User talk:Nick Moyes/Archive 3

red mambo
ah ok, i understand :) Im very new to all this. I will try to delete the page. Dals093838 (talk) 05:45, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * How about if you move the content over to the main page, then let me know. I can then turn your page into a WP:REDIRECT - or you can do it yourself if you blank the page contents and then follow the format of text that's needed to make that redirect). Happy to help in any other way if I'm able. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 08:51, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Pankaj Chandak
Alex ShihTalk 01:03, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

thanks
for the reviews. I made a mistake and I regret it. Artix Kreiger (talk) 17:32, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Never regret a mistake you can correct! - your contributions are very much welcome. I worry you might have taken my feedback as being overly critical - that was not my intention. Keep up the good work! Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 21:14, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * thanks man. Its just idk how i made just a really dumb mistake. regards from the US. Artix Kreiger (talk) 21:34, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the effort. Artix Kreiger (talk) 13:54, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Request
hi can you take a look at User:Artix Kreiger/Arthrostylidium simpliciusculum? I am hoping you look for it before it gets published. Thanks. Artix Kreiger (talk) 16:37, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure thing - no problem. I appreciate the invitation.


 * You've perfectly referenced the species distrubution - something I expressed concern about in other NPP review comments. (I am now nitpicking, but you could consider adding the page number, 209).
 * I suggest you put the sentence on distribution in a separate section. It'll save someone else having to do it in the future, and makes the article far better.
 * I'm afraid you've cited the author of the species incorrectly. For some reason you've used the url of the synonym, Arundinaria simpliciuscula Pilg., rather than this link to Arthrostylidium simpliciusculum. If you check them both out, you'll appreciate you should be giving the main species name as Arthrostylidium simpliciusculum (Pilg.) McClure. (Let me know if this doesn't make sense, and I'll try and talk you through it.
 * If you're basing every new article on the same proforma each time, do consider including "| synonyms = " and "| synonyms_ref =" in every Speciesbox - they're a useful reminder to you to check for alternative names. See how many are needed to be shown on this page for Hyacinthoides non-scripta! You can get all that info from IPNI or The Plant List. It does no harm to leave other commonly-needed fields in, but empty, so on that basis I'd also suggest you leave in "| image_caption = "; "| status = "; "| status_ref =". It's much more work for an editor to add in stuff that you've left out because you don't think you needed it at the start.
 * I would love you to create a Description section for each species. I'm not suggesting you attempt a full botanical description, though I would urge you to look for and to link to at least one reference that does give that description if anyone using that page wants to follow it. So, I'd urge you to spend an extra 10 minutes per species and create a far better and more informative stub. In that time you could have found this link and extracted enough to write a Description, and this link to insert a link to some images of the plant (note that the licence is a creative commons one, but there are non-commercial restrictions, thus preventing it being uploaded to Wikimedia.

Description
The plant is a tufted perennial with short rhizomes. It grows to between 1000cm and 1200cm tall.ADD KEW REF

Response
Thank you so much. I have made an effort to update it. I request to take a second look please and thank you. I think it may be more pleasing. Artix Kreiger (talk) 23:30, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, Artix Kreiger. That looks a whole lot better to my eye. I've spotted a couple of thnigs you could still do - namely to improve the Infobox, so if it's OK with you I'll edit your userdraft with my suggestions and leave you to decide what to upload. I reckon if you can make all your new pages look like this, you'll be making a superb contribution to this Genus. Drop me a note when you've put it in mainspace and I'll WP:NPP it immediately. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:21, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
 * feel free to do whatever you need to do man. I mean, im open to anyone editing anytime. Artix Kreiger (talk) 03:31, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd like to submit User:Artix Kreiger/Arthrostylidium urbanii, a different article, for 2nd eyes before I publish. Artix Kreiger (talk) 18:29, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
 * OK. Have just taken a look. Here goes;
 * You've overlooked my suggestion about including the extra fields in the SpeciesBox, which is a shame. Any reason why?
 * You could have included the synonym Arundinaria urbanii (Pilg.) Hack. from your Plant List reference in that SpeciesBox.
 * I'm afraid you've made an absolutely massive mistake somehow by giving the authors names of the species as Arthrostylidium urbanii W.D. Clayton, M. Vorontsova, K.T. Harman & H. Williamson. I can't see how on earth you got those, when it's clearly Arthrostylidium urbani Pilg. (After a quick search, it looks like you've accidentally picked up the names of the people who created the grass database, not the botanist who named the species. This might be a simple daft error - but if it's not, I think you really need to go back to basics to understand how the naming of plants by different people actually works. Let me know if you need any help understanding this, and I'll try and point you in the right direction. You could perhaps start by reading and coming to grips with Author_citation_(botany).
 * Finally, I think you're still not using the best reference to support distribution statements. The Tropicos reference relates to the Genus, not the species - an error you've made many times in other new stubs, which I keep pointing out . I can't see anything in the Plant List reference that justified its use to support the description (though I'm delighted to created two different sections for this and for distribution). Where did you get that information from? In my haste, I might be missing something really obvious, but I just can't see it properly sourced to any document.
 * Once more, I hope this helps, and I'm sorry to sound critical of your work again. Oh, and here's a list of herbarium specimens you could select one from to link to. Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 20:57, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Paul Cummins
email sent (11/9/2017) in response to this proposal for mass deletion from Wikimedia of all images of Paul Cummins' poppies on temporary exhibition around the UK.

Hi Paul

I'm a former member of staff at Derby Museum with a close connection to the Derby Silk Mill, and I adored the display of your work there last summer. I'm retired now, but I contribute a lot of my time to improving articles on Wikipedia (like this one https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derby_Silk_Mill and this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_Swept_Lands_and_Seas_of_Red).

Thousands of people have photographed your work, and quite a few have been uploaded to illustrate articles on Wikipedia about the different venues your poppies have visited. Unfortunately, every one of them is about to be permanently deleted, unless you are prepared to step in to prevent this from happening.

The problem is that any picture uploaded to Wikimedia (which holds images on behalf of Wikipedia) requires photographers to permit commercial use of that image. But because you have published a restriction on commercial use on this page (http://blog.cwgc.org/poppieswave/), and because they were part of a temporary installation, not a permanent one, every single image of your poppies on Wikipedia has been proposed for deletion, primarily to protect your interests and to conform with UK law.

If you're ok with this, you need do absolutely nothing. But if you would like Wikimedia/Wikipedia and others to be able to use photos of your work for decades to come, you really need to step in right away and give your explicit permission now. This could either be for selected images - or all of them - to remain on Wikimedia for both non-commercial and for commercial use. It's only with the consent of you, the copyright holder, that photographs of temporary installations like yours will be allowed to remain on Wikimedia.

Please let me know your general view on this. I might be able to hold off total deletion of every image of your work on Wikipedia until we can sort out how to best to arrange for your formal permission for a selected few (or all?) of those pictures to remain and to be used.

It would be a real shame if the all the Wikipedia articles about your work were to be devoid of any image for many decades to come. (Including this one about you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Cummins)

If you don't step in to stop deletion, this is precisely what will happen.

Kind regards

Nick Moyes Derby (-former Senior Keeper of Natural Sciences at Derby Museum; winner of Derby Arts Festival for ceramics, 1996; Wikipedian)
 * Nick, a few things to point out, in case you get a further response:


 * 1) The restriction on the CWGC's page is supporting evidence but not key, as the case would still be there even if there was nothing on the CWGC's page. It was a missed chance to confirm no restriction, but isn't positive evidence that the artist tried to restrict it. If there had been nothing about restrictions then the case would be there.
 * 2) If he does consent to use of photographs, please work with him to ensure we don't end up with "permission to use on Wikipedia". That isn't adequate, as an image hosted on Commons should be available for any one, for any purpose. An explicit release for the whole work (under a free license or to the PD), or permission to use specific images under certain terms, is likely to be fine.
 * 3) If he replies with a non-consent, please forward that as well.
 * 4) Even if we do delete these images from Commons, a few can still be used on Wikipedia under relevant fair use terms. WP:NFCC will cover use, such as on the artist's article.
 * Thanks for taking time to write to him, hopefully you will get a positive response. This is one work I really would like to ignore our policies for, but ....--Nilfanion (talk) 10:16, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll do what I can to facilitate this, and can try to make further contact via my former museum or council colleagues if I don't get a direct reply. Yes, I recognise that a You can use it on Wikipedia response isn't sufficient, and not always understood by the image owner/rights holder. I suspect the best solution (to keep it simple from from the artist's perspective) might be for us to identify all those images on Commons and currently in use on Wikipedia pages and seek his explicit permission for those to be made freely and commercially available, and to delete the rest. Should he feel there are one or two high quality images that he doesn't like being available, these could be excluded from those permissions, I suppose.
 * The main problem as I see it is time. Wikimedia deletion policies seem not to appreciate that the real world - not even legal systems - operate on seven day turn-around. We might well need to work on this together by direct email if I do get a response; I will keep you informed. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 10:47, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Although I think it should result in a general deletion, its not certain that the Commons discussion will end that way ( I'm perplexed that someone can say its very poignant, but it isn't an artwork - surely getting a emotional response proves it is an effective piece of art? ). I imagine this discussion will be open for significantly longer than a week as well. If it does close as delete, remember that isn't permanent, as we can undelete on receipt of new info. However, I suggest you keep a local copy of some of the images (to ease discussion with the artist); and agree further discussion by email is sensible if required.--Nilfanion (talk) 12:09, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Good idea. Will copy a handful over. I confess to not understanding the rationale for such hurried deletions when no external complaint or legal action has been lodged. It seems to me that Wikimedia needs to offer Keep/Delete/Defer deletion options, wherein it's accepted that Wikimedia's guidelines might not have been fully met for certain images or groups of images to be allowed to remain on Commons. So, where there is no legal requirement or sensitivity issue that needs them taking down so rapidly, deferring deletion would give time for issues such as this to be investigated by one or more editors who offer to undertake that taskk, with the image flagged as 'not for use as licencing issues are pending'. Then, after a set, but more reasonable period of time agreed with an administrator (say between one and three months) the process of deletion would kick in automatically if no supporting material is forthcoming to justify halting it. Trying to liaise with an individual or organisation about non-contentious images that have already been deleted is, I've found, a fruitless exercise not worthy of the effort involved, especially if they're overseas. But I've long-since given up trying to understand WM policies and procedures! Finally, I don't suppose you could expand the deletion discussion by linking to the specific policies involved?  - I have a strong suspicion this discussion will attract media attention, and that clarity to all the issues might well assist their understanding of WM's position on copyright infringement that you so rightfully work to protect. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:41, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I think there is merit to your idea there, but I doubt it would work. Commons has horrific administrative backlogs and its likely that a "deferred deletion" would, in effect, end up being similar to a "keep". The main reason for reasonably speed is every day an infringing file is on Commons increases the chance of someone re-using a work that they cannot. That would lead to harm to that re-user, and damage the reputation of the project. We can always undelete in the event of new evidence. Many files rejected by Wikimedia can legally be hosted by us, but we have a high bar to make sure any files we host we are sure of both for ourselves and others.
 * With regards to that discussion, the key policy is linked (Freedom of Panorama), that leads through to Derivative works which gives an overview. The other pertinent rule is the precautionary principle, which explains why we err on side of caution and why we don't wait for an explicit complaint. I hope Paul Cummins gives a positive reply here, it seems plausible given the whole idea was something of a "gift to the nation" in the first place--Nilfanion (talk) 23:14, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Derby Museum
I have very fond memories of Derby Museum. When I was around eight (1953) I sat on the Ilkeston to Derby bus next to Mr Thorpe (I have a notion he was crippled) who talked to me and was then, I think, the Curator. He was interested in Crown Derby.Later I took natural history finds to him and he encouraged that interest.He was an exceptionally cultured man.Later I knew Mick Stanley first as a sales rep then as a curator.The only botanist I knew in the 1950s was the Station Master at West Hallam.He had an impressive herbarium mostly South Notts I think.I cannot remember his name.My email is robertnash1945@ yahoo.co.uk. Oddly it is my birthday. Spent it thinking about Mr.Thorpe and the station master for which happy recollections I have you to thank. Best regards Robert aka Notafly (talk) 19:50, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for responding to my WP:NPP comment with this story, Robert. A.L.Thorpe was before my time (Bryan Blake was the Director for Derby Museum and Art Gallery when I started there in 1985. Mick Stanley, the geologist, had recently left (though I've met him since), and was replaced by John Crossling. Then I and another new appointment effectively replaced him and botanist, Susan Patrick. (There's an article still worth creating on her botanical achievements in Australia, I suspect. I didn't know Mr Thorpe was disabled - for me, our connection is that he, I think, chaired and hosted the group of experts producing the major 1969 update of the Flora of Derbyshire (previously done in 1903). I then spent nearly 18 years collating vast amounts of botanical data, mapping and publishing this in 2015. I'm unable to recollect any botanist based in West Hallam, nor any herbarium specimens collected by anyone based there, I'm afraid. Your career was obviously influenced by your experiences with museums, as was mine as a young man, too. I'm very glad our accidental contact brought back some good memories of the place. Many happy returns for yesterday! Nick Moyes (talk) 10:18, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks. The station master was Mr. Mathers. He was a keen gardener and West Hallam station had glorious flower beds and LNER best station awards.Notafly (talk) 16:34, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Women in Red October editathon invitation
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:54, 25 September 2017 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Beeston Boiler Company
I've just reviewed your new article. Can I remind you to add categories and projects to your new articles? Cabayi (talk) 10:34, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Adminship
Hi, Nick. Have you ever thought about becoming an administrator? You have a good mix of writing and diplomacy skills, and you regularly get involved in new page patrols and deletion discussions, so I can see you would have a clear use. In particular, on your userpage, you write : "The timescales for deletion requests are ridiculously short. An uncontentious article can sit in mainspace for years, but if someone slaps an 'improve or delete notice on it, then we're given just seven days to put it right, or it's gone. Aren't we allowed holidays, or a week away from the computer?" I think this is an important point that a lot of regular editors miss (including myself, I have to admit), and you might therefore be interested in Requests for undeletion or Deletion review; people spend a lot of time seeing whether administrators are trustworthy over having the ability to delete articles, but comparatively little time is spend wondering about how well they restore them. It's for this reason I will restore any article (barring vandalism, libel or copyright violations) to at least userspace, and mention as such when you try to send a message to me. Anyway, have a think about it, and if it's something that interests you, let me know. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  09:51, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, Ritchie333, thank you for stopping by with that suggestion. Thanks for your comments on my contributions, and I appreciate you asking me to consider picking up "the mop". Right now I don't believe my skills and understanding across all areas of Wikipedia, and of adminship, is sufficiently adequate to merit the role. A while back I did look at some RfAs - especially the failed ones - to see what the community expects from their admins, and to see what I could learn from them to improve my contributions and understanding. There have certainly been times (especially when dealing with ongoing vandalism or likely hoax content) that I would have dearly welcomed access to some of those tools. But then there are other areas (especially closing of complex discussions) where I've not envied the admins' role and responsibilities one bit. So, whilst I am potentially interested in contributing more effectively, it would seem sensible for me to delve a little deeper into the implications of adminship. (I would prefer to be a good editor than a bad admin.) Perhaps it would be best to get back to you in 6 months or so, and then perhaps discuss the merits of an WP:ORFA or any potential weaknesses in my skillset that you can identify that would be worth addressing. (Though do feel free to tell me some of those now, if you wish) Thanks again. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:34, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback. My main motivation for seeking out potential admin candidates is to spread the load, and create less of an "us and them" atmosphere between admins and "normal" editors by getting as many people from the latter over to the former as possible. That you're interested, but not jumping at the opportunity to file an RfA is the right attitude to have, I think. I'm primarily here for the article writing and although I do procrastinate quite a bit (some might say too much) in the deletion queues, it's not the main activity. The best analogy I can come up with is to treat an RfA like an exam - you have to revise certain policies and procedures in order to pass, but you won't necessarily use all of them in day to day activities. I don't do much with file copyrights and I'm not interested in sockpuppet investigations; I think as long as you state areas you do want to work in, people ought to be able to trust you won't wander into other areas. Anyway, have a think about it, and if six months time you fancy going a candidate poll, I would say that's a good idea. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  21:58, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Q
User:Artix Kreiger/Tekeda Alemu

In regards to this, is this good enough? Artix (Message wall) 23:22, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * To make it a worthy article I think you should extract more information about him from the UN Press Release -especially past and present roles. It's easily done, so long as you use your own words and don't copy verbatim what's said. I see you've now put int in mainspace - I won't review it until you've had a chance to work on it a bit more.

Go search for some basic information on Google. Try this for starters. It also needs better Categories. Check other diplomats in the UN and see what categories they've been given - that should assist you. By contrast here's a biography I put online this morning from my sandbox - yours doesn't have to be that long, but it does need to do you credit by having a a bit more meat on the bones, if you know what I mean. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 14:27, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Churchill County School District
I just published this. Artix (Message wall) 13:02, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Pankaj Chandak
Hello! Your submission of Pankaj Chandak at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 21:03, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Bead painting
Dear Nick Moyes, thank You for editing article about bead painting. I created it not to show case my work, but to acknowledge the beautiful masterpieces of famous artists. Bead painting is unique, and very close adaptation of paintings. Because the tiny size of the beads finished work looks just like original paintings, but with added movement, because of the beauty of crystal beads. It's not mosaic, it takes up to a year to make one, every tiny seed bead is chosen from hundreds of thousands of colors. I just put it in wikipedia, because it is like creating monuments on the streets, people do it not to showcase their handy work, but for the Ones, who are displayed in monuments. I am not familiar with how and where to write to You, so if this is not the place, please delete it. I understand Your concern with the rules and etc. so if You believe "bead painting" article doesn't belong in wikipedia You can delete it. My desire was to add beauty, not to create disorder in the encyclopedia. Best Wishes, Elena Soldatkina.P.S. And I admire Your dedication to what You do. (comment left by Solcrust
 * Hi, - don't worry about leaving comments in the wrong place - it's not easy to understand to begin with, so I've moved it for you. Thanks for replying to my concerns. It is very much appreciated, and I do understand what you say. It just that if it were seen as a worthwhile branch of art, I'm sure someone would have created such a page already. If you wanted to send me some urls to references I could look at them and try to see if they support the topic. Of course, I could put it forward for deletion and be overruled by consensus - that's how we work here. Either way, please don't be put off from editing. I do recommend you start with making some simple edits and improvements to existing articles - maybe on related art topics? Learning the right ways to edit here is a "one-step-at-a-time" process (and I'm still learning, myself). This might be worth a read: Your first article Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 20:05, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank You Nick for trying to help me with how to go on with "bead painting" article. I appreciate Your help, but I just wished to get "it" :) out there. I am sort of a hermit doing just what I do. Researching, editing articles etc. is not my thing. So, I just let it be. Just one question :) If there is an animal in a jungle, that no one saw before, there are no articles about it, no information anywhere, does it mean it doesn't deserve place in an ... encyclopedia? :) I was just wondering. Wishing You All the Best. Elena.
 * OK, Elena. Thanks for replying so quickly. You ask a good question, and I would respond by saying that anyone can go into the jungle and see an insect new to science that absolutely no biologist has ever described before. The trick is being able to tell which one it is among the myriad of other species that are already known about, named and described. Does that one 'new' insect deserve an article right now on Wikipedia if it hasn't been named and described? The answer is 'no' - it's only after scientists have described that new species, and when there is published evidence that Wikipedia can call upon to present to the world, that a new page is then merited. We call this a reliable source. Anything else would just be made up and not warrant an article here (i.e. "I think I saw something green and flying with long legs that no-one has ever described before, so here goes...") . That's what other people's blogs and websites are for - flights of fancy and imagination. Here, we're trying to be encyclopaedic. With regard to art, it's really for the art community to determine what is notable. If they start to write at length on a subject, in multiple sources, then here on Wikipedia we can rightly refer to those writing, then maybe that topic will warrant a new article. But maybe not. And that's why you shouldn't be discouraged that I'm not confident about the merits of having this article here - it does nothing to detract from the quality of anyone's creative work. Hope this helps, Nick Moyes (talk) 21:00, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter
Hello, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update: Technology update: General project update: If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The new page backlog is currently at 16,991 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a a day.
 * has created a NPP browser in WMF Labs that allows you to search new unreviewed pages using keywords and categories.
 * The Wikimedia Foundation Community Tech team is working with the community to implement the autoconfirmed article creation trial. The trial is currently set to start on 7 September 2017, pending final approval of the technical features.
 * Please remember to focus on the quality of review: correct tagging of articles and not tagbombing are important. Searching for potential copyright violations is also important, and it can be aided by Earwig's Copyvio Detector, which can be added to your toolbar for ease of use with this user script.
 * To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

New Page Reviewer Newsletter
Hello, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update: Technology update: General project update: If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:16, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The new page backlog is currently at 14304 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a day.
 * Currently there are 532 pages in the backlog that were created by non-autoconfirmed users before WP:ACTRIAL. The NPP project is undertaking a drive to clear these pages from the backlog before they hit the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing a few today!
 * The Wikimedia Foundation is currently working on creating a new filter for page curation that will allow new page patrollers to filter by extended confirmed status. For more information see: 
 * On 14 September 2017 the English Wikipedia began the autoconfirmed article creation trial. For a six month period, creation of articles in the mainspace of the English Wikipedia will be restricted to users with autoconfirmed status. New users who attempt article creation will now be redirected to a newly designed landing page.
 * Before clicking on a reference or external link while reviewing a page, please be careful that the site looks trustworthy. If you have a question about the safety of clicking on a link, it is better not to click on it.
 * To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

Jennifer Gunter
Hi! Thanks for reviewing Jennifer Gunter. I am glad you found it satisfactory. I have added several categories, as you suggested.

Thanks for your work!

Robincantin (talk) 00:04, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Parasites
Hi, thanks for getting back to me. I'm glad you saw me and helped set me straight a bit. I've been around for a while, yes, and although I've never been much of a content editor, I read Wikipedia a lot and can tell the difference between a helpful article and one that needs a lot of work. I got the sense myself that my edits yesterday weren't entirely up to par and that's why I left the preemptive message on my talkpage.

In short, I ran out of time. I'm moving tomorrow and I'll only have Internet through my phone for the indefinite future, and I wanted to get in as many edits as I could before I had to start packing. My plan was to pare down the section on the Fish reproduction article and expand the Sexual parasitism article by adding information about species other than anglerfish. For example, some species of barnacles, such as those in the rhizocephala genus, have the exact same reproduction process in which the male never feeds independently, but instead fuses with a far larger female and draws its nourishment from her. Something similar may be the case in Sarcotaces, another crustacean, but I can't find publicly available sources.

Finding information on the crustaceans will be more difficult than it was for the anglerfish, and I don't know when I'll have normal Internet access again, so I won't be able to finish those articles for a while. But I do plan to revive Sexual parasitism as a full article and explain that it isn't unique to the anglerfish. However, it does seem to be true that the anglerfish is the only example of this mode of reproduction existing in an animal that is not also parasitic in the traditional way, and that makes them unique, which is perhaps why they are the most written-about.

Thank you again for your reply. I hope to be back again soon so I can finish what I started. — Soap — 02:46, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for getting back to me. Don't forget you can always change back the page from a redirect to one with new content if you do want to expand it again later on. Definitely something worth doing in draft first, and maybe even discussing on the existing article's Talk Page. Sorry you'll only have mobile acces - I hate editing from a phone (as I am right now). Good luck with your move. Nick Moyes (talk) 06:56, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Improvements to page Wilbertomorphidae
Hello Nick: Thanks for your thoughtful comments and suggestions! I've clarified that the family is monotypic, and made a redlink to "marine interstitial habitat" instead. Looks like the pages on benthos and related topics can also be considerably expanded. Cheers, Kbseah (talk) 05:52, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Brilliant. I agree that Interstitial habitat is worthy of its own article, but I suggest you drop 'marine' from the redlink. I think a new article ought to cover both marine and freshwater environments together. Keep up the good work! Nick Moyes (talk) 07:12, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Geodorcus servandus
Thanks Nick for your excellent tips for the Geodorcus servandus page that I have been working on. I will make the changes suggested. Would love to see it on DYK, but unsure how...This kind of help is perfect for editors like myself who are fairly new to this. Much appreciated! Markanderson72 (talk) 11:13, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You're very welcome, Markanderson72. (In my first museum job 30 years ago, the head curator was a coleopterist who had family in New Zealand. It was great to go round his house of an evening and see his collection of British and, especially, NZ beetles from his holidays. The Circulionidae rapidly became my favourite group.)
 * Regarding Did You Know, I'd be glad to help you. For some reason they've made the instructions almost as complex as creating your first article! So, be brave and do give it a go. Here are the formal formal instructions. Just worth skim-reading to start with, I'd suggest. And here is a much better set of easy to follow instructions. Here are my salient points I would tell beginners:


 * You can only put an article forward for 'Did You Know' if it has been on Wikipedia for less than seven days - so the clock is now ticking! Your key date is 17th July - when you first started it.
 * Find an interesting 'hook' in the article that people would be interested in. (If you want to, you can even suggest a second one as an ALTernative)
 * Make sure there is a clear reference supporting every statement in the 'hook' - and that there's nothing else that's poorly referenced either, come to that.
 * Newcomers can simply nominate their article (but anyone who has had over five articles on 'Did You Know' first has to review another person's DYK nomination (as a sort of quid pro quo, or QPQ))
 * First you create a new template page just for your own nomination. You fill in the relevant details and save that page. This page is unique to your new nomination. Confusingly, you then paste the name of that page into the master list for all nominations, based on the date the article was started. i.e. 17th July.
 * Ensure that you 'watch' your nomination page, and respond asap to any feedback. (Reviewers look for copyright violations, correct referencing, interesting hooks that are supported by references and are not too long, age of article, and so on)

It's a brilliant way to get new articles right up there on the front page of Wikipedia, and it often takes around 4 weeks from starting the process to it getting through the queue to go on the homepage. But, why they've made the instructions such a bastard to follow, I really don't know. Here are my suggested hooks you might consider:


 * ... that the flightless stag beetle, Geodorcus servandus was discovered on the summit of just one mountain in New Zealand in 2017 and has been found nowhere else since...?
 * ALT1 ... that the stag beetle, Geodorcus servandus is unable to fly, and so far is only known to occur on just one mountain top in New Zealand...?

Come back to me if you get stuck, or once you've managed it. I'll be glad to see how it goes and help out, if necessary. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 21:24, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Nick, I think I managed to navigate the process -your help was superb! I pretty much used your very good hooks. Now I'll wait and see! Markanderson72 (talk) 10:36, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Brilliant. Just a couple of things - see if you can see how others have supported their nomination by including the source reference at the end (this makes the reviewers task easier in checking your nomination); and something has happened to your username as creator, which is now red-linked. (I think you missed the 72 off). If you also wanted to add a comment you could say that this is your first DYK nomination. It seems unfair for me to review it myself, so be prepared for some constructive criticism over the next couple of weeks. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 11:16, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that section - that was fantastic! This was one of the Geodorcus with least info available and its looking pretty good now. There is an image on the landcare website that I've added as an external link - I wasn't sure about the copyright - it looked like I could use it if attributed?? Thanks again, your help is very generous and welcome.Markanderson72 (talk) 01:34, 21 July 2017 (UTC)


 * You're very welcome. I was glad to help out by adding to the article to get it to minimum length. It's ok to link to an image in a reference, but not to copy and embed it, even with atrribution. If you really wanted it, you'd have to email her and ask her if she would be willing to supply you with an image and a release declaration for Wikimedia (but, to be honest, that is another complicated set of hoops to jump through at this stage) But what a superb monograph! You should definitely write an article on Beverley Holloway - her biography is brilliant - she would meet WP:GNG both as a scientific author naming a new species, for making a major contribution to the Fauna of New Zealand in that monograph, but especially as a recipient of the New Zealand 1990 Commemoration Medal. Married to a weevil expert, too - don't you just love her! Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 01:40, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I've just noticed a conflict of factual statements that you'll need to fix quickly. I've just spotted your addition that the beetle was discovered by Kettle in 2004 (which is not supported by the citation you've given), whereas I took the date of Dec 1960 from the monograph. (Specimens often go unnoticed for years after they've been collected before an expert studies them and erects a new species from that material) Someone at DYK will quickly shoot us down in flames if such an obvious error remains in place. Do have a good read through again and fact-check everything - it's nearly 3am here . . . I need some rest! Nick Moyes (talk) 01:49, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks- I was already wondering about the time! Yes, date was written 1960/12/04 and I was rushing! All the best from Marlborough!Markanderson72 (talk) 01:55, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

How to merge ?

 * Yes, just make a new section header and put in your contents (with references, of course). Make sure images are small thumbs - they dont need references (just captions). I'd be happy to check it out once you've done it, and set up the redirect for you. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:57, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * OK,, I've done all I can do to the article. You'll see I've removed surplus images and laid out the page as per Wikipedia's Manual of Style guidelines. There was too much text in one block, so I've created two sections and moved stuff around to fit. I've also created the WP:REDIRECT. I can do no more for you. What I'd like you to undertake to do is to go through, read every paragraph, checking it against this reference] to make sure everything said is actually in the source. Each paragraph needs a reference in my opinion. If you use the Edit Source tab you'll see how easy it is to copy and past the short version, i.e.: " " when you want to repeat a reference. Hope this helps and makes sense. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:33, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

November editathons from Women in Red: Join us!
-Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:19, 21 October 2017 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Teahouse
Hello Nick Moyes,

I am quite active as a Teahouse host, and I just noticed your answer regarding videos. Very informative and clearly written. Thanks a lot, and please pitch in at the Teahouse any time. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  00:55, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that feedback and invitation. I did think I would start to help out at the Teahouse where I can as I've recently come to appreciate what a useful resource the Question Archive page is for randomly dipping into and learning interesting stuff I didn't know. I do have a couple of questions about its current operation, though:


 * Is there any way of telling how many 'hosts' or helpers are active at any one time, or, put another way, of seeing what the current latency is in responding to questions? I watched your video presentation about the Teahouse and you commented on quiet times. In UTC terms do you know when help is needed most to pitch in to cover those quieter periods?
 * A few times recently I've drafted a first response to a question, only to find another editor has posted their own reply first, and in an identical manner, so I threw my efforts away. Is there any method in operation whereby one editor can leave, effectively, an "I've got this!" flag, before then drafting and posting that first reply? It struck me that other helpers could, as it were, 'stand down' and just wait a bit to see if they actually need to add anything to the forthcoming reply.
 * I hope that makes sense. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 01:30, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, that makes sense but I do not have very good answers for you. Since we do not log into the Teahouse specifically, but rather to Wikipedia as a whole, I do not think that there is a way to identity which hosts are "active". I stay logged in for weeks at a time and come and go frequently and work on all sorts of things other than the Teahouse. But, I admit that data analysis is not my strong suit and perhaps a good coder could develop a system to have the information that you want. I have not heard any complaints about unusually slow responses at various times of the day.


 * As for other hosts "beating" us to answering, that has happened to me many times and I have gotten used to it. I suppose that a template saying something like "answer forthcoming" could be written. The situation you describe just motivates me to write concisely and promptly when I see a fresh question.


 * I suggest that you raise these issues at Talk: Teahouse to see what other hosts think. Thank you for watching my Teahouse video. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  06:40, 31 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi Nick Moyes, I just wanted to mention that your response on Teahouse (here) is one of the kindest and best-phrased answers to an angry and frustrated editor that I have seen. Nicely done, Leschnei (talk) 13:19, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Requesting to restore the page Syed Hasan Askari (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syed_Hasan_Askari)
Dear Nick Moyes: First of all, thank you so much for promptly fixing the editing issues in reference section on the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syed_Hasan_Askari earlier.

This page has been recently deleted due to potential copyright issue per the message received from primefac at wikimedia commons below. . In reality, I also created the FB page of https://www.facebook.com/professorsyedhasanaskari therefore it should not be in violation of copyright. I have reached out to primefac at wikimedia commons and teahouse in this regard and waiting for the response but havent seen a response yet.

I was wondering if you would be able to restore the page Syed Hasan Askari (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syed_Hasan_Askari) at your earliest possible convenience. Please advise. Thanks in advance!

Reference: Wikimedia Commons  Primefac‬ left a message on your talk page in "‪File:1. Prof Askari 05 09 2016.jpg‬". ‬ File:1. Prof Askari 05 09 2016.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons This page has been deleted. The deletion, protection, and move log for the page are provided below for reference. •	16:22, 2 November 2017 Primefac (talk | contribs) deleted page Syed Hasan Askari (G11, G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of https://www.facebook.com/professorsyedhasanaskari/posts/1744203005801902:2 (TW)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Syedahmerraza (talk • contribs)


 * Hello, . I'm afraid I am not an Administrator, so I have no powers to restore a deleted page. But even if I were one, this would not be an appropriate thing to do without very good reason. However, there are two possible ways forward. I assume you understand why the page was speedily deleted? (because we cannot allow text to be taken from other sites as it would be a breach of copyright). If you maintain the website or facebook page from which the text was taken (and assuming that you wrote it and that it was not copied from somewhere else) I would advise you to go and add a very clear and unequivocal statement which releases the text under a Creative Commons licence. This one would be ideal. I have done a similar thing on a blog that I manage (look at the very bottom of this page to see wording I have used). Having done that, you could then request the adminstrator to reviewtheir decision for deletion, because you can now show the text has been freely-released text. Provided there are no other reasons (such as notability, reliable sources etc), an administrator might be willing to reinstate the page for you to continue working on - maybe as a draft in your userspace.
 * Another way would be to start again in your sandbox by drafting a completely new article using very different wording, not close paraphrasing. I should say that I didn't read the article closely before it was deleted. My quick impression was that it was probably too long and might not actually have demonstrated 'notability' from reliable third party sources. Obviously I can't check that now, but it is also important to avoid so-called 'conflict of interest. So, if you are very close to the subject, or work for them or their organisation, it would be inadvisable to try to make an article about them. Your account does not appear to have been involved in creating or editing the deleted page (or much else), but I would suggest you might want to learn a little more about editing and creating new articles first. Have you read Your first article? This is a great place to start -and whatever you do, don't operate more than one account to edit Wikipedia as this can lead to all accounts being blocked. (I am not suggesting you are doing this, but some editors do get tempted by this idea, and it's not advisable). I hope this has made some sense? Nick Moyes (talk) 23:53, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Bryx editing
Hi Nick! Thanks for looking at my Bryx articles (and for sending me cookies). I tried to make the edits you suggested, but had a couple problems.

First, I couldn't figure out how to put the subcategory (list of least concern fishes) as a category at the end of the article. Do I have so somehow link it to the "IUCN Red List least concern species"?

Second, I had trouble putting the species synonym into the taxobox. Is there a specific place where the synonym should go? It doesn't seem to show up wherever I put it.

Thanks again! I'm very new to Wikipedia, so sorry if these questions are very simple.

Cheers,

Harrytudor (talk) 16:13, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, you're doing absolutely fine. Every new step here is part of a learning curve, and I can answer both questions eaily for you. Right now I'm on a mobile, which makes it harder to do. I'll ping you a message when I've left a follow-up reply here from my laptop. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 10:22, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Ways to improve Xylotrupes socrates
Hi Nick! The revision is very complicated since the revisions by Rowland (2003, 2011) include 28 valid species and ~60 valid taxa. Both revisions are available on the Web, but Rowland and Silvestre published further papers (with further species) not available. The complex of species has been updated with the correct distribution in BioLib (https://www.biolib.cz/en/taxontree/id98023/). I will fix the remaining problems in the next days. But, first of all, a lot of species are wrongly identified on Wikimedia.--Vitalfranz (talk) 09:57, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for getting back to me so quickly. I wonder if your very valid comments are at least worth adding to the Talk Page of Xylotrupes. Yes, I often do worry about IDs of images on Commons. We make such a fuss about reliable sources for text content, but there's no peer review of species names attached to photos at all. (We could do with the equivalent of Coll. & Det. fields, as this has long concerned me. Do feel free to add comments or concerns to any image on Commons - though this could well be a vast task in itself! Regards from the UK. Nick Moyes (talk) 10:16, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

 * Hi Nick Moyes! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission.  I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
 * The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
 * The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
 * The Teahouse new editor help space
 * Wikipedia Help pages

-- 20:14, Sunday, November 5, 2017 (UTC)

Ciconia lydekkeri
Dear Nick Moyes, thanks for reviewing the article. The source that mentions the possible synonymy of Ciconia lydekkeri and C. maltha is the 2009 paper by Federico Agnolin that I used as reference.

Best regards, Nascimentors (talk) 19:16, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for clarifying that. You'll see I've made a slight modification to the article in the light of your reply. Hope I've got the balance about right as there seemed to be some uncertainty whether maltha is a synonym or not. Feel free to re-edit as you think best. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:28, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Celtic swimming
FYI SPI   Rhadow (talk) 19:39, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Interesting. See this diff and this self-pub http://www.lulu(DOT)com/shop/lepota-l-cosmo/micro-topology-with-some-insightful-remarks-on-topophenomena/ebook/product-23298320.html. See also this diff followed by this diff for the same self-pub.
 * I think you should also add 109.93.109.25 to the SPI. I've just found this diff to a made-up wordpress blog, masquerading as a journal here and this self pub: (http://www.lulu(DOT)com/shop/lepota-l-cosmo/water-volleyball-rise-of-the-game-with-some-xxi-century-us-clubs-practices/ebook/product-23243308.html. Three references to a pseudo-journal blog in this diff and this diff. There may well be more, and I have no confidence that any of the content added is reliable. The website LULU is blacklisted, so I could only post the links by inserting (DOT) - you know what to do. I also see that another articles has been put forward for deletion. If proven - maybe a case to revert all edits. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:08, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I did something wrong in the SPI report. I don't know what. The clerk said it was an invasion of privacy. :^( Rhadow (talk) 23:39, 8 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello Rhadow and Nick: FYI the CheckUsers usually won't check IP addresses because they can be used to connect accounts to physical locations and possibly "out" the editors. See CheckUser and WP:HSOCK. I agree though that the Celtic Swimming page is very odd and probably should be deleted. Cheers, Kbseah (talk) 00:06, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I must confess that I am not yet familiar with the guidance for lodging an WP:SPI, or how the process operates in detail, though I notice a clear statement that "CheckUsers will not publicly connect an account with an IP address per the privacy policy except in extremely rare circumstances". So I think a CU was declined for that reason, but it does sound that a behavioural investigations might be conducted by a clerk into how the account has acted. That flag appears on other CU-declined pages, so I'm sure it relates to their behavior, not yours (fear not). One always has to be careful of not WP:OUTING another user, so I did think carefully about suggesting a link between the user name and the author - but I think the similarity of one to the other is unlikely to be coincidence, so the linkage was effectively self-declared, hence my COI. That many edits have been made for promo purposes was a conclusion I came to some weeks ago over other edits made. Others seemed just, well, fabricated, whilst a few did seem quite legit. Regards, (Oh, and thanks for your input here, too, Kbseah. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:16, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Dolphin pink
Hi. I've tagged the section on Dolphin pink as disputed, fwiw. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:04, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for doing that, - there's something very weird going on with this editor and their alleged socks. (See previous topic on my talk page as just one example.) And here's a diff showing how 'Dolphin pink' first arrived in this world. If one does the research on Boto dolphins, as I did in September, it's clear they are immensely variable in colour, so the choice of RGB had to have been a random RGB cursor selection off a randomly chosen photo. Irritating to say the least - I should have AfD-ed, not PRODed it. I've got it on my list to clean out and to RfD the Boto pink page. Just taking it one step at a time.  Nick Moyes (talk) 16:29, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Right. Well, he seems to have quieted down a little now. I'm sure we can clean up the issues via deletion. Not all of his edits and creations have been problematic: Byzantine blue seems to actually exist, per RS, fwiw. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:38, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * That's true, which makes it even odder, unless its to support and bolster his self-publication work. (I'd thought about going to my local decorating store and finding some paint colour charts and writing an article on every single one of the weirdly named colour-swatches. But why would one even bother) Nick Moyes (talk) 16:44, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Signature Edit test
test 4 Nick Moyes 13:55, 13 November 2017 (UTC) test 3 Nick Moyes 13:55, 13 November 2017 (UTC) test 5 Nick Moyes 13:55, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Back to normal? test 4 Nick Moyes (talk) 14:00, 13 November 2017 (UTC) test 3Nick Moyes (talk) 14:00, 13 November 2017 (UTC)  test 514:00, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Michael Proctor
Nick, I'm sorry to have been the unwitting messenger of distressing news to you. As it happens I was at Exeter too and have very happy memories of it, but I never came across this, evidently very distinguished and wonderful, man because I was a classicist. I just added the entry in the interests of completeness and his death seemed to have been missed so far, although it was some weeks ago now. Richard.Rcb1 (talk) 16:41, 13 November 2017 (UTC)rcb1Rcb1 (talk) 16:41, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Not at all - I am extremely grateful to you, though still somewhat upset. When were you at Exeter? I was there '76-'79. In fact I'm just writing to the BioScience Department at Exeter to express my condolences, and to ask if they might have any images they could release to me for Creative Commons/OTRS, not only of Michael Proctor, but also of our prof at the time, mycologist John Webster - both of whom I felt were sufficiently notable to merit pages here. Regards. Nick Moyes (talk) 17:03, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Nick, if you haven't seen it already, I'm sure you will want to see this obituary of Michael Proctor in The Guardian today. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/nov/15/michael-proctor-obituary. I was at Extere from 1983 to 1986, by the way. Best wishes, Richard. Rcb1 (talk) 10:33, 16 November 2017 (UTC)rcb1
 * Thanks you, . I've been away and hadn't seen that, but will use it to upgrade his entry in due course. Meanwhile I have heard back from the BioSciences Dept at Exeter University, and they're investigating who owns the copyright on at least one of the pictures they have of him on their website, and they may be able to trace more. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 10:11, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Talita Fontoura Alves
Can you find a link to the mentioned article? I'm having trouble finding it. – Vami _IV✠  21:48, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Uploading images
Nick, thank you for your reply but I cannot see the links you refer to? FRAS (talk) 14:39, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh dear, - that's very weird. I presume you mean you can't see the "Use this file" links? The file itself is at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bidirectional_AWS.jpg And the links to use this file should be millimetres above the upper edge of the image itself. All I can think is that you're not opening the full page, but have only a preview open. Is there a big blue button visible in lower right to "More Details", or something similar? If so, I suspect you have one of your User Preferences set in the 'Appearance' tab to have Media Viewer enabled by default. (The tick  box is at the very bottom of the Appearances page, and you  need to deselect it. The text you actually want is Bidirectional AWS.jpg Let me know what you are seeing, and how you get on with this. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:59, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Paul (Pavel) Vasilyevich Krotkov
Hi Nick. My name is Bill Moses BTW. I am not sure if you would know that. There are many variations in names relating to Moses, Moss, Moyses, Moise and so on. Yours is pretty close (smile). Gleb Krotkov does have a Wiki page, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gleb_Krotkov. I really would appreciate your guidance. It will take me a while to find my way around things Wikipedia. (I am the kind of guy who tries to assemble something without reading the instructions.) Part of the problem is I am starting out with what appears to be a complicated subject. I have made contact with a person from www.russiangrave.ru. I have provided her with Paul's date of death, where he is buried and information about Gleb (who is not in their index). She said that she could help getting info about Paul. I will let you know what she has to say. I will move the draft to my sandbox and you can feel free to edit it. There is a lot of info about Christina in the reference you sent.. She did visit Paul in the period 33-36 and played a piano or something I believe for a local woman's institute. I would have to look back through my notes.

TTYL→

Bill — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mosesos (talk • contribs) 22:57, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Bill. It's a pleasure to meet you here. Yes, I see many forms of our surname. I was told mine originated from East Anglia where there is a Moyes' Hall at Bury St Edmunds. Regarding Krotkov, I've made a few suggestions in your draft for the sort of layout/structure you should aim for. Unfortunately, if you do like just to get stuck in, and not "read the manual", you might well find Wikipedia editing won't suit you. We have policies and guidelines for every day of the week! Creating even a simple article from scratch is not something any of us would ever recommend to a complete newcomer. Try reading WP:YourFirstArticle to set you off on the right track. One key thing to say is do please avoid writing an article based on original research you've done. (See WP:OR). Treat an encyclopaedia article here more as a distillation of what's already out there, supported by references. Drop me another line if or when °you want me to take a look at anything. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 12:26, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

My Moses people are from the Isle of Wight. I have been to Bury St Edmunds and saw the Moses Hall building, a gift shop or a small museum as I remember. I asked inside about the origin of the name and they said they didn't know. The building went back to the 1200's I believe. I am now told that Paul Krotkov was not a Professor in Russia. Rather he was an activist of some kind, from age 20, he spent 17 years in and out of Moscow University. I have to conclude that he is not notable enough to deserve a page on Wikipedia. You are correct in stating that if I want to publish on Wikipedia I will have to become much more disciplined. I should perhaps pick a simpler subject as well, at least to start with. I have decided instead to write a non-technical article on the history of botanizing on the Bruce Peninsula while I bone up on Wikipedia requirements. We will find out if you can teach an old dog new tricks. TTYL Bill  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mosesos (talk • contribs) 15:47, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

November 2017
Hello, I'm Saqib. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Kulsoom Nawaz Sharif have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Saqib (talk) 12:14, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I think you meant to leave that level 1 warning for, not me. I changed one letter, and this is my edit summary: (Randomly fixing recent typos with Lupins spellchecking tool: febuary->February) (I do accept I hadn't spotted the day number was invalid - which I probably should have - but that wasn't down to my typo-fixing edit with WP:Lupin). Sorry if I sound defensive -it's normally me that leaves the warnings, and this is the first such one I've ever received in 7 years and 25,000+ edits. Keep up the good work. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 12:41, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Seabirds of Goa
Hi Nick,

I am a new user in terms of contributing to Wiki. I am still getting a hang of things. For my page on Seabirds of Goa: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_seabirds_of_Goa I used information from List of Birds of India: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_birds_of_India I have been told by another Wiki reviewer to give attribution, however I am unsure how to do it. It might take a wile for me to get a hang of wiki system, so if you could please help me.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Titan2ae (talk • contribs) 12:36, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello. Don't worry - we all have to start somewhere. I didn't at first spot that this goes back to July 2017 when both I and another editor left comments on your Talk page about the new article you created. It looks like has already added information in the edit log on the View History page, which is where you can explain where you're copied something over from another Wikipedia page or pages. So, really, I think that's sorted. However, I think there's a bigger issue you must clarify.


 * The source you use (Baidya, et al.) clearly states the list of 25 species is a checklist of all species seen around Goa, including rare wind-blown visitors such as Sterna repressa. It looks just to be open ocean species. My suggestion is that you unequivocally state that this is a checklist, correct to 2017, based on that publication, and using their definitions. That would give your list greater veracity. In my professional opinion (as someone who has pubclished defintive species lists) the need to clarify what is included and what is excluded is critical to the use of any list. Your list is clearly only open species. You shouldn't fall into the trap - as you have done- of attempting a new definition of what a seabird is. Just explain how that term is used here to compile this list, so users can understand why it's not including coastal and inland seabirds and not start adding entries of their own. You might even like to consider whether you've given it the most effective title. How about List of seabirds of the open ocean around Goa? I would suggest you start the article more clearly, too. Then add the information about history of research afterwards. Here's an idea to get you started. You will need to go back to Baidya and clarify details yourself:

"This List of seabirds of the open ocean around Goa is a checklist of all seabird species seen over the open ocean off the coast of the Indian island of Goa up to 2017. It is based on a definitive list of 25 species, published in 2017 (ref). It includes ..INSERT DETAILS...... ; it excludes those seabird species which are found both on the coast and inland"


 * What I normally see on "Lists of species of..." pages is wholly incomplete data, totally unsortable by the user, not based on any reliable source and with no scientific name - usually just one local version of a common name, meaning many people won't even recognise them by that name. These List pages really look like vanity pages by the creator, with a few pictures and useless for anything else unless they're proven to be fully complete, and based on definitive works. Luckily yours does appear to be complete. Pleasingly, your page is so short that you are unlikely to fall into that trap, and I'm delighted you included scientific names. What few editors ever seem willing to do here (you included) is create a single data table that allows sorting by scientific name, common name, or family/group name. That really would make a useful online tool for readers. To do that, you'd need to get rid of the bullet points and trivial waffle about families - that can be found elsewhere and create a sortable table. Not the easiest task, but it could be worth it! Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 14:40, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Pings
Hi. Just to let you know, in case you didn't already, that this won't have notified the editor you tried to ping. Pings are only triggered when a username is linked to in the same edit that you sign. See Notifications. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:06, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks - I didn't think it would ping them with a follow-up edit. It was more a case of remembering my manners, though I should have thought it through. I'll drop the user a personal note. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:35, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Nor. --David Biddulph (talk) 00:43, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Grrr! Thanks David. I recognise I still have a lot to learn here, and must sit down and wade through Notifications in detail. Talk page messaging is one of the most frustrating of processes on Wikipedia for me, I think. I have just found WP:PINGFIX, so will try and gain another skill and correct my edit. I really appreciate your feedback. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 01:29, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Nick Moyes thank you for helping me
Nick thank you for helping me to edit the New York Blood Center page. I am new and bumbling but have uploaded some of my photos to the commons - The Rosendale Trestle in snow. I posted the offered citations to the Teahouse because i don't want to damage the wiki. Best wishes from New York!

Apocalypticwarlord (talk) 23:36, 3 April 2020 (UTC) 

Tech News: 2020-16
<section begin="technews-2020-W16"/> Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes
 * You can now use the  search word on all Wikipedias. It searches articles by topic.
 * You can see wiki tools in the new Tools Gallery.
 * You can see edits from the Wikimedia Cloud Services in a new dashboard.
 * When you use filters on a history page you sometimes don't see any edits. There is a text explaining this now. Before it was just empty.
 * There is a new Wikimedia Technical Blog.

Problems
 * There was a problem with the Wikidata database last week. Some wikis went down for twenty minutes. Wikidata and other projects showed error messages. Interwiki links were not shown, some tools did not work and other problems. Some of this was fixed quickly. The developers are working on fixing the rest.

Changes later this week
 * Octicons-sync.svg The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from April 14. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from April 15. It will be on all wikis from April 16 (calendar).

Future changes
 * Some graphs have not worked on mobile. This will soon be fixed.
 * The article tab on talk pages of redirects links to the target of the redirect. It could link to the redirect page itself instead. You can leave feedback on this.
 * For pages using syntax highlighting, the use of the deprecated  tag, as well as the use of the deprecated   parameter, will add tracking categories.

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe. <section end="technews-2020-W16"/> 15:30, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Editing news 2020 #1 – Discussion tools
Read this in another language • Subscription list



The Editing team has been working on the talk pages project. The goal of the talk pages project is to help contributors communicate on wiki more easily. This project is the result of the Talk pages consultation 2019.



The team is building a new tool for replying to comments now. This early version can sign and indent comments automatically. Please test the new Reply tool.


 * On 31 March 2020, the new tool was offered as a Beta Feature editors at four Wikipedias:  Arabic, Dutch, French, and Hungarian.  If your community also wants early access to the new tool, contact User:Whatamidoing (WMF).
 * The team is planning some upcoming changes. Please review the proposed design and share your thoughts on the talk page.  The team will test features such as:
 * an easy way to mention another editor ("pinging"),
 * a rich-text visual editing option, and
 * other features identified through user testing or recommended by editors.

To hear more about Editing Team updates, please add your name to the "Get involved"  section of the project page. You can also watch these pages: the main project page, Updates, Replying, and User testing.

– PPelberg (WMF) (talk) & Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 15:45, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Quora
Hello Nick, I hope you are doing well. Your responses on Wikipedia have been very insightful. Because of this, I feel you would be an ideal contributor to Quora. I understand Quora is not Wikipedia, it's a Q&A site about a wide range of topics, but the community is just as good there as it is on Wikipedia. There are some Quora questions that are related to Wikipedia that you might be interested in answering. Here is an example. Some contributors to Wikipedia including Jimmy Wales contribute there as well. Also, and I are writing messages regarding the pandemic we are facing for the next issue of TheWikiWizard. Stay tuned. :-) Interstellarity (talk) 14:00, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Interstellarity, Next TWW will come out in 1-2 days, just taking care of some things! -- Thegooduser  Life Begins With a Smile :)  🍁 19:30, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey,, thank you for your kind words. I'm afraid Quora and other sites like that aren't really for me, and I'm already struggling to find all the time I need to contribute to Wikipedia right now. I do tend to see Google results that link to user-contributed opinion sites like that, but I rarely look at them unless its for really stuff like 'how to fix up a shelf' where I can decide which of multiple opinions are worth considering. But I appreciate you thinking of me. Glad you and are collaborating on TWW. Looking forward to seeing the next issue. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:05, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It's OK if you don't. I can imply that Quora is written by volunteers who can take as little or as much time needed to ask and answer questions just like Wikipedia. I know real life can get in the way sometimes, but we have to live with it. Interstellarity (talk) 22:29, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

TheWikiWizard - April 2020
Hello, Nick Moyes! Here is the April 2020 issue of TheWikiWizard. We hope you like this month's issue! If you'd like to discuss this issue, please go to this issue's talk page. Happy Reading & stay safe! -- Thegooduser  Life Begins With a Smile :)  🍁 02:05, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Coronavirus Pandemic Message A special message for everyone during this time
 * What's Hot! (Wikipedia Time?)
 * Articles (none this month)
 * The Wikipedian (we have a user!)
 * News about Wikipedia! (Wikipedia News and Events!)
 * Editor's Notes (News!)
 * Activity Page (Fun Activities, and super cool stuff...)
 * Ads (Super Cool Ads)


 * - thank you!! Nick Moyes (talk) 16:39, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Tech News: 2020-17
<section begin="technews-2020-W17"/> Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Tech News
 * The next issue of Tech News will be sent out on 4 May 2020.

Recent changes
 * Octicons-tools.svg The small wiki toolkits is to help smaller wikis that need technical skills. They can learn and share technical skills.
 * Octicons-tools.svg Over-qualified CSS selectors in Wikimedia skins have been removed.  is now  .   is now  .   is now  . This is so the skins can use HTML5 elements. If your gadgets or user styles used them you will have to update them.

Changes later this week
 * There is no new MediaWiki version this week.

Future changes
 * Some things on the wikis might look weird or not work in Internet Explorer 8 in the future. Internet Explorer 8 was replaced in 2011.
 * The font in the diffs will change.
 * Octicons-sync.svg The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 28 April next week. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 29 April next week. It will be on all wikis from 30 April next week (calendar).

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe. <section end="technews-2020-W17"/> 18:45, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Redsox baseball
Hi Nick hope everything is going well I’m reaching out to see if you would be interested in writing a simple biography of a newly drafted Redsox player on Wikipedia? Boston4you (talk) 20:10, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I have left a warning on your talk page not to approach any more editors in this manner. It is not an acceptable way of doing things. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:49, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Question from Nordbjerg (12:37, 26 July 2023)
Hi Nick,

I'm trying to update the performance section of the Ethereum page - it starts off kind of weird ("the problem arises" with no context) and is factually incorrect.

I wanted to add more context on the current state of Ethereum - the roadmap has moved away from the sharding concept mentioned in that section to something dubbed a "rollup-centric" roadmap. I cannot really figure out when exactly that happened, so I am basically unsure how to source it:

On Ethereum.org (https://ethereum.org/en/roadmap/#what-about-sharding), this is mentioned:

"Sharding is splitting up the Ethereum blockchain so that subsets of validators are only responsible for a fraction of the total data. [..] layer 2 rollups have developed much faster than expected and have provided a lot of scaling already, [..] This means "shard chains" are no longer needed and have been dropped from the roadmap."

Can I cite this as a source? How would I put it in a sentence? Most of the sentences are like "As of [year]", "In [year]", but there is no specific year. The best I could find is https://ethereum-magicians.org/t/a-rollup-centric-ethereum-roadmap/4698

Generally - are there good guides on here on how to cite different types of sources, e.g. undated ones?

Thanks Nick --Nordbjerg (talk) 12:37, 26 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Hello, @Nordbjerg. Gosh, I feel out of my depth in trying to understand what your question is about. Firstly, I'd say you should never use or cite discussion fora. They cannot be treated as Reliable Sources because they are user-generated (just like Wikipedia is, and we never cite ourselves here, either)
 * If it were important to find when a website first made some statement, you could go through the archived version on The Wayback Machine to find the earliest mention and cite that link. If you're uncertain whether a particular statement is a widely held view, or just one perspective from a wideer range of good sources, there might be a way of stating that one particluar website stated "XYX". The citation would include an access date to at least pin it down in time a little bit. e.g. According to Ethereum's own website, sharding is defined as meaning "xyz" [ref to Ethereum website].
 * Now this is too technical for me to comment on in detail, or to offer a form of words you could deploy, but it's often best not to charge in and change an article in a major way of you're not sure you've interpreted something correctly. Instead, it's often best to raise the issue on the article's talk page. Explain what your concerns are, what sources you're relying on and what you would like to change it to. Leave the thread open for a week and watch for any comments. We work by consensus (rather than assertiveness), so wait and see what comments you get back. If, however, either no response after 7 days, you could WP:BEBOLD and simply change it with a clear edit summary and await what happens next. If it's reverted, you could discuss with the reverting editor their reasons and your hopes on making improvements to the page.
 * I'm not really sure I've fully answered your questions, but let me know if it's helped or not. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 14:39, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Teahouse message
Hi Nick, I'm presuming that you didn't mean to post a Teahouse welcome on Illusion Flame's user page, as opposed to their talk? I have reverted the edit. Thanks, <span style="font-family: Opensans, sans-serif;">Schminnte (talk • contribs) 21:12, 2 August 2023 (UTC)


 * @Schminnte Thanks. Dealt with. (It's been a long and tiring day of cleanup and very repetitive editing!) Nick Moyes (talk) 21:14, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Understandable. Thanks for all your help with newer editors (including me not that long ago it seems! I knew I recognised that username). All the best, <span style="font-family: Opensans, sans-serif;">Schminnte (talk • contribs) 21:16, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Question from Soccerpuppets on Vanessa Peters (04:56, 3 August 2023)
Hey I was copyediting this article about Vanessa Peters, the musician, and the original author put two spaces after every period. I know some people prefer this, but should I copy this style as well? Thanks --Soccerpuppets (talk) 04:56, 3 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi there Soccerpuppets. Great question! Double-spacing is a gradually diminishing habit, especially amongst North American editors. See MOS:DOUBLESPACE which explains that if anyone does type double spaces into an article, they render on the page as single spaced. Therefore, that tells me that single spacing is the correct approach to use.
 * BTW: I noticed in a recent edit you changed 'both sides of the Atlantic' to 'globally'. Whilst I take your point, I would suggest that "in North America and Europe" would have been much more appropriate in that situation, as it's probably not referring to including China, Russia, Asia, Africa and South America etc. But it all depends what the cited source says.
 * Another PS: your username might draw attention to yourself as it tends to suggest a cynical use of a new WP:SOCKPUPPET account to avoid a block. You might like to address that issue by saying something on your userpage about your rationale and motives for wanting to contribute to Wikipedia, and why you chose that name. Best wishes, Nick Moyes (talk) 10:47, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok thanks for the answer for single-spacing and "globally" word choice. This is very helpful in my journey to learn how to edit wikipedia pages effectively. Also, I understand your point about my username. I watched a video about long-term abuse yesterday which inspired to start helping out on wikipedia, and I felt choosing a satirical username would remind me of why I started. I did not know about the user bio, I will update that as soon as possible. Thanks again. Soccerpuppets (talk) 17:24, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Question from Parthenon646546 (07:13, 3 August 2023)
Hi please teach me how to begin editing because i am not able to find arti le with any grammatical mistake --Parthenon646546 (talk) 07:13, 3 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi there @Parthenon646546. Thanks for your question and welcome to Wikipedia. I will leave an automatic welcome message on your talk page which includes a very helpful link to help you learn how to edit. (We have two different editing tools you can switch between, if you find one is not to your taste)
 * If you have good English language skills, and want to improve the readability of articles here, you might wish to follow the guidance at WP:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors which focuses on improving the wording of articles.
 * In desktop view, you will see you have a Tab next to your user page and talk page, called 'Homepage'. That offers you tailored suggestions for editing to help get you started. These are always small edits which are perfect for learning. I see you're on a mobile, so look for the very small link at the bottom of every page. It lets you switch your phone from mobile editing mode to 'desktop' editing mode. (It's something I always do on my tiny iPhone screen. Mobile view is great for reading articles, but not so useful for making edits to improve a page.)
 * You might also like to visit WP:Task Center for ideas of the type of editing you might like to do. Let me know if this helps and how you are getting along. Learning to edit Wikipedia is a bit like learning to drive a car. Start slowly and move off gently until you've mastered the basic controls before you drive at high speed. Obviously, knowing where to go is important at whatever speed, so I hope my reply has been of some help to you. Good luck! Nick Moyes (talk) 11:03, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Please remove edits to Michael P. Grace II
The removing of so-called coatracks has made the article unorganized...Work as a theater producer is now under Music Work. Please remove the edits if possible. Starlighsky (talk) 21:53, 3 August 2023 (UTC)


 * @Starlighsky The WP:COATRACK content was veering off-topic. I only removed one sentence and a supporting citation to Wikipedia, which is not acceptable. The rest of my edits were simply logical headings and sub-headings, and very wording minor tweaks. TBH: I doubt this person is notable by our standards, but keep working on it and digging out better sources of info on him. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:09, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I understand what you saying. However, it put theater work under the heading of music work. I can fix it as entertainment industry work, but it damaged the article when the so-called coatracks were removed.
 * All in all, I understand what you are saying and will keep working on it. Starlighsky (talk) 22:16, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I just saw you fixed the issue, thanks Starlighsky (talk) 22:17, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Starlighsky OK, thanks. I was trying to be helpful and supportive for you! Nick Moyes (talk) 22:18, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Starlighsky (talk) 23:35, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Question from A C006 (15:29, 5 August 2023)
hello how can i create an article --A C006 (talk) 15:29, 5 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi there, what would be the subject of your article, and what published sources do you have to base it on, please? I can probably help you better if you give me some idea what it's about. But, fair warning, trying to create a brand new article from scratch is extremely difficult if you've never spent any time getting to understand the basics of Wikipedia editing. Making small edits on existing articles and learning to add citations to support new content is a very good way to learn.
 * I'll leave a welcome message on your talk page with links to learning to edit. Best wishes, Nick Moyes (talk) 20:34, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Question from TerDevor (01:31, 6 August 2023)
Hello Nick! I would like to create/edit Wiki pages for Companies. I feel that a lot of information related to companies is a little dated. Is that ok to do?

Terrance --TerDevor (talk) 01:31, 6 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi there, TerDevor. Creating articles about companies is a task fraught with many difficulties. First off: Wikipedia is not here to serve as free promotion for them. If you either work for, or are being paid to write about businesses, you have a Conflict of Interest. Paid editors are obliged by our policies to declare who is paying them, or they get blocked. See WP:PAID for advice on this.
 * We reject all articles which fail to meet our Notability Criteria for Businesses. This is the bar you have to get over in your sourcing thaqt demonstrates the notability of a company. You cannot rely on demonstrating notability by citing the business website itself, or press releases, or insider business magazines. The business must have been covered by at least three mainstream media reports, in detail and in depth, and not just by insider business newsletter or paid-for articles, or interviews with CEOs etc.
 * My advice would be to stick to other topics, and to learn the basics of editing first. i.e. work on improving existing articles and learning how to add citations to support unsubstantiated factual information presented in those articles. See WP:TUTORIAL and WP:YFA for further guidance. Good luck! Nick Moyes (talk) 10:03, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Help - TruxtVerified
I am a new host at Teahouse, I installed Scripts you provided. But when I click invite, that message come to me only. Help me to fix this issue. TruxtVerified (talk) 08:02, 9 August 2023 (UTC)


 * @TruxtVerified It works for me. I've just gone to your talk page and successfully used the 'Invite' button to leave you a TH invite (You can obviously remove it now). I assume you didn't try to use it whilst you were on your own talk page? As I'm not a whizz with scripts, once you've investigated by removing and reinstalling it, and still find there's a problem, I suggest you post your query at WT:TH as there are some (like Sdkb) who are pretty good with scripts.
 * But feel free to test it by leaving me invites - I'll know what's going on and remove them later.
 * Please note: I'd not realised the teahouse badges were still in the 'active' section of that page, so I've just moved it down to the inactive section as these were used a lot in the very early days, but are no longer needed.
 * Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 10:14, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It works, Thank you for you attention. A good friendship starts here❤️TruxtVerified (talk) 11:21, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Regarding Extended confirmed user
Hello Nick Moyes, i am a new user on Wikipedia and I am editing Wikipedia for past approx 20-30 days and I have more than 300 edits, i want to know that when will I become a Extended confirmed user on wiki and what are the benifits of this. and I also want to design my user page like many other Wikipedians but I don't know how to do that ? WikiAnchor10 (talk) 14:03, 10 August 2023 (UTC)


 * @WikiAnchor10 Please read WP:XCON to appreciate the significance of Extended Confirmed rights. You will need an account that has been active for at least 30 days (today or tomorrow, probably) and have made 500 edits. So you've a little way to go on the second bit.
 * If you find a userpage you like, you could look at the source code they've used to create it and copy and modify it to suit your interests. (Don't just paste in another person's userpage - that might rouse curiosity,. but modify it to suit (and perhaps also credit the source in an edit summary))
 * Alternatively, take a look at User page design guide for various ideas you could try out. I hope this addresses your queries. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 18:22, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks WikiAnchor10 (talk) 18:57, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Please review User:Artecollectic/sandbox for copyvio again
The source text appears in full on Fridays(!)otherwise the para you removed would have been sufficient. This is a 100% copyvio I'm afraid! There is history on the creating editor's talk page. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:17, 11 August 2023 (UTC)


 * It has since been deleted. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:36, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for updating me. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:21, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Question from Apex101 (20:05, 17 August 2023)
hello --Apex101 (talk) 20:05, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Question from Nabi Bux Zardari (08:25, 19 August 2023)
I am Unable To Create knowledge panel please Help me.. --Nabi Bux Zardari (talk) 08:25, 19 August 2023 (UTC)


 * @Nabi Bux Zardari The true “knowledge panel” is found on Google Search results, and often incorporates Wikipedia information. We have no control over how Google uses our data. Here, we use Template:Infobox to create a INFOBOX in an article.
 * Please check those out for guidance. As I am away from home right now until Monday, please seek further help at the WP:TEAHOUSE. Nick Moyes (talk) 08:55, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Question from Bill Wilson AKA "CIA" (06:11, 22 August 2023)
Hi Nick,

How can I tell when creating an article, whether I have included sufficient secondary references to qualify my subject as having received significant coverage?

I have recently had an article declined for this exact reason, and although since then I have added more secondary references, I cannot tell whether it meets the threshold. Since I don't want to go through the whole rigmarole of being rejected and having to resubmit, I would greatly appreciate it if you could give me some assistance before the article is reviewed.

For reference, here is my draft article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Kate_Andrews --Bill Wilson AKA &#34;CIA&#34; (talk) 06:11, 22 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi Bill Wilson AKA "CIA". I can't do much to help you with only those sources, I'm afraid. They're all just brief mentions of her, and none show an in-depth, independent article about her. As such, she fails to meet WP:NBIO. Your only course of action is to do further research, or wait until such sources are published. That is often the issue with news outlets and journalists - they're the ones who might make news stories available that you can use, but they rarely get written about in detail themselves. Sorry I can't assist you, though I have done some minor copy-editing of the draft and have marked where factual statements about a living person need to be supported with a citation. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 09:35, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response Nick,
 * If a could ask you a further question, my draft of the Kate Andrews article was modelled after this one on Katy Balls, yet I am not sure which sources in the Katy Balls article would qualify her as a notable person if my Kate Andrews one doesn't qualify. Is it just a case of an article being wrongly accepted? Bill Wilson AKA &#34;CIA&#34; (talk) 10:46, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Bill Wilson AKA "CIA" It could well be. I'm not going through each of the refs in that article, but they all seem fairly short. See WP:NJOURNALIST for our notability criteria about creative professionals. Don't give up though, and keep working on it and looking for other sources. A year or so ago I created a page about journalist, Olga Rudenko from the Kyiv Independent, but by then then she had featured on the front cover of Time Magazine! Nick Moyes (talk) 13:36, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Cheers! Thanks for your assistance, Nick Bill Wilson AKA &#34;CIA&#34; (talk) 14:24, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Question from Alexandrachudinova (21:30, 25 August 2023)
How to publish a biography on Wikipedia? --Alexandrachudinova (talk) 21:30, 25 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Hello, Alexandrachudinova. Thank you for your question, and welcome to Wikipedia. I can see that you attempted to use Wikipedia to publish an article about yourself, and that it was (quite reasonably) deleted. (I happen to be an administrator here, so can view your deleted page)
 * Simple question: Are you notable (as defined by Wikipedia)? See this page for our notability criteria for living people, or WP:NARTIST for creative individuals.
 * If you can find three or more independent sources that talk about you in detail and in depth, then you may well meet our notability criteria for having an article about you. If not, just forget it. This encyclopaedia is not here for WP:PROMOTION. You would obviously have a Conflict of Interest in trying to write about yourself, and it's not always a good idea, anyway (see WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY).
 * Finally, I always advise any new editor to spend time learning how to make small edits to existing Wikipedia pages before ever trying to create a new article. It's like a brand new learner driver setting off at 100 km/hour and trying to avoid crashing. It's very difficult! Kind regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:03, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Dear Nick Moyes,
 * My pleasure for your full answer.
 * I have a question. The process of submitting the articles can be much easier than right now.
 * Do you have an opportunity to submit a suggestion for Wikipedia?
 * Have a nice day.
 * Respectfully,
 * Alexandra Chudinova Alexandrachudinova (talk) 13:49, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Alexandrachudinova I am afraid I do not quite understand your question.
 * If you want to make suggestions for the way Wikipedia operates, these can be raised and discussed at 'the Village Pump'. There are different places for those discussions, depending on what your idea is. So read that page carefully.
 * If, however, you just want to submit a new article, the best route for you would be to start work on a 'Draft' article, then submit it for review and feedback when you are ready. Go to this page to find a 'wizard' to help you get started. But I should warn you that creating a new article from nothing is one of the hardest tasks here. It is often best to spend time first making smaller improvements to existing pages, and getting to understand how things work.
 * The most important thing for any new article is that it must meet our Notability Criteria, and be based upon Reliable Sources. If you can't find sources to show that a topic is notable, then we cannot have a page about it here.
 * I hope one of these replies addresses your question. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 15:07, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Question from Jessica36363 on Advertising revenue (06:32, 29 August 2023)
How can I post an advertisement --Jessica36363 (talk) 06:32, 29 August 2023 (UTC)


 * @Jessica36363 You can't - we do not permit advertising here. See WP:NOTADVERT. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:26, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Source requirements for new topics (eg: Artificial Intelligence)
I just tried to edit this page Facial recognition system, by adding a much needed section on AI based facial recognition. Since AI is kind of a new an evolving topic, many researchers opt to self publish their work on arXiv, create their own project pages, or share their works on self published blog posts. I understand that these may not qualify as reliable sources according to Reliable sources, and I do understand that there sometimes is a fine line between self-promotion and supporting a contribution. Can you help me improve my contribution (the AI section for face recognition) ? Thanks! Nuwiz (talk) 14:46, 31 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi @Nuwiz, thanks for reaching out. Whilst I'm afraid I don't have the time to help improve your contributions, I can confirm that blogs and promotional links to company websites are never accepted here. I realise that AI/facial recognition is a cutting-edge, rapidly developing field. But we cannot accept such primary sources from a company website (it comes over as WP:PROMOTION). Instead, we need secondary sources which have reported independently on those developments. Wikipedia only collates and presents what others have reliably reported already. If that means waiting, then so be it.
 * On another note, I'm afraid I need to advise you that your account name breaches our policy (WP:USERNAMES) on two points. It appears to represent or promote a company website, and it could therefore also have multiple users accessing it. Please permanently abandon that account, forget its password, and create a new one which is neither promotional, nor suggestive of multiple users accessing it. It faces being blocked for those two reasons alone, I'm afraid.
 * Best wishes, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:12, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Kebede Michael
Hi Nick, You said to drop you a note – unfortunately, this indeed appears to be a slow motion edit war. The two Rwandan IPs (41.186.194.39, 197.243.109.58) are likely the same person on different devices/connections, given previous overlap also at Menelik II and the tendency to paste the same prepared arguments in their edit summary. They might be trying to make some valid points, but the message keeps getting truncated, and attempts to direct them to the talk page failed. Cheers, 2406:3003:2077:1E60:EDE9:C688:2C0C:D5F5 (talk) 05:52, 1 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I've blocked two IP addresses for slow burn edit warring and given low-level page protection to the article for 6 months. That'll impact on you as you're not editing from a registered account, even though I can see you've been active on this IP range since March 2021. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 10:26, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Question from Mrs.Stina (19:40, 8 September 2023)
Hello. I am wanting to add a Rosenwald school to the " List of Rosenwald Schools". The school is listed in the article, but it is not listed on the table showing the schools. I want to add this beautiful restored school to that list. --Mrs.Stina (talk) 19:40, 8 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Welcome to Wikipedia, Mrs.Stina, and thanks for your question.
 * The page entitled List of Rosenwald schools was not protected, so you are able to edit it yourself. (You did not need to make this request)
 * Alternatively, you could leave a clear explanation of what you want doing on the article's Talk page (it's called an EDITREQUEST).
 * If you have a photograph that you have personally taken (i.e. you own the copyright of it - rather than simply taking it off the internet - then you can upload it to Wikimedia Commons, and from there embed it into the List article.
 * I have left you a standard 'welcome' message on you talk page with links to help pages which will help teach you the basics of how to edit Wikipedia. I will keep a watch on List of Rosenwald schools, so if you get in a muddle trying to do it yourself, I might spot the edit and fix it for you if I can. If you make a real mess of an edit, you can go to the 'Page History' Tab and find your edit at the top of the list of every single edit to that page. Look along that top row and you'll see an 'Undo' link to revert any change that you did not intend to make.
 * I hope this helps. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 20:00, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Question from The Soup Person (21:49, 8 September 2023)
Hello, I am hoping to edit the "Soup" article, as the information in that article only mentions soups in North America, and there is also a missing page I would like to create, "Íslensk kjötsúpa", and I see that to edit the "Soup" article I have to have 4 edits at least. There is no question here, I just wanted to inform you of my intention on Wikipedia. Good day, and goodbye. --The Soup Person (talk) 21:49, 8 September 2023 (UTC)


 * @The Soup Person OK, thanks for letting me know. Please ensure you use at least three reliable, non-promotional citations to support any new article. As creating a page from scratch is one of the hardest tasks here, I advise you to get a little editing practice on existing articles beforehand. You can create a draft article (and work on it until you're ready for it to be reviewed) with our wizard tool at this page. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:41, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Question from Liverbrads1 (05:51, 9 September 2023)
What questions will you answer? --Liverbrads1 (talk) 05:51, 9 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi, Liverbrads1. I'll try to answer any problem you have that relates to editing or using Wikipedia, or if you need guidance about interacting with other users. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 14:16, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Autopatrolled?
Hi Nick. I noticed that you had given and  the autopatrolled right. Since they seem to be brand-new editors who wouldn't meet the requirements for autopatrolled, I'm guessing you meant to give them confirmed instead? Just figured I'd check. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:05, 15 September 2023 (UTC)


 * @Extraordinary Writ Thanks for flagging this. They were at a training session I was helping with a few months ago, and I'm trying to remember why I need to change their rights. I think it may have been to do with access to translation software. But I'm sure you're right to flag this up as an administrative error on my part. I will look into it and fix it (though I can't do it right this minute). Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 20:59, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Nick Moyes (talk) 10:43, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Question from KuzynPedia (14:38, 19 September 2023)
Are you a bot or no? --KuzynPedia (talk) 14:38, 19 September 2023 (UTC)


 * @KuzynPedia No, I'm a real human being. You can read about my interests and my involvement with Wikipedia over 13 years on my userpage. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 16:06, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

BLP issue
This looks like a pretty serious BLP infringement (uncited claim of major criminal activity by someone identified by full-name, and possibly even a public person), not mere vandalism. Could you explain your thinking why it does not merit a rev-del? DMacks (talk) 23:19, 19 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Good question; thanks for asking. I've no objection to it being revdelled, but my feeling was that it was a random sentence added to a random article with no connection to that name and with that name not being findable online (I did take time out to search for it, and found nothing, apart from a similarly named American individual). Hence why I said "I don't think REVDEL is quite warranted" (my subsequent italics) as it seemed like a vandalism-related edit unrelated to the article, and thus already removed from view. But I was borderline, and might have felt differently on a less busy day, so please revdel it if yo disagree with my comment. I guess "better safe than sorry" is not a bad approach. I'll leave it to you to decide. But if you do, should you not then really also seek WP:OVERSIGHT in this instance? Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 08:34, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * If I may jump in as the person who originally suggested revdel (though I'm not an admin), thanks to both of you for bringing this up and laying out your reasoning. I didn't want to dive into the question at the teahouse because of streisand effect concerns, but it looked to me like potentially defamatory material, and the reason revdel came to mind is that the user looked like they were trying to not just get it deleted from the page, but (perhaps quite reasonably) to get it struck from the page history. I was also considering suggesting oversight. If somebody else doesn't move forward with that I'm happy to request oversight if you think it might be warranted. - Astrophobe  (talk) 16:00, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Question from Kenneth Hatley (01:40, 23 September 2023)
Thank you very much. I need. Help in writing in Wikipedia. I have had a career in the Music Industry and film soundtracks. I have a lot of significant artists I have worked with, Produced, and Managed, as well as partners in projects, such as film soundtracks, concerts, studio musicians, and songwriters that my songs were with Richie Havens, Country Star Razzy Bailey, Johnny and June Cash, Willie Nelson I have worked on projects with these artists. --Kenneth Hatley (talk) 01:40, 23 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi Kenneth, thanks for your question, and welcome to Wikipedia. I'll put a welcome message on your User Talk Page with a few useful links to getting started with editing Wikipedia.
 * It sounds like you've known lot of famous people in your time, and you probably have some great photos of them that you've taken? You could really help out by checking their Wikipedia pages and seeing if you have photos of these artists better than the ones already there that would improve the articles. Providing you own the copyright as the photographer, you could upload these to Wikimedia Commons (via this link) for use in Wikipedia articles.
 * If your question relates more to you wanting to write an article about yourself, then I should point out two things. Firstly, the subject of any new article must meet our 'Notability Criteria'. This means that the world at large must have noticed and written about them in independent mainstream publications. For musicians and artists, the specific criteria for acceptance can be founds at WP:NMUSIC. Sources such as music books and mainstream magazines and newspapers are acceptable sources, but user-generated content such as WP:IMDB or personal blogs and websites are no regarded as sufficiently reliablet.
 * Secondly, we very strongly discourage anyone from attempting to create an article about themselves. Not only is this an extreme Conflist of Interest, it is sometimes not a wise thing to do (see WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY). If someone is notable (by Wikipedia's standards, then there's a good chance another, unconnected editor will want to write about them. Of course, if you feel you do merit a page here on Wikipedia, you can make that suggestion (and include a few links to good sources) at Requested articles/music.
 * I hope this answers some of your questions. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 10:22, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi Nick,
 * Thank you for the advice. Yes I have many years throughout my career.  I certainly understand that it is dangerous territory when one writes their own biography.  As a professional in the industries of Music and film, I understand and have been diligent to back up any projects and achievements, good or bad Richie Havens advised me in the early 80's. Richie said get everything in writing, besides the contract, but put it in as a letter to certify any project, Richie further stated, we go to have facts with us, because there are too many liars out there that will try to claim it was not you. Richie, was a partner and the God Father of mny son. Richie was our my first Producer in Nashville in a band called the Raven, though the albu mnn did not getr off the ground, and the band lasted, but mine and Richie's relation almost until he passed away.  David Carradine was another one, very much like Richie. When David went top Bangkok and was suspected murdered, after the Bangkok Police gave me five different stories. I had just spoken with David a day or two and was very positive about another film and the sound track he and I were going to do the Production and composing, unfortunately when he went to dinner out of the hotel, to meet with the film producers. After the evening, and dinner David had to walk back to the hotel. However, the Chauffeur had driven away. When David got to the hotel, the camera was on and saw him come in, when he went to the elevator the camera went blank.  I received a call fom a Director in L.A., Lance Miccio he called me at about 5:30 a.m. in the morning. I was in Santa Fe, New Mexico on business with an Executive Producer. The first words out of Lance was, "Kenny I am so sorry", I asked him what was he sorry about enough to wake me up; then the words that came out of Lance's mouth put me in a state of shock, his words "Kenny, I am sorry about David's passing, I asked him what was he talking about, he said David was dead the maids found him in his bedroom, with him tied up in the closet. Kenneth Hatley (talk) 01:59, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @Kenneth Hatley - those are sad stories. I think David Carradine as Kwai Chang Caine in Kung Fu was utterly wonderful. I was glued to that series and really admired him, as well as the character he payed, when I was a kid growing up in the mid '70s. As you say, to know him personally and to lose him in that way must have been shocking for you.
 * From a Wikipedia perspective, those personal stories - no matter how valid - can never be used unless they were properly published in quality newspapers, or equivalent. But if you need any specific advice on adding content here, do let me know. Or, if I should not respond in due course, feel free to seek help at The Teahouse - a place designed to help newcomers who are struggling with the intricacies of editing. Best wishes, Nick Moyes (talk) 16:45, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Question from Halabi51 (15:37, 27 September 2023)
1) MARIO VARGAS LLOSA Mario Vargas Llosa of Peru (born March 28, 1936) is one of the most popular contemporary Latin American writer, who is also an active political activist. Llosa won the Nobel Prize for Literature in 2010. The major themes of his novels are centred around human tragedies and loss of identities under dictatorships, and the helplessness of the oppressed in temporalities of totalitarianism --Halabi51 (talk) 15:37, 27 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Hello, Halabi51. Welcome to Wikipedia! Do you have a question about the article on Mario Vargas Llosa? If so, please explain clearly what help you need. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 20:33, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Question from Bill Wilson AKA "CIA" (19:54, 28 September 2023)
Hi Nick,

When it comes to articles about towns and other such places, would it be off-topic to mention nearby services like hospitals and schools solely because they are the closest available services of their kind to the settlement in question? --Bill Wilson AKA &#34;CIA&#34; (talk) 19:54, 28 September 2023 (UTC)


 * @Bill Wilson AKA "CIA" I presume your query relates to the article about Helensburgh, which I see you've been working on. Before I answer your question, I should point out that I can see quite a few issues with what's in that article already- though probably not all of them are as a result of your own attempts to improve the page.
 * At a quick skim through, I can see (in these edits of yours that the page contains lots of factual assertions without backing them up to proper citations. Instead someone has just linked to a business website within a citation, and one (the Outdoor Museum) is to a domain that isn't even functioning any more). That's not the right way to do it. It looks like you've started to move things around and tidy things up, as wellas improving the encyclopaedic tone. This is a good move. Editors have obviously added all sorts of details (presumably from their personal knowledge, but not given any links to enable someone to WP:VERIFY them. Just a link to an organisation is not sufficient. There is quite a bit of WP:TRIVIA which you could remove, such as the mention of who the museum's designer is. One citation is just an external link which needs to go; the other is a good one which verifies that the museum was 'award winning' - but it's not in the right place to support the statement about awards, whereas the whole sentence isn't needed. The actual word changes you have made have all improved the encyclopaedic tone of the article - so well done on that front.
 * I would urge you to continue cleaning up the page and improving its encyclopaedic nature. Regarding schools and hospitals: well, yes, there's a danger that it becomes non-encyclopaedic by adding such stuff, and reads like a list of minor local facilities. Saying that the town is served by a major hospital and a key railway station may be valid, but listing all the schools probably isn't. Maybe cite a link to show which education authority it falls in. It's a balance between not bloating an article with WP:TRIVIA and keeping it trim, well cited, and with every factual statement supported by a Reliable Source that can be checked to verify the statement is correct.
 * I'm not sure this was quite the answer you expected, but let me know if you want any further guidance. Nick Moyes (talk) 20:59, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for going the extra mile and reviewing the actual article, Nick.
 * Firstly, I completely agree with the article's referencing issues. Just so you know, most of assertions predate my editing. The only reason why I didn't address them was because I thought it better to deal with the other problems first, such as the structure, outdated information, informal tone, etc... My thought was to not go too mental to begin with and just deal with the most striking problems, then decide on the references and trivia later.
 * Secondly, regarding the hospitals: in the article, there is mention, for instance of Paisley and Vale of Leven hospitals - both of these hospitals are, of course, not in Helensburgh. This is the problem that I have: should the article be concerned with what is strictly in Helensburgh - in which case neither hospital should be mentioned - or rather, that, but also what might be relevant to the Helensburgh residents (in which case they would be mentioned)?
 * Once again, thank you for your comment, that was really great! Bill Wilson AKA &#34;CIA&#34; (talk) 21:37, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @Bill Wilson AKA "CIA" You're welcome. And, yes, I see the things I dislike did predate your edits. (I've upgraded the article's quality rating and left a note on the talk page with my concerns.) Think of the article, not as a resource for local people to find out where they can access resources, but more for anyone else who does not know Helensburgh to find out things that are worth knowin about the towng. Looking at it that way, thenI'd suggest leainge out anything not related to directly to the town.
 * One tip can be to raise issues of concern, and your proposals to address them, as a note on the talk page. If nobody objects to your proposals, then go ahead and make them. We work by consensus, but if nobody offers alternative approaches, then simply WP:BEBOLD.
 * I don't know how committed you are to the idea of improving this article. But should you be, then once you've made all the basic improvements and additions that you think need doing, you could ask for 3rd party input at WP:PEERREVIEW. You could set an ambition to bring it up to WP:GA status, for example. But only submit it once you'd put in as much work as you think is needed to fix the basic things first. I worked on enhancing this article for months and months before getting a GA rating. It was a fascinating, in-depth exercise that was most satisfying. But it doesn't appeal to everyone! Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:16, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you Nick, that's cleared things up.
 * For future reference, is there a page on Wikipedia that I can consult for future queries like these - the suitability of content, lets say? I am aware of the Help section, but it seems intimidating to navigate (which is why I ended up asking you!) Bill Wilson AKA &#34;CIA&#34; (talk) 06:23, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @Bill Wilson AKA "CIA" Yes, Bill. The best place to ask any question, day or night is The Teahouse. It's friendly forum designed to help new editors when they encounter problems. You may find me there, too, but there are over 80 'Teahouse Hosts' available to answer queries. Nick Moyes (talk) 09:00, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Testing from SAAO
This is a test from SAAO to see if this works 155.232.7.202 (talk) 09:15, 29 September 2023 (UTC)


 * That works fine, thanks. Nick Moyes (talk) 10:38, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Re: Thanks
Absolutly no problem here! Simply, the short notice entailed the serious risk that the request would not be processed. I, who fortunately live in the CEST/CET time zone, noticed the urgent request just before going to bed and immediately processed it. Luckily the deployment slots were free this morning! Let's say that luck did a lot :P Wish you a great Editathon and a nice day ;) Superpes15 (talk) 09:47, 3 October 2023 (UTC)