Hi Bscprojekt. Is there a language you would be more comfortable with?
There are a lot of diferent things to do, and some things might be easier for you than other things. If you do find things that you are confident in, then it might be best to focus of those things specifically. That way, you wouldn't need to do anything that is too hard.
I don't think many people set out to look for mistakes systematically. Most of the time, I think they get found by people who just read over articles and see something that doesn't seem correct. Then they can check sources to see if it's an actual mistake.
If you can tell me more about what kind of mistakes you are looking for, I can check if there's anything else that can help? Alpha3031 (t • c) 18:39, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, my goal is to create an article for my organization down the line - I'm aware of the rules of writing but taking some time to practice with edits before doing it. Wanted to get your opinion on the direction that I should take in order to achieve my goal. --Anirhudh (talk) 07:51, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you're talking about the article you've received a decline for on your talk page Innowiki2025, you would need to find sources that meet all 4 of the criteria listed, in-depth (not just passing mentions), reliable, secondary and independent. Was there anything specific about those criteria you were confused about? Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:28, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Was there anything specific, you were confused about, Innowiki2025? Please read the linked pages and and explain what you find confusing. You should also explain if you have any connection to the subject you're writing about. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:18, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nauticalpenguin, because you have created a userpage over at meta, m:User:Nauticalpenguin, it will be shown as a Wikipedia:Global user page on all Wikimedia projects by default. The tab names are different because there are two options to edit what is shown here. If you select "View on meta.wikimedia.org" and then edit it there, changes will be made globally. If you hit "Create local userpage" instead, it will let you create a local user page for English Wikipedia specifically. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:30, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could still use your help on my User page regarding Userboxes. I can get some of the userbox templates to display correctly but others won't. I'm copying the userbox templates from Wikipedia:Userboxes/Userboxes and not changing them makng sure all userbox templates are are preceded by a single {{userboxtop}} and succeeded by a single {{userboxbottom}} Nauticalpenguin (talk) 21:54, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nauticalpenguin, I believe the issue here is because you are using userboxes that are on here but not on Meta. If your userpage is on Meta you will need to use Meta templates. Some of the userboxes you're using exist in both places, for example, Template:User name and m:Template:User name, but there is no m:Template:User visited for example. I'd say the easiest thing to do would be to copy your page to a local userpage here, but you can also try to copy the userboxes to your Meta userspace so that they work on all wikis. Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:04, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No worries Alpha3031, just a gentle heads up re Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brewing equipment that Merge is a different outcome to Redirect - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Administrator instructions. With a redirect we are simply keeping the term, and pointing it to the most appropriate article; with a merge we are keeping material, and placing it in the most appropriate article. When those taking part in a AfD discussion have indicated Merge as their preferred outcome, this is because they feel the material should be saved, but placed elsewhere. If those taking part in the discussion felt that the material wasn't worth saving, they would indicate Redirect. When carrying out a close it is important to follow consensus and mark down exactly what it is that the community want done. Closing as Merge uses different templates and a different procedure to Redirect. Importantly the article is left in place with tags to alert others that a merge is required. By closing as Redirect we effectively remove the article from the encyclopedia without keeping or merging the material, and with no alert to others that a merge is needed. I have now merged the material, so there is nothing for you to do. We all make mistakes, so no worries, just ensure when moving forward to pay attention to what people are saying in an AfD discussion, and close appropriately. Regards SilkTork (talk) 16:31, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing it out SilkTork. I am aware that merges and redirects are different things, but I based the close on the fact that participants seemed relatively indifferent on keeping the content even after merge was proposed as an alternate option. However, I do see now I never actually said that in my closing statement where I definitely should have, since it's a fairly obvious point of contention (especially in hindsight, but I was actually thinking about it during the close, it just never made it on to the metaphorical paper when I actually started writing the statement). I've edited the closing statement a bit, to hopefully make my intent a bit clearer. If you have any further feedback I would appreciate it. Alpha3031 (t • c) 16:55, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Noted your comments in the Grooming gangs AfD. If you follow through (as I hope you will) please note my comments on the closer's page. It's late here, so I won't be opening this myself today, but any DRV needs to look at both the failure to address policy other than notability but also the excessive off wiki coordination. At least they added a few words to the close... but hmm. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:59, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Based on my recollection of the discussion I probably would have closed as no consensus, but my primary concern was the previous close being patently erroneous. For that reason, I also found Dclemens's comments unhelpful, a departure from the more usual cases where notability is one of the loci, I suppose. I will be joining in on the discussion on the closer's talk page later but I don't know what I would come to on the matter of DRV yet. Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:25, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your input at the discussion. In fact, I should have come here sooner to say I have, as of reading the latest in that discussion, revised my opinion. I would not ask you or anyone to open the DRV, because I think it comes with significant and unaddressed personal risk. Thanks again. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:51, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello and welcome to the June 2025 newsletter, a quarterly-ish digest of Guild activities since April. Don't forget you can unsubscribe at any time; see below.
Hall of Fame: Congratulations to Dhtwiki for their well-deserved addition to the Hall of Fame last month, and thanks to GoldRomean for the nomination.
Election news: Voting in the mid-year coordinator election ends at 23:59 on 30 June. Results will be announced at the election page.
April Blitz: 14 of the 25 editors who signed up for the April 2025 Copy Editing Blitz copy edited 92,769 words in 30 articles. Barnstars awarded are available here.
May Drive: 31 of the 54 editors who signed up for the May 2025 Backlog Elimination Drive copy edited 384,392 words in 216 articles. Barnstars awarded are here.
June Blitz: 10 of the 12 editors who signed up for the June 2025 Copy Editing Blitz copy edited 26,652 words in 13 articles. Barnstars awarded are here.
Progress report: As of 02:30, 30 June 2025 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors have completed 148 requests since 1 January, and the backlog stands at 2,270 articles.
Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators.
To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.
The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes Issue 69, May–June 2025
In this issue we highlight a new partnership, Citation Watchlist and, as always, a roundup of news and community items related to libraries and digital knowledge.
How do I disclose who I work for on my home page. I read the COI notes but I don't understand how to use the template. --Slaatp25 (talk) 18:11, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have a proposed rename and move request in the link below. It's been seven days and someone posted with a mild opposition. Can I proceed with this move?
Hi Nauticalpenguin, if you're not sure about a close it is probably better to leave it for someone else. However, you can still leave a comment about how you think our policies and guidelines (in this case Wikipedia:Article titles and the various naming convetions at Template:Naming conventions) should be interpreted in this case to help make it easier for the next person. Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:34, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I am trying to add content to the Handbag Collections entry. The largest collection of handbags in the world, 8000, is owned by Ilene Hochberg Wood, as verified by ABC News, and dozens of newspaper and magazine articles. It comes up when you ask Google or AI, Chat gpt. Everytime I add it , with reference links, it gets eliminated shortly after. Why is this happening? --Mensababe55 (talk) 16:02, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mensababe55, the reference you provide needs to have enough information for someone else to find the exact same thing that you are reading, and it needs to be to a reliable source. Google search results show up slightly differently for everybody and change over time, and are not limited to reliable sources. In general, it is best to include at least the author's name, date of publication, title of the article, name of the website, book, newspaper or other work, and also the publisher, if this is different from the name of the work (so because ABC publishes ABC News, if that is the work cited you should not also include the publisher. This is both because links can break, and because it helps for accessibility, e.g., with screen readers. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:00, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I am new to this and thought that the world’s largest handbag collection, 8000 pieces and pending verification from Guinness (who lists the largest collection as being 3000 pieces - and is referencing the same collection), should be added to the Handbag Collecting entry. I included Google, which was a link to ABC News. What is the best way to reference this? There are numerous newspaper and magazine articles, as well as other television links (PBS, Univision, Fox News). I just thought that the ABC story was the most comprehensive, so linked to that one. What do you recommend? I wasn’t suggesting that a Google search was the source, only used the link I used to reach the video, which is posted on YouTube. Mensababe55 (talk) 14:26, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried again, this time providing links to stories on ABC News, PBS, and an AP News story published in the Philadelphia Inquirer. Hopefully those will be accepted. Thank you again. Mensababe55 (talk) 14:56, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your help and for taking the time to put the link in correctly. The addition to the handbag collecting entry seems to still be there. I will be eternally grateful!❤️ Mensababe55 (talk) 23:36, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I am wondering why my submission for the article for Stephanie Quon keeps being rejected. I have made large edits thus far to make sure the sources are secondary, reliable, and independent sources. I also made sure not to use large language models like ChatGPT to write this article.
Cookieswift657, I would normally suggest that you take your best three sources to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk to see if you can get more specific feedback for those sources, but there is currently one dotpoint in that draft with 8 different footnotes, none of them used anywhere else in the article. Having 8 footnotes for a 6 word dotpoint is a waste of reviewer time, and you should either stop doing things like that or find an activity that doesn't involve creating new articles. Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:55, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Saloniverma atk, this website is an encyclopedia, not a job board for illegal activities. We can't help you with that. Please consider contacting instagram's customer support instead, if that is your account. Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:58, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I am Patrick Reilly, CMO for Adirondack Trust, I disclosed a Conflict of Interest, as I am an employee of the company mentioned in the article. I need some advice on dealing with edits made to our page a while back. I think there might be some undue weight issues that take them from a fair and balanced perspective. Here's a summary:
Over the course of several years, we believe Disruptive Edits were made to this article. The edits overemphasize negative claims not widely reported that seems to violate WP:DUE policies. These editors seem to have conspired to obfuscate these edits with one positive edit, and minor edits to other articles to avoid appearing to be single page editors. We do not believe these edits were made in good faith, and do not demonstrate the core idea of neutrality that is so critical to Wikipedia edits.
To maintain due weight and neutrality, I propose that we either revise the section to align with the prominence given in reliable sources.
We request that all of the edits made by Nobbled thoroughbred and Hudsonmohawk be removed, and the page be reverted to its state prior to these edits. We are making this request as a preliminary step before we address the issue on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard.
Specifically, these two editors (who might be the same person) made disruptive edits which seem specifically focus on negative press. They added a section titled Allegations of Discriminatory Practices, and one Titled Robberies in an effort to discredit the organization.
Hi ElkHornSaratoiga, I've removed the robberies section because I don't think it fit well with our scope, but I would suggest making a clearer case as to what the best secondary sources say on the topic, and then a specific proposal as to what you think that section should look like. Focusing on the sources rather than the editors who wrote the current version of the article is more likely to convince editors responding to your request. You can then tag the changes you want to make as an edit request, and another editor will review your request and either accept or decline it. You may also find Wikipedia:Guide to effective COI edit requests helpful in writing a request that is more likely to be accepted. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:18, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Logoshimpo, I am always open to explaining or reconsidering my closes (or both) if a reason is given for why. Do you have a specific reason why you believe that discussion should have been relisted, for example, if you believe the discussion should have had a different result? Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:56, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello everyone, and welcome to the 27th issue of the Wikipedia Scripts++ Newsletter, covering all our favorite new and updated user scripts since 2025! Boy, does it feel good to kick off the year with an issue. Yep, it's been a year since we cleared out the 2022-2024 backlog with issues 23 and 24! Good times. Though in this case "a year" just means... 6 months? 😯 The salience of whatever joke I was planning to make here has vanished speedily. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:00, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Got anything good? Tell us about your new, improved, old, or messed-up script here!
WikiTextExpander by Polygnotus, is this edition's featured script. At the click of a configurable hotkey, this script will find and replace or link a configurable list of phrases within the selected text in all source editors (even in the comment/reply field!). Besides allowing the quick insertion of templated messages, this script greatly mitigates the WP:WTF? problem by providing both the legibility of familiar words and the convenience of shortcuts. And to those asking, the capitalization of "Wikitext" as "WikiText" was a necessary sacrifice for far-more-memorable acronymy.
CanonNi: AlertAssistant has been fixed and rewritten using OOUI instead of Twinkle's Morebits. Such modern, very tool. (Do note that the maintainer has since become inactive.)
NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh/AjaxLoader has been updated to use modern JS APIs that replace the browser's URL bar with the link you clicked on to load in place. The "back" (and "forward") buttons also work now. Cool, innit?
andrybak: Unsigned helper no longer shows an error when the message to sign was added in the earliest 50 revisions of a page's history. This is especially relevant to pages with short histories.
BilledMammal/Move+ needs updating to order list of pages handle lists of pages to move correctly regardless of the discussion's page, so that we may avoid repeating fiasco history.
In breaking m:Tech/News, Gadgets can now include .vue files. This makes it easier to develop modern user interfaces using Vue.js, in particular using Codex, the official design system of Wikimedia. Codex icons are now also available. The documentation has examples.
Appo/Globstory integrates OpenHistoryMap, updating the map whenever hovering/clicking on a location or year, the latter of which changes the map to be (hopefully) accurate to the year selected. It's pretty interesting.
linkinfo Somewhat similar to WP:NavPops, Awesome Aasim/linkinfo(pictured) provides a collection of links to replace the right-click context menu, presented beautifully.
PreviousDiscussions provides a link to search for your username on subpages of another user's userpage and talkpage conveniently.
Twineeea/noRedLinks brings you to the "read" instead of the "create" tab when you visit a red link. Contemplate life's mysteries as you stare into the blank! Deeply.
No, this is not going to be the enduring tradition of S++ for the future. This was meant to be a joke for the special occasion on the first day of the fourth month but was delayed by four months because I'm lazy.
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. ~~~~ Neurodoc99 (talk) 07:03, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
Got anything good? Tell us about your new, improved, old, or messed-up script here!
Featured script
Updated scripts
Newly maintained scripts
Improve a script
Requested scripts
Miscellaneous
New scripts
