisualEditor - Wikipedia, which also has a feedback link. You'll need to take a look at its existing features and define exactly what you think is missing and why that's an important omission. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:11, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Mike! Also for all the tips you gave me for using the Source editor to do what you suggested a few messages back, even though I won't be able to use them. I'm sure they won't be in vain, as I've never forgotten you once told me that you had around 600 mentees. Augnablik (talk) 17:01, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	thank you of your contributions Beachie2 (talk) 13:22, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Varunpareek07 (05:12, 6 November 2025)

Hi Michael D. Turnbull, I am varun from India and you had beed assigned as my mentor on wikipedia. I want to know that how can I find the valid sources and Citiation for certain topic that is provided to me for suggestion or adding citatons. As wikepedia is the great source for information, I wanted to know from which source I can look to contribute to this great source? --Varunpareek07 (talk) 05:12, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Varunpareek07 and welcome to Wikipedia. You don't say what type of article you want to contribute to, so it is difficult for me to give a good answer. Take a read of our reliable sources page, which discusses the sort of sources that are preferred. If you have more questions after reading that, come back here in this thread to ask, telling me which article(s) you are interested in. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:25, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Thanks for all the good work you do at the Help Desk. You've helped me innumerable times! Cheers! —Fortuna, imperatrix 16:44, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When the subject of an article gained fame under an alias

[Wading through all your latest barnstars]

If the subject of an article never existed, like Robert Adams — because that was not the original name of the man who spent a lifetime using it and gaining fame with it — should there be some sort of alert for readers up front? Like, for instance, to use quotation marks around the title of the article? Or to say something about it in the one-line summary at the top of the article, though I don't know quite what the wording would be?

I thought to ask you because the current article doesn't point out this situation right away, which strikes me as misleading because readers will be caught off guard when they eventually realize the truth ... unless they're already aware of it. Augnablik (talk) 17:54, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The policy on article titles is clear and is at WP:COMMONNAME. I'm not sure how you can say that someone "never existed" if they became notable using something other than their birth name. Many people do that, for example authors using pseudonyms or pen names. Classic example here is J. K. Rowling. You are correct that Wikipedia can use the lead of an article to clarify naming, something I did with Temujin Kensu using in addition an explanatory footnote since reliable sources called him different things during his life. We can also create redirects and disambiguation pages from one less-used name to the article title. More advice at WP:DEADNAME and note that WP:BLP always applies, even on talk pages. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:42, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do see your point, Mike, about Adams as someone who actually did exist. To me, though, the Adams situation seemed so different than a literary pseudonym for sure, and a spiritual name, slightly less so for a stage name, but still … Certainly for Wikipedia purposes, someone known as Robert Adams existed and became notable under that name.

I guess Wikipedia doesn't use quotation marks around names like in this case or you'd have picked up on that when I gave it as one of the alternatives I asked about, and my other suggested alternative: a mention of the situation in the article summary. So I'll just add something about the situation in the lead as you did with Temujin Kensi. Augnablik (talk) 17:23, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike, below is the message I posted on your phantom Talk page. Since it's about the same article as the one in this earlier message, even though a different focus, I'd like to connect it as follow-up to this message I'd already posted here earlier. I have two more questions about this article—which, by the way, I copy edited for GOCE's November backlog reduction drive.

1. Something happened to the article's infobox. When displayed correctly, it's actually quite long—but part of it is now hidden in the VE. In the Source editor, though, it seems to still be there. I need to get it to display correctly, and I'd also like to know what I probably did wrong that caused it to be hidden.

2. I'd like your opinion about the validity of mentioning — though not using as a source — a website that's currently listed under "External links" at the very end of the article (bullet 4). This website offers a lot of individual research, backed up by support that seems convincing enough to be at least worthy of mention because it's already been proven that a number of statements made by the subject of the article, Adams, that aren't factual or verifiable (cf. the "Controversy" and "Imaginative story telling" sections).

The website lays groundwork for the position that Robert Adams was actually another man by the name of Robert Siegel, and Siegel does turn up on a number of occasions as attested to by other sources. As far as I know, the website is the sole source of such information about Siegel. I know that for mention in a Wikipedia article, it would be better if there were at least one more such source for the same claims; but wouldn't it seem that the issue should at least be mentioned as something to be aware of and further inquiry encouraged in light of the proven statements by others?

Question from Navacoustic (03:04, 10 November 2025)

how to creat cition --Navacoustic (talk) 03:04, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Navacoustic and welcome to Wikipedia. I assume that "cition" is a typo for "citation". The general policy on that is at WP:CITE. There are lots of semi-automated ways to create citations, so although the main templates {{cite book}}, {{cite news}} and {{cite web}} can appear a bit daunting you will find that tools like citer.toolforge can often help. I'd advise you to practise on existing articles that interest you, rather than creating a new topic from scratch. Note that you can trial things in a personal sandbox. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:31, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Incredibly bold edit

Right here officer! Polygnotus (talk) 18:28, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good thought, thanks User:Polygnotus! Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:29, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A fox for you!

thank you

Jblackstarr (talk) 15:13, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Jkay456 on User:Jkay456 (03:32, 14 November 2025)

Hi thank you for being my mentor. How do I publish a new page? --Jkay456 (talk) 03:32, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Jkay456 and welcome to Wikipedia. We tend to use the word "page" to refer in general to every place where editors can add content, including User pages and Talk pages, while the word "article" is reserved for the main encyclopaedic content (sometimes called mainspace) and where you'll find an article like Nurse practitioner. You have written a bit about the latter topic on your user page, which is the wrong place to put it: the link I made to user pages describes what should go there.

New editors like you can't create articles directly: they must use the articles for creation process so that their work is reviewed by an experienced editor. In any case, I would strongly advise you not to try to draft anything completely new yet: better to work on the millions of existing articles on topics that interest you. For example, I note that Nurse practitioner is quite poor and could do with additional content sourced to this sort of already-published material. However, it is protected against vandalism so that only editors who have made at least 10 edits and have had an account for four full days can edit it. You could build that up by practising by doing some of the suggestions on your homepage. If you have any follow-up questions, just place them here in this thread. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:13, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]