Hello i am from Georgia i just join Wikipedia to fix some problem, I see a lot, but i decide it now to join. so here is new problem that i found https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matzoon this link and intonation is completely wrong this is false information what this article say it's not product of Armenian origin. please fix it. in my Country many people see that our heritage is stolen and no one can fix it, but i try and that's why i message you. my request will be to change this article at least this is Caucasian origin if you can't fix to Georgia. it's shame for every Georgian who see this article. --Vashlatama7 (talk) 20:57, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vashlatama7! I see there has been a significant amount of discussion about this at the talk page of that article, so I would not suggest that changing this without discussion would be appropriate. Feel free to propose a change at the talk page linked - keep in mind that the change should be supported by citations to reliable sources. It seems from my look though the article that reliable sources disagree on the origin, so changing to Caucasian origin as you suggest would seem reasonable to me. I don't believe I personally have enough knowledge of the topic or geographical region in question to participate in any discussion effectively on that talk page, but I'm certain if you start a new discussion there, others will see it. Tollens (talk) 21:59, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I want to add a photo to an article. A relative was a crew member on the USS Hunt back in WWII. At the end of the war, the ship docked in New York and all of the sailors lined up in front of the ship to take a crew photo. I scanned his copy of that photo and want to add it to the page for the USS Hunt. I have it saved as a JPEG in two resolutions, 14 MB high resolution and 4 MB low resolution version. Can you help me post this historic photo? --SealBeachJim (talk) 01:22, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello SealBeachJim! I can absolutely help with that! New editors unfortunately can't upload files directly to Wikipedia, but you should be able to make a request at Files for Upload (you'll want to click the link there that says the image is a work of the United States government). So that the person who reviews your request can see the image, you will need to upload it somewhere else online first – the instructions at Files for Upload appear to recommend Flickr. If you need further help with any part of this process feel free to ask. Once the request is approved, you should be able to add the image to the article by adding a line like [[File:file name of uploaded image|thumb|Caption to appear beneath image in the article.]] immediately before an appropriate paragraph for the image to appear beside (probably in this case the paragraph about the ship returning to the United States, if I had to guess). Again, if you need any help with any part of this please do let me know! Tollens (talk) 22:26, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2023).

Administrator changes

Clovermoss

Dennis Brown

• Julia W
• Marasmusine
• PBS

CheckUser changes

• Aoidh
• HJ Mitchell
• Sdrqaz
• Spicy
• ToBeFree
• Vanamonde93
• Z1720

Maxim

• Enterprisey
• Izno
• SilkTork

Oversighter changes

• Aoidh
• Firefly
• Sdrqaz
• ToBeFree
• Z1720

Maxim

• Enterprisey
• Izno
• SilkTork

Arbitration

• Following the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Aoidh, Cabayi, Firefly, HJ Mitchell, Maxim, Sdrqaz, ToBeFree, Z1720.
• Following a motion, the Arbitration Committee rescinded the restrictions on the page name move discussions for the two Ireland pages that were enacted in June 2009.
• The arbitration case Industrial agriculture has been closed.

Miscellaneous

• The New Pages Patrol backlog drive is happening in January 2024 to reduce the backlog of articles in the new pages feed. Currently, there is a backlog of over 13,000 unreviewed articles awaiting review. Sign up here to participate!

Hi! How do I edit the "In The News" Part? --PlaneCrashKing1264 (talk) 13:30, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PlaneCrashKing1264! I assume you are referring to the section on the main page? If that is the case, you can't edit it directly, as with all elements of the main page; this is just to prevent vandalism and spam because it is so widely-viewed. There is, however, a venue for discussing what should be included at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates, which anyone can participate in. The amount of information on how to participate is enough that I can't really provide a good summary quickly – you'll likely want to read through the top of that page as well as Wikipedia:In the news. Tollens (talk) 17:09, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia or any dictionary cannot refer to Afrikaans as a language because it implies that it is an African language while factually it simply is " Boeren Old Dutch" which is Netherlands - i.e. Nederlands - therefore, besides colonialism, it has nothing to do with anything African whatsoever! --Dicky.La4 (talk) 16:18, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dicky.La4: I am not entirely certain what you mean. If it is not a language, what should it be called? Also, how does calling it a language imply that it is African in origin? The first two paragraphs of the article Afrikaans make very clear that it is Dutch in origin. Tollens (talk) 18:20, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Can I publish a new article? --AframarleyGH (talk) 20:19, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AframarleyGH! You can absolutely submit an article – you might find Help:Your first article helpful, and you can use the article wizard to create the draft page. There are a couple things to keep in mind before you start, however (most of this is also in the help article I linked above also).

Creating or editing Wikipedia articles about yourself is strongly discouraged (and if you don't plan on writing about yourself just ignore this part). It is usually extremely difficult to write an autobiography that is neutral and is well-sourced, and even if an article about you is published, other users may contribute material you might not want in the biography. I know this might be disappointing, but if you meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria, other editors will likely create an article about you eventually.

Even if you aren't writing about yourself, there are still some important guidelines about what references have to exist before an article can be published. On Wikipedia we call this notability (though that wording is a bit misleading, it has nothing to do with the usual sense of the word). Typically, editors who are reviewing submitted drafts check that the article has at least three sources which are reliable, independent of the subject (so not the company's website in an article about a CEO, for instance), and contain significant coverage of the topic (not just a passing mention).

In terms of actually writing the article, one thing to remember is that all information should be verifiable – that means that a reader can easily check to make sure that the information comes from reliable sources like I talked about above. Typically, this means that most sentences should have a citation to another source, even if you already know a lot about the topic. Original research isn't permitted on Wikipedia, unfortunately.

I know this is a lot – writing a new article is one of the toughest things to do on Wikipedia. While you're more than welcome to jump right in, you might be interested in gaining some experience beforehand by editing some existing articles; the Task Center has some ideas on how to do so if you want. If you have any questions about any of this, or need help with anything in particular as you edit, please do feel free to ask me – I'm more than happy to help! Tollens (talk) 00:51, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How do I create a page for my daughter who is a sports person --Ramjig (talk) 05:25, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ramjig! While I'm sure this isn't what you're hoping to hear, writing biographies of your family members is strongly discouraged. This is because it represents a conflict of interest, which can be an issue for several reasons outlined on that linked page. You should also keep in mind that having a Wikipedia article about you is not necessarily a good thing – Wikipedia reports on all public material about any article subject, which sometimes includes material that the article subject would not want publicized. If you still want to write such an article, please first ensure that it can be adequately supported by reliable sources (this on Wikipedia is usually referred to as notability, though it has nothing to do with the typical meaning of the word). Every Wikipedia article of a living person must contain references to reliable sources not connected to the subject which discuss them in depth; this is in order to protect the subject from false or misleading claims. Additionally, original research is not permitted – every statement made in the article should be reported on in another source already. (This is one of the main reasons writing with a conflict of interest is so difficult, you certainly know a lot about the subject but you aren't permitted to include information based only upon your first-hand knowledge.) While, again, I would not recommend writing such an article, you can create a draft page where you can work on the article by using the article wizard. Tollens (talk) 07:16, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well she is a sports person and I maintain her profile and I would like to host a wiki page for her. But what is the alternative, do you mean to say it has to be created by someone else?

While I created an article in sandbox and it is saved on my name ramjig. How do I create a page which is titled Rivka Ramji Ramjig (talk) 04:36, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ramjig: Yes, that's correct – the page would ideally be created by someone else (without your asking them to). Eventually, someone will create the article themselves, if sourcing as described above exists. Looking at the two articles you've drafted within your user page, neither would be accepted, at least in their latest forms – this is because they lack reliable sources, which are required in articles about living people. You can use the article wizard to create a draft page with the correct title, which you can submit for review when you're ready. Tollens (talk) 04:47, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! I'm looking to create a page for Canadian Paralympian Austin Smeenk. May I do so? --SteamyMeany (talk) 21:19, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SteamyMeany! You can absolutely submit an article – you might find Help:Your first article helpful, and you can use the article wizard to create the draft page. There are a couple things to keep in mind before you start, however (most of this is also in the help article I linked above also).

If you personally know (or are being paid by, or actually are) Smeenk, please first review the conflict of interest policy and the paid-contribution disclosure requirement if applicable – additionally, if you are quite closely connected, creating such an article would be discouraged for a variety of reasons.

There are a couple of policies to be aware of as you are writing to hopefully get your draft accepted faster; those are the notability and verifiability policies. The notability policy, in my opinion, is poorly named: it doesn't really have anything to do with the subject of an article being notable in the typical sense. What it does deal with is the sourcing requirements of an article before it can be published – typically reviewers are looking to see at least 3 reliable, non-routine sources which discuss the subject in-depth. I imagine such references likely do exist for a Paralympian. The verifiability policy deals with the content of an article: all material in the article should be attributable to a previously published reliable source (and in the case of this policy routine sources like standings, etc. are of course allowed). Firsthand knowledge or original research unfortunately isn't permitted.

If you have any questions about anything in particular while you're writing please do ask – I'm more than happy to help! Tollens (talk) 05:12, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi i would like The Massira 2 Sandbox article to get reviewed https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SupremeLeader89/sandbox#History --SupremeLeader89 (talk) 19:50, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is it worthy of it getting its own seperate article --SupremeLeader89 (talk) 19:53, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello SupremeLeader89! Right now, it appears very unlikely that the draft would be accepted – Wikipedia has a rule that all articles have to demonstrate that multiple reliable sources have already written about the subject, and you have not included such sources. Additionally, please keep in mind that all material in any article should be supported by citations to reliable sources, which the draft does not currently provide. Like many newcomers, it seems you may have written your draft backwards – this is when you write from what you know personally before looking for sources. It is always far easier to find the sources you will use first, then write the article using only the material found in the sources – not only does this ensure that all of what you write is well-sourced, but it proves that reliable sources do talk about the subject (because if they didn't you couldn't have written the article). Whether it is worthy of an article depends solely on whether reliable sources have already written about it. Once you have added appropriate citations, you can add {{subst:submit}} to the very top of the draft, which will add it to the queue of articles to be reviewed. Tollens (talk) 10:31, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

Revisiting our teahouse discussion from earlier this week- apologies the original post has now been archived so I can't just respond under that as I had planned, so I'm bothering you directly here instead! This was the one about the draft talk page of Infamous PR weirdly appearing in google search results- Draft talk:Infamous PR

I think this is just my own confusion about how google indexing works, and as you pointed out it's unclear to anyone external anyway, but I had wanted to respond and ask if, as well as the request to google to refresh their results, should I also move the draft somewhere like my user sandbox? Would that in theory help google to realise that it shouldn't be displaying it? Because I was thinking that it's prob already been displaying in google results for some time, as the article was only in mainspace for a brief period in October I think. Also, as an aside, it seems odd that google ever indexed it because it was never reviewed and accepted for inclusion so I would assume that would mean the no index tag wouldn't have been removed. But again, this is prob just my own lack of understanding about the processes! Apologies if so, this is one of those odd things where the more I think about it, the less it makes sense! Anyway, no rush on any response, it's obviously not urgent, just wanted to ask while it was fresh in my mind.

Thanks again for the guidance Editing84 (talk) 14:02, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, Editing84! If I look at the Google result again, it looks like the snippet that usually shows up with content from the page is missing now – from what I've read online that means the result should likely be gone soon (maybe?), and at least it means that Google knows they shouldn't have it as a result, so I don't think moving the page would make it faster. I agree that it doesn't really make sense that it ever ended up indexed in the first place; I've never seen something like this happen before. No worries about the confusion, I also have nearly zero understanding of why their search results are how they are. I'd wait a week or so, now that the snippet is gone, and if the whole result isn't gone by then perhaps a move would be helpful? If you really want to just go ahead and move the page now, though, I highly doubt anyone would object. Tollens (talk) 10:39, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh yes, I've had another look and see what you mean- they must have changed that in the last day or so! I'll hold off for a bit and see if it fully disappears then. Glad it's not only me that's confused by this, but I feel like I've at least learned something new about google! Thanks :) Editing84 (talk) 11:16, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MOSLOW says to sort by author's last name, and within the author, chronologically. I've reverted your edit that was completely unsorted, with Kardec and Xavier before Almeda and Anjos! You do know the order of the English alphabet, right? Skyerise (talk) 10:51, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I see you are doing this on multiple articles. That's vandalism. Skyerise (talk) 10:57, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up at Spiritism – I had just done a couple lists that weren't reference sections, which should be sorted by publication date, earliest first, not alphabetically like a reference section. WP:MOSLOW actually doesn't say anywhere to sort by surname, but actually by publication year: Items should normally be listed in chronological order of production, earliest first. Reference sections of course are a different story. What I did was certainly not vandalism, though, which should've been clear from the fact that they were just sorted by the wrong property. Tollens (talk) 11:10, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone knows that subject bibliograpies and lists of references are sorted by authpr's last name. You've been doing it to multiple article. Go fix them. Go fix them all. Skyerise (talk) 11:13, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Only that one was a references section. Not sure what you believe I have left to fix. Tollens (talk) 11:14, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bullshit. Here's three more: [1], [2], [3] All reference and further reading lists with more than 1 author are sorted by surname. I've reported you for vandalism. Skyerise (talk) 11:18, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which are all further reading sections, not references. Tollens (talk) 11:19, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why would further reading sections be sorted by surname? Sorting by surname is to more quickly find a reference in a list, whereas a further reading section, as simply a list of works, should be sorted by publication date per WP:MOSLOW, which you yourself cited. Tollens (talk) 11:22, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you have to ask that question, you're an idiot. Only lists of works by a single author are sorted by date. I don't think you belong here if you have no idea how general references are sorted. You should be blocked. It something most people learn their freshman year in college, if not high school. Skyerise (talk) 11:24, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:GENREF: "General references are usually listed at the end of the article in a "References" section, and are usually sorted by the last name of the author or the editor." Skyerise (talk) 11:27, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah – just found MOS:FURTHER, it appears you're correct, my apologies. I'll fix the other ones. I'd recommend a read of WP:NPA, though. Tollens (talk) 11:29, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies in return, but such obfuscation and pretense are typical of intentional vandals. Your arguments were simply convincing me you were one. Skyerise (talk) 11:31, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have literally never seen a vandal cite the manual of style (even erroneously as I've done here), but whatever. Tollens (talk) 11:34, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it seems both are acceptable, looking further still. Wikipedia:Further reading even seems to suggest chronological is more appropriate. MOS:FURTHER only specifies "usually", alongside the former's statement that alphabetization is simply easier to do in most cases. Tollens (talk) 11:37, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Skyerise: You'll at least need to explain the revert. Tollens (talk) 12:38, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm done explaining bibliographies to people without a college education. Skyerise (talk) 12:44, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the fifth time, further reading sections are not bibliographies, and they serve completely different purposes. Tollens (talk) 12:47, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the last time, any list of books is - by definition - a bibliography, even if we use different headings over them such as "Further reading", "References", "Sources", or "Works cited". The default sorting order is alpha by surname, sorted by date within surname, unless there is a good reason to do otherwise with an explanatory note about how and why included at the top of the section. If you can't or won't do that, then leave them alone. Skyerise (talk) 14:36, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Every college and university in the English-speaking world has a page like this one explaining to their students how to write a bibliography! Skyerise (talk) 14:51, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I got involved I will at least drop in here (but I'm not planning to get involved in further discussion; I trust you can sort this out on your own). Wikipedia has its own standards that can differ from those of academia. "Further Reading" is a separate thing (not a list of general references or retitling of "Bibliography") in articles that have a separate list of works cited. Wikipedia's manual of style (in MOS:FURTHER and WP:Further Reading) does not require it be sorted in any particular way, so by date or by author are both acceptable options with their own benefits. "Usually" is a suggestion, not a requirement, right? By author is good in that it's more typical of lists of works and readers may expect it; by date is helpful because readers are unlikely to be looking for a specific work (works in separate "Further Reading" sections are usually not those mentioned in the page) and can instead jump straight to the most recent stuff. It really doesn't matter at all. My understanding of policy is that for arbitrary decisions such as this (like varieties of English) an article shouldn't be converted from one to the other without a reason specific to that article. I'm not sure where you're getting the thing about requiring a reason to not use alphabetical in particular - are you sure you haven't gotten this mixed up with lists of general references or author bibliographies within articles? twotwos (talk) 23:06, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I tried to create an article last week and have heard no update on the publication status of that. Do you have any updates for me there? --Mckenziehill11 (talk) 17:10, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mckenziehill11! It looks like Draft:Dave Rose was declined on the 18th – the reason given is that the draft doesn't demonstrate that significant coverage of Rose exists in reliable sources, and that much of the article is not supported by sources at all. In terms of the first reason: your reference 6 is excellent, and is exactly what reviewers are looking for, but on its own it does not demonstrate what we call notability on Wikipedia (though that term is misleading – it has nothing to do with the typical sense of the word and everything to do with what has been published about a topic already). The rest of the references in the draft either don't mention Rose at all, or only mention him in passing, neither of which advance a claim of notability.

In terms of the second reason for the decline: nearly everything in a Wikipedia article should be supported by citations to reliable sources, and unfortunately your own personal knowledge or original research can't be used because readers have no way to verify that the content is true (though I don't doubt that it is).

Like many newcomers, it seems you may have written your draft backwards – this is when you write from what you know personally before looking for sources. It is always far easier to find the sources you will use first, then write the article using only the material found in the sources – not only does this ensure that all of what you write is well-sourced, but it proves that reliable sources do talk about the subject (because if they didn't you couldn't have written the article).

You're more than welcome to continue working on the article and submit it for review again when you think it's ready – if you need help with anything in particular please let me know and I'd be happy to try and assist. Tollens (talk) 22:41, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank for your assistance on the Help desk! I have a followup question. For Wikipedia:Community feature requests/preload I want to put ~~~~ after "Proposer" and also a comment like <!-- Generally looks like *'''Support'''--~~~~ --> in the Voting section. How do I do this? I have tried to read the documentation but I am none the wiser.--Commander Keane (talk) 00:04, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Commander Keane! Assuming the page is being used like described at mw:Manual:Creating pages with preloaded text, breaking up certain elements using <noinclude></noinclude> should keep them from working earlier than they should. Each time you want ~~~~, for instance, you can put ~~<noinclude></noinclude>~~ instead, and the noinclude tags will be removed after the preload is used. You'll also have to do this with the HTML comment to keep the inner noinclude tags from being treated as a comment, so to produce the comment you have above, you should be able to use <!<noinclude></noinclude>-- Generally looks like *'''Support'''--~~<noinclude></noinclude>~~ --<noinclude></noinclude>> or anything else that breaks both the comment tags and the signature. Tollens (talk) 22:58, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Worked like a charm :-) --Commander Keane (talk) 19:51, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How do I add stuff to the Infobox? --PlaneCrashKing1264 (talk) 14:55, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PlaneCrashKing1264: The infobox used on that page is Template:Infobox aircraft occurrence – each template page (nearly) always has documentation about what parameters it accepts. You can change existing text simply by rewriting the value for that parameter, and new parameters can be added by placing | parametername = The content that should be placed there as a new line within the template. Unfortunately, there's no way to customize the actual text of each header in the infobox (like changing "Aircraft type" to "Type of aircraft", for instance) without editing the template directly. Tollens (talk) 23:06, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bank of America Md Akash Ahmed --Akash Ahmed50 (talk) 20:19, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Akash Ahmed50! I'm not sure what you mean, do you have a question about using or editing Wikipedia? Tollens (talk) 20:28, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently you're assigned as my mentor. What does that even mean? vghfr 05:13, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi vghfr! It just means that you can ask me any questions you have about using or editing Wikipedia, similar to places like the Teahouse or help desk. If you don't need any help, you don't have to ask me anything at all – I'm just here as an extra resource if you need it! Tollens (talk) 21:06, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, ok. That's pretty cool! Thanks! vghfr 21:14, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'm trying to write a script that grabs data from an array and displays it in an UI box. I've got most of it working, but I can't figure out how to append a HTML break (<br/>). Not sure whether this is within the scope of your skills, but thought I'd ask anyways. (and if you have any any idea how to do this with json that would be awesome)

	while(step < citLength){
		caveat.appendChild(document.createTextNode(citPlainText[step]));
		step++;
	}

(if you need further context the script is here) vghfr 04:01, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@vghfr: You should be able to add caveat.appendChild(document.createElement("br")); right under the second line you have there, I believe. I'm not entirely certain what you mean by doing it with JSON? If you mean you want to append a string with HTML in it, you can do that using insertAdjacentHTML with "beforeend". You could then do something like caveat.insertAdjacentHTML("beforeend", "Some text<br>More text");, passing it a string you've loaded from your JSON file. If you're just trying to figure out how to read the string from JSON, it looks like you'll want this documentation page. Tollens (talk) 04:38, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In retrospect that seems super obvious, don't know why I didn't think of that lol. Thanks for the help, and I'll take a look at that documentation. vghfr 04:55, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanting to say hello 👋🏼 😘 --BreeFitz80 (talk) 12:48, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello BreeFitz80! Tollens (talk) 19:14, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for having me, think this is pretty darn cool. 172.59.81.124 (talk) 23:39, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2024).

Administrator changes

• Red-tailed hawk
• Robertsky

• Ameliorate!
• Ancheta Wis
• Anthony Bradbury (deceased)
• Cobi
• Ev
• Moondyne
• Worm That Turned

Bureaucrat changes

Worm That Turned

CheckUser changes

Wugapodes

Interface administrator changes

• Enterprisey
• Izno

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC about increasing the inactivity requirement for Interface administrators is open for feedback.

Technical news

• Pages that use the JSON contentmodel will now use tabs instead of spaces for auto-indentation. This will significantly reduce the page size. (T326065)

Arbitration

• Following a motion, the Arbitration Committee adopted a new enforcement restriction on January 4, 2024, wherein the Committee may apply the 'Reliable source consensus-required restriction' to specified topic areas.
• Community feedback is requested for a draft to replace the "Information for administrators processing requests" section at WP:AE.

Miscellaneous

• Voting in the 2024 Steward elections will begin on 06 February 2024, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 27 February 2024, 14:00 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
• A vote to ratify the charter for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is open till 2 February 2024, 23:59:59 (UTC) via Secure Poll. All eligible voters within the Wikimedia community have the opportunity to either support or oppose the adoption of the U4C Charter and share their reasons. The details of the voting process and voter eligibility can be found here.
• Community Tech has made some preliminary decisions about the future of the Community Wishlist Survey. In summary, they aim to develop a new, continuous intake system for community technical requests that improves prioritization, resource allocation, and communication regarding wishes. Read more
• The Unreferenced articles backlog drive is happening in February 2024 to reduce the backlog of articles tagged with {{Unreferenced}}. You can help reduce the backlog by adding citations to these articles. Sign up to participate!

Can you please tell me how I “copyright violations”??? Zacharythoden (talk) 09:06, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I get what you mean but I would wish next time you would just edit that part/those parts instead of changing my edit back to a redirect, and maybe be more specific??? Zacharythoden (talk) 09:10, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Zacharythoden: Apologies for not explaining at all – that's entirely my bad. All the prose in the article was directly copied from the sources that were provided after the text – citing a source does not allow you to use the text of that source verbatim. Removing the copyrighted text would have left no prose in the article, and rewriting all the copyrighted text would amount to writing the article, which at this particular moment I don't have the time or interest to do. However, it does have to be removed somehow – Wikipedia has to take copyright seriously because republishing copyrighted material creates legal issues. I see you've restored the content – it does still appear to contain copyright violations of [4] and [5] (the latter primarily because it is the entirety of the section; if expanded with original text the quote would be fine). These do need to be removed as soon as possible. I would highly recommend working on the article as a draft, then submitting it for review when you think it's ready, to avoid issues like this. Tollens (talk) 09:31, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is it ok to delete a source and replace it with a better one that provides similar information in greater depth? --Jsamson2001 (talk) 17:26, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]