Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 964

This is an current talk page .

hi,

can you please tell me why the citation from forbes was removed? is forbes not considered a reliable enough source?

thank you in advance for explaining. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BillieRichie (talk • contribs) 11:34, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

@BillieRichie: Editor GermanJoe, who removed your contribution, left a note at the removal: “Forbes "contributor" fluff and mere interviews are not independent reliable sources.” Have you seen it? --CiaPan (talk) 11:48, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

@

WP:RSP#Forbes, especially the part about "Forbes.com contributors". Regards SoWhy

13:13, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello @

WP:RSP#Forbes is good guidance, but you should read the whole page and its advice in context when you have some time later. Hope this helps a bit. GermanJoe (talk

) 13:27, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. I had not seen any of those specific issues about Forbes. I am quite surprised, to say the least. I always thought Forbes was a respectable media outlet. I still don't know quite to make of this. Anyway, the citation is real and it's not fluff. In any case, when i have a citation that hopefully meets the wikipedia pages, i'll add that. thank you again for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BillieRichie (talk • contribs) 16:27, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Can I please join???— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cole steinhoff1 (talk • contribs) 6:58 pm, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

@

sources. Best.--PATH SLOPU

14:15, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I see that you have already joined, but remember that additions to an article need to be supported with

WP:Referencing for beginners for details. Dbfirs

18:34, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Wacarder09 (talk) 17:50, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

@

Wikipedia:Your first article. Your draft is not ready to be published until it clearly shows why the subject is notable. There are a few reviews of the series - you just have to incorporate them as sources. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)}

18:36, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I need help. Has just created https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shunichi_Toki but why I can't find it on my internet search engine. Did something wrong with the page? I follow the instruction how to create a page and there was no problem on my previous page. please help me and thank you. Juliet6884 (talk) 10:21, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

@Juliet6884: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The article has not been formally reviewed by a New Page Patroller; until it is, it will not appear in internet search engines. Once it is marked as reviewed, it will take time for the search engines to index the page. You will need to be patient. 331dot (talk) 10:23, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

@331dot: Oh, Thank you! I'll update the page and make it more complete.

I don't read Japanese, so I can't be sure, but the references look like publicity releases rather than independent WP:Reliable sources. Perhaps you could check this before the article is reviewed? Dbfirs 18:43, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Hey! I'm really sorry if this is a stupid question, but I just joined wikipedia and I really don't know a lot. I was just wondering about when the articles I make in my sandbox get published. If anyone could tell me that would be great. Thanks so much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mayag224 (talk • contribs) 16:24, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

@Mayag224:Welcome to Teahouse. Feel free to ask any of your doubts on editing here. There is no problem for that. Normally , we can create an article in mainspace after searching it's name in search bar. But the better way for you ( since you created draft in sandbox) is adding a template {{subst:Submit}} in the top of your article that you prepared in the sandbox (I done it for you). By this an experienced user will review your article and publish it. Regards.--PATH SLOPU 16:56, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

The draft would benefit from a couple more WP:Reliable sources before it is reviewed. Dbfirs 18:28, 4 June 2019 (UTC) Now too late! Dbfirs 19:43, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

@

WP:GNG. I'd also cull the overly long plot synopsis in the draft. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)}

18:49, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I need to ask somebody experienced that there is need of changing the title name of Dean Ambrose page to Jon Moxley, because all the reliable sources like forbes, sbnation, wrestling inc, comicbookdotcom have updated using his name as Jon moxley. But wikipedia is still not updated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FkinJonMoxley21 (talk • contribs) 16:14, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
I suggest a new page be made, because Dean Ambrose was his old character, so they are two different people and not related.--XTMontana (talk) 16:27, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

They are the same person, but there is a discussion going on at

Talk:Dean Ambrose. JTP ^{(talk • contribs}

) 20:11, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello, I have an article I am working on, how do I publish it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:XTMontana/sandbox/Canada#Introduction--XTMontana (talk) 16:13, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

@

link the pages in Wikipedia using [[ ]] markup. Thank you.--PATH SLOPU

16:46, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Also, you must not copy content from another website because this is illegal under copyright law. Your draft has been deleted for this reason. Dbfirs 18:31, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

@Dbfirs: This account has been indefinitely blocked for vandalism. Interstellarity T 🌟 20:24, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, if I'd looked at the editor's history (or his brother's), I wouldn't have tried to be helpful. Dbfirs 20:37, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Can you tell me how to add user boxes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Affan7 (talk • contribs) 19:28, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Your question was asked and answered at User talk:David Biddulph#Ask. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:33, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict):Hi Affan7 and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia:Userboxes gives some technical details, but it's OK to copy user boxes that you like from other editors' user pages. Dbfirs 19:36, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Hey, Affan7, I've just popped over to your userpage and sorted out your userbox problem. It needed the 'nowiki' elements removing. These allow our 'wikimarkup' (a bit like html) to be shown as text, rather than acted upon by your browser. But when you want that markup to actually do something, you must remove the nowiki bits either side of that code. I hope this makes sense, and that you're happy with what I've done. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:26, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

How do you change your sandbox name?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gamerkillerz (talk • contribs) 22:50, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

@

[ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.) TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)}

23:27, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Mattevansc3 (talk) 21:52, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

@

WP:BADSOCK, and if you've edited using different account names, we request that you post a disclosure on your user page with the other account name(s) you've edited under, per User talk:Mattevansc3. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)}

22:19, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

@TimTempleton: I was being vague to ensure I wasn't in breach of harassment guidelines. The COI is based on them doing positive edits of individuals they converse with online to push a shared ideology without declaring their connections. I just wanted to know if on top of that them publicly announcing their edit and tagging in the subject of the edit made it more than a COI before I went to a functionary due to the evidence being off-Wiki. I only use the one account. Mattevansc3 (talk) 00:33, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

@

WP:OR and can be quickly identified and deleted. If you see examples of this, you can challenge the additions and discuss on the talk page. If you see other editors adding unsourced info who are not engaging constructively on the article talk page, you can always start a thread at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. If they are wrong, they will be warned and then possibly blocked. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)}

00:43, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

If you reference the exact same thing twice using the same wording it is different.[1]

How do I make these references the same number at the bottom of the page and right here--> ^[2]

Thank you in advance CBatteries (talk) 00:41, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

@CBatteries: I think the info you are looking for is in the named footnotes section. Help:Footnotes#Footnotes: using a source more than once TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 00:45, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

@Timtempleton: that was indeed what I was looking for! Thank you very much CBatteries (talk) 00:49, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

I’m doing research on a subject where an author came up in the reading I’ve been doing and a research network Seminar I participated in. I decided to edit it for course assignment and it turns out it was originally submitted by the person that the article is about. I edited it and found sources to help make it correspond with the concerns listed on the page. I even had to explain I wasn’t the person who originally submitted it. I’d like to make sure the page isn’t deleted but not sure how so I can continue with my assignment and because it’s relevant to my research. Should I create a new page with my own words and let the other one be deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jennmorris1 (talk • contribs) 03:18, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

@Jennmorris1: The issue is notability. You may wish to make an offline copy of the article. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 03:29, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse,

Notability is probably the most important and most widely accepted content guideline. Successful editors must develop a deep understanding of this guideline and how it is most commonly applied. In the end, it comes down to consensus. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it

04:22, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Cullen328 I made my argument about why I thought the entry was notable, and provided more sources in the article to back that up. Maybe if I discussed in particular the content of her work/writing that I see and have seen others discuss that I think is notable? I totally get it’s by consensus but if other editors on Wikipedia have never heard of the entry and I have and it’s notable in my field, I’m trying to figure out how to convey this.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jennmorris1 (talk • contribs) 04:44, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi

Template:u only work when a post is properly signed the first time around. I'll ping Cullen328 for you this time, but try to also keep this in mind when posting. -- Marchjuly (talk

) 05:30, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

notability; and you should also remove most or all of the worthless references that do not attest to notability, and seem to be there to act as a smokescreen to conceal the lack of good references. Maproom (talk

) 08:49, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

@

REPOSITORY). The draft space is for developing articles until they meet Wikipedia standards, but only within a limited timespan – Wikipedia:Drafts says after six months abandoned drafts become eligible for deletion, too. So moving to the Draft: is just a way to keep the work from being deleted until it becomes accepted as an article, not if it can't be accepted as an article. (Ping: Jennmorris1) --CiaPan (talk

) 11:09, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

@Maproom: @CiaPan: so does that mean I can move it to draft to work on it or I should give up? I totally understand the arguments why it’s not notable, although I think that it’s somewhat subjective and a basis of consensus can be problematic (for example, underrepresented voices that might not have as much of an electronic footprint and is discussed in niche- I understand there’s a debate about what is niche - is discourse that can fall through the cracks). For example, how many people reviewing this article are female, disabled etc with a familiarity with the focus on rhetoric and composition and familiar with off-line discussions dealing with this subject? I understand that identity and familiarity doesn’t preclude or overwrite the standards of academic, but are considerations I’d like to point out, at least for food for thought about more general editing practices that aren’t limited to this particular article. Plus the bias against self-publishing as self-promotion can be problematic, although I can see if there’s not much or widespread electronic footprint saying it is more than self-promotion, then that doesn’t meet the standards of Wikipedia. From what I can see though, this standard is not used uniformly, but perhaps it is evolving from prior years—I saw in a discussion of deletion of another article that oversight has gotten more stringent now than years ago? Anyway, this has been a lesson of rhetorical discourse I’m willing to walk away from with a better understanding. Okay I’m going to try to sign this right now!!! Jennmorris1 (talk) 01:57, 5 June 2019 (UTC)jennmorris1

For the curious: Melissa Miles McCarter is the article, and as of 3 June, at AfD. David notMD (talk) 10:36, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi there!

For a school project I chose to work on the Wiki page for Thelma Mothershed-Wair, and I have not heard anything (email or otherwise) on the status of my draft. For a while, the Wiki page showed my changes, but after returning to the page it has gone back to the way it looked before I had added anything.

I was told to contact Wiki to find out the status- Please help!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarahacard (talk • contribs) 02:04, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

First, it is not your draft, it is an existing article which you have been editing. Second, editors do not get notified about their edits. Third, at the article, if you click on View history on the top menu it shows that you made 14 edits, and then all were reverted to bring the article back to a version before you started. The reason was not that the content you added was not true, but that you did not properly create the references in support of that content. See Help:Referencing for beginners. P.S. All of the content you added is also at View history, so not lost. If you can learn how to create references, you can work on adding some of it back. David notMD (talk) 02:54, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

I am editing a page for a body freedom activist Gypsy Taub. I want to add information about her current charity work that she does in Mexico and wikipedia keeps deleting it right away. Even when I gave a reference to a legitimate news publication they deleted it and threatened to block me for "defamatory content"

Here is what I am trying to add:

She currently runs a psychedelic clinic and rehab for street kids in Mexico.

Here is the source of information:

https://sfbay.ca/2018/09/30/buck-naked-activists-march-for-psychedelics-body-freedom/

How do I get around wikipedia editors deleting my information? Do I need to contact someone higher up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesThomas888 (talk • contribs) 02:22, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

You added it once and it was deleted once. Reason is that the reference is to an interview with Taub. What people say about themselves is not considered a reliable source. Also, you deleted a referenced quotation and a referenced paragraph without any explanation. The subsequent editor reverted all that in addition to deleting the psych clinic statement and ref. David notMD (talk) 03:02, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi

oversighter. This kind of thing only happens whenever what was posted is a serious violation or a major policy or guideline. Since I'm not an administrator, I can't check to see what it was that you wrote, but I strongly advise you against trying to post the same thing anywhere on Wikipedia again. -- Marchjuly (talk

) 05:38, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Is there anyone who can help me with my Wikipedia Article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MVMG2019 (talk • contribs) 16:09, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

@MVMG2019: Welcome to he teahouse. Are you referring to this article (draft): M.A.C. (rapper)? OkayKenG (talk) 20:03, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes I am. Thanks

Hi @MVMG2019:. I did some research about your subject but I cannot find any news article or published story about him. If you have access to reliable third party sources, perhaps you could list them here. Maybe we can take a look if you need help with adding content. It would also establish notability. Regards, Darwin Naz (talk) 23:20, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

There are no news articles or published story about him just yet but there will be with in the next month. What about published Songs does that not count? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:1A10:E12B:CCE6:93C4:D005:945D (talk) 23:52, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

The best place,

WP:Notable. You may be someday, but not quite yet.--Quisqualis (talk

) 06:16, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

It's this one [2], it's large and awesome, I removed marks and stains but if you look closer, there are like little points, pixelation on it, English is not my first language, please tell me if something is not got across. Very very kind regards. --LLcentury (talk) 14:17, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

• @LLcentury: Those little points do not look like pixels to me (if they were, they would all have the same size and square shapes), but rather like film grain artifacts of the original 1912 photograph.

I do not know how to clean up such artifacts, but your best try is to ask the fine folks at the Wikipedia:Graphics Lab. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 14:24, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

@Tigraan:, thanks a lot! --LLcentury (talk) 14:32, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I really wouldn't bother trying to remove the grains. The picture is over 100 years old and used the technology of the time; no-one expects it to be 21st century perfect. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 19:47, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

@

photo manipulation is blurry.) Tigraan^{Click here to contact me}

08:51, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Respected Sir/Ma'am, Good evening. I am Kirtikumar an independent cybersecurity researcher from Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India. I have edited the article:- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kristoffer_von_Hassel I am adding my achievements which show that I am the youngest child in Microsoft hall of fame. Bookofachievers:-https://bookofachievers.com/articles/meet-the-youngest-cybersecurity-researcher-on-microsoft-fame-page 1st World Record:-http://www.worldrecordsindia.com/2018/07/youngest-cyber-security-researcher/ 2nd World Record:- http://onlineworldrecords.com/youngest-cyber-security-researcher/ Cyber Security Awards:- http://cybersecurityawards.com/2018-winners Security Serious Awards:- https://www.securityserious.com/unsung-heroes-awards/ Sony(Star badge for multiple reports and youngest child among all the researchers):- https://secure.sony.net/hallofthanks Transloadit(1st Rank among 129 researchers of the World):- https://transloadit.com/security/ Apple( Youngest Child to be listed on Apple's Hall of fame):- https://support.apple.com/zh-mo/HT201536 Microsoft( Youngest child to get listed on their fame page consecutively 2times):- https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/msrc/researcher-acknowledgments-online-services-archive Infovys:- https://infovys.com/acknowledgement_2018.html

Please check it and let me know. Looking forward to your positive reply. Have a nice day!

Kind Regards, Kirti — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angelozappia96 (talk • contribs) 07:57, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Angelozappia96. You don't seem to have edited the article, but you have posted a request on its talk page, which is the best approach if you are indeed the subject of the article. You'll see that someone has replied to your request, asking for more information. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:04, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

My apologies - re-reading the above and CiaPan's comments below, it is clear that you are not claiming to be the subject of the article. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:48, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

@

Wikipedia:Your first article tutorial. --CiaPan (talk) 09:10, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Please also see – and follow – the requirements of WP:Verifiability policy, as well as rules about WP:Citing sources. --CiaPan (talk

) 09:14, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nat1991 (talk • contribs) 05:10, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi

here, but there needs to be a really good reason such a request to be accepted. -- Marchjuly (talk

) 05:48, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hi Nat1991 and welcome to the Teahouse. Pages belong to the Wikipedia community. No individual can claim ownership or editing rights. This is the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit. Page protection is granted only in cases of repeated vandalism, and the edits at Arjun (singer) look like a content dispute, not vandalism, so they should be discussed on the talk page of the article. Dbfirs 05:51, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Thanks, guys for the info I'm still very new to doing editing, etc for Wikipedia and I'm still getting the hang of it. I'm also doing the page editing for Mr. Arjun, I am an employee. someone had also requested to delete the new image that I had uploaded and the editing of information I have put also has been deleted could someone please be kind enough to advise me on what to do?

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nat1991 (talk • contribs) 05:58, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

You might benefit from trying

WP:Paid status which must be declared. Wikipedia does not have "profiles" or pages "for" individuals, but only articles about subjects. The subject does not own the article. Dbfirs

06:03, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

(

finanical conflict of interest. So, before you make any further edits to that article or any content about Arjun, you would be wise to familiarize yourself with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines related to both conflict of interest editing and paid editing. I will add a template to your user talk page that contain links to the pages you need to take a look at.

As for the image file, you uploaded that to Wikimedia Commons which is technically a separate project. The file is being discussed at c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Arjun18.jpg if you want to know why the file was nominated from deletion. Before commenting in that discusison though you might want to read c:Commons:Licensing and c:Commons:OTRS for some general information since I think you'll find it helpful. -- Marchjuly (talk

) 06:11, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks alot for the info !!! much appreciated :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nat1991 (talk • contribs) 06:17, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Nat1991. Please comply immediately with Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure, which is mandatory. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:24, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

@

[ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.) TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)}

18:30, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Are you serious? Just curious why didn't you watch the WKYC news report? Why didn't you listen to the podcast? Why didn't you look at his social media posts? #kennyandersonshowcase posts. I looked at Charles Barkley and his page isn't all verified. Kenny Anderson is doing something powerful! You should be proud to spread that to people! We had multiple kids get looked at by college coaches. Please add to his page.

Kind regards Ian Cunningham — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iancle (talk • contribs) 18:46, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm glad this event does good in the world, but to be frank Wikipedia has no interest in spreading the word about good works, see

WP:OSE. It does not mean your inappropriate content can be permitted too. It must be properly sourced. 331dot (talk

) 18:54, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Existing article is Kenny Anderson (basketball). Iancle has added Showcase content three times and has been deleted three times as not having valid references. A discussion has been started at the article's Talk page. Iancle also has an unresolved conflict of interest issue. David notMD (talk) 19:53, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

The way to 'sign' a comment is to type four of ~ at the end. David notMD (talk) 20:16, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

@Iancle: please post any links to reliable news coverage of the event and I will review it. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:19, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Much of your current entry on Exercise Tiger is factually wrong, and too much of it is now about the exercise itself but about comparatively trivial related matters. I am the author of two books about Tiger, "Channel Firing" (UK, 1989, published in the US in 1990 as "Exercise Tiger", and "The Cover Plan Conspiracy: the British and Exercise Tiger, 1944" (kindle e-book, 2017). I think I can claim to know more about Tiger than anyone on either side of the Atlantic, and it really bugs me to see false information about it published in Wikipedia. I am therefore trying to emend the current entry. My problem is twofold. 1) I have no experience whatever in editing a Wikipedia entry, and I am doing my best to learn as I go along, 2) "The Cover Plan Conspiracy", which contains a great deal of new information, is a Kindle e-book and, as you will know, the e-book format is not friendly to extensive footnotes or endnotes (if only because of the obtrusive hyperlinks). Nor does an e-book allow me to refer to page-numbers. So in citing a source that the reader can verify for him or herself I am forced to refer only to the book itself.

There is perhaps an additional problem in that "The Cover Plan Conspiracy", which is closely argued, has some pretty contentious things to say. Not to mention, of course, the tendency to look down on non-fiction e-books as likely to be the work of deluded single-issue fanatics (otherwise they would have sought out and found "real" publishers, wouldn't they?)

I would appreciate your guidance on these issues.

Nigel Lewis. — Preceding

• @Nigel S. Lewis: OK, that's a lot in one post. Let's try to take things in order.

First of all, per Wikipedia:Expert editors, none cares who you are, as long as you make useful edits referenced to reliable sources. "I know this because I have a PhD in the topic" has less weight than even a mediocre source. The reason is twofold: first, we have no way to check the claimed competency of an editor in a given topic, and second, we want readers to be able to check sources by themselves rather than say "trust that User:RandomGuyOnWikipedia who edited the page got it right". Of course, being an expert in a given topic still helps to edit that topic, but within Wikipedia's guidelines, so sources are key.

Second: if I understand correctly, The Cover Plan... is a self-published book (being an e-book rather than paperback is irrelevant). That means essentially there has been no editorial oversight from a reputable editor, and it cannot be considered a reliable secondary source, but rather a

not using Wikipedia as a means of promotion for your book

.

Third: I am not sure I understand your problem with reference formatting (the e-book format is not friendly to extensive footnotes or endnotes - well, maybe, but we are talking about references in Wikipedia, right?) Can you clarify what issues you encountered? Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 08:39, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Nigel S. Lewis. Just adding to what Tigraan has said above, the advice in Wikipedia:Expert editors makes it clear that we really do welcome the input of subject experts, and it also points out the need to follow the norms of editing Wikipedia - namely that no editor, no matter how much they know, may add statements that are not supported by reliable, published sources ('reliable' being defined by Wikipedia, not to suggest you or anyone else is an unreliable person). Now, I know nothing of the topic you are interested in, but I am currently mentoring a retired US geology professor who has worked at the cutting edge of underwater geological science. Yesterday, he asked me for guidance in how to set about correcting and updating a fundamental page we have on Mid-ocean ridges. Had he come to me 'out of the blue' I would have warned him not to dive in and make major changed to Wikipedia without first spending time understanding how things work around here, and how we collaborate together. But, luckily, we've been working together for over a year now (you've only been editing for two days), and he himself still recognises the problem of trying to make a major rewrite to an existing article that both he, and a fellow world-expert professor he works with, both feel is fundamentally flawed. I thought you might be interested to read the advice I have just given him as to how he might set about working to make signficant changes to that aricle for the benefit of Wikipedia users. You can read his question, and my initial answer here, on his talk page. I'm not sure if you'll find it all helpful, but the key thing is to bring in other editors and explain on the article's talk page clearly and simply what is a) wrong, and b) what changes you would like to make, and then gaining agreement on the direction of travel before setting out to implement those improvements, based on validly published resources and not original research, of course. (I'm afraid I can't offer to adopt/mentor you for the task you want to do, but I do wish you luck. The key to success here is collaboration with other editors, and learning to walk before trying to run.) Regards from the UK in this special, 75th anniversary week. Nick Moyes (talk) 09:44, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

I have restored the previous version of the article, as per the discussions. Done correctly and

well referenced, I'm sure we can get some (if not all) of your material back onto the page. Drop me a message on my talk page if you need help, however I'm not very knowledgeable in this area so I can't do too much. Regards, Willbb234 (talk

) 20:53, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

@Willbb234 - I now have a document prepared and read to send to you as e-mail detailing and analysing factual errors in the Wikipedia entry on Exercise Tiger. Problem is, I have no idea how to go about sending it to you as an e-mail. Please advise? Winterreisexly (talk) 11:17, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

So can y’all check my article on pastries i thinks it’s good but can y’all check it’s thanks s — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mads22333 (talk • contribs) 20:49, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

@

WP:NOTHERE. If you persist in disruptive editing, you will be blocked. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)}

21:02, 5 June 2019 (UTC)