Hey do you have any interest in trying to get more Community episodes to GA status? - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 13:28, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cukie Gherkin: yep, definitely! I'm happy to give advice, review for GA or (when I have the time) to help rewrite/improve articles. Are there any particular episodes you have in mind? — Bilorv (talk) 18:08, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, not looking into doing it in the VERY near future, but I think I will put "Advanced Advanced Dungeons & Dragons" at the top of my priorities. Maybe I'll springboard off that and do a GT for the season! - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 18:11, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cukie Gherkin: it would be a bigger project, but I wonder if seasons 2 or 3 would be better good topics to try for, as their higher acclaim means there are likely more sources available about them. High-concept or unusual episodes like AAD&D are better targets for individual GAs, as they're more likely to get coverage. The ones I've tried so far are things like "Remedial Chaos Theory" and "Abed's Uncontrollable Christmas", in both categories. — Bilorv (talk) 18:15, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that's a good point. In that case, after AAD&D, I'll rock "Epidemiology (Community)" (my second-favorite episode, I reckon). - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 18:18, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You ok with these? Can it be added back to the page? MaskedSinger (talk) 14:26, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MaskedSinger: my question would be, why mention this podcast and not others? I gather that in 2020 the channel created about 45 hours of original programming per week, and this isn't the only podcast they have. I don't have verifiability issues with these sources but there could be due weight issues. What makes this more important than other programming? Usually the answer to this would be something like "it's been reviewed by these professional critics". — Bilorv (talk) 18:06, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Bilorv, thanks for getting back to me. You ask some great questions! To be honest, I listened to this one and so thought I'd add it. But some of the others should also be added. After I add this, would it be ok for me to add some of the others? Should I run them by you first before I do so? MaskedSinger (talk) 18:39, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MaskedSinger: I don't own the article (or any) so I can't ask you to run them by me. I would still not add this content myself but I'm not likely to revert you if it is verifiable, referenced information. — Bilorv (talk) 18:41, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would you be intrested in co-nominating a GA with me? I've been working on getting a few different articles to GA level and I was wondering if you would be intrested in working on any of them with me, the ones I've worked are:
A New World (The Flash) - what this need is an improved critical reception section and a few other edits.
@OlifanofmrTennant: thanks for the message! When I get the time I can try to do a source search for "Emotional Consequences of Broadcast Television", see if there's anything more I can find, and help you tidy it up for GA.On "The Star Beast (Doctor Who)", I could perhaps review this at GAN (it's an interesting episode), but it looks like the hard work has been done!I think The Flash episode would be a bit outside my comfort zone. — Bilorv (talk) 09:46, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have been able to figure out most of the basics but what images am I allowed to add to a page. Like how should I know if it's copyrighted or not and what would happen if I were to accidentally add a copyrighted image. Thank you. --Cyanxbl (talk) 20:55, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cyanxbl: thanks for the question! By default, all images are automatically copyrighted by the creator or photographer. (The same is true with writers and text: I own the copyright to this answer to your question, but by publishing it on Wikipedia under the terms and conditions of the website I'm choosing to release it under a particular Creative Commons license.)You should only upload a new image to Wikimedia Commons if: (a) you are the creator and willing to release it under a free license; (b) the creator has explicitly made reference to freely licensing the image under a compatible copyright. Except where people have broken the rules (which is dealt with through deletion discussions), all images on Wikimedia Commons will be an appropriate copyright to use within Wikipedia articles. Conversely, non-free images are only allowed within Wikipedia articles under narrow conditions. Until you gain more experience, it might be worth only using images that you find already uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. — Bilorv (talk) 09:42, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How long will it take for the page I created to appear in the main space? --Thumbelina25 (talk) 03:00, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Thumbelina25: if you're talking about Gorai Phakhri, you moved it to mainspace yourself and it immediately became live to readers. Search engines will start listing the page at different times depending (partly) on their web crawling algorithms.I notice that the article contains some credible claims to notability, such as film festival awards, but it is possible it will be nominated for deletion unless you add additional sources. Good sources would be reviews in respected (inter)national publications by professional critics. Interviews with the writers, cast or crew would also be useful in improving the article.I also noticed that you did not follow the rules of Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons when uploading a non-free film poster. Wikipedia is part of the free, open-source movement and only uses non-free images under specific conditions that have to be demonstrated. When uploading files in future please read the instructions carefully and don't declare something as your own work if you were not the original artist or photographer. — Bilorv (talk) 09:31, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Thank you. Will keep that in mind. Thumbelina25 (talk) 11:04, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Adefila Oluwatimileyin Ayomide: thanks for the question and welcome to Wikipedia! Creating a new Wikipedia article is very difficult because it requires experience in lots of different skills. The most important stage is the research stage, where you need to find sources and identify whether they are reliable; when you have reliable sources, you need to assess whether they amount to notability. If you decide your topic is definitely notable then you need to summarise the sources in your own words, making sure the reader can check which fact comes from which source. Then, you need good writing skills and the ability to format using wikitext so the article is readable.Newcomers should start with tasks that help them develop the necessary skills one at a time, some of which are recommended on your homepage. The ideal is to start by adding reliable sources to existing articles that are in poor shape. — Bilorv (talk) 14:48, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
definition of Technology with reference ? --Piero Mathew (talk) 12:43, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Piero Mathew: welcome to Wikipedia! I do not understand the question you have asked, so could you explain it another way? You might want to include a link to the page you are talking about. — Bilorv (talk) 16:13, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have you seen vaporeon fan art? --MrDinglennut (talk) 19:10, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MrDinglennut: welcome to Wikipedia! If you have a question about improving Wikipedia and building an online encyclopedia, feel free to ask. — Bilorv (talk) 22:48, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question from Sujanavan (12:34, 17 March 2024)[edit]
I have developed some solutions (use-cases) using Nano [1] also called XNO and I have written an article ( https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2402.06649 ) which was moderated and accepted on arXiv. I edited the Nano Wiki page and added the solutions I developed under a heading "Use cases". I got a mail that self-citations is a spam. I am new to Wiki. What should I do? --Sujanavan (talk) 12:35, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sujanavan: hello and welcome to Wikipedia! While volunteers will often contribute knowledge from their specialist areas, as an encyclopedia we do not publish original thought and you should typically not cite yourself as a reference to avoid a conflict of interest. Although it hosts a lot of correct and useful material, arXiv is not a reliable source because it does not require peer review before publication. Let me know if you have any more questions! — Bilorv (talk) 13:05, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have another peer reviewed article ( https://doi.org/10.12694/scpe.v25i2.2459 ) published in a reputed journal which was also a part of the earlier edit. In this case can you kindly guide me further. Sujanavan (talk) 13:16, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sujanavan: take a look at WP:SELFCITE. Since MrOllie has objected to the content you should not re-add it directly, but you could start a discussion at Talk:Nano (cryptocurrency) and see if any independent editors think the reference is reliable and useful.Also, could you please state your relationship to User:Sushi3016? — Bilorv (talk) 13:26, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sushi3016 is my friend who was supporting my edit and also a new user to wiki. Sujanavan (talk) 14:53, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sujanavan and Sushi3016: you will both want to look at the policy on "meatpuppetry" (a slightly unpleasant name but a serious rule). — Bilorv (talk) 14:56, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies to wiki on behalf of us both Sujanavan (talk) 15:12, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I have a question. It has been almost 3 month since I've translated an article. I don't believe anyone got a chance to look at it. Someone already tried editing it. I've reverted changes to the content of the original article.
Am I doing it correctly? I wonder if it even got into approval queue.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GlobeWeaver/Alexander_(mixed_media_artist)
Thanks in advance for your advice!
-Julia --GlobeWeaver (talk) 19:39, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GlobeWeaver: hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Your draft was never submitted but I'd recommend some changes before submission. The English Wikipedia has a higher standard of notability than some other Wikipedias, so translating an article is a good task but it still requires independently assessing whether it's an appropriate topic for us.At the moment your draft does not have enough reliable sources. It says "not much is known about the sculptor", so why is it an appropriate topic for a general-purpose encyclopedia? There are some answers you might give like "this work of his was widely acclaimed by professional critics", "he won this award", "he achieved his record", "art critics have said a lot about his oeuvre". Each of these needs reliable sources so a reader can check the information is not fabricated. And if such sources don't exist then you might be out of luck, which happens—I've created about 150 articles but I still find that some topics I want to write about just aren't notable and I have to abandon them during the initial research phase. — Bilorv (talk) 19:53, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Translating the original article was the initial starting point, but there is definitely more to add to it in the future. I didn’t want to make modification to stay close to the original content. Is it appropriate to add more before it gets reviewed as a translation? Or is it just worth starting from scratch as a new article? GlobeWeaver (talk) 20:23, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GlobeWeaver: Wikipedia is written to be rewritten, so it is appropriate to edit, rewrite, add, expand and modify however you see fit. If starting from scratch is easier you could do that instead. At present this would be declined as there are not the sources to show notability from an English Wikipedia perspective. — Bilorv (talk) 20:29, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much! I appreciate any feedback on the draft I am currently writing about Douglas Miller, Philanthropist, to give it the best chance of being accepted. Very much appreciate any feedback. --All Write by Me (talk) 16:23, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi All Write by Me and thanks for the question! At the moment I think Draft:Douglas Miller (philanthropist) suffers most from neutrality issues and referencing issues. While it is appropriate on Wikipedia to report on political ideas, it is not appropriate to state them in Wikipedia's voice, such as: "Recognizing that the best way to positively affect racial and gender equity for future generations was to begin from inside the halls of power". A Wikipedia article should not be a hagiography but a neutral description of what somebody says about themselves or what other people say about them (and making the distinction in prose is key): c.f. "Miller has always felt a strong pull to help others"; "Miller’s reflections on the inspiration and goals of his venture philanthropy journey can be read in this article".On referencing, it is important that a read can check that each fact in an article is true by consulting the references, but while the draft has many links, it does not appear to have so many citations that show where each claim comes from. References are also needed to establish that a topic is within Wikipedia's scope—the jargon for this is that a topic should be notable—as the vast majority of individuals are not.Creating a Wikipedia article is very difficult because it requires experience in lots of different skills. The most important stage is the research stage, where you need to find sources and identify whether they are reliable; when you have reliable sources, you need to assess whether they amount to notability. If you decide your topic is definitely notable then you need to summarise the sources in your own words, ensuring verifiability. Then, you need good writing skills and the ability to format using wikitext so the article is readable.Newcomers should start with tasks that help them develop these skills one at a time, some of which are recommended on your homepage. The ideal is to start by adding reliable sources to existing articles that are in poor shape. — Bilorv (talk) 18:50, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that answer, and so quickly. Much appreciated. I have another one which I'll ask separately. All Write by Me (talk) 16:05, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Recently I have been editing some very long pages. I often only have time to do one section per editing session, so I'll do one section and then come back to it later in the day. This results in me making multiple edits to the same page on the same day. I'm concerned that this might be perceived as artificially inflating the number of edits I've made as per "gaming the system." How can I prevent this?
@Hopeless polyglot: it's acceptable and commonplace to make many consecutive edits to the same article within a day (even dozens), as saving your work often is good practice. Other ways of saving progress include working on a copy of the article as a userspace draft (useful if you have to leave when your work is not yet in a readable state) or backing up the wikitext offline. You shouldn't worry about which of these methods looks best to others, only which is most convenient to you. — Bilorv (talk) 16:19, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
दिन में होली व रात में दीवाली सा रहता है माहौल:-
एक दिन में दो त्योहारों की होती है अनुभूति।
रुण्डेड़ा (उदयपुर) :- उदयपुर जिले से 50 किलोमीटर दूर रुण्डेड़ा गांव में करीब 457 सालो से रंग तेरस पर्व मनाते आ रहे है। इस साल यह त्यौहार 6 अप्रैल को मनाया जाएगा।
इस दिन पूरे गांव को दुल्हन की तरह फूल मालाओं व विशेष रोशनी से सजाया जाता है। यहां करीब 11 हजार जनसंख्या की आबादी वाला वल्लभनगर उपखण्ड क्षेत्र का सबसे बड़ा गांव है।
रुण्डेड़ा गांव में होली के बाद ठीक तेरहवें दिन गांव के लक्ष्मीनारायण मन्दिर के सफेद चबूतरे पर प्रातः 4 बजे एड़ा का ढ़ोल बजने के साथ ही रंग तेरस पर्व का आगाज हो जाता है। जो ग्रामीणों को इस ऐतिहासिक पर्व की सूचना देता हे। दिन में करीब 12 बजे गांव के उत्तर दिशा में तालाब के पास स्थित जत्तीजी श्री कलदास जी महाराज की धूणी पर गांव के तीनों समाज (मेनारिया,जाट,जणवा,) के पंच तीनों समाज के ढोल,थाली ओर मादल के साथ पहुंचते हे। वहा पर पूजा अर्चना कर जत्तिजी का ध्यान कर उन्हें कार्यक्रम में हिस्सा लेने के लिए आमन्त्रित करते है। जत्तीजी को आमन्त्रित करने के बाद ग्रामीण वहा से रवाना होते है वे मार्ग में डेमन बावजी को भी आमंत्रित करते है जहां से वे गांव के बड़े मंदिर पहुंचते हे, यहां भांग लेने की रस्म पूरी कर जत्तीजी महाराज की अमानत माला,चिमटा व लकड़ी की गोड़ी लेकर गेर नृत्य शुरू किया जाता है। कुछ देर नृत्य करने के बाद ग्रामीण यहां से तलहटी मंदिर ,निंबडिया बावजी,जूना मंदिर गैर खलते हुवे लक्ष्मीनारायण मंदिर पहुचते है जहां पर भारी भीड़ व रंगों की बौछार के साथ जबरी गैर होती है। गैर के साथ ही युवाओं की टोलियां ग्रामीणों को उठाकर मंदिर के पीछे की तरफ बनाये कीचड़ के गड्ढे में ले जाकर डालते है। कीचड़ के गड्ढे में सभी पुरुष वर्ग को लोटपोट किया जाता है इसके बाद सभी गैर खेलते हुवे महादेव मंदिर जणवा मंदिर होते हुए वापिस बड़ा मंदिर पहुंचते हे। जहां पर दिन का कार्यक्रम समाप्त होता है।
"रंग तेरस: रुण्डेड़ा का सांस्कृतिक महोत्सव और सामाजिक एकता का प्रतीक":-
रंग तेरस पर्व न केवल एक उत्सव है बल्कि यह स्थानीय लोगो का गर्व है जो उनकी इस ऐतिहासिक परम्परा को जिवंत रूप प्रदान करता है। इस पर्व के माध्यम से लोग अपने ऐतिहासिक, सांस्कृतिक और सामाजिक सम्बन्धो को मजबूत करते है जो आज के समाज --Rajkumar menaria Chhapanya (talk) 16:24, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am reaching out to you because of your previous participation in one of the discussions regarding the reliability and neutrality of HuffPost/Pink News/ProPublica as sources used on Wikipedia.
Currently, there is an ongoing issue with the Edelman Family Foundation section in the Joseph Edelman Wikipedia article. The section appears to be biased and lacks a balanced representation of the foundation's activities, as it primarily focuses on a single controversial donation while neglecting to mention the organization's numerous other significant contributions to various causes.
I would like to invite you to participate in the discussion on the BLP Noticeboard to address the concerns surrounding the section's neutrality and explore ways to improve its content. Llama Tierna (talk) 18:06, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
nvm how do I caption images --IonlyPlayz2 (talk) 16:51, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@IonlyPlayz2: have a look at Help:Pictures. As an example, [[File:Example.png|thumb|center|This is a picture]] produces:This is a picture — Bilorv (talk) 17:46, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am trying to add appropriate citations to the article on Douglas Miller, Philanthropist. There is a significant article written about him in 2023 by Pioneers Post, a respected online-only social enterprise magazine, but it's behind a paywall. Can I cite that article, or what to do in cases such as that? Again, help is very much appreciated! --All Write by Me (talk) 16:10, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@All Write by Me: per WP:PAYWALL, reliable sources can be behind a paywall, written in foreign languages or require physical access. That doesn't affect reliability. Citations can be in any readable format including plaintext, though most volunteers use templates like {{cite magazine}}. You may also want to read Wikipedia:Reliable sources. — Bilorv (talk) 16:33, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Bilorv. I just wanted to check if added a topic to a "talk" page appropriately. It's currently at the bottom here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gender_dysphoria
I wasn't confident enough in my read to just edit the article itself, so I figured it'd be best to ask there about it. Hopefully I did this correctly, I would have asked first but I only just saw the "mentor" feature! Let me know when you're able, thanks. --VoeVoeVoe (talk) 23:59, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi VoeVoeVoe and welcome to Wikipedia! In general volunteers need to be bold and assume, "if I don't fix it then nobody will". The idea is that if someone reverts (undoes) your edit, either their edit summary teaches you something new or you take the disagreeement to the talk page for discussion. In this specific case—a contentious topic that receives much disruption by newcomers here to push extremist views—taking a more cautious approach is good.I would recommend finding some less contentious topic areas as you begin editing, to establish reputation in the community as someone here to write an encyclopedia. Your first edit's focus on interpreting reliable sources is a strong start though. Some potentially good tasks for newcomers are available at your homepage, but feel free to ask for advice if you have specific topics or articles in mind.By the way, to create a link to the discussion you added, the code [[Talk:Gender dysphoria#Issue With DSM-5 Prevalence Estimate|this talk page discussion]] produces: this talk page discussion.Thanks! — Bilorv (talk) 00:28, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have just noticed you removed a portion of my edit to the IOPC page, and I wanted to apologise in case any of my edit didn't quite reach Wikipedia's standards. It's my first real contribution to a page, so I'm still learning.
Thanks, and thank you for making a dedicated To Catch a Copper page Jollyfacedgentleman (talk) 19:47, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jollyfacedgentleman: hello and welcome to Wikipedia! It's a funny coincidence that you made that edit today, because it was completely independent from me creating To Catch a Copper, which has been in my to-do list for a couple of months. I know that you added a reliable source but on Wikipedia we're really strict about every single fact being verifiable to a clearly cited source, which comes from much experience of vandals tweaking a number here or a word there. The edit was a good start but the biggest deal is the quote from the IOPC that isn't in the Guardian article. In general we don't quote press releases, even as a "right of reply" thing: we just summarise what secondary sources like The Guardian have selected as the most important facts. My edit was just there to build on yours but is by no means the finished product, and I'm sure the section can be improved significantly. — Bilorv (talk) 20:56, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question from Nafisa06 (07:40, 7 April 2024)[edit]
Hi, how can I check the status of my wikipedia? I am writing an article and how can I make it semi protected?
(I have 10 edits over 7 days) --Nafisa06 (talk) 07:40, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nafisa06: I cannot say for certain but I believe your account meets the criteria for autoconfirmed and this right will be granted automatically when you attempt to do something restricted to autoconfirmed accounts (such as creating a page in mainspace or editing a semi-protected page).Even though you may have the technical ability to create a new article in mainspace, I would strongly advise you to submit any drafts through the Articles for Creation process. In mainspace, pages can be deleted immediately or after discussion. By submitting an Articles for Creation draft, it can only be declined/rejected but the text will remain available for you to work on.It is important that a reader can check that every single fact in an article is true by consulting the references, and it should be obvious which reference they should check for each fact (such as by using inline citations). References are also needed to establish that a topic is within Wikipedia's scope—the jargon for this is that a topic should be notable—as the majority of topics people create drafts about are not.Creating a Wikipedia article is very difficult because it requires experience in lots of different skills. The most important stage is the research stage, where you need to find sources and identify whether they are reliable; when you have reliable sources, you need to assess whether they amount to notability. If you decide your topic is definitely notable then you need to summarise the sources in your own words, ensuring verifiability. Then, you need good writing skills and the ability to format using wikitext so the article is readable.Newcomers should start with tasks that help them develop these skills one at a time, some of which are recommended on your homepage. The ideal is to start by adding reliable sources to existing articles that are in poor shape. — Bilorv (talk) 10:01, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for participating in the March 2024 backlog drive. Your contribution (3.5 points total) helped reduce the backlog by more than 250 articles! Here's a token of our appreciation. —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:07, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just a courtesy note to say that I reverted your recent edit to the article for Simon Williams (chess player). This is as per a couple of threads on the talk page for that article.
Similar material has been added to the article on a small number of occasions, but my feeling is that WP:NOTAPUBLICFIGURE applies and that only material relevant to the subject's chess career should be included in the article.
I've previously tried to start a discussion on the Simon Williams talk page regarding which part of the BLP guidelines would allow the material to be included. Unfortunately only a rather unreasonable IP user seemed prepared to engage with that, so I'm still under the impression that WP:NOTAPUBLICFIGURE is the relevant guideline here.
However, in the last hour or so I've raised the issue at WP:BLPN in the hope of getting a broader range of opinion and hopefully a categorical decision on what ought to be included.
I should probably add I have no connection to Williams and my interest is simply in relation to how the BLP guidelines apply in this case. It may very well be that my interpretation is incorrect, but in the short term I thought it best to remove the material until further guidance is received.
We may disagree on the central issue here, but hopefully this note makes clear that I have been acting in good faith. Raising the matter at WP:BLPN seemed like the best thing to do under the circumstances. Axad12 (talk) 05:07, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for raising this in the right way Axad12 and hopefully we can get some more outside opinions. — Bilorv (talk) 07:39, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and agreed. Axad12 (talk) 08:48, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
thank you so much for being here, i was contacted by people claiming to be Wikipedia representatives who would have my company on the Wikipedia site and they asked huge amounts of money even having a sample done which was impressive, but when i contacted Wikipedia they told me it was a scam.
if you like i can show you the draft they did --Halaseh-AU (talk) 01:00, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Halaseh-AU: thanks for the message! Yes, please let me know the draft as it may be useful in our attempts to understand and prevent scams relating to Wikipedia. — Bilorv (talk) 16:13, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question from Kia Lewis (13:45, 16 April 2024)[edit]
Where do I go to create a new Wikipedia page? --Kia Lewis (talk) 13:45, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Kia Lewis and welcome to Wikipedia! A new article is definitely be a target to aspire to, but creating a Wikipedia article is very difficult as it requires experience in lots of different skills. The most important stage is the research stage, where you need to find sources and identify whether they are reliable; when you have reliable sources, you need to assess whether they amount to notability. If you decide your topic is definitely notable then you need to summarise the sources in your own words, making sure the reader can check which fact comes from which source. Then, you need good writing skills and the ability to format using wikitext so the article is readable.Newcomers should start with tasks that help them develop these skills one at a time, some of which are recommended on your homepage. The ideal is to start by adding reliable sources to existing articles that are in poor shape. — Bilorv (talk) 17:33, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question from Nafisa06 (17:44, 18 April 2024)[edit]
Hi Mentor,
I am having a few issues again. I wrote an article. This is my first article so i've "moved" it a couple of times. Now what happens is when i google my article, the "talk" page comes with nothing in it, instead of the article. I then have to click the article, for that article to show up.
Also, why can't I semi-protect the article I just wrote? I can't seem to find that option anywhere.
@Nafisa06: the article Asif Mahtab Utsha is in mainspace and live to readers. Per Wikipedia:Controlling search engine indexing, it should not currently be indexed by search engines as it has not yet been patrolled by an experienced volunteer to determine if it meets core content policies such as notability (or if it should be nominated for deletion as out of scope for Wikipedia).The vast majority of Wikipedia pages should be editable to anybody as a founding principle. Admins have the technical power to semi-protect articles only when this is necessary to prevent disruption, such as frequent vandalism. Requests can be made at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. — Bilorv (talk) 15:46, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your vote of confidence on my ability to do a GA review :) I thought I had made a huge mistake in taking on a GA review before you and others reassured me. SyntaxZombie (talk) 00:01, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the message, SyntaxZombie! I'm glad the review was completed and the article was promoted. There can be a steep learning curve to Wikipedia but that's no excuse for the hostility you were met with. — Bilorv (talk) 09:24, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My story title is about a rejected child who letter because everyone favorite
Once upon a time, in a small village, there lived a girl named Lily. Abandoned as a baby, she grew up in an orphanage, feeling rejected and alone. But despite her difficult beginnings, Lily's kind heart and warm smile endeared her to everyone she met.
As she grew older, Lily's compassion and generosity touched the hearts of the villagers. She volunteered at the local shelter, helped the elderly, and befriended stray animals. Her acts of kindness soon made her a beloved figure in the community.
People marveled at Lily's resilience and admired her unwavering optimism. She radiated joy wherever she went, bringing light into the lives of those around her. And though she had once been abandoned and rejected, Lily had become everyone's favorite, a testament to the power of love and kindness to heal even the deepest wounds. --Chigbo ifeanyi (talk) 10:01, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your vote of confidence on my ability to do a GA review :) I thought I had made a huge mistake in taking on a GA review before you and others reassured me. SyntaxZombie (talk) 00:01, 20 April 2024 (UTC)