User talk:Nick Moyes/Archive 2

2619:. So,, it was fine to remove the notability template I put there. As a new editor to Knowledge, you really are to be congratulated for the way you've approached this, and engaged to improve content - because, at the end of the day this is what building this amazing encyclopaedia is all about. It can be a real challenge sometimes to get new enthusiastic editors to understand policies and guidelines, and you've addressed this in absolutely the right way. I suspect, like me, you came here to make a few constructive edits and will probably end up stay here for many years to come, and making a great contribution, too. Oh - one final thing. May I suggest you write something in your user page, perhaps about your specialist interests, knowledge and desire to improve certain types of articles. You'll find other editors are initially a lot less suspicious of a new article that they're unsure about if they can see an editor has spent time introducing themselves. And sorry for faulty link above, I had intended to link to 737:

very hard to find genuine typos amongst the myriad of other red underlining. So, another way I use it is to 'Show Preview' once I've made my edits, then select, copy and paste the previewed bit into MS Word, where only the actual text and image captions get shown, but none of the hyperlink text does. This lets you search for all typos your programme recognises. (You can even load in Knowledge's own spell-check list into MS Word.) It's possibly too fiddly for lots of short edits, though. Sometimes I write only text (without any citations) then when I get to a bit where a ref ought to go, I insert {{cn}} which gives this result: I can then go back and insert all the refs after I've checked the red underlining of all my typos. I never use the Visual Editor on the 'Edit' tab, so I'm not familiar with how I'd spell-check my work in that - something I really should look into. One other really important, but blindingly obvious trick, is simply to

2653:

15:03, 23 June 2017 (UTC)" .... Previously someone "Oshwah" deleted an addition there for not providing source, saying "I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 12:18, 23 June 2017 (UTC)". I have tried hard to contact "Oshwah" .. and have sent and discussed the source etc. but unable to contact him. It's all most complicated and I would like to discuss things (as this is just one of other similar cases of never being able to contact people who delete things) by email which is much simpler and more direct. I am John Byrnes a geologist and write at a wordpress blog

887:

always thought that Knowledge would grow and improve in quality through mutual discussion amongst participants and collaboration, like you are doing, and as I have tried to do with other lemma's. I find it utterly negative to see that, as you say, "Anything which doesn't look immediately perfect will quickly get removed". Perhaps there is a generation conflict (my age is 82). Anyhow, I agree that all my contributions to Knowledge are not perfect and need adjustment, and I am more than ready to collaborate with efforts to accomplish that. Is there anything in life that is not improvable? So, I hoped that the wheat entry might be solved in reasonability, but this hope has now flown away.

4693:, and choose the most likely-sounding option from the drop down offer you see. Then note that each page often contains a top line to clarify what the page is about - or a link or links to point you to closely-sounding pages. And then that there is a 'See Also' section down at the bottom of most help pages that links to related topics. Knowing these two things, it's quite easy to eventually find the help you need for yourself. Some of these pages do take some reading (and interpretation), but that's the commitment you have to be prepared to give in order to contribute to the project. And I can help with the guidance and interpretation. Finally, it'd be great to see you finish off 2190:, though it is disappointing that you are not willing to learn how to make your own contrbutions better, and are happy to let others clear up after you. (If I did this in the kitchen, my wife would have very strong words with me!). But humour aside, adding a full reference is terribly easy. I'm guessing you use the Visual Editor (which many new editors seem to prefer). So just look for the Menu option at the top of the editing window, labelled "CITE" and just chooese 'book', 'website', 'journal' or 'news' for the type of source. Then enter the title, author , date etc in the clearly-labelled fields. There's even an 'automatic' otion which populates the Cite wnindow from just an 4641:

interested in making better content for topics I care about, but also in Knowledge as a unique information beast. I've recently begun to get involved in the , and would love some support to more quickly become useful to the project. (I noticed you have an interest in Women in Red.) I feel much more confused about the whole apparatus of Knowledge than the basics of researching, writing, citing, etc. Besides the interests mentioned on my userpage, I do love science and natural history (and birding!), but have not yet done any editing in those areas. Thanks for your consideration or recommendations.

4062:. It looks like an amateur review, yet the editor who added it has breached our rules by copy/pasting or close paraphrasing that bit of the review. I should also delete the section as the source doesn't look to me like a hugely reliable one, and seems more like a fan-review as far as I can tell - not an analysis. You could contact the editor who added it an explain they must not copy/paste of close paraphrase other content. You are right, 'magic' is a non-neutral tone, and one that, had it been used by a recognised reviewer, might have been worth putting in quotation marks - but not here, I feel. 4679:, and perhaps collate some broader questions or concerns that you have and leave them for me here in bulleted form, and I will attempt to address them piecemeal for you. My adoption approach is not a structured one (i.e. I don't focus on anti-vandalism if that's not what you're interested in) but it's more one that supports editors in their chosen area of interest, as long as there is some overlap with my own. If you've seen my adoption page, you'll see that I'm keen to support any female editor, or writer on women's articles, or someone interested in the sciences. (You might like to look at 2016:. For someone for whom English is not their native tongue, you do remarkably well! It's great when one editor feels they can ask another editor to help improve content. To be honest, there is not actually much that needs changing. I have done my best, but may also have inserted some inaccuracies in the plot. So do please compare edit histories and correct any of my own errors. I was especially worried about who did what on the boat, and the phrase 'locking the hull' means nothing to me. I've added 'clarification needed' tags to help you see where I was uncertain what to do. I hope this helps? 9903: 9430: 10030:

all the world to see serves no purpose other than to meet the perverse aims of those who created them in the first place, and it brings us into disrepute, I feel. It would only take one article in a popular tech journal of major newspaper to really show how easily we allow offensive terms to proliferate in view of anyone who went looking for them. (In the early days of the 'Reply' button they were showing up in the username look-ups, but I've not seen that lately) Should there ever be a broader discussion on this topic, count me in, or feel free to quote what I've just said.

2651:

a bit upset if they see new content being added with nothing to demonstrate its from reliable sources. If you aren't aware of the easy-to-use 'Cite' button in the editing window, do please look for it. Are you using the visual editor, or are you going via the tab 'Edit Sources'? Either way, although they're in different places on either screen, this lets you get a drop-down list of 'cite templates' for books, website, periodicals etc, to fill in with all the content you included in the talk page of Edward Hargreaves. There are slower ways of manually adding <ref: -->

8464:. Welcome to Knowledge. I see you're a very new user, so I'm happy to answer any questions about editing that you may have. I'll leave a welcome message with some helpful links on your talk page to get you started. You'll see I've just reverted one of your first edits. It was well-intentioned, but there is a huge difference between 'greenhouse gasses' and 'green house gasses'. You change to the second version was no correct, as it implied there were some green-coloured gasses inside a house, and not, as was intended, gasses that are causing the 6604: 5678: 6973: 2478:

constructive, and I hope you can see that. If you're unsure how to do it in a factual, informed manner, then, having found the references to support your concerns, raise them on the Talk page ans ask an editor to create a new section on 'Toxicity' or something similar, and to use those reliable sources to create content which everyone around the world who reads this article will find helpful and informative. But I really do appreciate you leaving this comment on my Talk page, and I hope my reply helpful to you. You might like to read

1861:. I think you and I might have overlapped on our attention to this article. I had (probably wrongly) suspected that my tag and comment might leave the article flagged as 'reviewed' so I preempted that possibility by stating in my comments that I was leaving it unreviewed. Maybe that was wrong of me. It's clearly not yet up to standard as it's unsourced, and its title doesn't match its contents. However, I'm happy to be steered by more experienced reviewers if I've not approached this the right way, as I'm quite new to 3406:

process whereby you can ask the photo owner to grant their permission by email to Wikimedia. (It has to allow for non-free i.e. commercial use - so I always suggest getting round anyones concerns by them only uploading an image of an approriately small size for screen display). If they have an official email address, getting them to use that is preferable to their home address, and there is a form of words you will need to give them. Rather than me attempt to second-guess the instruction process, let me refer you to

2900: 9226: 4402: 601: 6712: 6658: 6527: 5689: 5610: 5408: 5293: 6068:, and welcome to Knowledge. You ask a good question, but it has no easy answer. Firstly, does your own language Knowledge have an article about this person? If so, that is a really good start, and it may help you identify published sources that write about that person in an independent manner. If not, why not? Here on English Knowledge, we need evidence that a person has been written about, but not by themselves or on private blogs, but by proper, reliable sources. Our 'notability criteria', which 6615: 6537: 5752: 5730: 5699: 5636: 5418: 5386: 5303: 1640: 1596: 31: 6495: 5599: 5268: 8993: 1421: 5321: 6691: 6646: 6506: 6134:. Maybe a line or two about your background to help people understand your experience in editing or contributing in a particular field. For your own privacy and safety, it should not reveal any personally identifying information, but it absolutely must not look like a LinkedIn profile, nor appear like a Knowledge entry - that kind of content gets deleted pretty quickly. The following would be perfectly acceptable, and I offer it purely as a demonstration for you to consider: 5351: 5279: 6359: 8421:. Thanks for dropping by with that 'heads up'. There was no harassment or threats made by me, and the editor was blocked by another admin at exactly the same time I was leaving them polite messages asking them to tone down their insults and aggression at the Vector200 talk page. Their Teahouse post was also reverted by the blocking admin, so there's nothing more here that concerns us. There's no place for that kind of user here. I appreciate you letting me know, though. 5340: 8354: 159: 4205: 6761: 5827: 5486: 6941: 3895: 4091: 5171: 4312: 3924: 3527: 8500: 6259: 5800: 5459: 939:

correct that my comment on your article was a subjective one, but at the end of the day we have to work together within the policies that have been agreed, and then work with a consensus on applying them. I do see Knowledge as the starting point for finding out information, not the sole repository of it all, and as a life-long communicator myself, Knowledge does need to present the whole story first in simple terms, and then insert

6852: 5892: 5521: 4715:. I didn't mean any slight to Knowledge; I think most real beasts are complex and elegant, nothing negative intended. :) I will plan to use TeaHouse for any immediate and specific questions, pursue the help pages, and consider other questions I wish to pose. I have, by the way, completed TWA twice now, but for some reason most of the badges aren't sticking. I don't know if this is a fluke, or some user error I'm not aware of. 8573: 7619: 7603: 6385: 400: 289: 6680: 5741: 5397: 6635: 5719: 5375: 2803: 250: 198: 6736: 5765: 5436: 6233:

on Knowledge. Think of it like driving a car - start slowly and gently, making sure you follow the key rules of the road. Don't speed off on your first day and crash the car into a wall ...it tends to put you off! And if someone with more experience tells you you've made a mistake and they revert what you've done, think about it from their perspective for a moment, and check if they've left an explanation in an

4183: 8490: 4216: 4194: 6627: 6217:. Finding those published sources and using statements within them to extend an article is your first big challenge. Some degree of ability in using search engines is really helpful, here. But sources don't have to be online pages. Books, major newspapers and magazines and anything properly published and available through a library or bookshop is quite acceptable (even if not in English). 5711: 5367: 104: 1175:]. I'll ping you when I'm ready to suggest a couple of so-called hooks. In the meantime, do read the description of the process, and be ready to receive feedback when you make the nomination, some of which can seem a a bit critical and fussy, but this is essential for anything going on the main page of Knowledge, and as a newcomer to DYK, you'll be treated with consideration. In haste, 3298:. I appreciate you asking for further feedback. It's hard for me to know what to say, as I'm still doubtful about him meeting our notability criteria. You'll see I've added a publications section where I've put in his textbook. I still suggest focussing on that. Are there any reviews? What date range were the 6 editions published in, in what languages specifically? If you look at 562:. I was reverting some of those edits to the version last edited by you. Your edit was fine, as far as I could see. I am sorry if you felt my edit summary was an accusation upon you - it was anything but that! If my explanation does not make sense, please let me know, because it's always easy to make mistakes and upset the wrong people. And that would be a shame. Kind regards, 2658:

Snowman and "parked" at records of the creating user -- which identity is perhaps not defunct and unattended. Knowledge procedures to get all that undone and entry back in the main Knowledge are no doubt complex ... ? .... and so far beyond me .. Yet without that the entry cannot be improved to make if acceptable to Knowledge standards .. is this Catch 22? Thanks, John

3674:

have virtually no experience of whatsoever, and the revdel issue discussed at the Teahouse yesterday prompted me to think I ought to start learning more about it -especially before I join the admin IRC group. Gosh - I hate to think what it would be like if we treated newcomers like that at the Teahouse. (Perhaps we do, and we don't realise it? There's a thought for us.)

868:

the basics of the story, not a textbook or exam revision guide on the detailed processes. But I do have a scientific background and was worried that your crop article was already looking too technical to begin with. I wanted to encourage you, but I also wanted to get you to ease back on the technical content. This is probably why the wheat entry received the comment

2469:. I appreciate your concern and desire to edit Knowledge. I also appreciate you may think the edits I reverted were helpful. They really were not - at least not in the way you did it, I'm afraid. It's not as simple as charging in with helpful information and phone numbers and trying to warn people not to eat the stuff. If there's an issue, go find the 8144:. Obviously, this is a key thing, but there are simply too many of them for me to do that task quickly. If you want me to look at that, just identify the three most significant references that are independent of the subject. My gut feeling is that it probably is a notable organisation, so I could suggest you submit it whenever you're ready. 6140:"Hello, my name is Abdul Jamal Ibrahim. I live in Malaysia where I studied economics, but now work in public relations. I have a life-long interest in steam trains and plan to make improvements to articles about the transport system in my country. I will not be writing about any of the companies I work for, as I appreciate this would be a 4942:. I will explore through some WikiProjects. I appreciate the walk-through on those project structures like the Article Assessment table; they are kind of scary! Do you think I need to be concerned about "messing up" work planned or tracked by a WikiProject, or is any reasonable edit a good edit, as far as those projects are concerned? 4901:. So then a Google search on their name, inlcuding a specific check at Google Books, might yield more sources you can use to add content and a reference to your new source. Some pages have warning templates at the top to flag up issues that others have found, but not fixed. Fix those, and you do make a useful contribution. I note that 6153:

wrong. (Oh, making mistakes and being corrected can put some people off, or make them angry, but it's how we work and learn here.) I do hope you like it! Have you checked your 'Homepage' tab yet? - there are various small user tasks available for you to try editing and to help you understand how to make small improvements. Good luck!

10086:), or has acquired the full version from another social media space and uploaded it to Commons. Asking the question about COI seemed the best thing to do under the circumstances. Certainly many other images are copyright and should not have been uploaded in the first place. Quite an impressive actor though, even if not yet notable! 2781:

may well earn the respect and applause of other editors for showing your willingness to improve - and there is a barnstar for exactly that. They've nromally given out, not sought, though. Remember, it's not about badges, barnstars and new articles - it's about making this encyclopaedia the very best it can be. Regards from the UK.

2772:

result of the advice you receive.) So, what I want to see is that you can demonstrate you are listening to all suggestions and advice from other editors. Do please go back and look at every article (yes, all 71 of them) you have written and address issues of content, style and referencing. I highlighted some of these in

7070: 4675:

years, and started off at an editathon, which is fantastic. Right now, in real life, and for the next few weeks, I am extraordinarily busy, and so I'm only able to get a few moments here and there to edit. So my suggestion is that you continue editing, ask for help for individual simple questions at the

1562:? It dictates how things should be done, and can sometimes be a bit of a stick with which to beat newcomers (and oldies like me). If you could put his educational qualifications into the education section, along with relevant sources to corroborate it, this keeps the lead sentence short and sweet. See 9496:

Welcome to Knowledge. I'll leave you a separate welcome message on your own talk page which has a link to our tutorial which should help get you started. I always advise making the very smallest/simplest edits to begin with - perhaps looking for spelling or grammatical errors in articles about topics

8262:

Because you've said you've added this page to your watchlist for the time being, I thought I wouldn't 'ping' you as normal, and see if you spot this edit. I tend to skim through my watchlist every other day to see if there are changes to pages I'm interested in, or if there are pages I no longer want

4964:

Good question. But you needn't be scared of ruining anything. If you make a mistake, all articles are 'watched' by someone, and your edit will simply be reverted. If that happens, dont take offence, but if you really can't see why someone has undone your edit, it's normal practice here to go to their

3657:

and I would like to let you know that I had a similar experience on IRC, but with Praxidicae, who is also an administrator on IRC. I used to get help with Knowledge on IRC, but I didn't like the attitude she gave to me on the channel. That's part of the reason why I stopped using IRC to get help, but

3405:

Oh dear - if DYK was a Pandora's Box of rules, then getting acceptable permission from an author for Wikimedia to legitimately take an image from them really is fun! It's something I've steered away from, thus far, so I can't offer you proper expert advice. However, the bottom line is that there is a

2780:

and put what's there into practice, and correct the past errors you've made. They're only small errors of style, but the chances of someone following along nbehnd you, clearing up every accidental mistake you've made is exceddingly small. The best person to sort things out is you. If you do this, you

2677:

Hi John - I'll be happy to try to guide you. We need keen, knowledgeable editors like you, yet there's quite a hurdle to get over to do everything right from the start. Just take it a step at a time. It may well be quicker for us to use email, which I'll do later. Meanwhile, here are a few things I'd

728:

is suitable for your needs, I'm afraid. What it does do is offer live reporting every 30 seconds of individuals errors on recently edited pages. So there could be 20 errors on one article page, but it will only report one of them at a time. I find it good for encountering lots of different pages with

10029:

BUT...I do think it's time for that broader discussion. I really do think that now that Knowledge has come of age, we/WMF should permanently delete from view all those blocked usernames which don't have any edits to their name, yet are of a deeply sexual or offensive nature. Leaving them on show for

8909:

If you find an article containing an existing table that you'd like to have something similar in a new article, you could copy the 'source code' by clicking 'edit source' and then pasting that in your sandbox to experiment with. It's best not to work on tables in a live article until you are really

8842:

last year in order to use it for your own article. That was maybe not the best way of approaching things, so someone replaced it back. You can still find the text of your article either in the View History tab for the redirect page, or in your own User Contributions. I suggest you take that text and

8188:

Yes, I have faced similar problems with articles I've wanted to create. I decided to wait until there was more mainstream media coverage available. The problem with government agencies/charities and so on is that they rarely get detailed analysis in the media, and thus may do fantastic work on a big

8147:

On a different note, what was the outcome of suggestions that you might change your account name. Something so close to Adidas ZERO is always going to flag people's concerns. If it's an innocent (fan-like) name, why not put a sentence about it on your userpage to explain why you chose it, and refute

6232:

Let me know how you get on, or link me to the article, and I'll see if I can find anything for you should you hit a dead end. I'll also drop by your talk page and leave you a welcome message with links to get you started with editing. It's wise to start slowly as there's quite a steep learning curve

5990:

and it lists our notability criteria for businesses. To be frank with you, Knowledge is not here to help a business promote itself but, if you can find at least three totally independent sources that talk about that company in details and in depth, then it might well meet our criteria. Those sources

3681:

moment. It makes one appreciate the upset and sense of injustice all new and well-meaning editors must feel when we come along and they either get templated or blocked for (as they would see it) no good reason at all, and simply for not understanding our hidden rules. It also makes me appreciate the

3673:

Thank you. Yes, I was quite stunned to find myself banned from IRC just for looking, as you'll have seen. I'm sorry if you have been dealt with in such a curt manner there, too. It makes me wonder how common that attitude is there. I only visited this morning as it's an area of Knowledge I currently

3414:

pages]. If you have already uploaded their image, it's acceptable to mark the image page with an OTRS pending template - again, this is clarified in the istuctions I've just linked to. It looks like there's currently a c60 day wait for email authority to be accepted, so do warn the photo author that

2650:

Nice to meet you. You left a message for me: "Hi - I see you left a cry for help on the Talk page of Edward Hargreaves. I'm a retired museum natural scientist, so appreciate your interest. Adding references on Knowledge can be complicated, but is really important to master. As you've seen, folk get

2477:

manner, that is appropriate for a world-wide encyclopaedia. If you can do that in a helpful manner, you'll be on your way to becoming a useful contributor to this project. Changing section titles from 19th century to 21st century just to squeeze in a modern YouTube video is, I'm afraid, anything but

1172:

I'll try, but have limited time (I'm retiring tomorrow, so am rather preoccupied!!). I'll quickly tidy up your article and check links. I think you should submit the DYK (rather than me) because, as a newcomer you won't need to do a reciprocal DYK (known as a quid pro quo - QPQ.) I'm afraid I simply

10022:

Thanks - I'll take a look at what you wrote later. I often ask myself whether, by blocking a no edit offensive username, I'm encouraging editors to report unecessarily. So when I don't, rather than simply add the 'wait' until they edit notice which the reporter probably won't see, I try to ping the

9846:

We have two types of hyperlink on pages. One is called a 'wikilink' and that is simply a link to another Knowledge page. You can either click the 'chain' icon in the editing tool to add a wikilink, or you can place two square brackets around the correctly spelled word. Both do the same thing - just

8248:

the person when I reply. But I forgot this time, so had to leave an extra message that did notify you. Another tip is that you can't simply edit a reply you've already published which left out a name or signature insert it, hoping it will 'ping' or notify that person...their name and your signature

8055:

It's always a good idea to practice using your personal sandbox for difficult edits (see the link at the top of every page in desktop view). This is especially sensible when trying to use templates for citations or tables. These are both tricky things to get right. I don't see that you've made any

6083:

for beginners wanting to create a new article, and spend some time here learning how Knowledge editing works before attempting the challenging task of creating a new article. Of course, should you be connected with the person you want to write about, you would need to declare that connection before

4850:

Let me address your first question. (I'll have to think about the others later). One good way to find articles to improve that relate to your are of interest is to find a so-called 'WikiProject' which supports that article. Each of these projects usually has a table showing an assessment of quality

4684:

Although seemingly a great 'beast', I think that Knowledge is actually extraordinarily elegant, and that there are solutions or guidelines for most situations. The challenge is often to find the right written help pages. A good trick when searching for help is to think of which keyword sums up your

4640:

Hello, I am focused on upping my involvement and skill level with Knowledge this year, and think it might go faster with an adopter. (Or adoption program -- not sure what these are?) I am an academic librarian, and teach with wikipedia sometimes (use it in information literacy instruction.) So, I'm

3306:

Maybe you can find sources/reviews that prove how widely his text has been used. I'd prefer to leave the notability template there for now, but might be happy to remove it if you can dig a little deeper. I sometimes wonder whether arranging a car accident or hiring a hitman could be the best way to

2657:

and many other places and am contactable at john dot mail at ozemail dot com do au in Sydney Australia. One other Knowledge entry of much concern is BUNGAROO which is a VERY historic site near Sydney but which (poorly done) Knowledge entry got removed, I think by someone called RandyKitty or Giant

2040:). I think that unless you do that, the article is quite a good candidate for merging back into the main Lithium article. You might also want to be careful that you do not copy/paste content from your sources. There are a small number of infringements in this article which could be easily rewritten 1776:

Has it displayed on your talk page, or just in your message alerts? I had to re-write my comments, but before sending them I got a reply from you, so you must have seen it somehow. I only ask, as either I've done something wrong at my end, or its a software bug. You answer might help us all learn.

1546:

which is attempting to address the gender bias in articles by focussing on the contribution women have made - and I'm sure there's a lot you could contribute to there relating to medical history. And should you have any professional connection with any medical organisations, trying to persuade them

9508:

It's very common for a new editor to have some of their first few edits reversed because they don't always know of our policies or guidelines - never get annoyed or angry at that. Simply drop by the reverting editors talk page and ask them for an explanation as you' like to understand what you did

9500:

Leave a short 'edit summary' to explain the rationale for any edits you make, especially if they're changing existing content. Never add 'facts' that you happen to know - always base changes on already-published and therefore checkable sources such as properly published books, journals, or quality

8243:

Just in case the minutiae of editor interaction interest you: The convention here is that if anyone leaves a message on someone's talk page, they're expected to 'watch' that person's page - at least for the life of that conversation. (You can select the duration, rather than watch it permanently,

6413:

Hi, I noticed that you were recently active and was wondering if you could help me with something. I just reviewed a pending change on the page I linked to above, but as I did it, I edit conflicted with an IP, and I think it made the page go weird. Can you please have a look and check I’ve done it

4674:

Thanks for your message. Yes, I would be willing to help you, especially because of your stated background and interests, though generally I do already prefer slightly to see users having already made slightly do more edits across Knowledge, though I do see you've been editing on and off for a few

2771:

I am really pleased you have embraced editing and creating articles on Knowledge, and I would not wish to discourage anyone. And it doesn't matter if your work falls short of what everyone expects of you (provided you demonstrate that you're willing to learn and change the ways you do things as a

2652:

tags, but this can be quite off-putting. (I think I was editing for about a year before I realised it existed!). Let me know how you get on, of go here to ask further questions at WP:TEAHOUSE. There's also a long set of overly-intricate guidelines at WP:CITE. Regards from the UK. Nick Moyes (talk)

2564:

for a little while yet. Bit I'll add a follow up later, but at a quick skim through I suspect you may now have shown enough to get it over that threshold. Just be aware it's not my say whether or not something is notable - it's down to the Knowledge community and their consensus. There is a formal

1878:

This is the second time for me recently that two reviewers have been confused by one another's very recent - and legitimate - actions. I am rapidly coming to the view that we need a "mark as 'Pending Review'" button which would allow one editor to hold back an article from the patrol list for, say

938:

There's nothing that can't be improved - very true. I'm not sure that all hope has flown away - but in the face of consensus, it can be worth marshalling one's arguments and one's content and addressing it a bit later on. So do go back to the wheat article when you're ready -don't give up. You are

867:

If you'd like to draft something in your sandbox and then ping me gain, I'd be glad to look over it for you and offer further constructive criticism, either on content or on sentence construction. This is not a field I know anything about but, to be honest, Knowledge readers are going to only want

9935:

I'm afraid I'm going to stand aside for that request for two reasons. Firstly, I don't feel I'm experienced enough in AWB to say 'OK' and let you loose on it and, secondly, I worry that you're making a whole load of unnecessary redirects based on minor variant spellings. I'm not convinced this is

9858:

It is a bad idea to try to create a completely new article when you've only just arrived here - we have many rules and guidelines that must be followed. Our advice is always to start small, and gradually learn the basics. When I train people, I first get them to edit their userpage, saying just a

9581:

Hello. Sorry - I've only just seen this as I've been away for the last week. Yes, I am very busy in real life, doing a lot of major building upgrades and redecorating at home over the last few months - not to mention a few long-term health concerns in the family. However, if you need any specific

9086:. I'#m afraid you cannot create an article in the main part of the dictionary until you are 'autoconfirmed' - that means that you need to have an account here for at least four days to be able to do that. Even then, you are best advised to create a 'draft' and submit it for review and feedback at 8192:

BTW: I just noticed two of your citations hyperlinks are faulty. For the HYTimes (ref 4) and another to the Washington Post, you only included a url to their homepage, not to the article. I suggest you go through and check that every cited reference actually leads to the article in question. Must

8078:

I would temporarily copy the text I want to improve into my sandbox and work on it there. I'd also copy the 'References' section of any page becasue the code that's hidden within it forces your inline citations to be summarised under that section. The text you'd pest in on consecutive lines would

7265:

We see far too many CEO and entrepreneurs trying to get articles about themselves on Knowledge based only on citations to insider business magazines or interviews. Neither are acceptable, so unless independent mainstream media has written about someone in detail and in depth, then they are highly

4013:

The link that you talked about didn't exist in the languages section on my side. That's why I put the direct link in there. When I tried to put it in the wikidata, after I clicked publish an error message popped up. The Thai page was linked to a page called EM wave that redirected to EM radiation

3449:

Thanks Nick - really important to get help like this especially when filmmakers like this, though prize winners at festivals and in their own country get too little coverage. Have broken it up as suggested, added some more citations and, yes, the sources check out. YellowFratello (talk) 13:04, 14

3207:

is not one covered at university, either. Re photos: you are only allowed to upload images for which you own the copyright, not just some nice picture you've found on the internet. You may also add an image which is very clearly licenced under creative commons for free commercial use. The website

2317:

article you are using as a model, and I am not convinced that even that long-standing article itself provides sufficient, independent references to justify its presence here. I think it, too, needs more independent sources to show it is an organisation worthy of note, and so I have flagged that

1391:

and have then added it to the current list of DYK nominations for 22nd May. Hope this is OK. Although I've nominated this article, I'd like you to add the template to your watch list and respond to any requests to modify the article that may be made. Do please address the citation needed tag I've

886:

Nick, I understand your reasoning pretty well and I have expanded the crop tolerance article correspondingly, mentioning, amongst other, that the salinity problem concerns hundreds of millions of hectares. Maybe that impresses you. I will continue to consider your suggestions and act upon them. I

855:

of salt tolerance is notable. Tell readers how it affects a crop, say why it affects a crop, say what farmers and plant breeders are doing to lessen its impacts, and show how it is of economic importance. I'd suggest you work on enhancing your crop article first, then consider preparing a section

736:

and use your browser's own in-built spellchecker. I usually use Chrome, and get to see red underlining of all non-recognised words when I go to an article via Edit Source' and view the raw markup. The problem is that this also flags up url text, file images and all that garbage, which can make it

9854:

The other way to use a link is to use it within a citation to a reliable source. When you click the 'Cite' button in the editing tool, you will see a box into which you can add that hyperlink to a non-Knowledge page. The little magnifying glass next to it allows you to try to get the software to

7320:

Your draft is fairly well laid out. A few minor things like wrong capitalisation on things like 'Perfume' and 'december', but it looked fairly well done for a new editor. You have two links to perfume, the second one of which is incorrect. But as there should only ever be one wikilink to another

6224:

Then, using your own form of words (i.e. not copy/pasting what someone else has written), you add factual statements into an article and support it with a citation. (the editing tool has a 'CITE' button for adding a reference to a source. Unsourced additions tend to be reverted, so citations are

5041:

seems to me like it. This person appears to be making up World War II hoaxes, as for one pages they made. The only source is to a food website. The first thing that comes up in Spanish is (Las 15 mejores comidas callejeras de Guatemala) The 15 best street foods in Guatemala? Does not seem like a

2692:

Reply to me on this Talk Page now that we're here. (You needn't have copied my comments over. Had you just replied by adding text beneath my comment on your page, I would have been alerted to it.) Then don't forget to sign each post you leave. The method is very easy. Just either add four tildes

741:

over what you've just written. Maybe even aloud. Sounds daft, because don't we all read what we've done? Well, I've written text for public consumption over most of my career. It's when I rush and 'think' I know what my document says that I end up being embarrassed when a colleague finds tons of

6152:

You don't have to say as much as this, but personally I find it helps me to understand the motivations of new editors. If someone takes the trouble to say why they're here, and what their interests are, then more experienced editors tend to be far more willing to explain things if they get them

3714:

I sometimes get frustrated when experienced good-faith editors have a bad attitude on IRC. I have never got banned from IRC, but it makes me not want to join the channel to get help with Knowledge. I makes me feel more upset when I don't tell someone about it. When I talk about it with friendly

3058:

No worries - please don't think I was being critical of your work. It's all fairly easy to make a sortable wikitable once you get the hang of it, but it's best to prepare the data and do most of the markup in Excel first. Then you just copy/paste it into the article and look for any redlinks to

9940:

and some spiderverse page seems like trivial examples for me to cite), so your use of the incredibly powerful AWB could potentially be an issue. That's not to say I don't trust you or your motives- more that I don't trust myself to give you that right and to justify doing so. I'd prefer a more

8957:

permitted to upload copyrighted images, pictures found on the internet (most will be copyright), pictures taken by other people, found on Facebook, etc. This is a common mistake new users make. However, if you have a photo that you have genuinely taken yourself, you are permitted to upload and

4881:

There you will see a rather complex and colourful Table in a section entitled Article Assessment. Though scary-looking these are brilliant ways to find pages to work on. The table has columns showing importance (Top, High, Mid, Low, Unassigned). Then there are rows on the left side to indicate

4035:

Hi Nick, nice to meet your acquaintance (Teahouse bot linked you.) I found an unencyclopedic word choice in Murakami Haruki's Birthday Girl entry. The entry says so-and-so creates the story's "magic," which is clearly an enthusiast's opinion rather than a dry encyclopaedia's tone. However, the

2301:

I have now re-reviewed the sources you cited, a couple of which are to national news outlets. However, these still seem to me to be minor references or promotional videos, so I can find nothing newsworthy or of note outside the inevitable sector-related publicity and promotion. You should read

665:

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator.

2920:

Some editors are committing to work specifically on patrolling new pages on 15 July. If you have not reviewed new pages in a while, this might be a good time to be involved. Please remember that quality of patrolling is more important than quantity, that the speedy deletion criteria should be

3006:

Hi Nick, thank you for taking an interest in the articles relating to academics. I'm afraid that I have neither the skills, time nor inclination to expand on these articles. Everything that you suggest sounds necessary though. I created a collection of short articles some time ago to include

7189:)). Please don't try to add more content like that, as it's not really appropriate to talk about non-Knowledge stuff. But your sandbox is the best place to experiment in editing and creating draft articles. You can start work on a new article by using the 'Article Wizard' which you can find 2035:

itself, and to global resources. There's not enough content on the investment angle. I think you need to expand on global news stories that demonstrate the rising opportunities, and the methods and reported risks of such investment, both by individuals, by corporations and possibly even by

911:

One more thing. You write "I was worried that your crop article was already looking too technical". This, and some other remarks suffer from subjectivity. It would be a disaster if, in Knowledge, subjective opinions become the justification for deletions and other destructive activities.

4882:

Quality. Going down from the to (Featured Article) to the shortest (Stubs). I note there is one article identified as a 'High importance, short stub article, and 33 Medium quality stub articles. As these offer the most potential for improvement, click the hyperlinked number to see a list

1538:, where you're bound to find editors with similar interests, or see lists of tasks that have already been identified as a priority. You can also discover articles by delving into article categorisation (-the keywords at the bottom of each page which group related topics together. Perhaps 1173:

don't have enough free time over thew next few days to guarantee I can do a QPQ first before nominating your article, whilst you won';t have to. I'll come back and suggest a couple of interesting hooks that you can then submit. (You'll need to follow the procedure described at this link

1393: 8902:. Welcome to Knowledge! Tables are not the easiest things to work with when you've hardly edited before. I always advise people to start by experimenting with creating or editing an existing table in their personal sandbox. In desktop mode, click the User icon and then 'sandbox'. See 1314:

The next step - which makes the nomination go live - is to insert your own DYK nomination template into the much bigger master DYK template for the 22 May (the day you created the article). Again, the alternative user guide explains this, and I think there's also help on the template

8788:

Good day. I am pessimistic about the long term well being of Knowledge because of recent revelations of POV distortion and subsequent structural failures in handling that (on top of so many from time immemorial!) in Holocaust topic area. Just in case, there are alternatives such as

1333:), just copy the following text, including the two curly brackets at each end: {{db-author|rationale=page created in error whilst attempting my first DYK nomination}} Then edit source and paste that at the top of the template and save, with an edit summary of 'page delete request' 6220:

Things you happen to know (even if true) and stuff written on social media or blog posts by individuals are not regarded as reliable, however. Nor are the words written by a person who is the subject of an article. So you can't extend and article with that type of information I'm

4588:

I can't remember - I think I got one. But then nothing after that, which was a disappointment. We have a really daft, exponential scale of sending congratulatory notifications. Personally, I think they should be at each 10k milestone. Then a big cuddle from Jimbo at 100k edits!

149: 1506:

I know from experience (and some dogged determination) that starting out on the journey of editing Knowledge can be both immensely frustrating, yet hugely rewarding and even addictive. It's easy to be put off by other people's dismissal - or removal - of something you did in

9606:. I'm not sure what you intended to say but it was not "Knowledge is only in English" and just in case someone else reads that, it probably should be fixed. I know they say don't edit the archives but I have done it to correct links or in a few cases incorrect information.— 1392:

added to the education section - as this will be quickly picked on as an referenced section. The incorrect template mentioend above has been redlinked, showing it has rightly been deleted. Perhaps you could follow the instructions above and add the author-delete template to

698:

Hi there, I saw you did some spellchecking and mentioned "Lupin's spell checking too", as someone who's prone to repeated typos I curious as to what that tool is? help me get the spelling right the first time instead of relying on others with tools to fix my mistakes ;-)

8910:

sure what you're doing. But, of course, you can always check and then revert your own edit if it doesn't work. You do that via the 'View History' tab of the page you're working on and simply click 'undo' against your last edit. I hope this helps. Regards from the UK.

7396:

My own view is that they're not - they are still insider business stories, and not real journalism reporting on a genuinely notable person. What makes you so keen to create such an article? Are you being paid or employed to promote him? If so, you should declare this

860:, so it's clearly popular. Anything which doesn't look immeiately perfect will quickly get removed, as I'm afraid happened with your insertion. Do be aware that if you revert back another editors deletion more than twice, you will be at risk from a temprary block for 4920:

which automatically populates itself with every other page which has had that category titles added to it. You could browse through these names for articles that appeal to you, and go visit and see what you can do there - from typofixing to adding citations to good

3042:

Thanks for the vote of confidence. Yes, a wikitable would add value. But with creating lists for the US states and Canadian provinces that didn't have them (17 in all), and updating those that did to the latest lists and taxonomy, is all I can handle at the moment.

7711:

No, I'm sorry: I'm only prepared to work on articles that directly interest me for one reason or another (usually mountains, mountaineers or wildllife). However, if you do the initial research yourself and show me some references that you believe make the subject

5813:. The preference is also shown as a toggle on every page if your monitor is 1600 pixels or wider. When disabled it removes the whitespace added by Vector 2022 on the left and right of the page content. Disabling this preference has the same effect as enabling the 2325:

So, in summary, in the hour that it has taken me to investigate and prepare this response to you, I have carefully reconsidered my initial response, and I remain unchanged in my initial views. So, I will therefore be replacing the speedy deletion notice and add a

9540:

Hi, Nick. I have a picture of my grandfather, Victor Clough Rambo, meeting Helen Keller in India in 1955. It is a family photograph, and I tried to upload it to Dr. Rambo's page, but I was refused, as its suitability for Creative Commons could not be determined.

2599:

now meet the common thresholds for creative professionals. I added short argument notes on both of the articles' talk pages based on said guidelines and my view of how they meet the notability threshold per independent articles as a basis for further discussion.

7979:

you have addressed the feedback you received (such as no external links in the article text), and I'll see what I can do. Please then tell me what you think are the issues you're struggling with in each one. Is it style and formatting, if so please look through

1717:

Thank you. I am horrible at seeing my own typos. I can't seem to get the highlighting tool to work with the link you provided but am happy to make the changes you suggested. There may be others who know more about his field than I do. Will continue to chip away

4851:

and importance to that project. You could look for articles that are of the lowest quality (called Stubs, because they're so short) and perhaps of the highest importance to that project. You could visit each one, and see whether you're motivated to improve it.

10100:

Yes, I myself have tagged the image used in the draft for deletion over at Commons. I still think this editor found the images online and fundamentally misunderstood what the CC0 license is. A paid editor would have had permission to use the images, I think.

8056:

edits yet, so it's impossible for me to understand what you've been trying to do or help you fix it. Be aware that you can't reference an unpublished letter - it must be something that anyone can theoretically find with access to a decent library or internet.

1769:

I do that too. Mind if I ask one question - which relates to a possible bug in the reviewing tool I was using? How did you actually see my first message containing the faulty link? It should have appeared on your talk page, but all I could see was this text:

1330: 1287: 89: 2279:. However, I have temporarily removed the speedy delete template in case I was too hasty to begin with. (I know how frustrating and disheartening to new editors it can be to have their work marked as inappropriate, and everyone deserves due consideration.) 6002:

thing anyone can do here - and that applies much more so for inexperienced editors. So we always advise people to get experience first and to contribute many smaller edits across a range of existing articles first to try to get the hang of how things work

2975:

has been marked as historical. Knowledge talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers is currently the most active central discussion forum for the New Page Patrol project. To keep up to date on the most recent discussions you can add it to your watchlist or visit it

4337:

to make editing easier for newcomers. The developers are trying to understand what initiatives different Wikipedias have to welcome newcomers. They also want to know which templates are often used for maintenance activities. You can help this project by

7243:, which was declined at 'Articles for Creation'. What you wrote looked like someone either wanting to promote themselves here, or paying someone else to do the promotion for them. If you are that person, or if they are paying you, then you have a clear 1303:

by using 3 apostrophes either side of the link. You can ignore the 'image' prompt, and the 'review' prompt. Because you're new to DYK, you aren't expected to review other DYK nominations until you've done five like this. (it gets easier with practice,

7424:

that you uploaded to Commons of? There is no description, just a random file name. It doesn't link to any page and seems to serve no purpose. If it's of you, then you should clearly indicate this fact. If not, I would advocate its deletion. regards,

3177:

The short answer is I plan to do more, but am not sure if I know enough yet on the subject. I'm reading articles about it in my off time, and hope to include a section on the mathematical models of it, and the empirical evidence for and against it.

5986:. Thanks for your question, and welcome to Knowledge! I can point you straight away to the most important policy which may help you work out whether or not it would be possible for a company to have an article about it on Knowledge. You can find it 2065:

Thanks for reviewing Iguana! As for lithium, I can only promise to give it a try one day in the future. As of now, I have somehow lost any interest in writing about investments. No mood at all. And I am not able to be creative being in the wrong

856:

that could be added to the wheat article in your sandbox. You could bring that text to the Talk page for Wheat, and explain what you'd like to do and why, and gather concensus from readers, and then modify it accordingly. The article itself gets

8173:

On the name, thanks for the reminder. My main goal was to include a name incorporating an 'A to Z' pattern, but actually think I can revise in a way that avoids promotional connection. Was delayed in that update, but will get that done! Thanks,

3278:

stub, and you marked it with a possible problem for notability. I have made some changes to the page following your advice and would appreciate it if you could pop over again and have a look. Can you offer any more ways to stabilize it? Thanks.

10077:

it might be - hence my question to give them a chance to answer - it's the images they've uploaded to Commons that concern me. Yes, it could be a fan. But the images could be that of someone connected to this person. The image used on page 14

5785: 3125:

Hi, I am working on the page and improving it. It was a stub with reliable featured references. As i am improving the article, please consider removing the tag and if you find any issue with the article after improving you may tag afd. Thanks

2546:. I really appreciate you taking the trouble to follow this up and seek my opinions. It's good to be challenged! I may have to answer in two parts (as I'm currently rather busy) There is a very important rule concerning notability, called 7405:

on Simple Knowledge, but were deleted on the grounds of lack of notability. Does he have a page about him on his own language Wiki? That might be the place to try, rather than here, where our notability criteria are quite tough. Regards,

815:

from you. That's not to suggest that what you wanted to achieve and contribute is wrong, but perhaps the approach could be different. I'll follow this up further later on if that's OK (daughter needs the laptop right now!) To continue...

9842:

Every edit you make is visible on the internet - whether it's on your userpage, your sandbox, or in an article. So the blue 'Publish' button is really just a 'Save' button. Click that, and whatever you've written will be saved on that

7236:. I am not at all sure what help you are asking for. Are you Omar Gull, and are you trying to write about yourself? If so, that would have been why your userpage was deleted, as we don't permit Knowledge userpages to resemble articles. 3181:

Also, you suggested a picture. I like your idea, but I don't own such a photo. Is there a good way to get access to one that I can post? (I've actually never posted a picture to Knowledge before, so I'm not 100% sure how it works)

7073:

in the last few weeks to modernize PageTriage's code, which will make it easier to write patches in the future. This work is helpful but is not very visible to the end user. For patches visible to the end user, volunteers such as

6228:

It follows that if you are unable to find any published sources you will not be able to extend that article, even if you happen to be an expert on that subject, or know the person, place or business you want to write about really

1277:. You've not done it quite right, but the explanation of the process really is an utter shambles. I'm inexperienced at DYK myself, but I'klll try and talk you though the key stages, without actually doing the nomination for you. 9582:

advice, do let me know and I'll try and see if I can help you. I don't have that much free time to offer general mentorship right now, but if you have difficulties, I'll promise to do my best for you. Just let me know. Regards,

9504:

If you feel you want to make a major change - perhaps a contentious one - it can help to raise the issue first on the article's talk page and get consensus to make the change. Not everyone may agree with what you feel should be

5850: 842:

salt tolerance in wheat (or in crops) is an issue. The process of how it is measured is much less important, and I think you can leave it to the sources you use in references to point to those methodologies. What both your new

5991:

exclude paid advertising, press releases, newswire articles, blogs, interviews with connected people, and the company's own website. If you can't find any, then I'm afraid you've absolutely no chance. It's as simple as that.

4969:. The only time you need to be concerned is if you get escalating warnings after continuing to repeat the same type of edit. Best to stop and ask. (In due course I'll create a separate page here for our ongoing discussions). 3949:

to make it easier to solve this. It will soon be active by default on the German, Arabic, and Farsi Wikipedias. It will be on by default on more wikis within the next months. You will be able to opt out of the new interface.

4008: 1197:, here are my suggestions for you to submit. Just go to edit source and copy/paste the text (from the asterisk to the question mark) and pop it in the relevant bit of the nomination. The second suggestion can be present as 742:

silly mistakes I would have spotted had I'd allocated another 2 minutes once I thought I'd finished that report, or whatever. Happens all the time - probably even in the reply to you! Does this help or make sense? Cheers

1447:

Thank you so much, was about to give up. I've referenced education, deleted the older dye template. How do I add DYK nomination template to my watchlist? I have endless material on Pankaj so can add more references later.

1323: 9807: 9635:

Thanks, but please don't edit it. Any error in my poor choice of wording is irrelevant, and after 18 months nobody is going to read it and get the wrong idea about Knowledge. But thank you for drawing it to my attention.

7537:

You can use tags to filter edits in the recent changes feed or on your watchlist. You can now use tags to filter out edits you don't want to see. Previously you could only use tags to focus on the edits with those tags.

10023:

reporter so they get alerted to my decline and appreciate the reasons wI/e make our decisions. (I'd be happy to block every offensive username if the guidelines encouraged that. Last time I read them I felt they didn't)

9855:

auto-fill the rest of the reference for you, based upon that link. But it doesn't always work perfectly, although it helpfully cuts down on the amount you have to manually add to make a really good reference (citation).

5862: 4733:. I'm not Nick, but I am a former adoptee of his. I just wanted to say that it's nice to meet you. Feel free to read the adoption page linked if you think any of the information there could be useful. Also, I found the 2642: 9349:

Only administrators can do that. I had been editing for 10 years here before I felt ready to seek the approval of the community to be trusted with admin rights. That said, any user who understands our policies can use

6963:

for further details. The queue is steadily rising again and is approaching 2,000. It would be great if <2,000 were the “new normal”. Please continue to help out even if it's only for a few or even one patrol a day.

4916:. Scroll to the very bottom of the article and you'll see a section called 'Categories' with hyperlinks to various categories assigned to that page. Click one of them, say "American neopagans" , and you'll arrive at 446: 263: 9420: 8257:

Oh, and you can select whether or not you want to get an email each time you have an edit made to your own userpage (which I find really useful). Yo can change what you get notified about by going to 'Preferences:

8112:

Hi! Noticed that I was assigned under you as a mentor, and I'm starting out in creating my first article. Right now it's in my sandbox, and was wondering if you'd like to review/suggest any new article tips? Link:

4809:

Alternately, I've wondered if I should: 1) explore scholarship and news about topics of interest, 2)then figure out where in Knowledge articles the info could plug in. Is this done by some editors? Is it considered

3151:

page that I have been working on. I will make the changes suggested. Would love to see it on DYK, but unsure how...This kind of help is perfect for editors like myself who are fairly new to this. Much appreciated!

2835:

Thank you, I'm working on it but may take little time due to work. Will delete anything not cited properly. I agree that much of what looks like copyright is just names of awards and institutions which cannot be

5025: 9452:

Hi Nick. I noticed this while checking on a different question on that archived page. The OP apparently added a new response directly to the archived discussion thread, and I'm not sure whether you saw it. --

9192:

Better to err on the side of kindness. They did try to engage and were genuinely flummoxed. No. I was going to SPAMUBLOCK, My neurodivergence or whatever they call it these days makes me blind to compassion.

6048:

Hello! Can I write and publish a biography of someone who is well recognized in my country or Region? After my research on his/her life history and achievements, I wanted to know how to get Started. Please🙏

3202:

Don't worry - I get annoyed when everyone expects everyone else to be on Knowledge 24hrs a day to respond to stuff. Hope your problems are sorted now. I've added a couple of extra bits, though the concept of

1017:

of patrolling and the use of correct CSD criteria are essential to good reviewing. Do not over-tag. Make use of the message feature to let the creator know about your maintenance tags. See the tutorial again

5781: 7068:

signed by 444 users is bearing fruit. The Growth Team has assigned some software engineers to work on PageTriage, the software that powers the NewPagesFeed and the Page Curation toolbar. WMF has submitted

1326:. Now, don't be alarmed, as most are simply long titles of awards and the like, but in a couple of places you should consider rephrasing into your own words. I noted some bits in the Medical Career section 2555:

guidelines by being seen as worthy of reporting in third party sources not directly associated with the product, profession or organisation. I suspect being on the Forbes 30 under 30 list might mean that

8253:

it's published, or it won't work. Using the reply tool saves one having to manually add a signature, but one still has to 'mention' them by typing the '@' sign and selecting their name from the dropdown

6984:

won the 2022 cup for 28,302 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 80/day. There was one Gold Award (5000+ reviews), 11 Silver (2000+), 28 Iron (360+) and 39 more for the 100+ barnstar.

6210:, and welcome to Knowledge. That's a really great question, and one that can be answered fairly easily. (Had you told me the article title I might have been able to help you more effectively, of course.) 2550:

we both ought to check out (and me to read again, maybe). My understanding of it is that a person doesn't inherit notability from being the person who creates something notable, but has themselves meet

5150: 4794:

Mostly now I am: 1) identifying page or topic, 2) doing a lot of researching and gathering sources, then reading them, 3) drafting new content and citations, 4) making the edits. I have done with this

1522:

If you want any further help - or ideas for editing - there are various ways to get this. You can leave a note on an editor's Talk Page as you've been doing with me; you can ask a specific question at

7692:

sorry for the ping again, but i have one article that i want to work on "Fort Munro Steel Bridge" which seem to be Notable as well. Can you do your research and work with me on this one? Best Regards

1900:

Note: I do realise you messaged me whilst I drafted this to say you'd understood why I'd unreviewed it, but I thought I should still post the explanation in case any of us can learn from it. Regards.

3212:. If you can't find one, but do have an image of your own (or clearly freely licenced), you can upload it by following the 'Upload file' link on the left side of the Wikimedia page, which takes you 2041: 1286:. I see you've already created it, but it's lost a lot of its content which are essential in guiding you to complete it. So I've reinstated the original for you to work on again. You should ignore 4023: 2512:

Could you have another check now for peer reviewing? I added evidence of notability from e.g. Mahler's IMDb profile. I built the article around the case that his notability extends from founding

243: 186: 9023:

Likewise! Sorry I had to shoot off, too (I felt very scruffy as well!) Do you know if there is a link to view the rest of the meeting? I've not checked the Growth page yet, though. Best wishes,

9914:, I went to check your account and noticed you're an administrator. I still want AutoWikiBrowser rights to make redirects, so can you please review my request to see if I can get these rights? 8712:

yes, it’s perfectly possible to create a new article on a mobile. I edit a lot using a tiny iPhone, and prefer ‘Desktop’ view to Mobile view. See very bottom of any page to switch between them.

6021:

We regularly find ourselves deleting new pages that are effectively spam articles, solely written in order to promote a business, without any good sources to back up their claim for notability.

2165:- the problem is...I have no idea how to do that...I just enjoy writing articles-when the subject is appropriately notable-and reading, and have little knowledge on how to do everything else. 1427: 9109:. On the whole, the best advice I can give it to take your time and to learn how things operate by making smaller edits and improvements to existing articles first. Does this answer help you? 7046:: Some of our redirect reviewers have reduced their activity and the backlog is up to 9,000+ (two months deep). If you are interested in this distinctly different task and need any help, see 3307:

ensure some deep, detailed and meaningful obituaries are published of some people (but I do hope you appreciate this is intended to be a purely humorous remark, and no offense is intended).

1682:

Hi, I just saw that you mentioned Croydon Airport. I have been researching medical provision in their archives and discovered many other interesting facts. Will tackle the page over summer.

9893: 9829: 8166:. Yes, on the draft, I think that was an area of concern (notability criteria). I did look thoroughly where I could on independent citations and found for organizations such as NY Times, 7583:

You can filter out translations when you look at the recent changes on multilingual wikis. This didn't hide translation pages. You can now also hide subpages which are translation pages.

5068: 5054: 2705: 7566:

A wiki page can be moved to give it a new name. You can now get a dropdown menu with common reasons when you move a page. This is so you don't have to write the explanation every time.

6091:

If you want to let me know their name, and give me some sources to look at, I can offer you a guess as to how likely you would be at successfully starting a new article. Kind regards,

554:. Thank you for contacting me, but please do not be alarmed!. I fear you may have misunderstood my edit summary. On 1 May 2017 there was a series of disruptive edits to the article on 9704: 7185:

You can also create a new page as part of your userpage, providing it is relevant to the work of helping to build and maintain this encyclopaedia. I see you have already created one (

5844: 3208:

Geograph is great for locality images, for example, all of which are freely licenced. My first stop is always to look on Wikimedia, using search terms that help find categories, like

8580:

of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 24 January. It will be on non-Knowledge wikis and some Wikipedias from 25 January. It will be on all wikis from 26 January (

7626:

of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 10 January. It will be on non-Knowledge wikis and some Wikipedias from 11 January. It will be on all wikis from 12 January (

8302: 2509:, you mentioned: "The person does not inherit notability from the software. Evidence of notability from reliable sources outside the gaming world needs to be demonstrated, please." 1322:

stage, but one of the tools reviewers use is called 'Earwig's copyvio tool. When I type the article name into the lookup box on that page, it shows me a 49% likelihood of copying.

4886:

of the 33 medium importance stubs. Either browse through the list of article titles lest one of them stands out as something you about already, or work down each link, starting at

456: 9738: 9446: 8321: 7372: 7266:

unlikely to be able to have an article about themselves here. If the company they run, or the product they created does have an article here, then it is probably acceptable for a

5836: 4737:

really useful when I was trying to learn how to do different things, so it might be a useful resource to check out if you're trying to figure out how to do something on your own.

3119: 2294:

issues. If you look at that policy, it will explain what you should do to declare any such connection, and how future articles should be submitted through peer review with a full

9233: 4418: 3059:

resolve. But it still takes a lot of time, and I can imagine how long seventeen lists will have taken you. It's great to see some good lists being prepared. Regards from the UK,

9813: 8848: 5791: 2042:

https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Lithium+as+an+investment&oldid=&action=search&use_engine=1&use_links=1&turnitin=0

1733:

Don't worry - we all struggle with seeing our own typos to begin with. I've resent my comments as for some reason they didn't appear at my end. The useful tool is at this link (

8768:

As mentioned, to avoid disappointment, do spend some weeks making smaller edits and improvements to existing articles to gain an insight into how things operate here. Regards,

4319:

of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 24 March. It will be on non-Knowledge wikis and some Wikipedias from 25 March. It will be on all wikis from 26 March (

3931:

of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 17 March. It will be on non-Knowledge wikis and some Wikipedias from 18 March. It will be on all wikis from 19 March (

3534:

of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 10 March. It will be on non-Knowledge wikis and some Wikipedias from 11 March. It will be on all wikis from 12 March (

5994:

To save you wasted effort, feel free to link me to those three sources you identify, and I will take a quick look at them for you. Then, if they seem OK, I would point you to

2102: 392: 6830: 5178:

of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 31 March. It will be on non-Knowledge wikis and some Wikipedias from 1 April. It will be on all wikis from 2 April (

4697:- there are actually a total of 15 separate badges you can collect, and it's another great way to show you're willing to work though our guidance pages. How does that sound? 9284: 6039: 4917: 3564: 7984:, noting you need the subject in bold in the first sentence. References need better details (titles for each one, date if available, and do on). Hope this helps. In haste, 7598:

is a tool which lets editors preview the page when they edit wikitext. It will be enabled for all users of the 2010 wikitext editor. You will find it in the editor toolbar.

6578: 3509:. You can use it to search for articles on a specific topic. It is available on the Arabic, Czech, English and Vietnamese Wikipedias. It will come to more Wikipedias soon. 2932:

Several requests have been put into Phabractor to increase usability of the New Pages Feed and the Page Curation toolbar. For more details or to suggest improvements go to

2372:

extended welcome, pointing out the challenges of BLP, COI, and GS. I've been wanting to look around to see if there's a template with similar information to use instead. --

2282:

However, you do need to be aware of Knowledge's strong concern about employees writing articles about their own companies, whether paid to do so or otherwise. Please read:

1534:

which I might now go off and read. And are you aware of Knowledge 'Projects'? - these are topic based projects to enhance Knowledge, and you might like to consider joining

1297:

of simplified instructions, and follow the steps - perhaps opening it in a new window so you can refer to it as you go along. Remember, you'll want to embolded the link to

8436: 6106:

Thanks Mentor @Nick Moyes for this clear explanation. Please About my own profile page,is it recommended to write my own biography. How should I handle this one please.

4019: 1318:

As your article stands, I fear there are still a few places where DYK reviewers are likely to pick up on so-called copyright violation. I know you did address this at the

1307:

You can keep editing and saving the template until you're happy with it. (It should end up looking like some of the other unreviewed nominations to the very bottom of the

276: 9401:. As a brand new user you might prefer to post your reasons and supporting evidence at the article’s Talk Page, and let another editor rename the page. All users must be 9090:

when you're ready. You'll even find a 'wizard' tool to help you. You'll get useful feedback via this route, and someone will move it to mainspace for you if it meets out

8906:

for a 'how-to' guide. For simple tables, I find using our 'Visual Editing' tool a lot easier than Source Editor - though you have a lot more fine control with the latter.

6144:. As I'm a brand new editor, please let me know on my talk page if any of my edits fail to follow Knowledge's guidelines, as I'm keen to learn to do things the best way." 3946: 9767:

Hi Nick, Sorry about some of my recent edits on AIV, I am still a relatively new editor. I will take some time to familiarize myself about the process as you mentioned

9698: 6771: 5510: 4036:

reference links to an old review of the story, one in which "magic" is the word chosen. So, better to change the word and delink? Or keep the fan-boy tone? Thank you. -

2451: 2437: 9925: 6593: 6553: 6548: 6543: 6177: 6115: 6058: 5657: 5647: 5471: 3788: 3549: 2520:, a multi-award winning indie title and discussion piece, through which he has gained notability in mainstream media and outside "underground-ish" gaming sites. I used 9566:

Hello, are you still available for tips and feedback? Or are you still busy as of 2023? You have been 'mentoring' me for a while and just, for some time, disappeared.

9468: 8798: 5972: 4423: 2290:? I could supply links to articles I believe you wrote on the Currency Solutions website, but Knowledge also has a policy of not 'outing' editors whilst investigating 2020: 125: 8454: 6079:

Please be aware that creating a new article that is acceptable here is the very hardest task anyone can perform - much more so for a newcomer. You might wish to read

5578: 3794: 3783: 3736:- I'm extremely happy to hear you say that coming to me for help results in having your stress eased and that it makes you feel better. I'm sure that I can speak for 3677:

That said, I found it an extremely valuable experience to be at the receiving end of a ban by another editor for no good reason - at least as I saw it. It was a real

2686:

Go to the User Page and write a few introductory lines about yourself and your interests on Knowledge. This will show other editors you're serious about contributing.

792:. Someone deleted my edit on this subject two times and now I don't know what to do because I think that edit is justified. I would value your opinion. Kind regards, 9493: 9478: 9470: 9369: 6182: 3758: 121: 9486: 6366:

Whatever you celebrate at this time of year, whether it's Christmas or some other festival, I hope you and those close to you have a happy, restful time! Have fun,

2271:. I didn't believe from what I saw initially that it merits an article here on Knowledge, and I note that your first attempt to create a page for it was deleted by 661:

Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

9322: 9061: 8953:

Hello, and welcome to Knowledge. There could be two answers to this question - it depends what image you want to add. The first part of the answer is that you are

5958: 5314: 5310: 5306: 3850: 3771: 1107: 1100: 1098: 9387: 6583: 5774: 3800: 2307: 784:

Dear Nick Moyes, thanks for your encouragement on the creation of the salt tolerance article. This evokes my request for your assistance in the following matter:

9836: 9821: 9809: 8874: 8391: 7065: 7027:. The script also warns reviewers if the creator is probably still developing the article. The former script is no longer maintained. Please edit your edit your 5642: 5358: 4611: 4573: 4529: 4015: 3835: 3825: 3814: 3631: 503: 482: 9339: 9076: 6618: 5192:

The video player will change to be simpler and more modern. The current beta feature will become the video player for everyone. The old player will be removed.

3777: 3375:], but when I tried to upload it to wikimedia, it all got a little complicated regarding permissions! Does the author need to do more than email 'yes'!? Thanks 2942:

has been updated to include links to the following useful userscripts. If you were not aware of them, they could be useful in your efforts reviewing new pages:

2131: 1050: 838:, back again. I sense that you know your subject in great depth and detail, and that maybe English isn't your first language? What is important to bring out is 9603: 9552: 9255: 7208: 6960: 6200: 5952: 2464: 2447: 2433: 2031:" sound better? It does to me. I am concerned that the article does not address the article's title in sufficient detail. Far too much content just relates to 8621: 7645: 7370: 6915: 6573: 5976: 5218: 4357: 4296:

There was a problem when adding interwiki links. The tool you use to add interwiki links could suggest the wrong project to link to. This has now been fixed.

3976: 3584: 1992:. May I ask you to read the article in full and correct the language if necessary? English is not my native language, so mistakes are possible in long texts. 1258:

HI, thank you for help. I see its tricky but I'm determined to learn correctly. Please check, advise etc on the DYL template I've done. I'm lost from here. bw

8961:

But before doing so, please let me know me what article you want to add a picture to, and whether you own the copyright of it. I can then advise you further.

8292: 8167: 8019: 7912: 6558: 6207: 6192: 6184: 5983: 5968: 5960: 5533: 9273: 8599: 7595: 9434: 9422: 8892: 8810: 8684: 7233: 7226: 7218: 7210: 7133: 3806: 3335: 2983: 2268: 1039: 724:- thanks for your question. It's a really good one and I appreciate your concern in wanting to get your edits right first time. I don't think Lupin's tool 655:

You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.

110: 95: 8761:), it’s important that you find at least three in-depth and independent source that talk about him. Avoid interviews and personal blogs and websites. See 8641: 7665: 7328:. We see so many draft articles intended to promote entrepreneurs, and require better sources than business news articles. If his company is notable (see 7178:

tak anyone can perform here. It is far better to start slowly by making small improvements to existing articles and learning how we operate here. Do read

5238: 4377: 3996: 3604: 1127: 857: 465:

if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the

355:

if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the

9722: 8899: 8884: 8876: 8664: 8103: 7142: 7091: 6752: 6517: 5109: 5091: 4053: 4037: 2314: 9757: 8314: 8045: 7930: 4583: 4560: 4539: 3567:

if users want them. This could help you see for example when someone wrote on your talk page or your edit was reverted. This will come later this year.

2023:), and you are clearly knowledgeable and a very good writer in English. May I make two comments on that article? Rather than the lead sentence saying " 1238:

When I did my first DYK I found it even more complex a process than creating an article from scratch. Any problems, and I'll try and reply by 29th May.

921: 9859:

little about themselves and their interests in wanting to edit Knowledge. (Don't reveal personal details as anyone can see it, and it's not necessary).

8052: 8037: 8021: 6563: 5755: 5733: 4604: 4566: 4546: 4522: 3818: 3728: 3691: 3624: 3174:

Thanks for reading and commenting on the article I created! (and sorry to be slow in responding, long story, but personal drama the last couple days)

3052: 2491: 2319: 2303: 499: 5250: 4665: 3424: 3084: 3068: 2845: 2790: 1786: 1764: 964: 896: 881: 825: 9710: 9548: 9533: 9264:

Hi, I created a biography page, I'm not sure if it's published or if it'll appear on google when someone searches for it. Can you please guide me? --

8828: 8747: 8702: 7240: 7167: 7160: 7152: 7144: 7023:: In response to feedback from AFC, the The Move to Draft script now provides a choice of set messages that also link the creator to a new, friendly 6568: 5078:, sorry I couldn't respond. Have been - and still will be - fairly busy for a while. But contact me again if you need help, or ask for assistance at 2689:

Tell me which way you edit. I always use the 'Edit Source' tab, but many new editors prefer the so-called 'Visual Editor' which is much more WYSIWYG.

2330:

to it. I'm sorry this isn't what you want to hear. Maybe next time you should draft something less complicated in your sandbox and submit it through

2224:

Can I get more detailed information about what exactly need to be changed, as I have been following the model of already submitted articles such as:

1706: 1579: 1405: 1345: 1247: 1184: 9839:, and a warm welcome to Knowledge. I have just placed a welcome message on your talk page with a very useful link to get you to learn about editing. 8126: 4978: 4951: 4933: 4767: 4749: 4724: 4706: 4071: 2636: 428: 419: 254: 9531: 8835: 8820: 8812: 8754: 8739: 8709: 8694: 8686: 6512: 4883: 4621: 4598: 4233: 3748: 3304:"he person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions." 3228: 3031: 2816: 1500: 1388: 1283: 944: 511: 9993:

To be clear, I think your call not to block is totally inside admin discretion, offensive usernames in particular are a very grey area. I created

9874:, and then find three or more independent sources that talk about that topic in some detail. You can get more advice on that by carefully reading 9556: 5702: 5662: 5652: 5584: 5001: 3196: 3108: 2615:

You're very welcome. I tend to agree with you that the notability threshold has indeed been met, and I might even have been wrong with respect to

1930: 1909: 9750: 9692: 9164:

Sometimes I worry I'll be taken to ANI for being compassionate on some days and too stern on others. I guess my variability balances itself out!

6892: 6588: 5929: 5555: 4485: 3263: 2264: 2256: 2244: 1657: 1613: 952: 571: 9792:. I'm grateful you want to help keep vandalism down, so please don't let my 'steer' put you off. Just shout if you need any other help. Cheers, 6664: 6480: 3347: 2829: 2343: 238: 10004: 8950: 8935: 8927: 8925: 7975:

That list is a bit of a mess, and I've not the time to work through them all - sorry. Please list me your top two for me to look at, but only

7701: 7606:

Some wikis will be in read-only for a few minutes because of a switch of their main database. It will be performed on 10 January at 07:00 UTC (

7310: 5667: 5354: 3740:

when I say that he feels the exact same way. :-) Our doors are always open, and you're welcome to come to any one of us any time you need. :-)

3316: 3135: 2933: 2917:

pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a a day.

2422: 1848: 1834: 1503:

and click the white star at the top of the page next to the edit and View tabs. Once it goes blue, it means that page is now on your watchlist.

6723: 6718: 6702: 6697: 6669: 6649: 6237:. If you can't see why they've undone your edit, it's quite OK to politely ask them to explain it to you. Good luck, and regards from the UK, 5621: 5616: 3709: 3362: 2609: 1879:

15-30 minutes, so they can work on it alone, and hopefully avoid what's happened here where we've both worked on the same thing (and possibly

1566:

for an explanation. Once you've done all this, read all the links and sat back with a cup of coffee, you'll be ready for this last shortcut:

1547:

to release any images they hold of notable people to Wikimedia could be a great help - but that's even more of a challenge that understanding

1371: 993:

Since rolling out the right in November, just 6 months ago, we now have 822 reviewers, but the backlog is still mysteriously growing fast. If

771: 751: 8965: 8943: 6897: 6530: 5934: 5879: 5560: 5411: 5389: 5286: 4965:

talk page and (politely) ask them. If you aren't sure if you've done the right thing, I'm here to offer a 2nd opinion, or you can ask at the

4151: 4145: 4139: 4133: 4127: 4121: 3322: 2995: 2150: 2096: 2056: 1563: 1142: 336: 203: 5502: 5475: 4045: 3907: 3553: 2582: 2396: 346: 9963: 9733:

for spam - can you please revoke TPA and email? This account is not just any old spammer but it’s actually a community global banned LTA -

8528: 5421: 3037: 2411: 2404: 2402: 2212: 2044:

see here]). I know how easy it is to copy over text to work on and then to forget which bits one has re-worded and which bits one has not.

10050:

You really think it's COI? I have AGF so far, and it sure looks to me like nothing more than a dedicated fan. Is there anything I missed?

7367: 7340:

for review, but I doubt they would say anything different. So it would be best to look for more independent sources or wait because it is

3667: 3641: 3439: 3390: 801: 7125:

If you no longer wish to be a reviewer, please ask any admin to remove you from the group. If you want the tools back again, just ask at

7087: 6842: 6213:

Think of Knowledge as simply a collation of factual statements written in a neutral manner that have already been published elsewhere by

5871: 4806:. I am spending a huge amount of time on steps 2 and 3, sometimes not resulting in long or major edits. Is this normal? Is this valuable? 2869: 487: 4251: 9907: 9895: 9687: 8676: 8654: 8602:(CWS), which invites contributors to make technical proposals and vote for tools and improvements, starts on Monday 23 January 2023 at 7678: 7105: 6887: 6162: 6100: 5924: 5550: 3166: 1434: 714: 10003:

as an educational tool for responding to these premature reports. My personal thought process on these things is also memorialized at

9525: 8477: 6996: 5296: 4466: 3161: 1166: 492:

Serious issue that there is no artice in Internet about him - it is all in the book. And I don't think it is correct to help pirats.

9728: 9414: 7826: 7800: 7782: 7764: 7743: 7729: 7496: 7482: 7468: 7448: 7415: 7387: 7353: 7119: 4443: 2968: 1457: 976: 632: 9887: 9862:

I then get them to fix errors or add small, verifiable bits of information to an existing article and to support their edits with a

9801: 9363: 9133: 9118: 8588: 8559:

Last week, for ~15 minutes, all wikis were unreachable for logged-in users and non-cached pages. This was caused by a timing issue.

3658:

I still use IRC to ask for revdel stuff. I wanted to share my feelings with you about this so that's why I messaged you about this.

3288: 2387:

Thank you -I really appreciate that link, and the one to your page. I'll take a look around them and select the best for me to use.

2087:

No problem! I'll probably slap a merge template on it, then. Sometimes it's best just to focus on what you are motivated by. Regards

1755:

Great tool. Lunch hour rush to get it done. Sometimes one forgets what one has written or pasted. (Shame on me) This is very useful.

615:, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the 212: 9716: 8136:, great to hear from you. You look to have done a pretty good job with that draft, and it looks ready for submission for review at 8032:

but I couldn't get it to work. Also, the letter I'm referencing doesn't have a subject, which I realise is required. After reading

5537: 5536:

of the pages most visited through various social media platforms to help with anti-vandalism and anti-disinformation efforts. The

4165: 3094: 2887: 2796: 872:. All the above would have been easier to explain face-to-face, so I offer my apologies if my written reply sounds a litle blunt. 688: 9591: 9316: 9295:

yourself. I shall be deleting that page imminently. I'm sorry to disappoint you. However, should you ever choose to write about a

8629: 8617: 8547: 7653: 7641: 7525: 6246: 6033: 5226: 5214: 5133: 5118: 4685:

problem, then type that word into the normal Search box, preceded by WP: Thus, if stuck on copyright or referencing issues, type

4365: 4353: 4273: 4258: 3984: 3972: 3881: 3866: 3592: 3580: 3493: 3478: 2857: 9681: 9202: 9173: 7279: 5282: 4827: 4650: 4454: 4171: 3016: 2138: 1727: 1691: 1229:

and his colleagues are believed to be the first ever medical team to have been employed as actors in a television drama, namely

382:

Good catch - I was probably clicking through revisions too quickly. I'll definitely remove the warning I issued on that revert. (

9378:

How can I move one person's page if he / she has changed his name, surname or if his / her name's spelling has some mistakes? --

8919: 8335: 7558: 4505: 2875:

I had a good smile over that one, too. I'd love to 'blame the bot', but have to take full responsibility for that howler! Sorry.

693: 9980: 9950: 9673: 9645: 9178:

However, I see now you were engaging with this editor. I have no objection if you wish to alter or completely remove my block.

8411: 8097: 8075:

the code is automatically inserted for you, though I don't think 'Cite letter' is available as it's an unusual one to be using.

8007: 7993: 7966: 7949: 7683: 7285: 3118: 2972: 1471: 10118: 10095: 10039: 9187: 9053: 9032: 8430: 8220: 7904: 7888: 7434: 7202: 6456: 6343: 5692: 3099:

Hi Nick, thanks for reviewing and your positive feedback. I have applied for permission to review new pages as you suggested.

2220:

I have just received that the article I have submitted was marked for speedy delation because it has promotional connotation:

1697:

Great stuff - good luck with that project. If you get stuck, or want a 2nd opinion on anything, feel free to message me here.

372: 9250: 8868: 8777: 8732: 8625: 8483: 8276: 8238: 8202: 8183: 8157: 7649: 7297:, I am not an experienced in wikipedia but i am trying to learn about it. Just needed your assistance on the draft i started 6485: 5814: 5589: 5255: 5222: 4906: 4453:

Hi Nick, I just found your summary on how to add references to Knowledge. Do you mind if I add it to my resource list on our

4361: 3980: 3588: 2497: 1749: 387: 9625: 9462: 9010: 6470: 6438: 3958: 3560: 3248: 2754: 1942: 1812: 1530:

for tons of guidance and more policies than you can shake a stick at on what to do and what not to do. I've just discovered

9158: 8977: 8794: 8395: 7879:

Sorted! (I had a minor panic as I thought I'd drastically reduced their original block by removing TPA - but it was fine).

7716:, I will happily look at them. If not immediately notable in its own right, you'd be OK to add something to the article on 7047: 6911: 6014:

for our mandatory policy on how to do this. If you are the business owner, their friend or relative, then you still have a

5948: 5574: 4912:

Maybe having found that an unsatisfactory route to find pages of interest, go find one that does interest you - lets say -

3846: 2892: 1267: 1085: 1046: 619:. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you 590: 544: 9820:

Hi , good day, how to create hyperlink on Sandbox and how to save what I have written on my first time creating a page? --

9782: 8847:. That page will then be reviewed, feedback given, and if/when accepted it will be given a non-conflicting title (such as 8672: 7459:

just got to know about him while going through the news so created draft and reached out to you if there are any problems

7051: 6921: 6837:

procedure including a change of the name to "contentious topics". The changes are being implemented over the coming month.

6447:

Thanks. I've restored it to the version by Ealdgyth. I'll leave a non-templated personal note for the IP editor shortly.

5626: 3899: 2381: 9745: 7848: 7258:

any stated facts, then that citation generally has no place in the article. They do not count towards 'notability' - see

4028: 2665: 10067: 5198: 3471: 3007:

individuals notable by their absence and with whom I have worked. I had hope that others would have contributed by now.

2455: 2441: 1672: 9097:

Should you choose to try to start from scratch with a brand new article, you do face a much greater chance of it being

8852: 7344:. I have added a submit button to your article, but don't advise you to do so until you've worked on it more. Regards, 7126: 5448: 4227: 4104: 4077: 3616: 3204: 2081: 2006: 1953:

This is because antibiotic use in animals is not only for the welfare of the animal. This is dealt with in the page of

1543: 8546: