User talk:Perfect4th

Welcome to my talk page! I'm in a pretty busy time of my life right now (yes I'm an actual person), so if you’re a newcomer with a question about editing, you can try the Teahouse for a faster answer. I archive my talk page pretty regularly, so if you're wondering where a recent conversation went, check the links in the archive box. Feel free to drop me a message and I'll get back to ya when I can! :)

Archives

October 2021 – December 2022 January 2023 – December 2023 January 2024 – December 2024 January 2025 – present

Solh Sports (Persian: صلح سپورت, lit. 'sunrise')[1] is a commercial television station operated by Ramin Amiri in Afghanistan. Launched in 2020, it became one of the first Sports TV stations in the country and laid the foundation for an accessible media outlet by offering a large library of shows. It is one of the most popular television channels in Afghanistan and broadcasts shows in both Dari-Persian and Pashto. Solh Sports صلح سپورت

Country Afghanistan Programming Language(s) Dari Persian Picture format 1080p (HDTV) & 576i(SDTV), 16:9) Ownership Owner Ramin Amiri History Launched Auguest 2020 5 years ago Links Website www.solh.tv Availability

Terrestrial Normal antenna 47 UHF ( HERAT) --Solhsport Afghanistan (talk) 20:28, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Solhsport Afghanistan – did you have a question about editing Wikipedia? Perfect4th (talk) 20:30, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ahoy! Looking for a 2nd opinion on how I've handled a kind of dispute with an IP editor at Neeraj Chopra.

I recently copy-edited most of the article to fix grammar issues, remove non-encyclopedic language, remove duplicate information from the lead, and fix/align references with content. I did this in about 20 diffs. All of these diffs were then undone by an IP editor [1] who claimed "Unnecessary mass removal by a user". Only 3 of my ~20 diffs involved any significant content removal, and 2 of those 3 were removing duplicate content from the lead. After waiting to see if anyone else who watches the page would revert their edit, I reverted their change here [2].

I then looked at the IP editor's other contributions to see if there were any issues and they seemed mostly fine except for this, which I think is quite problematic (NPOV and OR issues bordering on vandalism). I reverted that update and wrote to the IP editor on their talk page asking them to not make those types of edits again. I then reflected and thought I was being kind of bitey, so I went back to the Field Hockey article and manually restored some of the non-problematic copy-editing they had included with their problematic diff above. I also dropped them a less bitey note on their talk page letting them know I had restored a few edits.

Today, what I think is the same IP editor using a different IP address mass reverted my edits to the Neeraj Chopra article again [3]. I reverted this [4] and left a note on their talk page [5].

Do you have any feedback for me? Anything I did wrong? And what do you recommend I do if they mass revert me again on the Neeraj Chopra page? Thanks for the advice... this is my first time in a meaningful content dispute as an editor.--NicheSports (talk) 20:05, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, NicheSports, and sorry for the delay – thanks for your patience! I took a look at the article and your links. Some thoughts (with the caveat that I have not looked into this very deeply at this time):

I agree that a lot of the segments in the edits the IP removed should be relatively uncontroversial copy edits, and that much of the other removed content was largely unproportional. However, given that it was controversial, a common system used on Wikipedia for reversion cycles like this is Bold, Revert, Discuss. You made edits that the IP perceived as not an improvement; they reverted; then (after some reversions) you brought the conversation to the IP's talk page. That's a good first step, but I would suggest starting a conversation on the article talk page instead. That would mean not only that it's easier for the same person using different IPs to contribute to the conversation, but also that others involved with the article can weigh in – which can help build consensus for a solution to that issue.

Thus, my first suggestion/piece of feedback (especially if the IP reverts again) would be to make a section on the article talk page. A version of what you put on the IP's talk page, but modified to invite feedback from other editors, should work just fine. From there, depending on the input (or lack of it), you can come to a solution, or take it to our third-opinion process or other dispute resolution processes if you remain at an impasse. Just ensure that you're not edit warring, whatever else you do; repeatedly reversing contributions for any reason other than the explicit exceptions listed at WP:3RRNO, which this doesn't fall under, is not allowed on Wikipedia.

This is admittedly a kind of get-you-started response, not a full resolution, but hopefully it's helpful. Let me know if you have any other questions, and happy editing! Perfect4th (talk) 18:15, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice. I thought it was fine as the user had stopped reverting content but they (or at least I think it is them) did it again today. I followed your advice and made a new section on the talk page - if no one weighs in within a few days, I will take this to the third-opinion process as you suggested.

There is another wrinkle here though which is that I think I am dealing with a user that is disruptively using many IP addresses, some of which have been subject to extensive blocks, including 223.178.208.5 which was the IP address that first reverted my updates.

Based on their shared history editing multiple articles (Neeraj Chopra, Bade Achhe Lagte Hain 4, 2025 World Boxing Championships) I think all of these IP addresses are being used by the same person, often disruptively:

• 223.178.2* IPs: 223.178.208.5, 223.178.211.113, 223.178.211.24 (and many more, like 15+)
• 2409:4055:* IPs: 2409:4055:719:E6C6:1463:69FE:60AA:6F61, 2409:4055:2E1F:E2B6:6466:DD60:4C0E:6000,2409:4055:10:A5EF:957B:A7BC:297D:468E

Someone on the Neeraj Chopra talk page told me to take this to ANI but that feels a bit above me given the IP-hopping situation. If it was a single named user then ANI would be fine NicheSports (talk) 17:48, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell, would you mind having a look at these other IPs (the ones just mentioned in the post above mine) to see if you might need to widen your rangeblock? If *208.0/24 is problematic, I imagine these nearby same-network ones are too. -- asilvering (talk) 03:15, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering @HJ Mitchell Can you look into the following as well? I'm pretty confident they are also the same user as above. 223.178.212.119, 223.178.213.94, 213.230.114.246 (disregard the last one - that one isn't) NicheSports (talk) 03:27, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Perfect4th @Asilvering @NicheSports I've extended the proxy block to the /22 and soft-blocked the /21 (Special:Contribs/223.178.208.0/21), which has a long history of disruptive editing. If that doesn't solve the problem but they're still using 223.178 IPs, it might be possible to widen the block. As for the IPv6s, it looks at a glance like this is the same person the partial block on the /22 is aimed at. It might be possible to add targets to the partial block but that's an enormous range so a sitewide block is probably out of the question. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:59, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell @Asilvering Thanks a bunch. Can we add Neeraj Chopra to the partial block target for the IPv6 range? They are continuing to edit there today and keep mass reverting to a worse version of the article NicheSports (talk) 12:02, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, done. Can't guarantee they won't just move to another article but we tried. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:04, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell thanks. Can we extend the partial block beyond September 29th though? Otherwise they are just going to come back to it. Agreed they will have onto something else (and they already have) but Neeraj Chopra is higher-importance than most of the articles they edit, which are otherwise mostly about niche sports even by my standards :) NicheSports (talk) 13:30, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the block log for that range, I think that's reasonable. I've set it fir a year from today. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:37, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NicheSports Moral of the story: Make friends with admins, they'll do all your work for you!

All jokes aside, I like to avoid ANI when possible myself, so I usually do just this. If you're running into disruption that rises above talk page level (not just content dispute but conduct) but you're not wanting to go to ANI just yet, find an admin who seems familiar with the area and ask them for suggestions. They usually have good advice since they're familiar with it (and might even take care of it for you if you're lucky, haha).

And thanks HJ Mitchell and asilvering, much appreciated! Happy editing, Perfect4th (talk) 23:58, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator Elections | RFC phase

The RFC phase of the July 2025 administrator elections has started. There are 10 RFCs for consideration. You can participate in the RFC phase at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/July 2025/RFCs.

Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.

You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:43, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! I want to make my own page on Wikipedia, can I already do that or do I need to make more edits before I can do that? --Finnxyz-official (talk) 11:01, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Finnxyz-official, and welcome! Sorry I missed this yesterday! If you're referring to a userpage describing your activities as a Wikipedia editor, you are welcome to create that whenever you wish! If you're talking about an article, though, you should know that Wikipedia is not really designed for self-promotion. We have some policies & guidelines that govern articles; one of them is notability, which determines whether a particular subject should have an article at the current moment or not (basically, there must have been significant coverage in reliable sources). Writing about yourself also causes conflict of interest issues, so it's discouraged on Wikipedia.

I know I just threw a bunch of links at you, so let me know if you have any more questions! Happy editing, Perfect4th (talk) 15:54, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'm copy editing a biographical article that has numerous excerpts from a single magazine feature. It cites the feature 25 times and appears to avoid quotations by lightly rephrasing most of the excerpts. Is this in line with Wikipedia standards? --Septadad (talk) 15:15, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Septadad! Based on your description, it doesn't sound like it is. I ought to be able to take a deeper look in a few hours – what article is it? Happy editing, Perfect4th (talk) 15:56, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's Carlos Frenk. I have made some changes to make it less editorial, and so that it inherits less language from the feature, but I'm not sure if I've hit the right balance for biographical articles. Septadad (talk) 16:29, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Septadad, I've found myself busier today than expected, so I don't have as much time to look into the specific details as I'd thought. I'd assume you're referring to the article from Scientific Computing World? From a quick history check the article certainly looks better than it did before you broke out the metaphorical scissors, so well done on that. I may have time to look more later, but until then I'll leave you with the paraphrasing explanation of the copyright policy it case it's helpful: Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Hope this helps, and happy editing! Perfect4th (talk) 19:16, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Guild of Copy Editors – September 2025 Newsletter Hello and welcome to the September newsletter, a quarterly digest of Guild activities since June. Election news: Project coordinators play an important role in our WikiProject. Following the mid-year Election of Coordinators, we welcomed GoldRomean to the coordinator team. Dhtwiki remains as lead coordinator, and Miniapolis and Mox Eden return as coordinators. If you'd like to help out behind the scenes, please consider taking part in our December election – watchlist our ombox for updates. Information about the role of coordinators can be found here. June 2025 blitz: 10 of the 12 editors who signed up for the June 2025 Copy Editing Blitz copy edited a total of 26,652 words comprising 13 articles. Barnstars awarded are here. July 2025 drive: 30 of the 54 editors who signed up for the July 2025 Backlog Elimination Drive copy edited a total of 379,557 words comprising 151 articles. Barnstars awarded are here. August 2025 Blitz: 11 of the 17 editors who signed up for the August 2025 Copy Editing Blitz copy edited a total of 65,601 words comprising 25 articles. Barnstars awarded are here. September 2025 Drive: Sign up here to earn barnstars in our month-long, in-progress September Backlog Elimination Drive. Progress report: As of 06:43, 20 September 2025 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors have processed 222 requests since 1 January, and the backlog of tagged articles stands at 2,010 articles. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we do without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:46, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Italic 189.30.241.142 (talk) 00:11, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello IP editor! Did you have a question/comment? Perfect4th (talk) 16:13, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! it's me, Lutitium again :D. My submissions only take about a day or two to be reviewed but this one(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Night_vison_contact_lens&redirect=no%2F2) is taking weeks. Is that normal?

Anyways, thank you and bye :) Lutitium (talk) 11:59, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Lutitium! Articles for Creation (AfC) drafts get reviewed whenever a reviewer gets to them, so there's no set time (the header at the top of the draft will give you a guesstimate based on the current total number of submitted drafts; looks like it's currently eight weeks). I can tell you, though, that the easy ones generally get picked off first – both the ones that are definitely good article candidates and the ones that are clearly not ready for Wikipedia. So if a draft is taking longer than a few days, it's likely to be a less clear-cut decision for the reviewer.

Some things you can do to make it easier for the reviewer and help get a quicker review:

• Try to ensure that the sources that demonstrate your draft's notability are easy to find. You can use the {{Source assess table}} template to help assess your best sources; the links at the top explain more on each requirement. If you want to put it on your draft instead of just checking, use the {{Best sources}} template
• Double-check your work against the Your First Article guidelines
• Add any relevent WikiProjects so reviewers interested in the subject can find it easier; the header at the top of the draft explains how to do this
• Your draft is very short at the moment – is there any further information in your reliable sources that you can summarize about the subject? Do be careful to make sure the content is proportional to the subject and not just a collection of trivia, but see if there's anything else relevant to the article you could add

If you want to get more specific draft advice, you can also visit the AFC Help Desk for advice from people closer to the reviewing process. Let me know if you have any more questions, and happy editing!

Whoops, my bad, fixing ping to Lutitium. Perfect4th (talk) 16:49, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

thanks Lutitium (talk) 08:42, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, so nice to meet you! Any recommendations for edits to begin with? I am currently picking out the topics I am interested in. Any advice would be amazing! How do I access instructions for different templates? I'm kind of going in here blind so would really appreciate "how to" forums, etc. --Spindella000 (talk) 14:47, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Spindella000! Lovely to meet you as well! Wikipedia is pretty broad, so you can edit (pretty) much anything you'd like – it just depends what you're interested in! Your Homepage offers suggested edits based on topics, but you can also take a look at Wikiprojects, which are collections of Wikipedians interested in certain topics and resources they've collected about them. Many are inactive or semi-active, but they should still have some resources, and often a section of articles you can improve in that area as well. Or if you're more interested in a type of edit rather than a type of article, there's lots of those too! I find fixing typos and de-orphaning articles really satisfying, and adding references to unverified information is hugely helpful, but you can find other kinds as well at the Task Center. And for any and all newcomer questions you have, definitely visit the Teahouse, especially if I'm not around! There's a lot of hosts there who can answer pretty much any editing question you have.

As for templates, there's usually instruction pages associated with each one – if you search "Template:" followed by the template name (like Template:citation needed), you can find more information there.

I know that's a lot of information, so please feel free to ask any further questions you may have! I see you've already been welcomed by another Wikipedian, but I'll drop my mentor welcome on your talk page as well – it has a few more links you may find helpful. Welcome to Wikipedia, and happy editing! Perfect4th (talk) 16:47, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fab! Thanks for the warm welcome. I just had want to triple check with you to make sure I’m grasping what “de-orphaning” is ~~

Is this when a Wikipedia page does not have any links featured on it? Or is an “Orphan” when a page is not linked onto any other Wikipedia pages? Or do both apply for orphaned pages?

Kinda viewing this like a spiderweb ! Lmk + thanks again! Spindella000 (talk) 17:59, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again Spindella000, and sorry for the delay! An orphan has not been linked to from other Wikipedia pages. It is kind of like a spiderweb, but every web should be linked to every other web; for an orphan, no strand from the general encyclopedia ever reaches its web. You should have a link in your Tools dropdown entitled "What links here"; this lists every link coming into a Wikipedia page. There will often be pages linked that begin with "Talk:" or "User:" or similar, but only pages in the article namespace (which have no prefix) count for that. So the goal is to add links to that article on other Wikipedia articles.

Just a quick note as well that not all articles can be de-orphaned, so good quality links are much better than a "See also" section link and similar – more info about that is on the main project page.

Glad you're getting deeper into Wikipedia, and do let me know if you have any further questions! I'll do my best to answer in a timely manner, but you can also always head by the Teahouse for a faster answer as well. Happy editing! Perfect4th (talk) 18:16, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! I'm sure you're a busy bee. Ok, that makes sense & thanks for pointing out that "What links here" feature, very cool. I'll make sure to check out that Teahouse if I have future q's so that I'm not buggin' you all the time haha! Thanks again xoxo Spindella000 (talk) 17:37, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Of course! And just to be clear, you're always very welcome to post here as well! I just want to make sure you're aware of the Teahouse, since sometimes I may be a bit delayed and I don't want you to have to wait too long. Happy editing to ya! Perfect4th (talk) 17:40, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are the sweetest, thankssss! Spindella000 (talk) 17:58, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I have written an article on planning objections: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Planningvoice How do I get this to appear live if someone searches planning objections? Thank you! --Planningvoice (talk) 07:04, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Planningvoice, and welcome. Currently your text is on your user page, which is a space Wikipedians generally use to talk about themselves and their work on Wikipedia. To put it into the article process, you should use your sandbox, where you can create your draft and submit it to the Articles for Creation process. This will get you started on details of getting it published as a full article. I should warn you, though, that writing a new article is one of the hardest things to do on Wikipedia. Newcomers generally have not had enough time to get familiar with content policies, so what you write when you get started is much less likely to fit in Wikipedia than what you can write once you have a handle on how it works. You can check out the Your First Article help page for more information about writing an article, and feel free to let me know if you have any more questions ~ Perfect4th (talk) 18:16, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HI! @Perfect4th I am not sure if I did this correctly, but I copied this stub into my sandbox and (I think) I left a message for you there in that process.. let me know if you get a separate alert than this message because I didn't see that comment on your talk page. Where do those messages go? it was about the improvements made and whether the work needed to be exhaustive or providing additional stats and citations was acceptable. Thanks! Here is the link to the sandbox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DEskribe/sandbox --DEskribe (talk) 01:20, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, DEskribe, nice to meet you, and sorry for the delay! It looks like there's one message on your sandbox talk page and one on the article talk page, and both pinged me successfully. It looks about like what you'll see from this message, as I'm pinging you too. I've unfortunately been pretty busy but will try to get to the substance of your questions later today! I'll also leave a few helpful links on your talk page. Glad to have you around, and let me know if you have any more questions! Happy editing, Perfect4th (talk) 18:16, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HELP ME SET MY BUSINES AND MY BRAMD ON WIKIPEDIA --TAG9INC (talk) 13:23, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, TAG9INC! Wikipedia is not designed for self-promotion and an article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. You may want to check out some alternative outlets for that. Let me know if you have any further questions about editing Wikipedia, and happy editing ~ Perfect4th (talk) 18:16, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]