Welcome to my talk page! I'm in a pretty busy time of my life right now (yes I'm an actual person), so if you’re a newcomer with a question about editing, you can try the Teahouse for a faster answer.
I archive my talk page pretty regularly, so if you're wondering where a recent conversation went, check the links in the archive box.
Feel free to drop me a message and I'll get back to ya when I can! :)
Hello! I hope you are doing well. I was trying to make some edits on the page for Fingerprinting however when I click edit a message comes up that says the following.
"This page is semi protected so that only auto confirmed users can edit. If you need help getting started with editing, please visit the Teahouse."
Hi, Mindfold24! To answer your question generally, article/page protection is a technical limitation preventing users without a certain benchmark or right from editing an article. Semi-protection is one of the most common and lightest forms; all you need to edit past it is an account with four days' tenure and ten edits (it's often just used to prevent run-of-the-mill vandalism). When articles are protected, you can usually make an edit request (here's an Edit Request Wizard tool you can use) on the talk page. All of this makes your case rather odd, because you are definitely autoconfirmed. Is it possible you were logged out of your account when you tried to edit? Perfect4th (talk) 02:29, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Ayliminmn! I don't speak Turkish and Google Translate is pretty confused, but I'll do my best. If you're asking about how to ping users, you can do this by linking a user (such as with [[User:Example]] or a ping template like {{u|Example}}) and making sure your edit is signed. If you're clicking "Reply" this is done automatically; otherwise, add ~~~~ at the end of your message to sign it. Though I'll likely be more help with questions in English, feel free to drop by if you have any more questions and I'll do my best! Happy editing, Perfect4th (talk) 23:17, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Traffic report: One click after another Serial-killer miniseries, deceased scientist, government shutdowns and Sandalwood hit "Kantara" crowd the tubes.
It currently carries several maintenance tags, and I’d appreciate guidance or edits to address the following:
Promotional content – I’ve revised the tone to ensure neutrality and factual accuracy. If any sections still appear promotional, I welcome suggestions for further improvement.
Additional citations – I’m working on sourcing reliable references. If you can help identify or add citations to support key claims, that would be greatly appreciated.
Orphan status - I linked and referenced it to a related article.
If you have time to review the article or contribute edits, your support would be very helpful. Thank you in advance for your time and collaboration.
Hi, LacusClyne20. I took a brief look at the article; I might have time to go more in depth later, but here's what I noticed:
The article still has a heavily promotional tone. Phrases like This system continues to be taught to students today, preserving its practical and cultural significance, His interest in the art of self-defense deepened over time, and He was known to wake from sleep with new techniques in mind, which he would immediately practice and record on the back of a paper calendar are great for storytelling, but are not encyclopedic. If you've ever read an entry in Encyclopedia Britannica or the World Book, imagine that's what you're going for; it should be as neutrally-worded as possible. You can check out our tone guideline for the general principles, and Words to watch for some specific words to keep an eye out for.
The reference tag is quite correct. I think fell into the very common newcomer trap of writing this article backwards. Wikipedia articles should be a summary of what the sources say; they should not say something and then add a source that supports it or some of it. If a source says it, we summarize it; if a source does not, we don't say anything. Both the "The Life of Grandmaster Filemon “Momoy” dela Cuesta Cañete" and the "Successor: Panto Cañete Flores" are interesting to read, but they're not what Wikipedia is for; they'd belong better on a site with a different purpose. If it doesn't have a source, it shouldn't be said. Rewriting the article neutrally and purely from what the sources say is probably the single best thing you can do to help the article meet Wikipedia guidelines.
The orphan tag is a purely black-and-white single-link issue; since there is one incoming link from another article, it can be removed, and I have done so.
Thank you for your detailed response and for providing all those helpful links. I truly appreciate the guidance. It’s clear that my usual writing style still needs some improvement to meet Wikipedia’s standards, but your assistance has been invaluable.
I have revised the article and removed information that lacked proper citations. If you have time, I would greatly appreciate it if you could review the updated version and share any suggestions for further improvement.
I am really enjoying and treating this experience as a challenge actually.
Hello again, LacusClyne20! I've taken another quick look. The additional citations are helpful, but it's still lacking some – for instance, the entire Organizational Development section is unsourced. In reading the article, it looks almost as if it's trying to be a biography of Filemon “Momoy” dela Cuesta Cañete (and partially Panto Cañete Flores) rather than focused on the organization. The tone is definitely much better but could still use some work; Wikipedia's tone is pretty impassionate. I couldn't find an exemplary article based on a quick search alone, but the lead (beginning paragraphs before the first section, so everything before 'Etymology' in this case) of Shooto is a good example of a good lead. It is a simple explanation; you're not trying to convince the reader of anything about the subject (its worth, whether it's beneficial, etc.), but simply inform them of the basic facts. Leads are especially good at this because they are meant to be a summary of the rest of the article. (In this case, the rest of the article is not as good an example of tone, and you should not take lessons from it on writing article bodies.)
Hi, Dinosaur and aviation enjoyer! The general guideline for reliable sources can be found at reliable sources – it explains the components that go into a source's reliability, so you can judge sources generally yourself. More specifically, tropical cyclones is one area of interest that has a WikiProject, which is a project put together by several editors interested in the topic area; many are inactive, but I believe the tropical cyclones one is at least semiactive. The nice thing about WikiProjects is that they often have a central repository of resources you can use, so I'd check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Project resources first! Going to also ping HurricaneZeta in case he has any more help for you as he edits in that area. Happy editing! Perfect4th (talk) 06:16, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We released the "Add a Link" Structured Task to 100% of accounts at English Wikipedia on Tuesday, September 2nd (before then it was available to 20% of accounts).
After examining if the Growth features and Mentorship could be adapted to Wikidata, we activated the Growth features on Beta Wikidata to allow for testing and discussion (T400937).
Although some features, like Suggested Edits, are Wikipedia-specific, the Growth team designed most features to be more wiki-agnostic.
The machine learning team has been working on a new model that can suggest links to more languages, including Urdu, Chinese, and Japanese Wikipedias. We are starting to release the “Add a Link” feature to Wikipedias that weren’t supported by the previous model.
The Growth team is involved in several research initiatives to help guide our future work:
Progression System – We have published initial findings from interviews with 10 English and French Wikipedia newcomers.
The research examined motivations, challenges, and feedback on a prototype system intended to help editors build confidence, develop skills, and contribute more constructively over time.
Mobile Web Editing Research – This project combines quantitative and qualitative data, community feedback, and user journey analysis to identify possible ways to enhance the mobile editing experience.
Newcomers Survey – This project surveys successful newcomers on English Wikipedia to understand their early editing experiences, tool use, and community interactions.
The Growth team participated in several community events to listen, share, and collaborate on improving newcomer experiences across Wikimedia projects.
This session invited organizers to share how they introduce newcomers to Growth features and the challenges they encounter. The discussion focused on common newcomer questions and opportunities to strengthen collaboration in supporting new editors.
This talk demonstrated how Structured Tasks help newcomers take their first successful steps on Wikipedia. It shared impact data, community configurations, and a demo of “Add a Link,” illustrating how these tasks make editing more accessible and sustainable, particularly for mobile contributors.
With active editor numbers declining, the Contributors Strategy aims to create a clearer, more engaging path for participation. This session, led by the WMF Contributors group with involvement from the Editing, Growth, Moderator Tools, and Connection (formerly Campaigns) teams, highlighted efforts to streamline contributor experiences, offer structured and mobile-friendly workflows, and foster meaningful engagement. Participants learned about ongoing initiatives and shared feedback to help shape a more inclusive and sustainable future for Wikimedia contributors.
Many communities face a decline in volunteer engagement. Newcomers often leave soon after joining, while experienced editors struggle to manage increasingly complex workflows and overwhelming backlogs. We presented the Contributors Strategy and the different features and workflows that can help communities to address these challenges. We listened to the specific needs of the CEE communities to help guide the Contributors teams' work.
Hi its me Lutitium again! First, thanks for answering all my questions in such detail :D. I have multiple questions regarding some of my articles, they are-
1) It has been well over 2 months since i submitted my article 'night vision contact lence'(sorry but I'm having issues linking it right now) for review and it still is a draft.
2) my article's title has changed after grading
3)my article has drastically changed since i last cheked it
Regarding Night vison contact lens, one thing you could try is working on some of the tone of the article – wording like Although it is a major breakthrough with huge applications is wording for someone reporting about it. It's Wikipedia's job to summarize the stuff people are reporting, so those kinds of claims should only be made if cited in reliable sources. I'm afraid I don't have much further advice for you beyond that of last time. The current wait time is listed as "2 months or more" and your draft has been in the queue for about five weeks, so I can't advise much more than patience.
As for Arxiozyma heterogenica/Kazachstania weizmannii's rename, it looks like Tyroxin did so stating that it was renamed. The other edits, meanwhile, are normal Wikipedia editing processes and largely standardized it with other taxonomic Wikipedia articles. That's a good thing! On Wikipedia we all work on improving all articles – nobody owns any particular articles, and everyone can work on improving them. Wikipedia worked exactly as it should here, and now the article you started is looking good and Wikipedia is the better for it. Thanks for your contributions!
Hello. A year ago, I created a Wikipedia page titled "Genocide in Tigray", which I survived and witnessed. Recently, one Wikipedian suggested a title change from "Genocide in Tigray" to "Tigray Genocide", which I agreed to. However, when I attempt to move the page to "Tigray Genocide," it is not successful, and I am unsure why. Could you help, please? Here is the suggestion I got from a user:
Thanks in advance~
[Title Change - Tigray Genocide
Hi, I have noticed a lot of articles on Genocide put the name genocide after the name of the group or the place, hence changing the Title of this article from "Genocide in Tigray" to "Tigray Genocide" falls within similar standards and norms, such us Rohingya genocide, Rwanda genocide, Gaza genocide, Armenian Genocide, etc. It will also make it easier to follow. I am contacting you because, you created the article, and it might be easier to change/move to new title from your side. It will also get easily found during searches. PCR Mafia (talk) 18:26, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for contacting, and you are right. But I failed twice when I try to move it to "Tigray Genocide" for some unclear reason, which I don't know it exactly. Mtomg (talk) 09:32, 25 October 2025 (UTC)] --Mtomg (talk) 11:14, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"The page could not be moved, for the following reason: The page could not be moved: a page of that name already exists, or the name you have chosen is not valid. Please choose another name, or use Requested moves to ask for the page to be moved. Do not manually move the article by copying and pasting it; the page history must be moved along with the article text."
When I check it now, I see the reason is I already used the title Tigray Genocide in the Infobox (| title = Tigray Genocide) and the main heading (The genocide in Tigray ) on the page. I'll fix it now. Thanks! Mtomg (talk) 04:16, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Perfect4th. This message is being sent to remind you of significant upcoming changes regarding logged-out editing.
Starting 4 November, logged-out editors will no longer have their IP address publicly displayed. Instead, they will have a temporary account (TA) associated with their edits. Users with some extended rights like administrators and CheckUsers, as well as users with the temporary account IP viewer (TAIV) user right will still be able to reveal temporary users' IP addresses and all contributions made by temporary accounts from a specific IP address or range.
How do temporary accounts work?
Editing from a temporary account
When a logged-out user completes an edit or a logged action for the first time, a cookie will be set in this user's browser and a temporary account tied with this cookie will be automatically created for them. This account's name will follow the pattern: ~2025-12345-67 (a tilde, year of creation, a number split into units of 5).
All subsequent actions by the temporary account user will be attributed to this username. The cookie will expire 90 days after its creation. As long as it exists, all edits made from this device will be attributed to this temporary account. It will be the same account even if the IP address changes, unless the user clears their cookies or uses a different device or web browser.
A record of the IP address used at the time of each edit will be stored for 90 days after the edit. Users with the temporary account IP viewer (TAIV) user right will be able to see the underlying IP addresses.
As a measure against vandalism, there are two limitations on the creation of temporary accounts:
There has to be a minimum of 10 minutes between subsequent temporary account creations from the same IP (or /64 range in case of IPv6).
There can be a maximum of 6 temporary accounts created from an IP (or /64 range) within a period of 24 hours.
Temporary account IP viewer user right
How to enable IP Reveal
Administrators may grant the temporary account IP viewer (TAIV) user right to non-administrators who meet the criteria for granting. Importantly, an editor must make an explicit request for the permission (e.g. at WP:PERM/TAIV)—administrators are not permitted to assign the right without a request.
Administrators will automatically be able to see temporary account IP information once they have accepted the Access to Temporary Account IP Addresses Policy via Special:Preferences or via the onboarding dialog which comes up after temporary accounts are deployed.
Impact for administrators
It will be possible to block many abusers by just blocking their temporary accounts. A blocked person won't be able to create new temporary accounts quickly if the admin selects the autoblock option.
It will still be possible to block an IP address or IP range.
Temporary accounts will not be retroactively applied to contributions made before the deployment. On Special:Contributions, you will be able to see existing IP user contributions, but not new contributions made by temporary accounts on that IP address. Instead, you should use Special:IPContributions for this (see a video about IPContributions in a gallery below).
Rules about IP information disclosure
Publicizing an IP address gained through TAIV access is generally not allowed (e.g. ~2025-12345-67 previously edited as 192.0.2.1 or ~2025-12345-67's IP address is 192.0.2.1).
Publicly linking a TA to another TA is allowed if "reasonably believed to be necessary". (e.g. ~2025-12345-67 and ~2025-12345-68 are likely the same person, so I am counting their reverts together toward 3RR, but not Hey ~2025-12345-68, you did some good editing as ~2025-12345-67)
Hi its me, Lutitium again :D I sent this draft of TOI-6034 b I did check it multiple times but Pleas will you check it to look for any mistakes. I really love this draft so I want it to become an article and are you German?
Hi again, Lutitium! Sorry about the wait, I've had a busy weekend. I haven't dug in super deep yet, but I glanced at the references and I'm not yet seeing anything enough to establish notability by Wikipedia's standards. Notability is the guideline that determines whether or not Wikipedia should have an article on something, so it's the first thing you should look for before creating an article. Luckily, for this case, astronomical objects have their own notability guideline that you can check against, so you can evaluate your sources and subject against that. (Also, yup, I am part German!) Hope that helps, and let me know if you have any more questions. Happy editing! Perfect4th (talk) 18:32, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Thanks for going in such depth in the answer. I read both of the guidelines but I'm still having issues understanding what is notable or not. Lutitium (talk) 11:01, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Lutitium! I'm going to go general here, because the basic requirements for the general notability guideline is the same regardless of subject. The big idea is that you have to come towards an article from the sources first. You don't want to be writing one backwards! When you're looking for something to write an article about, see what sources you can find. You want to find things that are independent and not connected to the subject – no interviews or press releases or anything like that. You want them to be reliable – what can you tell about the fact-checking or research done in the source? For online resources, you can check their 'About' pages to see what you can find. The sources should also have spend time discussing the article subject, rather than just a couple of paragraphs or a passing mention.
These are some thoughts to help you get started, but the big idea here is that you need to identify reliable sources that help establish notability and be able to evaluate them. That comes easier with more time and Wikipedia experience, too. (That's why many editors at the Teahouse recommend that newcomers not start by creating articles but by editing existing ones.) Reliability is a scale, and if you have specific questions about certain sources, you can also ask about them on the reliable sources noticeboard. Let me know if you have any more questions/follow-ups, and happy editing! Perfect4th (talk) 19:07, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I’m trying to get this article published but I can’t seem to figure out the next step. It had been rejected originally and I simplified it since. --YelramI (talk) 00:52, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello and welcome, YelramI! I added back the last submission decline template, which should give you an option to resubmit the article when you're ready. I'd suggest editing it some more though – specifically, you'll want to make sure your references show notability. On Wikipedia, articles – especially those about people – should be based on several reliable sources that are not connected to the subject and have significant coverage of the subject. That's a pretty brief overview, so do let me know if you have any more questions, and happy editing! Perfect4th (talk) 01:23, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For your recent assistance responding to the request others left on my talk page, I award you the WikiJaguar Award for Excellence in talk page stalking efforts. Ampimd (talk) 18:58, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello, MessyCreative! I'm guessing you're talking about the warning at the top of Draft:ISBM. I wouldn't be concerned about that – it's just to inform reviewers that currently, in the article space, the term 'ISBM' redirects to something else. Should your article be published and a more-used meaning for the term, it can usurp the title; or you can get around the whole problem later by simply disambiguating your draft to 'ISBM (research organization)' or something like that. Regardless, it's not something you have to fix now, and would be easy to do once the draft is ready to publish. Let me know if you have any more questions and happy editing, Perfect4th (talk) 15:10, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Noaf noaf! I'm afraid I don't speak Arabic, so you'll have to visit the Arabic Wikipedia for Arabic-language Wikipedia questions in general. Google Translate tried its best, though, so my guess is that your question is "Do you get paid to edit Wikipedia?" and the answer is No. Wikipedia editors are volunteers – we don't generally get paid, we just edit because we like to. Hope this helps! Happy editing, Perfect4th (talk) 20:46, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
