This is an archive of past discussions with User:Perfect4th. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hello, Blackmarkman! I’m not sure if you’re asking about on Wikipedia or in general, but either way I can’t help you. Wikipedia editors are generally volunteers and don’t get paid for their work. More generally, I’m afraid I’m not qualified to give career advice. Either way, if you have any questions about editing Wikipedia, feel free to stop by again and ask! Happy editing, Perfect4th (talk) 15:30, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Public Domain Day 2025, Women in Red hits 20% biography milestone, Spanish Wikipedia reaches two million articles, and other news from the Wikimedia world.
Hello I need your help to update my account , to best of my knowledge I did , but you deleted it , as it was a fact mentioned , however I need your guidance to update Thanku --Perwani (talk) 04:44, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
Hello, Perwani! I'll do my best to help out. Just to give you fair warning, my schedule is pretty busy right now and this message is probably going to get a little long, so bear with me, and feel free to ask for anything you have questions about! If you have a question you think is urgent, you can also try the Teahouse question forum if I'm away.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. You might be familiar with Encyclopedia Britannica – Wikipedia works in a similar way. It's not like LinkedIn, social media, or blogs; it doesn't have profiles, just articles. All of what it says about people should follow specific policies of sourcing, neutrality, tone, and weight. If you are closely connected with or, harder still, are, the subject of an article, it's incredibly difficult to follow all the policies for encyclopedic writing because we humans in general just don't tend to write that way about ourselves.
The result of all this is that Wikipedia asks article subjects and those who have a connection with article subjects to not write the articles – because they won't be encyclopedic, which is the point of Wikipedia. You can read more about that guideline, called conflict of interest, here.
The good news is there's still some things you can do to help update your article – you just shouldn't do them directly. All articles have (or have space for) a talk page, where discussion about improving the article takes place. In this case, the talk page is Talk:Sanjay Perwani. One of the most useful things you can do there is to use a Conflict of Interest (COI) edit request including sources for your changes, like so:
{{edit COI}}
Specific text to be added or removed: ADD TEXT HERE
Reason for the change: ADD TEXT HERE
References supporting change: ADD URL AT LEAST
~~~~
That's probably the fastest way to get things changed: add what you think it should say, why, and most importantly, a good source for the changes. (This helps ensure verifiability, which is one of the things that makes this encyclopedia an encyclopedia.) For pretty simple stuff like adding terms to the article, providing a source that mentions it is probably all you need to do for that. As a matter of fact, much of the content you added should be okay if written in an encyclopedic tone and backed up by sources. The parts about your family are a bit less relevant for your article based on the English Wikipedia's style, though.
To summarize, you should read the conflict of interest guideline and follow its steps, then put your changes on the article talk page with the {{edit COI}} template and a source. You shouldn't edit the article directly because writing about yourself Wikipedia-style is difficult. (Side note: one thing you can do easier than many is to provide a photo, although there are some specific requirements for that, so ask away if you're interested.)
Hello, Infiniti groom concepts, and welcome! I'm afraid the best answer to that is that you shouldn't. Wikipedia's job is to have articles on subjects that have been significantly covered in independent reliable sources; once that hurdle has been cleared, they then are supposed to neutrally say what reliable sources have said about the subject, and not what the subject says about themselves. As a result, such an outcome is not necessarily a good thing for your business as you'll have no control over what it says. It's very, very difficult for a business owner or employee to create an article about their business that conforms to Wikipedia's standards.
If you want to try anyway, which I recommend you don't, you should read the conflict of interest guideline and note that you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use to disclose that you are a paid editor. Then you can create a draft via the Articles for Creation process and submit it for review.
Sorry to be so discouraging about this, but the reason there are so many rules is that Wikipedia isn't designed to be an advertising service and doing so is contrary to the purpose of the encyclopedia. If you have any other questions about editing, feel free to let me know! Perfect4th (talk) 16:48, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
Hello, Reggie2050! I don't have much familiarity with AMinstLM or the British army, so I'm afraid I don't understand your question. Could you rephrase what you mean by "Does this still stand"?
You might do better to ask at the Reference Desk; I'm here to help with questions about editing Wikipedia, but they should be better able to help you with general knowledge questions. Happy editing! Perfect4th (talk) 16:48, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
January 2025 NPP backlog drive – Points award
The New Page Patroller's Barnstar
This award is given in recognition to Perfect4th for accumulating at least 100 points during the January 2025 NPP backlog drive. Your contributions helped play a part in the 16,000+ articles and 14,000+ redirects reviewed (for a total of 19,791.2 points) completed during the drive. Thank you so much for taking part and contributing to help reduce the backlog! Hey man im josh (talk) 19:32, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
January 2025 NPP backlog drive – Streak award
Geneva mechanism Award
This award is given in recognition to Perfect4th for accumulating at least 25 points during each week of the January 2025 NPP backlog drive. Your contributions played a part in the 16,000+ articles and 14,000+ redirects reviewed (for a total of 19,791.2 points) during the drive. Thank you so much for taking part and contributing to help reduce the backlog! Hey man im josh (talk) 19:46, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
The WMF executive team delivers a new update; plus, the latest EU policy report, good-bye to the German Wikipedia's Café, and other news from the Wikimedia world.
Wikimedians and newbies celebrate 24 years of Wikipedia in the Brooklyn Central Library. Special guests Stephen Harrison and Clay Shirky joined in conversation.
Hello, TURIKUMWENAYO ERNESTE! I'm mostly knowledgeable about questions related to editing Wikipedia, so I'm not a very great reference for general questions. An Internet search or the Reference Desk might be better options for you. Let me know if you have any questions about editing Wikipedia! Perfect4th (talk) 23:23, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
From patrolling new edits to uploading photos or joining a campaign, you can count on the Wikimedia platform to be up and running — in your language, anywhere in the world. That is, except for a couple of minutes during the equinoctes.
This year, the Growth team is exploring ways to help more new account holders start editing—and do so constructively, meaning their edits are not reverted. Our latest experiments include:
Gradual rollout of "Add a Link" at English Wikipedia – We are gradually introducing the "Add a Link" structured task to newcomers at English Wikipedia (T386029). This serves as a natural A/B test to measure its impact on activation, retention, and revert rates (T382603). Previous experiments on pilot wikis showed that "Add a Link" increases newcomer participation, particularly by helping them make constructive (non-reverted) edits.
Testing in-article suggestions for first-time editors – Many new account holders want to contribute but don’t know where to start. To help, we’re piloting a feature that surfaces structured task suggestions directly in an article’s read view for brand-new editors (T385343). These suggestions will appear for logged-in users with no edits, providing a clear, simple way to begin contributing that is surfaced while they read.
Newcomers often struggle to find their place in Wikipedia’s collaborative environment. While experienced editors easily discover events like edit-a-thons and writing campaigns, newcomers often miss out.
To bridge this gap, we launched the Community Updates module for the Newcomer Homepage. This module is disabled by default, allowing Community Admins to decide how (or if) to use it.
If your community hosts events, consider setting up a Community Update to engage and welcome newcomers! Learn more on Diff. To configure, visit Special:CommunityConfiguration.
Community Configuration is now available across all wikis, including non-Wikipedia projects (T383910). Community Configuration allows admins to customize various features like Growth features and Automoderator for their communities, and more recently the Babel extension now allows admins to modify configuration:
Babel customization – Admins can now configure Babel settings (T374348), including category naming, automatic category creation, and more. See an example on Wikimedia Commons.
Mentors play a key role in guiding new editors. If you’re interested in mentoring, or turning mentorship on at your wiki, check out the Mentorship FAQ
Starting February 17, 100% of new accounts at English Wikipedia will be assigned a mentor (T384505).
At Spanish Wikipedia, on 50% of newcomers get a mentor. Experienced contributors are encouraged to join mentorship so that Spanish Wikipedia can provide a mentor to all new users.
Looking Ahead
In the coming months, we will continue balancing maintenance work—such as deprecating EditGrowth Config (T367574) and migrating Statslib (T359352) — with user-facing improvements that support new editors and foster the next generation of contributors.
Hi, Mizuki The Kittypet! Honestly, my best tip, for right now at least, is to wait and practice by editing other articles. Creating a Wikipedia article is pretty complicated and involves following a lot of internal policies and guidelines that newer editors aren't familiar with, so it's usually recommended that editors start with easier edits to get used to editing Wikipedia (you can check out your suggested edits on your homepage if you like). Once you're a little more familiar with Wikipedia processes and the policies (including the very important concept of notability as Wikipedia defines it) to follow for an article, check out the Articles for Creation process and it can walk you through creating and submitting one. You can also check out the article Your First Article for more information. Let me know if you have any other questions! Happy editing, Perfect4th (talk) 19:16, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
I would suggest you try other, easier edits first to get more familiar with Wikipedia and its policies and guidelines before embarking on an article. You can find edits to make via your homepage, at the Task Center, or by exploring various Wikiprojects – let me know if you have any more questions on this. If you still want to try for an article, make sure to read and follow Your First Article – it should give you what you need to get started. You can go through the Articles for Creation process for further article creation guidance. Hope this helps, and happy editing! Perfect4th (talk) 14:51, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
Hello! I just have a simple question I wanted to figure out. So, when you're on a page and wanted to edit something on it, how do I do that page? You probably already know that I just started the account and doing some minor editing so I am still learning stuff here.
Thanks! --Thesillyrat (talk) 22:45, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
Hi, Thesillyrat, and welcome to Wikipedia! When you're on a page, there should be an "Edit" tab in the top next to "Read". You can read more about editing interfaces at the Editing help article. Hope this helps, and let me know if you have any more questions! Happy editing, Perfect4th (talk) 05:34, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for responding! Yet for some reason when I go by read, the edit tab is no where to be seen, but, I can edit only when it says ¨edit source¨. Thesillyrat (talk) 13:42, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
Yet for some articles instead of it saying edit source (which is probably just edit I believe) it says View Source (Like for example, Warriors (novel series) for me shows View Source instead of Edit or Edit Source) Thesillyrat (talk) 14:17, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
No worries! And the "Edit source" thing is because there are two ways to edit – you can edit the source or use the visual editor. You can check out that link for more information about it if you like. And feel free to stop by with any more questions! Happy editing, Perfect4th (talk) 23:21, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
Hello, Possible22, and welcome to Wikipedia! You can filter articles at your Homepage by your interests for article suggestions, and you can also check out the Task Center for more ideas of things you can work on. Feel free to ask any other questions you may have, and happy editing! Perfect4th (talk) 16:06, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
Hi mentor :)
I've just completely edited a Numen/ For use page on Croatian Wikipedia and I've noticed that this edit wasn't added to a total number of my edits. As I am currently trying to gain experience to be able to create a page in the near future, the number of completed edits is pretty important to me so I wanted to check with you whether stuff I do on Croatian hr.wikipedia counts or not? Also - I would like to change the name of the page I edited from just Numen to Numen/For use (which is actually correct) but I don't see the option to edit the page title? Thanks, Ktonia --Ktonia (talk) 16:43, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
Hello, Ktonia! Apologies for the delay in response; I've had a bit of a busy weekend. Yes, each individual language Wikipedia (or other Wikimedia project) is its own project – en.wiki has different rules from hr.wiki which is different from de.wiki and so on and so forth. English Wikipedia's 4 days/10 edits requirement for creating articles is based on edits here on this language Wikipedia, so you'll be past that threshold with a few more edits and a little more time. I'd caution, though, that the limit exists because it takes time to learn the policies, guidelines, and best practices for creating an article here, so it will be easier for you if you practice editing existing articles before you create a new one. Unfortunately I'm unfamiliar with Croatian so I don't think I'll be able to help you with changing the page title there – best I can do is point you to Help:Move, which is how it's done here.
I’m working on getting this Wikipedia article published: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:United_States_Prestige_Proof_Sets. It’s been declined a few times with a standard response about insufficient referencing. I’ve since added more sources, and I’d really appreciate your help reviewing the reference coverage to see if it now meets the notability and sourcing standards.
Hi Leonid.Zolotarev, unfortunately I've had a pretty busy weekend and I don't have the time to look in-depth right now. One thing you can do is check your sources with the Source assess template to check what criteria they fulfill for notability (I did skim the sources but can't currently look more deeply for reliability). You can also ask at the Teahouse about advice in general or the reliable sources noticeboard for source reliability specifically. I'll try to look more when I have more time but didn't want to leave you without an answer for too long – hope some of those resources help you get a headstart, and feel free to stop by if you have any other specific questions and I'll try to answer them! Happy editing, Perfect4th (talk) 03:21, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
Hi. I signed up today to publish an article about who I am and what I do. But I don't seem to be able to find my page yet. Could you please help me to do it?
Alec Cazas, welcome, and, uh, don't do that. Creating an article on Wikipedia as a newcomer is difficult – it's like trying to run a half marathon on your first day of training. Creating one about yourself is harder still. Before you look at how, though, you should read An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing and realize that such an article cannotpromote you – it must be neutral, like an encyclopedia entry. In fact, Wikipedia strongly discourages writing about yourself for the reasons explained below, though we do maintain a section on alternative outlets and a directory of such.
If you still want to create an article, you have to meet two minimums: first, the subject has to be notable by Wikipedia's definition (the specific guideline for people is here), and the article should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Second, you have to follow the biographies of living people policy, which says that any challengeable claim about a person must be backed up by a reference. If you were to write about yourself, you would have to forget everything you know about you and write just what the sources say – quite difficult to do about oneself. You also need to declare your conflict of interest and submit it as a draft through the articles for creation process. In short, it's unlikely to work out or to work out well. You are always welcome to improve existing articles unrelated to you though!
There's much more to know that goes into creating an article, this is a lot to start with, so feel free to let me know if you have any more editing questions and happy editing ~ Perfect4th (talk) 22:24, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
Hello and welcome to the April 2025 newsletter, a quarterly digest of Guild activities since December. Don't forget you can unsubscribe at any time; see below. We extend a warm welcome to all of our new members. We wish you all happy copy-editing.
Election results: In our December 2025 coordinator election, Wracking stepped down as coordinator; we thank them for their service. Incumbents Dhtwiki, Miniapolis, and Mox Eden were reelected coordinators, and IQR and WikiEditor5678910 were newly elected coordinator, to serve through 30 June. Nominations for our mid-year Election of Coordinators will open on 1 June (UTC).
Drive: 55 editors signed up for our January Backlog Elimination Drive 33 claimed at least one copy-edit and copy-edited 611,404 words in 237 articles. Barnstars awarded are here.
Blitz: 14 editors signed up for our February Copy Editing Blitz. 10 claimed at least one copy-edit and copy-edited 46,749 words in 18 articles. Barnstars awarded are here.
Drive: 47 editors signed up for our March Backlog Elimination Drive. 28 claimed at least one copy-edit and copy-edited 479,172 words in 207 articles. Barnstars awarded are here.
Blitz: Sign up for our April Copy Editing Blitz, which runs from 13 to 19 April. Barnstars will be awarded here.
Progress report: As of 9:45, 12 April 2024 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors have processed 89 requests since 1 January 2024, and the backlog stands at 2,264 articles.
Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Dhtwiki, IQR, Miniapolis, Mox Eden and WikiEditor5678910.
To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.
Hi, SirPenguin25! Welcome to Wikipedia! Sorry for my delayed response; I've been travelling and forgot to set my status to away while I was gone. The general idea of evaluating source reliability involves looking at each component of whether it is an independent, published source... with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. When you're looking at a source, what does it tell you about its independence or its processes for ensuring accuracy? It's important to remember reliability is a scale, too, not just a black-and-white categorization. You can also ask about a source on the reliable sources noticeboard if you ever have any questions.
For this specific source, I also looked through previous discussions on Wikipedia and what I saw seemed to indicate it was generally accepted as reliable; the news organizations section of the reliable sources guideline says well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact – I'm not personally familiar with that source, so I can't speak to how well-established it is, but those signs are generally good.
Hello there! I would like to ask, when can or should sic be used?
I've found a spelling mistake on page Gregory_Kelly_(actor), but the error is in a quotebox template - When it's in a quotebox does it still need sic or is it obvious that it's taken from elsewhere and sic is not needed? --LanternTail (talk) 17:13, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
Hello, LanternTail, and welcome! So sorry for the delay in responding – I was travelling and forgot to set myself away until I could log back in. Wikipedia has a template for adding sic to quotes, but according to the Manual of Style minor spelling errors don't have to be replicated and can be simply fixed. You can see the full guideline at the original wording section of the Manual of Style. Hope this helps, and happy editing! Perfect4th (talk) 22:12, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
Hello! I see that you are my mentor. I wanted to ask you how specific I should be in the explanation of my edits? --Mindfold24 (talk) 22:08, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
Hi, Mindfold24, and welcome! Sorry for the delay – I was travelling. I'm assuming you are referring to edit summaries. The answer is that it depends – what are you doing in the edit? If you're fixing a typo or a grammar mistake, very little explanation is usually expected. "Typo" or "grammar" is usually sufficient (and some editors just use abbreviations like "sp" or "ce". Here's a list of some common edit summary abbreviations in case it helps). For more substantial changes, though, a sentence or two explanation is helpful, especially for controversial changes, as this helps other editors understand your thought process. One issue you may unfortunately run into is that some editors don't always realize edits from new accounts are trying to help if they don't contain an edit summary because vandals often don't use edit summaries. In summary, the more substantial your changes, the better it is to have a more thorough summary, though a couple sentences is usually enough. I'm outing myself as more of a "gnomish" (editor that tend to make more maintenance/minor edits instead of more major edits) editor, but here's some edits I've made, from less to more substance, in case that helps:
removing a section: "long list of locations is not necessary to understand the material, removing and condensing remaining single-sentence paragraphs into one"
changing a fact that had been in an article for a while: "ce & update: ref says [fact which was incorrect in the article], add Dallas Seavey breaking record to end of lead (which described only Mitch Seavey's record in 2017) to match infobox, adding the same to records & awards" (the fact wasn't supported by the source behind it)
This was probably more information than you were wanting, but let me know if you have any more questions, and happy editing! Perfect4th (talk) 22:12, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
Hi, Allanwjanssen, and welcome! Articles on Wikipedia should demonstrate notability as Wikipedia defines it – they need to have multiple published, reliable sources discussing the subject. Just to prepare you: that is not always possible for some article subjects. Articles also need to be written neutrally. If you are connected to the subject, you might have a conflict of interest that should be disclosed, as it makes writing neutrally difficult. If notability can be and is established and once other content policies such as neutrality are followed, you can submit your article through the Articles for Creation draft process (as I see you have already tried a hand at), where it can then become a published article. This is a pretty high-level overview, so feel free to ask about any questions you may have, and happy editing ~ Perfect4th (talk) 03:14, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
If I remove trolling from a page, how can I make sure an admin can see that I did that so said person doesn’t do it again? --Virsagisces (talk) 00:58, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
Hi, Virsagisces, and welcome! You can report especially bad vandalism at the administrators' intervention against vandalism board, but the most common practice is to warn trolls for vandalism edits with escalating User warning templates so that they have a chance to stop and a warning before being reported to that board (often abbreviated "AIV". This usually takes the form of escalating through warning template 1, then 2, 3, 4, and then reporting to AIV, where an admin can take further action as necessary. You can use Twinkle to make warning easier, and if you want to get further involved in antivandalism, feel free to check out the Counter-Vandalism Academy for more tips and opportunities to learn best practices. Happy editing, Perfect4th (talk) 03:14, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
Hi, Wikilover30, and welcome! I'm afraid I'm a bit confused – could you clarify your question? If you're asking about editing in general, you can check out Help:Editing for some tips. Let me know if you have any more questions! Perfect4th (talk) 02:45, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
Hello, 99cd, and welcome to Wikipedia! Your mentor GrayStorm is away for a while, so you've got me in the meantime. I'm Perfect4th (you can check out my user page for a little more about me if you'd like). I'll try and help with your questions. Can you clarify what information you're asking about? Are you referring to articles GrayStorm has been editing, or something else? Feel free to drop by with any other questions too! Happy editing, Perfect4th (talk) 16:31, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
Growth News #34
Extended content
A quarterly update from the Growth team on our work to improve the new editor experience.
Mentoring new editors
In February, Mentorship was successfully rolled out to 100% of newcomers on English Wikipedia. Following this milestone, we collaborated with Spanish Wikipedia to expand Mentorship coverage to 70% of new accounts, with plans to reach 85% soon unless concerns are raised by mentors. (T394867)
Some links types were removed to align with recommendations written in the English Wikipedia Manual of Style (T390683)
Allowing communities to limit “Add a Link” to newcomers (T393771)
The model used to suggest the links was improved to ease its training (T388258)
English Wikipedia rollout and A/B test: We increased the rollout to 20% of newcomers, with analysis underway. Preliminary data suggests this feature makes new account holders more likely to complete an unreverted edit. (T386029, T382603)
Surfacing Structured Tasks: An experiment where we show “add a link” suggestions to newly registered users while they are reading an article is running on pilot wikis (French, Persian, Indonesian, Portuguese, Egyptian Arabic). Initial results are under analysis. (T386029)
Newcomer Engagement Features
“Get Started” notification: Engineering is in progress for a new notification (Echo/email) to encourage editing among newcomers with zero edits. Early research shows this type of nudge is effective. (T392256)
Confirmation email: We are exploring ways to simplify and improve the initial account confirmation email newly registered users receive. (T215665)
The Wikimedia Foundation’s 2025–2026 Annual Plan is taking shape. The Growth and Editing teams will focus on the Contributor Experiences (WE1) objective, with a focus on increasing constructive edits by editors with fewer than 100 cumulative contributions.
Get Involved
We value your insights and ideas! If you would like to participate in a discussion, share feedback, or pilot new features, please reach out on the relevant Phabricator tasks or at our talk page, in any language.
Hello and welcome to the June 2025 newsletter, a quarterly-ish digest of Guild activities since April. Don't forget you can unsubscribe at any time; see below.
Hall of Fame: Congratulations to Dhtwiki for their well-deserved addition to the Hall of Fame last month, and thanks to GoldRomean for the nomination.
Election news: Voting in the mid-year coordinator election ends at 23:59 on 30 June. Results will be announced at the election page.
April Blitz: 14 of the 25 editors who signed up for the April 2025 Copy Editing Blitz copy edited 92,769 words in 30 articles. Barnstars awarded are available here.
May Drive: 31 of the 54 editors who signed up for the May 2025 Backlog Elimination Drive copy edited 384,392 words in 216 articles. Barnstars awarded are here.
June Blitz: 10 of the 12 editors who signed up for the June 2025 Copy Editing Blitz copy edited 26,652 words in 13 articles. Barnstars awarded are here.
Progress report: As of 02:30, 30 June 2025 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors have completed 148 requests since 1 January, and the backlog stands at 2,270 articles.
Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators.
To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.
Hi Kori! Welcome to Wikipedia! What image are you trying to add to what article? If you're looking for general help, we have a page about our image use policy, and Help:Pictures explains how to add images to articles (with links to simplified versions at the top if you'd prefer that). It's important to make sure the copyright of your image is acceptable. Let me know if I can be any more help, and happy editing! Perfect4th (talk) 03:52, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
Hello, the image is an map of an mall and I'm trying to upload it to the page. I'll see if the resources you sent over works. Thank you! Koribabori (talk) 19:31, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
The administrator elections process has officially started! Interested editors are encouraged to self-nominate or arrange to be nominated by reviewing the instructions at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/July 2025/Candidates.
Here is the schedule:
July 9–15 - Call for candidates
July 18–22 - Discussion phase
July 23–29 - SecurePoll voting phase
Please note the following:
The requirements to run are identical to RFA—a prospective candidate must be extended confirmed.
The process will have a seven day call for candidates phase, a two day pause, a five day discussion phase, and a seven day private vote using SecurePoll. Discussion and questions are only allowed on the candidate pages during the discussion phase.
The outcome of this process is identical to making a request for adminship. There is no official difference between an administrator appointed through RFA versus administrator elections.
Ask any questions about the process at the talk page. A separate user talk message will be sent to official candidates with additional information about the process.
If you are interested in the process, please make sure to watchlist the appropriate pages. A watchlist notice will be added when the discussion phase opens, and again when the voting phase opens.
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.
Hi, Sahil Nundlall, and welcome! Editors on Wikipedia have userpages to do things like organize their on-wiki work and tell other editors a little about their work on Wikipedia. Mine, for instance, has a brief description of what kinds of editing I am interested in/work on and a section of links I frequently use. You can also read more about userpages at Wikipedia:Userpages. Let me know if you have any other questions, and happy editing! Perfect4th (talk) 03:48, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
Hello, SKFINNSAM! Welcome to Wikipedia! I find our guide to editing a good place to start if you have questions about beginning to edit on Wikipedia. Were you trying to make an edit to Evolito Ltd?
On July 23, we will start the voting phase. The candidate subpages will close again to public questions and discussion, and everyone will have a week to use the SecurePoll software to vote, which uses a secret ballot. You can see who voted, but not who they voted for. Please note that the vote totals cannot be made public until after voting has ended and as such, it will not be possible for you to see an individual candidate's totals during the election. You must be extended confirmed to vote.
Once voting concludes, we will begin the scrutineering phase, which will last approximately four days, or perhaps a little longer. Once everything is certified, the results will be posted on the results page (you may want to watchlist this page) and transcluded to the main election page. In order to be granted adminship, a candidate must have received at least 70.0% support, calculated as Support / (Support + Oppose), and must also have received a minimum of 20 support votes. Because this is a vote and not a consensus, there are no bureaucrat discussions ("crat chats").
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.
In the voting phase, the candidate subpages will close to public questions and discussion, and everyone who qualifies to vote will have a week to use the SecurePoll software to vote, which uses a secret ballot. You can see who voted, but not who they voted for. Please note that the vote totals cannot be made public until after voting has ended and as such, it will not be possible for you to see an individual candidate's vote total during the election. The suffrage requirements are similar to those at RFA.
Once voting concludes, we will begin the scrutineering phase, which will last for approximately four days, perhaps longer. Once everything is certified, the results will be posted on the results page (this is a good page to watchlist), and transcluded to the main election page. In order to be granted adminship, a candidate must have received at least 70.0% support, calculated as Support / (Support + Oppose), and a minimum of 20 support votes. Because this is a vote and not a consensus, there are no bureaucrat discussions ("crat chats").
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.
Hello everyone, and welcome to the 27th issue of the Wikipedia Scripts++ Newsletter, covering all our favorite new and updated user scripts since 2025! Boy, does it feel good to kick off the year with an issue. Yep, it's been a year since we cleared out the 2022-2024 backlog with issues 23 and 24! Good times. Though in this case "a year" just means... 6 months? 😯 The salience of whatever joke I was planning to make here has vanished speedily. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:00, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
Got anything good? Tell us about your new, improved, old, or messed-up script here!
Featured script
WikiTextExpander by Polygnotus, is this edition's featured script. At the click of a configurable hotkey, this script will find and replace or link a configurable list of phrases within the selected text in all source editors (even in the comment/reply field!). Besides allowing the quick insertion of templated messages, this script greatly mitigates the WP:WTF? problem by providing both the legibility of familiar words and the convenience of shortcuts. And to those asking, the capitalization of "Wikitext" as "WikiText" was a necessary sacrifice for far-more-memorable acronymy.
Updated scripts
CanonNi: AlertAssistant has been fixed and rewritten using OOUI instead of Twinkle's Morebits. Such modern, very tool. (Do note that the maintainer has since become inactive.)
NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh/AjaxLoader has been updated to use modern JS APIs that replace the browser's URL bar with the link you clicked on to load in place. The "back" (and "forward") buttons also work now. Cool, innit?
andrybak: Unsigned helper no longer shows an error when the message to sign was added in the earliest 50 revisions of a page's history. This is especially relevant to pages with short histories.
BilledMammal/Move+ needs updating to order list of pages handle lists of pages to move correctly regardless of the discussion's page, so that we may avoid repeating fiasco history.
Requested scripts
We need scripts that...
allow sorting lists of citations such as by URI or other identifier
automatically convert the capitalization of citations' titles
collect a list of discussion participants and generate a ping list
In breaking m:Tech/News, Gadgets can now include .vue files. This makes it easier to develop modern user interfaces using Vue.js, in particular using Codex, the official design system of Wikimedia. Codex icons are now also available. The documentation has examples.
New scripts
Appo/Globstory integrates OpenHistoryMap, updating the map whenever hovering/clicking on a location or year, the latter of which changes the map to be (hopefully) accurate to the year selected. It's pretty interesting.
linkinfo Somewhat similar to WP:NavPops, Awesome Aasim/linkinfo(pictured) provides a collection of links to replace the right-click context menu, presented beautifully.
PreviousDiscussions provides a link to search for your username on subpages of another user's userpage and talkpage conveniently.
Twineeea/noRedLinks brings you to the "read" instead of the "create" tab when you visit a red link. Contemplate life's mysteries as you stare into the blank! Deeply.
No, this is not going to be the enduring tradition of S++ for the future. This was meant to be a joke for the special occasion on the first day of the fourth month but was delayed by four months because I'm lazy.
Hi, JShields51! To publish directly, your account has to be at least 4 days and 10 edits old; however, you can add a template to put your sandbox through the Articles for Creation process now. I'd highly suggest doing that because AfC reviewers can help you identify how to improve your article before mainspace publishing as they're very familiar with Wikipedia policy. I've added the template to your sandbox for you, so you can hit "submit" when you're ready. I'll put some helpful links on your talk page, but I'd start with Your First Article – I'd especially take a look at reliable sources and notability as those are very important for article drafts.
There's a lot to keep track of when creating your first article, so please feel free to drop by again if you have any questions! Happy editing, Perfect4th (talk) 02:23, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
Temporary account IP viewer granted
Hello, Perfect4th. Per your request, your account has been granted "checkuser-temporary-account". You are now able to reveal the IP addresses of individuals using temporary accounts that are not visible to the general public. This is very sensitive information that is only to be used to aid in anti-abuse workflows. Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Temporary account IP viewer for more information on this user right. It is important to remember:
Access should not be used for political control, to apply pressure on editors, or as a threat against another editor in a content dispute. There must be a valid reason to investigate a temporary user. Note that using multiple temporary accounts is not forbidden, so long as they are not used in violation of policies (for example, block or ban evasion).
It is also important to note that the following actions are logged for others to see:
When a user accepts the preference that enables or disables IP reveal for their account.
Revealing an IP address of a temporary account.
Listing the temporary accounts that are associated with an IP address or CIDR range.
Remember, even if a user is violating policy, avoid revealing personal information if possible. Use temporary account usernames rather than disclosing IP addresses directly, or give information such as same network/not same network or similar. If you do not want the user right anymore then please ask me or another administrator and it will be removed for you. Happy editing! Sohom (talk) 02:04, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
How do you adopt an article and do you get paid for editing articles just curious about that since someone told me that there have been people who have gotten paid for editing or creating. --Ghostrider00 (talk) 18:59, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
Hey there Ghostrider00, and welcome! I'm not sure what you mean by adopt an article – are you referring to focusing on a specific article or something else?
As to paid editing, most of us are volunteers and work on whatever we want. Paid editing is generally frowned upon because paid editors have a conflict of interest. They have to follow the policies explained at WP:PAID. Paid editors can have a hard time following our policies & guidelines, especially neutral point of view. There are also a few editors who try to scam people by claiming to create an article for money – I'd be pretty suspicious if someone claimed to me to create Wikipedia articles for money. So there are a few who are paid, but typically we tend to be volunteers – we edit because we enjoy doing so!
Hi, I am Lutitium and you are my mentor so I have a question to you. There is this article named Kazachstania Weizmannii and it has a template that says that it may have to be rewritten to mach Wikipedia's policy, but I recently edited it and I want you to tell me should I remove the template.
Hi Lutitium! I've been a bit busy today so I haven't had time to look very thoroughly, but I did glance over it just now. The tone you rewrote in the lead (first paragraph) was definitely good! I would answer a couple more questions in the body just to give a little more context – was the yeast being shown to fight Candida albicans the same study by the Weizmann Institute of Science? Does it both fight and prevent, or is it the same thing worded slightly differently? Is there any further context in the sources that is proportional and would be good to mention in the article? I can also take a look later and edit a couple of things for encyclopedic tone too if that helps, and I can check over it again then. Hope this helps, and let me know if you have any more questions! Happy editing, Perfect4th (talk) 01:52, 9 August 2025 (UTC)
Thanks! This is really helpful and I will try to change what you said. I will be really grateful to you if you check it again and will you tell me that, should the template that says that it may have to be rewritten to mach Wikipedia's policy be removed after said edits?
I can definitely check, Lutitium, but you might find it even more helpful to check with Folkezoft, who added the template, if there are any specific concerns you can resolve :)
Sorry for the delay in my response! I've been pulling late nights helping my friends scrape popcorn ceiling off their new house. Let me know if you've got more questions, and happy editing! Perfect4th (talk) 19:35, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed two very reasonable examples were torn down and replaced with lower quality ones by an anonymous user. This is the most recent non-bot edit. I’d like to switch them back, is that alright? --Robertson909 (talk) 02:56, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
Hello, Robertson909! I assume you're talking about this edit? On Wikipedia, we often follow a process called Bold, Revert, Discuss when editing articles. This means that someone makes an edit (since we encourage editors to be bold and change stuff), someone else thinks it's not an improvement and reverts it, and then it gets discussed somewhere (this step is important, as it promotes collaboration rather than a back-and-forth of undoing edits). In this case, the IP who swapped out those images explained their reasons in their edit summary, but you can also discuss improvements on the article talk page. So in this case, feel free to undo the edits, but either explain your reasoning in your edit summary, leave a note on the talk page, or both! Let me know if you have any other questions, and happy editing ~ Perfect4th (talk) 02:34, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
Question from Ghostrider00 (16:19, 18 August 2025)
For sure! I’ll be a bit busy this week, so I may take longer than normal, but let me know if you have any more questions! Happy editing, Perfect4th (talk) 18:22, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
About Mike Ozekhome
Hey Perfect4th, HC226 here. I'm writing this message because I am quite concerned with the current state of the page for Mike Ozekhome. It seems like an attempt to "promote" him and the wording used on some sections is questionable. I have been working to fix it and find references to support some of the broad statements made such as "Ozekhome has also played a pivotal role in advancing justice, democracy, and the rule of law in Nigeria." However, in the process I found that several of his awards and also one of his doctorates came from the International Biographical Centre, a scam organization that sells these kinds of certifications.
As you can see on Ozekhome's page, I added that as a attempt to remain neutral and provide truthful information to readers. However, I think this page may need to be completely rewritten or examined for more issues like this one. It seems that news articles have simply copied information from his website, further attempting to valitdate his own claims. An example is this article from DNL Legal and Style, a naerly identical copy of this one from his website.
Should the page be AfD'd since the sources for many claims are shady? Maybe it's better to just attempt to rewrite it using better sources? Please get back to me as soon as possible so I can begin working on it, thank you. HC226 (talk) 16:13, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
Hello, HC226! I’m afraid I will have no time this week to look into anything – I probably should have set myself 'away' as a mentor but forgot – so I won’t be able to help you with resolutions to this matter. That being said, I would suggest you ask for help either on the Teahouse (general help, geared towards newer editors) or the neutral point of view noticeboard (more point of view/neutrality focused), which should help you unravel this.
Thanks for the question, and sorry I couldn’t be more help! Let me know if you have any other or follow-up questions and I’ll try to pop in to answer what I can! Happy editing, Perfect4th (talk) 18:21, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
I see, ReemaAmin! Do you happen to know of any source we can find to use as a citation? I scrolled through some of the references in the article, but I saw no mention whatsoever of his birth city. That will make it easier to change, but Wikipedia is supposed to use sources to keep things verifiable. I'll also ping Lt.gen.zephyr, who's worked on the article, to see if they have any ideas on where to find more sources for that. Happy editing, Perfect4th (talk) 17:26, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
Hi, Suzi Samuel! I'm here to help with questions about learning to edit Wikipedia. If you want to learn things from Duolingo, you'll probably want to download their app and learn from there. Let me know if you have any questions about editing Wikipedia! Perfect4th (talk) 17:55, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
Hello, Shakespeare78! To publish directly, your account has to be at least 4 days and 10 edits old; however, you can add a template to put your sandbox through the Articles for Creation process now. I'd highly suggest doing that because AfC reviewers can help you identify how to improve your article before mainspace publishing as they're very familiar with Wikipedia policy. I've added the template to your sandbox for you, so you can hit "submit" when you're ready. I'll put some helpful links on your talk page, but I'd start with Your First Article – I'd especially take a look at reliable sources and notability as those are very important for article drafts.
There's a lot to keep track of when creating your first article, so please feel free to drop by again if you have any questions! Happy editing, Perfect4th (talk) 00:50, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
