User talk:Actualcpscm/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hello sir I would like to get a job in Canada because I am not able --Irakoze Cedrick (talk) 20:02, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi @

reference desk might be able to help. You can also just reply to this and ask me, I'll do my best to help you with your research. Actualcpscm (talk

) 20:25, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello sir I would like to get where can live and work --Irakoze Cedrick (talk) 20:25, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello sir I would like to get where can live and work --Irakoze Cedrick (talk) 20:26, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

@Irakoze Cedrick I can't help you with that, see my response above. Actualcpscm (talk) 20:27, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Ok it true but in this page which thing do u do for catching you very well to request you a home is bad to you Irakoze Cedrick (talk) 20:35, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

@Irakoze Cedrick I'm not sure I understand. If you prefer, you can reply in your native language, and I'll do my best to translate. Actualcpscm (talk) 20:39, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

so sir for my names is Cedrick I come from in Africa exactly in Burundi 🇧🇮 I would like to get life as others I am hustling sir please help I suggest you sir Irakoze Cedrick (talk) 20:47, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't know how I can help you with this or what it is you want from me. Best of luck with what you're currently pursuing! Actualcpscm (talk) 20:53, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Hoooo! Let not pursuing you from helping me but it can be better when you do that to me sir if it possible Irakoze Cedrick (talk) 21:05, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're talking about. If your questions aren't either about Wikipedia and its editing practices or factual/research questions, I can't help you with them. Actualcpscm (talk) 21:09, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at

Please be vigilant when closing an AfD with multiple articles. XfD does not always close all of them properly. Many of the articles of this closed discussion were improperly closed. Let me know if you have any questions! Happy editing, Heart ^(talk) 02:08, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi @HeartGlow30797! Thanks for pointing that out, I wasn‘t aware such an issue existed with XfD-closer. To be honest, as this was my first-ever closure of a discussion (aside from withdrawals), I was mostly worried about reading the consensus correctly. In the future, I‘ll double-check when closing noms affecting multiple articles. Thanks again! Happy editing to you too. Actualcpscm (talk) 05:09, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

A Province of Muntinlupa --Michael V. Padilla (talk) 07:37, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Michael V. Padilla, welcome to Wikipedia! I‘m not sure what you‘re looking for; how can I help you? You can reply here or through the mentorship panel, where you originally asked this question :) Actualcpscm (talk) 13:16, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Good article nominations | August 2023 Backlog Drive
August 2023 Backlog Drive: On 1 August, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here .
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year. (t · c) buidhe 05:15, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I noticed you commented on user XvsX1999's

Yeah, I was considering A10 as well. I wanted to reach out to them to see if this was intentional, but it really does look like a mishap during a page move. A10 seems perfectly fine to me. Actualcpscm (talk) 18:49, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello Act. This article needs to be deleted, and it is going to be deleted. But if it is to limp to next week because one editor who always votes keep voted to keep it, I'd rather someone who actually has the ability to delete it make that decision. Please undo your relist.

In general, it's best that non-admins don't get involved with closing of deletion discussions at all. The load they lighten isn't really worth the bias and time-wasting they add. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:45, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for reaching out. I understand your opinion (although I won‘t express my own thoughts on this AFD).

As of the relist, there was no consensus for deletion; closing/relisting of discussions is based only on consensus, and that just wasn‘t there in my opinion. The editor who !voted to keep after the previous relist, while having only limited experience, expressed their opinion in good faith and quite reasonably. It’s not a !vote that can just be discarded the way you suggest. If there are other concerns about that editor’s editing behaviour, that should be addressed on their talk page.

Due to the lack of clear consensus, I can‘t imagine that an admin would have closed that discussion as a delete. I also disagree with you on non-admin closures, and current consensus (and policy) is that they are principally appropriate and not, as you suggest, a net-negative. I wouldn‘t have characterised this relist as a particularly controversial decision; I try to stay away from those as a non-admin.

For the sake of moving on quickly, feel free to undo the relist. I’d do it myself, but I‘m currently on mobile, and it might be a short while before I can carry out the undo myself.

Thanks again for letting me know your thoughts on this. Happy editing! :) Actualcpscm (talk) 16:05, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

@Usedtobecool Oops, I forgot to ping you above. Actualcpscm (talk) 16:16, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you.

I did not mean to imply that NACs are against community consensus. The constraints on AFD NACs are such that they are not worth the trouble, is what I meant. You will close a few obvious ones which would not have taken admins much time anyway, but in the meantime you will introduce substantial relist and no consensus bias that is inevitable by virtue of not having the delete button at your disposal.

Sure, a few admins may still look at that discussion the way you do. But that would not be because that is correct, or even reasonable. The bar for them is "not obviously wrong" or "can get away with". There is plenty consensus for delete when one looks closely. The first keep vote is vague maybes from an account with 20 edits whose whole Wikipedia career is trying to get one iffy draft approved. The second keep is from a user who always votes keep and has a match rate no better than a coinflip, and again providing nothing specific on the rationale. The third is logged out article creator or article subject (or both) throwing all the shit they can find hoping something sticks. There's a good chance all but one of them is the same party. That against five and a half experienced editors who have actually looked at the sources and not been convinced by what they've seen or been told by the Keep side. Usedtobecool ☎️ 19:49, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Hm, I still disagree with your thoughts on NACD, but I see your point now. Agree to disagree? :)

I totally understand what you‘re describing about that discussion, but especially with regards to the IP editor, it‘s imperative to assume good faith. Are the keep !voters as knowledgeable or rhetorically capable as some of the other participants? Probably not. But that doesn‘t detract from the validity of their opinion, at least not to the extent that you argue. Consensus is tricky to evaluate, but we shouldn’t exclude editors based on lack of experience. Re sockpuppeting, that‘s certainly possible, but again AGF forces us to consider their arguments and opinions as separate and principally valid unless a proper SPI case is opened (and ideally closed with confirmation).

In any case, I‘ve undone the relist. Let‘s see what the closing admin thinks; it will be a learning experience for at least one of us, which one depends on their judgement :) Actualcpscm (talk) 20:02, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Genetics and educational attainment (2). Thanks! Star Mississippi 01:52, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello Actualcpscm, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of

Hi @Ivanvector! Quick clarification; do you mean that they were published after August last year, as that‘s when the original article was deleted (I can‘t see when it was created). Note that the publication dates update quite regularly on these websites; the cityceleb article now says that it was published July this year, even though it already existed a year ago. Actualcpscm (talk) 20:22, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Well, in this case I'm not sure, and I asked another admin who is more of an authority on copyright to have a look. I ran both of the websites through archive.org to try to see when was the earliest snapshot, and both were on August 25, 2022, the same day that a now-deleted article on the singer was created here, and I can't tell which was first. The snapshot date on archive.org isn't necessarily the actual creation date but it's the best I can do since the websites' publication dates are clearly not correct. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:26, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

@Ivanvector Hmm, that does make it sound like your initial theory might be right: someone wrote this and uploaded it in a bunch of places basically at the same time. Seems plausible enough for me, but I‘m not sure we should rely on this; erring on the side of caution is my usual approach to copyvio issues. Let‘s see what the other admin thinks. Thanks for taking the time! Actualcpscm (talk) 20:43, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Personally I don't think a standalone article on the Selmayr affair is that interesting (which is not grounds to dissaude you from starting one). I wondered if the topic might make more sense placed in the context of a larger article about EC appointments and noticed that Secretary-General of the European Commission is essentially a stub that needs improvement, starting with references. So one idea might be to work on fixing that article first. In general, we need more capable editors with your background in PEP and I think you could contribute a lot in helping to fix and bring up to date many articles related to politics and political philosophy. And you may find more ideas for new articles then too. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:30, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Cielquiparle! That’s a good idea, I’ll add it to my list. Thank you! My main content project right now is Angela Merkel, but once that’s done, I’ll look into the Selmayr/EC SecGen thing. Actualcpscm (talk) 07:15, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

@Cielquiparle FYI, I've created an article on the affair here. Actualcpscm (talk) 15:14, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Actualcpscm. Thank you for your work on

Hello there!

I trust you're having a wonderful day. I want to extend my heartfelt thanks for your valuable contribution to Wikipedia with your article. I am delighted to inform you that your submission fully complies with Wikipedia's policies, and as a result, I have marked it as reviewed.

Wishing you and your family an absolutely fantastic day ahead!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 15:36, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

@SunDawn Thanks for the kind message, I wish the same for you :) Actualcpscm (talk) 15:37, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Actualcpscm,

I see you closed this AFD discussion but didn't remove the tag from the article or post the AFD closure notice on the Talk page. Did you use XFDcloser? Because it should take care of these steps for you. Can you take care of this manually then? In the content of the AFD tag, it'll have the code you can paste to the Talk page, usually on top of any existing banners that are there. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Liz! That’s a weird one, I did use XFDC; see the edit summary. I’ll take care of this now. Actualcpscm (talk) 07:07, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		Thank you for improving the article Angela Merkel! Your work is appreciated. The person who loves reading (talk) 17:16, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

		The Good Article Barnstar
		Thanks for improving a vital article to GA! The person who loves reading (talk) 17:16, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

	The Original Barnstar
	For Angela Merkel. Just saw the review page and yes, very commendable job. Million award waiting. Happy editing :) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 19:48, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Help --Tajel Ahmed (talk) 12:59, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Tajel Ahmed, welcome to Wikipedia! I‘d be happy to help you with any questions or concerns; what can I do for you? :) Actualcpscm (talk) 13:13, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello Actualcpscm. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of

I‘m not sure that‘s the case;

WP:G4 doesn‘t specify this condition. It does say this: It excludes pages in userspace and draftspace where the content was converted to a draft for explicit improvement (but not simply to circumvent Wikipedia's deletion policy), which strongly implies that pages created in draftspace to circumvent deletion following an AfD are in fact covered by G4. Actualcpscm (talk

) 06:50, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Million Award for Angela Merkel

	The Million Award
	For your contributions to bring Angela Merkel (estimated annual readership: 1,020,000) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! Reidgreg (talk) 15:47, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I'm trying to add to the "influence on future designs" tab so it mentions that the Lewis gun was the inspiration for Fortnite's Flapjack rifle. I'm on mobile and I don't want to mess up anything up to be honest. --GaryIsFound (talk) 16:10, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi @GaryIsFound, welcome to Wikipedia!

In general, don‘t worry too much about breaking anything. Any changes you make can easily be reverted, and if you made them in

be bold

in their editing.

If you‘d like to get some feedback on your plans, feel free to reply with your proposed addition here. I‘d be happy to help you with anything you need :) Actualcpscm (talk) 17:11, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Ok thank you GaryIsFound (talk) 17:17, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at

google 103.124.227.250 (talk) 17:28, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your work on closing the Kai Cenat Riot AfD. You mentioned in your commentary that [t]here were some inappropriate comments and unusual !votes... I am always looking for advice on being a better Wikipedian, so could you expand on that here, please? It seemed like one of the better overall discussions, so I'd love your perspective on what could be improved. Cheers, 13:39, 12 August 2023 (UTC) Last1in (talk) 13:39, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Last1in, thanks for reaching out! Here's what I was referring to:

Unusual !votes:

• Keep Now; Delete Later. Notability is
  WP:NEVENTS
  , but then why "keep now"?
• Strong Keep This riot was massive and dangerous. It was also in NYC out of all places. It will be talked about for a long time, especially on social media. Having this page is helpful and showcases how impactful it truly was. This is not really a valid argument, it completely misses the relevant policies and guidelines.

A lot of the early Keep !votes were basically editor opinions, not strong arguments. Remove was also a new one.

Inappropriate comments:

I specifically meant Its like this place is full of the same kinds of people who used to burn libraries in the ancient world. This AfD in general was a mess for multiple reasons, but this one stood out as particularly uncivil. I let them know about

WP:CIVIL on their talk page

.

This AfD was a bit tricky to evaluate, because the sourcing situation (and consensus with it) changed significantly during the course of the discussion, as you pointed out in your !vote. But I think most of the early delete !voters would agree that the topic fulfills

WP:GNG in its current state, and regarding "enduring historical significance" or lasting effects, multiple participants pointed out that we just have to wait a little longer to evaluate those. Actualcpscm ^{scrutinize, talk}

14:28, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Actualcpscm, this AFD was divided and complex and while I think your closure statement hit the right tone, this could be considered a close call and the NAC closure might be contested. The fact that the actual Merger was done and finished before the AFD discussion was closed lessens that possibility though because no ensuing action was called for after the closure except for turning one article into a redirect. But I just thought I'd let you know that it was gutsy for you to take this one on as a NAC but there might be pushback from editors who believe both articles should be Deleted or Merged to the main article on Kai Cenat. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:33, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Liz; as always, thanks for your input. I’m still dialing in my closes, so any feedback is much appreciated. However, I’m not quite sure what to make of your comment.

A general note: I would not have closed this discussion if the merger hadn‘t been done already, to be honest. But I felt that the fact that a merge had been widely supported on the talk page gave additional support to this outcome, and the fact that the sourcing situation changed so much during the discussion also contributed to that.

For clarification: 1. Do you think this close was right, based just on the outcome? Or would you have done something differently? and 2. You mention that it was gutsy, but was it too contentious for non-admin closure? I‘m aware of

WP:NACD

, and XFDC reminds me of it every time anyways :) So this is mostly a question of how the community interprets NACD.

It‘s important to me to close discussions both in line with local consensus and in compliance with the relevant P&Gs, so as I mentioned, feedback is always appreciated :) Actualcpscm ^{scrutinize, talk} 08:52, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Full disclosure: I voted Merge. The fact that one of the listed articles got merged with the other one midway through the discussion, created a confusing AfD and some unusually worded votes. Sebbog13's vote was one of them: he voted Merge, by that which he probably meant merge the two listed articles together and Keep; then again, maybe he meant Merge both to Kai Cenat. I read the Merge votes of theMainLogan and HistoryTheorist as Keep, CoolCaesar's and TomMasterReal's Deletes as Merge. I do agree with Liz that NACs should try to stick to non-controversial closes, but that this one was probably correct. But I also found the closing words "Keep and merge" to be a little unusual, since by the end of the AfD it had already been clear that the riot article needed to be merged. What I think you meant to say was simply Keep? StonyBrook _babble 09:12, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

That was my interpretation of those Merge votes as well, but CoolCaesar and TMR were Deletes in my interpretation. I included the Merge outcome in the result because it was extensively discussed in the AfD; the outcome wasn’t that an article should be kept, but that specifically one merged article should be kept. Thanks for letting me know your thoughts, especially regarding NACD :) Actualcpscm ^{scrutinize, talk} 09:25, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Coolcaesar said Delete both articles, merge content to the article on Kai Cenat. To me that reads as Merge, because they wouldn't have wanted the article to disappear if content was supposed to be merged. TMR's is a bit more nuanced, since his Delete vote said This should just be part of Kai Cenat's Wikipedia page, not a seperate page. The only way to truly make the content part of Kai Cenat is to merge it there, although a basic outline already does exist. Regardless, I still think the discussion skews Keep. StonyBrook _babble 09:53, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I think we‘re saying the same thing in different words; I read those votes as „Merge to Kai Cenat“, which basically means that the article topic is unsuitable for a standalone article but some content may be retained. That‘s a Delete in so far as it expresses an opinion that the article topic is unsuitable for a standalone article. We seem to be agreeing on the interpretation, just some semantic confusion :) Actualcpscm ^{scrutinize, talk} 10:05, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

To answer your questions, I'm not in the position right now to state how I would have closed the AFD discussion as it is a very long one and I don't have the time at this moment to fully digest it. I just skimmed through the comments and read over your closure which, as I said, set the right tone. It's interesting to hear that you only closed it because the Merge already happened, I've actually gotten upset with editors doing mergers BEFORE the discussion is closed but maybe the fact that it happened made this closure easier and a foregone conclusion. I say it was "gutsy" because it was clearly not a unanimous consensus and was divided which also increases the likelihood that a closure would be contested. I'm not sure if it has happened to you yet but getting called to Wikipedia:Deletion review where for a week editors analyze your closure (and you!) is about the least fun thing that can happen to you on Wikipedia outside of a contentious RFA (like mine was). So, I thought it gutsy to close a discussion that had a higher than average likelihood that the closure would be challenged. Generally, NACs close discussions that more straight-forward. That's the only point I was getting at. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:01, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks :) Actualcpscm ^{scrutinize, talk} 06:56, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Thoughts on this so far? I know it might be kind of soon for me to be drafting new articles so I figured I'd ask for advice. --AlphaDeltaKappaGamma (talk) 05:03, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi @AlphaDeltaKappaGamma, welcome to Wikipedia! I'll take a look now :) Actualcpscm ^{scrutinize, talk} 10:22, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

You've chosen a somewhat tricky subject. First important check: I'm not sure that this subject is

The general notability guideline

is also not met by the sources currently in the draft.

This leads me into the most significant issue with this draft; it's insufficiently sourced. Most of the sources currently in the article are considered unreliable. YouTube is

WP:NPPSG

for lists of sources and previous relevant discussion :) There are also a lot of claims, some potentially contentious, that are not sourced.

a lot of claims

do, and the draft currently doesn't meet these standards.

I know that I'm throwing a lot of links at you, but please don't let the amount of policies and guidelines discourage you. As you correctly identify, writing articles from scratch is really difficult.

task center

provides some suggestions for what to do.

I'd be happy to help you with anything else you need :) If you want to keep working on your draft, that's fine! Just be aware that it may be a frustrating experience. The first article I ever wrote got deleted almost immediately (see this brief discussion), and I didn't even fully understand why at the time. It really is best to start with other stuff. Please feel free to reach out here with any other questions or concerns. Happy editing :) Actualcpscm ^{scrutinize, talk} 10:40, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Appreciate the feedback. I might tweak it a bit and look for better sources but I'll probably leave this one on the back burner for now. AlphaDeltaKappaGamma (talk) 19:48, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

@AlphaDeltaKappaGamma That‘s what I would do :) Do you have anything else in mind that you‘d be interested in doing here? I‘d be happy to give you some pointers. Actualcpscm ^{scrutinize, talk} 19:57, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Not sure at the moment. Will let you know if any more issues come up. AlphaDeltaKappaGamma (talk) 20:03, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello @Actualcpscm I'm new to Wikipedia.. Completely haha. I was writing up a Draft on a Doctor but noticed it was submitted for Speedy Deletion because of the sources and that the content seemed promotional or advertisy but was noted that they do seem to be eligible for a page. So I removed the information that seemed like it didn't have reliable sources to verify the information and left what could be verified. Submitted and then it got rejected by you.

I'm not quite sure what's really needed. Let's say I forget this doctor and do someone else. Is there a minimum content requirement or a minimum amount of sources/reliable sources that must be present? Would like help getting this page up if possible :) Draft:Mohit Khera Or some more information so I can get someone else up and put some work under my belt haha Vraelot (talk) 17:47, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Vraelot! Thanks for reaching out, and welcome to Wikipedia! I‘ll get back to you about this as soon as I can :) Actualcpscm ^{scrutinize, talk} 17:50, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

The most glaring issue is that the draft lacks inline citations. They look like this^[1] and they‘re

WP:CITE

.

The draft is also currently written like a CV, which isn‘t appropriate. Content should be encyclopedic, which means it should be relevant to a general audience, based on

reliable sources, and written from a neutral point of view

.

I think that provides some concrete ways to improve the draft while I sleep :)

Notability is quite complex, I‘ll take a detailed look at that aspect of the draft tomorrow and give some feedback. As a general rule, multiple people who are strictly independent of the subject need to have written a significant amount about them and then published that in reliable publications. To directly answer your question: Yes, there is a minimum amount of reliable sources that must be present. It‘s usually 3, or maybe 2 really good ones.

In general, creating an article from scratch is one of the hardest things to do on Wikipedia. That‘s because it requires you to know a lot of different policies and guidelines quite well. It‘s not usually recommended for newcomers (but it‘s not forbidden or anything like that). For some general help with creating an article, see

Wikipedia adventure

, and then just go around and fix stuff in existing articles.

I‘ve linked to a lot of policies and guidelines here, and there‘s plenty more; please don‘t let this discourage you. Wikipedia is a complex place (and you picked a difficult task with creating an article), but you‘ll learn the ropes in no time. Meanwhile, you‘re encouraged to be

bold

and fix mistakes where you see them.

I‘d be happy to provide some further feedback on the draft when those inline citations are taken care of. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to ask. We‘re glad to have you, and we hope you stay around. Happy editing (and good night)! :) Actualcpscm ^{scrutinize, talk} 22:57, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

As usual, I forgot two things. First, @Vraelot a ping to ensure you see this. I also wanted to mention that the first article I ever created got deleted almost immediately; it‘s natural to struggle with creating an article. Again, it is literally one of the hardest things to get right on Wikipedia. Still, don‘t let it discourage you. I‘ll help you along the way :) Actualcpscm ^{scrutinize, talk} 23:00, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Upon closer inspection, it turns out that he likely does meet

the notability criteria for academics, so an article is in principle appropriate. I've created one at Mohit Khera. Please feel free to add content, it's currently a very short article (also called a stub). It's important that anything you add is encyclopedic information. For example, a full education or employment history is not encyclopedic, but a selection of published papers might be. If in doubt, you can discuss it on the article's talk page, or just ask here :) Actualcpscm ^{scrutinize, talk}

12:49, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for all this information!! Just one question. What's a CV? @Actualcpscm Vraelot (talk) 22:33, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

That‘s an abbreviation of

Curriculum Vitae, a resume. Apologies if I wasn‘t clear on that :) Actualcpscm ^{scrutinize, talk}

22:42, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

I would like to create a profile for Dr. Stephen charagu Njuguna --Kenyan2014 (talk) 15:50, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi @

Your first article

provides guidance for new users on writing an article, including some of the more technical aspects. I suggest you read through that, as well as some of the policies it links to. I‘d be happy to help you with any questions.

As a general first check, do you have reliable sources about this individual? For an article to be appropriate, reliable and independent publishers need to have written a significant amount of content about them. Again, feel free to ask if you have any questions, and welcome again :) Actualcpscm ^{scrutinize, talk} 16:29, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello mentor! This is awesome! Had no idea what I was getting into with just wanting to add https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2693020/ as a link for The Bayou documentary.

The documentary itself could use a Wikipedia page, instead of relying on the incomplete IMDb page. What do you think? Is this something I can handle creating?

Thank you :) --Deepspacegirl (talk) 21:22, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Deepspacegirl, welcome to Wikipedia! I‘m glad you‘re enjoying it; it is a truly awesome project, in every sense of the word. Thanks for your interest!

(I’m copying this from a comment above) Creating an article from scratch is very difficult, and it may be a frustrating experience because you need to be familiar with a lot of different policies & guidelines on how to write appropriate content for Wikipedia. It‘s not usually recommended for new editors, but it‘s entirely allowed.

Your first article

provides guidance for new users on writing an article, including some of the more technical aspects. I suggest you read through that, as well as some of the policies it links to. I‘d be happy to help you with any questions.

There is a basic requirement for standalone article topics called

WP:NFO

.

I know it can be discouraging to have all these guidelines thrown at you, but please don‘t let it dissuade you from editing here on Wikipedia. Again, I‘d be happy to help you with any questions or concerns. Meanwhile, it may be good to go around and improve existing articles to learn the ropes. If you see something wrong, don‘t worry too much about knowing all the guidelines;

be bold and fix it! Happy editing! :) Actualcpscm ^{scrutinize, talk}

21:38, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

German history

Thank you for quality articles such as Angela Merkel, with ambition for higher quality, for answering edit requests, dealing with articles for deletion and fighting vandalism, for an exquisite infobox of your user, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

You are recipient no.

On 17 August 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Angela Merkel, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that former German chancellor Angela Merkel's grandfather likely fought against Germany in World War I? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Angela Merkel. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Angela Merkel), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Z1720 (talk) 00:03, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 15,511 views (646.3 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of August 2023 – nice work!

) 03:28, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

Cryptocurrency: Revolutionizing the Financial World

In recent years, the world of finance has witnessed the rise of a groundbreaking technology known as cryptocurrency. This digital form of currency has taken the world by storm, captivating the interest of investors, tech enthusiasts, and even everyday individuals. In this article, we will explore the fundamentals of cryptocurrency, its potential benefits, and the challenges it faces.

At its core, cryptocurrency is a decentralized form of digital currency that operates on a technology called blockchain. Unlike traditional currencies, such as the US dollar or the euro, cryptocurrencies are not controlled by any central authority like a government or a bank. Instead, they rely on cryptographic techniques to secure transactions and control the creation of new units.

One of the key features that sets cryptocurrency apart is its transparency. Every transaction made using a cryptocurrency is recorded on a public ledger called the blockchain. This ledger is distributed across a network of computers, making it extremely difficult to alter or manipulate. This transparency not only ensures the security of transactions but also allows for greater accountability and trust in the system.

Another notable aspect of cryptocurrency is its potential for financial inclusion. In many parts of the world, traditional banking systems are inaccessible to a significant portion of the population. Cryptocurrencies offer an alternative, enabling individuals to participate in the global economy without the need for a bank account. This has the potential to empower millions of people, especially those in developing nations, by providing them with greater financial autonomy.

Furthermore, cryptocurrency has gained attention for its potential as an investment opportunity. The most well-known cryptocurrency, Bitcoin, experienced a meteoric rise in value, capturing the attention of both institutional and retail investors. While the market for cr --Qteiryy (talk) 04:44, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Qteiryy! This is a talk page, where you can ask me questions about editing Wikipedia. I'd be happy to help you with anything you need. Be aware that Wikipedia is not the right place to publish your essays or personal reflections. We have an article about cryptocurrency here, if you're interested in that field.

Let me know if there's anything I can do for you :) Actualcpscm ^{scrutinize, talk} 14:04, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello, how do I edit someone else’s page, for example my father. Our family have no idea who created the page in the first place. This would not have been done by him. There are sone inaccuracies and further information can be added. This is the page: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Orme Thank you, Sara Orme --Tautuku (talk) 01:05, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Tautuku / Sara! Thanks for reaching out, and welcome to Wikipedia.

In general, you can edit

WP:NPOV, which stipulates that article content should be written from a neutral point of view in accordance with what reliable sources have reported; it's very difficult for editors to follow that when they're writing about their loved ones. The best way to go about this would be to open an edit request at Talk:Albert_Orme by using Template:Edit COI

.

There are two caveats here: Editors, even those with a COI, are encouraged to remove contentious content about living people in accordance with

verifiable through the use of published reliable sources

. That means you can't just add information about a family member that you know through your relationship with them, unless you can provide a reliable source for that information.

Wikipedia is not a good place for publishing autobiographies, so the vast majority of articles are created by editors who never met the subject. The article about your father was created by the editor Kiwichris.

I'd be happy to help you with updating this article. Let me know what kind of information you're wanting to add, and what content might be inaccurate. I'll gladly provide some feedback. Thanks for your interest, and happy editing! :) Actualcpscm ^{scrutinize, talk} 14:38, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for your quick review. It is the first time I write a contribution to the English wikipedia so I would know how to resolve the issue. The guidelines on notability talk about reliable sources. I have inserted some sources in the link section - should I insert them as notes whenever something is mentioned? I tried to be as far as I could from "advertising" when writing about the artist, just listing some of the bio notes in my possession. Thank you in advance for the answer, Barbara Ilghibellinfuggiasco (talk) 18:46, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi Barbara / Ilghibellinfuggiasco! Thanks for reaching out, I'd be happy to help.

In general, sources do need to be provided as inline citations in many cases, because readers need to be able to

WP:CITE

might be useful.

The concerns regarding promotional content are mostly because it's a mostly-unsourced biography, the style issues are not too big to overcome. However, the draft is written a bit like an essay or more conventional prose. For example: Respirano Records released Porto's album Tell Uric (2021) that marks a return to the song form he had moved away from since Appleyard College. This interpretation of the song, as well as the singer's thought process behind it, would need to be sourced as well. It's not just facts that need citations, it's also analysis. Creating your own analysis from a set of reliably-sourced facts is generally

not appropriate

. I don't know if this is the case here, just letting you know for the future. In any case, this kind of writing is more typical of a conventional biography; Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which means it's important to stick to neutral sentences that present what others have said accurately.

I hope this will help you with working on your draft. I understand that all the guidelines and requirements can feel a bit overwhelming, but don't let this discourage you. I'd be happy to look at the draft again at any time, you can just let me know here. If you have any questions or concerns, also feel free to reach out!

Meanwhile, if you want, it may be useful to take a look at some other articles to get a feeling for the English Wikipedia, particularly with regards to writing style. And if you see something wrong, don't worry too much about the guidelines;

Go ahead and fix it, and if you mess up, someone can always undo it. Happy editing! Actualcpscm (talk

) 19:03, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you really a lot! This was VERY helpful. I was already modifying my draft, hopefully going in the right direction. Thanks again! Ilghibellinfuggiasco (talk) 19:55, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi Actualcpscm! I am studying how to improve my page submission. I am using this page as a ground to learn how to become a contributor. Since you have been so kind and helpful, would you mind to check it in the state it is now and give me a feedback on the form and if I am following rules? I've been navigating through rules and, although I think it totally fits the guidelines without problems now (notability,verifiable sources, encyclopedic writing), I am puzzled because of some contradicting things I found in the various explanations. I am a music and art journalist and all my contributions will be probably in these fields, so this is a topic of interest for me. Thanks a lot in advance! B romeoandjuliet (talk) 13:27, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Ilghibellinfuggiasco! It looks a lot better already, you're going great. Here's some feedback on the current draft:

• The citations were all provided as bare URLs, which are vulnerable to link rot. It's good practice to include other information in your references, like a title, publisher, date, etc. That way, if the link stops working, someone might still be able to find the original source from the other information. You can do this semi-automatically; if you're using the visual editor, you can click the "Cite" module at the top and paste your URL into the "Automatic" field. In most cases, this will generate a more complete citation for you on its own. You can also use reFill to fix entire pages, I've done that for you in the draft.
• There are a lot of external links in the text, which is usually not appropriate. See
  WP:EL
  for more info about that. Take this sentence as an example: In the early 2000s his first full-length album "Look At Me" under the monicker Appleyard College was released by Cold Current Productions. There are links here to both Appleyard College at discogs and Cold Current Productions at the same publication. In general, external links like this should only appear in infoboxes, references, or an "External links" section at the end of an article.
• I see that some of those links are to Italian Wikipedia pages, which is generally appropriate if an article doesn't exist on the English Wikipedia (although Wikipedia is not itself a reliable source for content on Wikipedia, to avoid circular referencing). You can format those using
  Template:Ill, which stands for interlanguage link. {{Ill|English article name|lt=Display text|it|Italian article name}} renders as Display text [it], with "Display text" linking to "English article name" and "[it]" linking to "Italian article name" on the Italian Wikipedia. To take an example from your draft, {{Ill|Maisie (band)|lt=Maisie|it|Maisie (gruppo musicale)}} would render as Maisie [it
  ]. Hope this makes sense :)
• The sourcing situation is still problematic. Looking at the "Music career" section, there's this sentence: Born in Cosenza,^[11] Italy, he started his career playing in local New wave bands and writing music for local theater companies. It's good that there's a source for his place of birth, but the second part of the sentence remains unsourced. Similarly, the analysis of his music (like a work poised between a psychedelic indie-folk and a sort of chamber ambient) is largely unsourced. Remember that Wikipedia articles should not contain any of your own analysis, thoughts, opinions, or research; see
  WP:OR
  . The discography would probably be removed quite quickly, as it's unsourced at the moment.

I'm going to decline the draft for now, but again, it's moving in the right direction.

I hope this is helpful. More importantly, I hope you don't feel discouraged. You're certainly on the right path, and learning all this stuff takes time. Again, I'd really recommend editing some existing articles to get the hang of it. You can also look at some

Featured Articles to get an idea of what the very best work on Wikipedia looks like. Please let me know if anything's unclear or if I can help you in any other way :) Actualcpscm ^{scrutinize, talk}

14:02, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Omg thank you a lot. This was again very helpful. I am editing some existing pages already, adding some citations and infos - although some minor edits so far, I am planning to improve some English music bios via translations from Italian pages (as suggested by Wikipedia on the bio itself, i.e. Franco Battiato or C.S.I.).

Regarding this page, I've improved it a lot following all your advices, even including a musical artist box template. For now I reduced the discography to a bare minimum, all sourced. Also tried hard to source everything that could look like original research - although the boundaries between information and original research are sometimes still unclear to me reading existing bios, I am making sure that this one stays very neutral. B romeoandjuliet (talk) 09:22, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

@Ilghibellinfuggiasco Always happy to help :)

Footnote b on

WP:OR

reads: A source "directly supports" a given piece of material if the information is present explicitly in the source. For example, if one source says "Musician ABC makes almost exclusively Jazz music", and another source says "The album X is not very different from Musician ABC's other albums", you can include either one of those pieces of information in an article. However, you can't write "album X is a Jazz album", because you would be combining the sources to reach a conclusion that isn't in either of them. Any analysis needs to be present explicitly in a reliable source; even if it's completely logical or reasonable analysis from combining two great sources, it still counts as OR if neither of the sources reaches that conclusion.

I hope this makes sense. I'll let another AfC reviewer take a look at the draft, I see you've submitted it again. If there's anything else I can do to help, just let me know :) Happy editing! Actualcpscm ^{scrutinize, talk} 10:42, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello Actualcpscm,

Backlog

Redirect drive: In response to an unusually high redirect backlog, we held a redirect backlog drive in May. The drive completed with 23851 reviews done in total, bringing the redirect backlog to 0 (momentarily). Congratulations to Hey man im josh who led with a staggering 4316 points, followed by Meena and Greyzxq with 2868 and 2546 points respectively. See this page for more details. The redirect queue is steadily rising again and is steadily approaching 4,000. Please continue to help out, even if it's only for a few or even one review a day.

Redirect autopatrol: All administrators without autopatrol have now been added to the redirect autopatrol list. If you see any users who consistently create significant amounts of good quality redirects, consider requesting redirect autopatrol for them here.

WMF work on PageTriage: The

WT:NPPR

when we are ready for beta testers.

Articles for Creation (AFC): All new page reviewers are now automatically approved for Articles for Creation draft reviewing (you do not need to apply at

AFC helper script, visit Special:Preferences, visit the Gadgets tab, tick "Yet Another AFC Helper Script", then click "Save". To find drafts to review, visit Special:NewPagesFeed

, and at the top left, tick "Articles for Creation". To review a draft, visit a submitted draft, click on the "More" menu, then click "Review (AFCH)". You can also comment on and submit drafts that are unsubmitted using the script.

You can review the AFC workflow at

draftspace is optional

, so moves of drafts to mainspace (even if they are not ready) should not be reverted, except possibly if there is conflict of interest.

Pro tip: Did you know that visual artists such as painters have their own

WP:ARTIST

4b (solo exhibition, not group exhibition, at a major museum) or 4d (being represented within the permanent collections of two museums).

Reminders

• Newsletter feedback - please take this
  short poll
  about the newsletter.
• There is live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord and #wikimedia-npp ^connect on IRC.
• Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
• To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Hi, when quoting science, why do we look at peer reviewed articles only rather than from qualified people only-as to what they said, and even sometimes from unqualified if they have patents granted? Albert Einstein was dead against peer review, his two peer reviewed articles were rejected by none less than bohr, which later on won nobel prizes, bohr later apologised and agreed with non peer reviwed articles. einstein infact used to write a letter to editor that if the journal will peer review then dont publish, the whole idea being all new and basic -peers may not exist which means equals. heddy lammar is an example of unqualified but with biggest contribution to science by her patents -namely wifi, blue tooth. --Drshrutikantbhagat (talk) 05:23, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Drshrutikantbhagat! Welcome to Wikipedia.

Peer review is certainly an imperfect process, but the community does consider reliably published academic articles to be some of the most reliable sources out there. Part of the beauty of science is that it's constantly evolving and changing, and no serious publisher would reject the concept of relativity nowadays. Einstein famously thought that quantum mechanics was completely implausible ("God does not play dice"), and look where we are now! Peer review is not perfect because science is not perfect, and it doesn't claim to be either. But a paper published in Nature is about as reliable as it gets.

On a side note, having a patent granted is not always an indication that someone is particularly qualified (although the example you bring up was). Patents can be granted for all kinds of trivial "inventions".

I hope this helps. If I've been unclear, or I misunderstood your question, feel free to ask for any clarification. I'd be happy to help :) Welcome again! Actualcpscm ^{scrutinize, talk} 11:55, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

		The Half Barnstar
		It was a pleasure working with you on List of awards and honours received by Angela Merkel. May the FL nomination be swift and smooth! Hey man im josh (talk) 14:46, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, If needed I'll ask you question! --Abdullahalmasudhossain (talk) 18:41, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello --Faizanalisultan (talk) 10:10, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi Faizanalisultan! Welcome to Wikipedia. Please let me know if I can help you with anything :) Actualcpscm ^{scrutinize, talk} 19:02, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi there, my fellow colleague :) , I just have a quick question im hoping you could answer to the best of your ability.

Firstly huge thank you for cleaning up some of the work in an article I created, I'm surely hoping to better the community and contribute tremendously to the encyclopedia.

I just wanted to know after you have reviewed the page why haven't you marked it as reviewed?

It definitely needs more information and sources but is featured in at least 3 independent and reliable sources which people trust and to get there news from, at least in Africa. And has recieved an Award nomination in the respective field.

your reply would help me tremendously to understand the process of new page reviewers who don't necessarily mark a page as reviewed, I ask this because I have at least 2 new articles which I'll be contributing to the encyclopedia and just want to know finner details. Should I submit the next 2 articles via AFC?

What are your thoughts? Frankymulls (talk) 16:41, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for your work so far, we're glad to have you :)

I assume you're referring to

WP:BLP

. It's not unusual for multiple NPP patrollers to take a look at a page before someone marks it as reviewed, and it doesn't mean that there's necessarily anything wrong.

Feel free to create future articles directly, I don't see a need to go through AfC.

I hope this helps. If you have any other questions or concerns, feel free to ask. Happy editing! Actualcpscm ^{scrutinize, talk} 17:16, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

This helps a lot! Thank you I will reach out to you if I have anymore questions. I will be a huge contributor to wikipedia in the near future, currently doing more research on topics which are relevant and in the now time.

Cheers! Frankymulls (talk) 23:45, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

On 31 August 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article List of awards and honours received by Angela Merkel, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Forbes named German chancellor Angela Merkel the world's most powerful woman fourteen times? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/List of awards and honours received by Angela Merkel. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, List of awards and honours received by Angela Merkel), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Z1720 (talk) 00:02, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at

I attempted to duplicate content from this page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_from_Goa) to this vacant section (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goa#Notable_people). My edit was reversed. I endeavored to converse with the editor on my talk page, but I have not received any further communication. Can you assist me? --LeónGonsalvesofGoa (talk) 02:27, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi @LeónGonsalvesofGoa! Welcome to Wikipedia.

It looks like there's a good reason for this list to be split from the article, with the main article being quite long. I suppose you read

WP:CWW

already, as the other editor linked to that guideline.

The list was created way back in 2004 and has been in use since. To be clear, there's not a rule that says it can't be merged, but there seems to be tacit agreement within the community that the list is better as a standalone page to ensure that

WP:MERGEPROP). I'll ping @DaxServer

as well, what do you think about a possible merge?

In general, some people may not see when you reply to them on your talk page, because they're not automatically notified. You can send a notification to other editors by mentioning them (like I did above with DaxServer). Please let me know if you have any other questions or concerns, I'd be happy to help. Welcome again :) Actualcpscm ^{scrutinize, talk} 11:49, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. Where I'm feeling perplexed is that other sections possess a summary along with a link to another page, whereas this section lacks the same. If I'm comprehending correctly, do I need to compose a similar summary of the list for it to be incorporated into the main article? LeónGonsalvesofGoa (talk) 03:19, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

@LeónGonsalvesofGoa I think the reasoning behind is probably that it doesn't make much sense to write a summary for a list. List of people from Goa is just a list, and that's relatively clear from the title, so what use is there in summarising it on Goa (and how would you go about that)? In contrast, it makes sense (conceptually) to summarise Media in Goa in the main article, for example. Actualcpscm ^{scrutinize, talk} 10:32, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that actually makes sense. Simultaneously, I'm curious about alternative ways we can encapsulate notable individuals from Goa. It appears that this article is deficient in such information. Other articles concerning prominent cities seem to contain more than just a list (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beijing#Beijing_born_celebrities)(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscow#Notable_people)(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw#Famous_people). What if I were to pick a few individuals from the list article and provide descriptions for them in the main article? LeónGonsalvesofGoa (talk) 02:44, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

@LeónGonsalvesofGoa That works :) Take care that you pick those individuals in accordance with some neutral and clear criterion; for example based on impact within the city (high-profile politicians, businesspeople) or cultural importance (e.g. artists with international recognition). Actualcpscm ^{scrutinize, talk} 09:03, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that's a good suggestion. Is there a criterion that Wikipedia already employs to identify noteworthy individuals? I'm still learning the policies. LeónGonsalvesofGoa (talk) 17:44, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

I don‘t think there‘s a guideline or policy about this specific question. But as a rule of thumb, I‘d go off of the volume of

GNG-compliant sourcing. Not because notability is itself a concern, but because the volume of coverage seems like a good proxy for importance to me. Actualcpscm ^{scrutinize, talk}

18:31, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I hope I'm making an appropriate message here! I just saw your username at the PR volunteer list for films, and I was wondering if you'd like to stop by my PR of an article I'm looking to nominate for FAC. I've done some work on it, but I want to hear from more perspectives as to how I can further polish the article to face it against the peoples of FAC. If you're interested I'd love to hear your thoughts on it! Thankss :) GeraldWL 04:29, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Gerald Waldo Luis, thanks for reaching out!

I'm currently extremely busy irl, and I don't have time to take a detailed look; sorry to disappoint about that. Just skimming the article, the main concern I would bring up is sourcing. From the first paragraph of the "Background" subsection (in "Production"): There's an unsourced quote there, and quotes

always

need inline citations. I suppose that the citations at the end of the paragraph support the content in that paragraph, but it may be better to have specific sources for specific claims; FAC sourcing standards are quite high. I'm not a great person to ask for feedback about FAC though, I've never even nominated an article over there.

Best of luck with your work :) Actualcpscm ^{scrutinize, talk} 17:21, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at

The study centers around a prototype tool, ConvoWizard, which is designed to warn Wikipedia editors when a discussion they are replying to is getting tense and at risk of derailing into personal attacks or incivility. More information about ConvoWizard and the study can be found at our research project page on meta-wiki.

If this sounds like it might be interesting to you, you can use this link to sign up and install ConvoWizard. Of course, if you are not interested, feel free to ignore this message.

If you have any questions or thoughts about the study, our team is happy to discuss! You may direct such comments to me or to my collaborator, Cristian_at_CornellNLP.

Thank you for your consideration.

--- Jonathan at CornellNLP (talk) 17:04, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Jonathan at CornellNLP! Thanks for reaching out, this sounds quite interesting. However, I'm extremely busy right now, so I'll get back to you on this as soon as I can. Actualcpscm ^{scrutinize, talk} 17:44, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest! No worries if you're busy right now, we'd be happy to have you join later on whenever you become less busy. Jonathan at CornellNLP (talk) 13:34, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

New Page Patrol | October 2023 Backlog Drive
On 1 October, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Articles will earn 3x as many points compared to redirects. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:13, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at

Congratulations, Actualcpscm! The list you nominated, List of awards and honours received by Angela Merkel, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best lists on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured list. Keep up the great work! Cheers, PresN (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello Actualcpscm,

Backlog update: At the time of this message, there are 11,300 articles and 15,600 redirects awaiting review. This is the highest backlog in a long time. Please help out by doing additional reviews!

October backlog elimination drive: A one-month backlog drive for October will start in one week! Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Articles will earn 4x as many points compared to redirects. You can sign up here.

PageTriage code upgrades: Upgrades to the

NPP open letter in 2022 and actioned by the WMF Moderator Tools Team in 2023, are ongoing. More information can be found here. As part of this work, the Special:NewPagesFeed now has a new version in beta! The update leaves the NewPagesFeed appearance and function mostly identical to the old one, but updates the underlying code, making it easier to maintain and helping make sure the extension is not decommissioned due to maintenance issues in the future. You can try out the new Special:NewPagesFeed here

- it will replace the current version soon.

Notability tip: Professors can meet

WP:PROF #1 by having their academic papers be widely cited by their peers. When reviewing professor articles, it is a good idea to find their Google Scholar or Scopus profile and take a look at their h-index and number of citations. As a very rough rule of thumb, for most fields, articles on people with a h-index of twenty or more

, a first-authored paper with more than a thousand citations, or multiple papers each with more than a hundred citations are likely to be kept at AfD.

Reviewing tip: If you would like like a second opinion on your reviews or simply want another new page reviewer by your side when patrolling, we recommend pair reviewing! This is where two reviewers use Discord voice chat and screen sharing to communicate with each other while reviewing the same article simultaneously. This is a great way to learn and transfer knowledge.

Reminders:

• You can access live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord.
• Consider adding the project discussion page to your watchlist.
• To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:45, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello! How do you create a new article ij wikipedia? --Wikicoconut4life (talk) 11:52, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Wikicoconut4life, welcome to Wikipedia!

Creating an article from scratch is very difficult, and it may be a frustrating experience because you need to be familiar with a lot of different policies & guidelines on how to write appropriate content for Wikipedia. It‘s not usually recommended for new editors, but it‘s entirely allowed.

Your first article

provides guidance for new users on writing an article, including some of the more technical aspects. I suggest you read through that, as well as some of the policies it links to. I‘d be happy to help you with any questions.

There is a basic requirement for standalone article topics called notability. In most cases, that means that independent and reliable sources need to have published significant content on the subject.

Something else to be aware of is that it's generally not a good idea to create articles about yourself, your family or friends, or a company or organization that you work for or with. That's mainly because it's extremely difficult to write from a

here

.

I know it can be discouraging to have all these guidelines thrown at you, but please don‘t let it dissuade you from editing here on Wikipedia. Meanwhile, it may be good to go around and improve existing articles to learn the ropes. If you see something wrong, don‘t worry too much about knowing all the guidelines; be

bold and fix it! Happy editing! :) Actualcpscm ^{scrutinize, talk}

12:39, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

How to make my own Wikipedia --Littlegregjr (talk) 22:05, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Littlegregjr, welcome to Wikipedia!

I assume you mean creating an article about yourself, also referred to as an

Your first article

provides guidance for new users on writing an article, including some of the more technical aspects. I suggest you read through that, as well as some of the policies it links to. I‘d be happy to help you with any questions.

There is a basic requirement for standalone article topics called notability. In most cases, that means that independent and reliable sources need to have published significant content on the subject.

Something else to be aware of is that it's generally not a good idea to create articles about yourself, your family or friends, or a company or organization that you work for or with. That's mainly because it's extremely difficult to write from a

here

.

I know it can be discouraging to have all these guidelines thrown at you, but please don‘t let it dissuade you from editing here on Wikipedia. Meanwhile, it may be good to go around and improve existing articles to learn the ropes. If you see something wrong, don‘t worry too much about knowing all the guidelines; be

bold and fix it! Happy editing! :) Actualcpscm ^{scrutinize, talk}

13:47, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello mentor how to add a title just like Proposed Vande Metro services is written ?? --Ayushmaansecured (talk) 08:09, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi Ayushmaansecured, welcome to Wikipedia! I'm not sure I fully understand your question, but I think you're referring to what we call headings. You can get this effect by typing this in the source editor: "=== Example ===". This will render as:

Example

Two equals-signs make a heading, three a sub-heading (a bit smaller), four a sub-sub-heading (smaller again), etc. I hope this helps! Let me know if there's anything else I can do for you. Happy editing! Actualcpscm ^{scrutinize, talk} 20:52, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

thank you so much Ayushmaansecured (talk) 07:00, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello, can I make a Wikipedia page? --Santos wiki17 (talk) 14:06, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi Santos wiki17, welcome to Wikipedia!

Creating an article from scratch is very difficult, and it may be a frustrating experience because you need to be familiar with a lot of different policies & guidelines on how to write appropriate content for Wikipedia. It‘s not usually recommended for new editors, but it‘s entirely allowed.

Your first article

provides guidance for new users on writing an article, including some of the more technical aspects. I suggest you read through that, as well as some of the policies it links to. I‘d be happy to help you with any questions.

There is a basic requirement for standalone article topics called notability. In most cases, that means that independent and reliable sources need to have published significant content on the subject.

Something else to be aware of is that it's generally not a good idea to create articles about yourself, your family or friends, or a company or organization that you work for or with. That's mainly because it's extremely difficult to write from a

here

.

I know it can be discouraging to have all these guidelines thrown at you, but please don‘t let it dissuade you from editing here on Wikipedia. Meanwhile, it may be good to go around and improve existing articles to learn the ropes. If you see something wrong, don‘t worry too much about knowing all the guidelines; be

bold and fix it! Happy editing! :) Actualcpscm ^{scrutinize, talk}

12:39, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for your change of lead at Trams in England. I needed help with the style guide.

So thank you. 212.140.200.197 (talk) 22:02, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Always happy to help :) Let me know if you have any other questions or concerns. Happy editing! Actualcpscm ^{scrutinize, talk} 23:12, 10 October 2023 (UTC)