User talk:Ganesha811

This is Ganesha811's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 30 days

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 8 March 2024. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 2024, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/March 2024. Please keep an eye on that page, as comments regarding the draft blurb may be left there by user:dying, who assists the coordinators by making suggestions on the blurbs, or by others. I also suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from two days before the article appears on the Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work!—Wehwalt (talk) 19:46, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great news! I'll take a look at the blurb. Thanks to the nominator! :) —Ganesha811 (talk) 20:39, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's now 1,191 characters. It has to be trimmed to 1,025. You'll do it? Wehwalt (talk) 20:55, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely! —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:07, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

story · music · places

Thank you today for the article, about a 19th-century American abolitionist and activist - great choice for IWD! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:04, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you approved! She was a fascinating person. I got a chance to visit her and her husband's graves late last year and was glad of it. —Ganesha811 (talk) 12:17, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know! - Rossini's Petite messe solennelle was premiered on 14 March 1864, - when I listen to the desolate Agnus Dei I think of Vami_IV. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:32, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vacation pics uploaded (back home), at least the first day, - and Aribert Reimann remembered. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:45, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some days later, a calf in the mist and chocolate cake, and a story of collaboration --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:31, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a listen! —Ganesha811 (talk) 20:41, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I listen to Bach's St John Passion today, - 300 years after it was first performed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:53, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you believe the lede needs to have the part about Hendricks' quote? I didn't think it was too necessary to keep, but I have no issue leaving it be ParXivalRPT (talk) 05:51, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it improves the article, yes. It's a vivid quote and one that effectively conveys her role in the black community in Chicago during her widowhood. Hopefully it sticks in the minds of readers. —Ganesha811 (talk) 12:18, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article Anna Filosofova you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Anna Filosofova and Talk:Anna Filosofova/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Rusalkii -- Rusalkii (talk) 05:23, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article Anna Filosofova you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Anna Filosofova for comments about the article, and Talk:Anna Filosofova/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Rusalkii -- Rusalkii (talk) 07:05, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ganesha811, Hello and can you proceed my request at WP:PERM/AP. 😊~~ αvírαm|(tαlk) 07:26, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I don't see a recent record of you making such a request, and I'm sure that the admins there can help if you do make such a request. —Ganesha811 (talk) 01:13, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I have a question, please. I'm looking to create a page here, but before I do, I'd appreciate some advice regarding a previous page I created, which was deleted. I'm unclear about the current criteria for a page to remain published, as my previous submission included all necessary references and demonstrated notability within the sport of squash. Upon comparing it to other pages in similar fields, I noticed no significant differences. --Namexre (talk) 01:11, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you are referring to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ziad Sakr? It looks like that discussion resulted in a clear consensus that Sakr was, in fact, not notable. While it always sucks when a page you created gets deleted, Wikipedia operates on consensus and it's important to respect that. In the future, if Sakr receives more reliable, independent coverage, he may become notable and the page could then be re-created. For now, I advise you to be patient and focus your editing efforts on other subjects that interest you. —Ganesha811 (talk) 01:16, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question from TheBirdinator3000 (16:47, 22 March 2024)

What is source editing? --TheBirdinator3000 (talk) 16:47, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question from TheBirdinator3000 (17:04, 22 March 2024)

Before I ask this, I would like to thank you, and state that I think this mentor system was a clever idea on Wikipedia’s part. Could you give me a basic introduction to editing-specifically, what should I do, how can I do it (on mobile), and what should I avoid doing? Please and thank you. --TheBirdinator3000 (talk) 17:04, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! I would recommend starting with Help:Introduction - that will guide you through the basics of how to edit. As to what to edit, whatever you're interested in! The best way to learn is to do, so just think of a page you are interested in and want to improve, and start making improvements. One thing to avoid; removing sources that are already in the article and appear to be reliable. However, otherwise, don't be afraid to jump in feet first - you will probably make a mistake or two, but that's ok - we all do! Wikipedia explicitly encourages us to be WP:BOLD. Feel free to continue asking me questions as you go, and I'll keep an eye out for your changes. —Ganesha811 (talk) 17:12, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question from TheBirdinator3000 (15:46, 23 March 2024)

Good morning (or afternoon, evening, or night, if you happen to live in a different time zone)! I’ve happened to notice that you gave me a “thank you” on one of my edits (responses to previous question). How can I do that and what is the etiquette for doing that? As always, please and thank you. --TheBirdinator3000 (talk) 15:46, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good question! If you go to any article's history (for example, this page) or a user's contribution history (for example, mine), you will see a little (thank) link next to the listing for each edit. Early in Wikipedia's history, while it was easy to disagree with someone's edit, there was no simple way to show appreciation for an edit; the (thank) feature was added to improve collegiality. There's no strict etiquette, and it doesn't need to be used to literally mean "thank you" - feel free to send a thanks someone's way whenever they do something you want to acknowledge, or if you see a positive contribution and you want them to know someone else cares. You can read more here. Thanks are public, but no one other than the recipient will ever pay them much attention. —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:52, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question from TheBirdinator3000 (16:18, 23 March 2024)

How can I see when and/or if my edits are accepted, and if they are rejected, where/will I be able to find reasons explaining what I did wrong and what I can improve? Is it better to make a possibly bad edit or to not make a possibly good one? --TheBirdinator3000 (talk) 16:18, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits will always be automatically accepted - anyone can edit Wikipedia. If another user reverts your edit, you will receive a notification, and hopefully they will have explained their reasoning in the edit summary (found on the article history page). At that point, it's usually best to start a discussion on the talk page. Everyone has edits reverted occasionally - it's not a big deal, and usually is just a an opportunity to talk it over and try and come to consensus. It's always better to be WP:BOLD and make an improvement. If you accidentally screw up, don't worry - nothing is permanent on Wikipedia and any error is easily reversible. —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:23, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question from TheBirdinator3000 (16:22, 23 March 2024)

How much comments/hidden text is too much? I often find myself better at noticing rather than fixing errors, so I often find myself using hidden text to point out areas that could possibly use improvement, but the page mentions (albeit only once) to “Avoid adding too many invisible comments because they can clutter the wiki source for other editors.” How can I know when I reached this point, and how can I trim comments? --TheBirdinator3000 (talk) 16:22, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a question of judgment, but in general, hidden text is not as useful as just fixing errors where you see them. If you see an error you don't have the time or ability to fix, you can tag it with a template like [citation needed] or [excessive citations], as I see you did already. —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:25, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question from TheBirdinator3000 (17:33, 23 March 2024)

I was attempting to copyedit a page when I got stuck; on the article for Albert Gilles (I have yet to figure out how to add links to things), it is marked for Conflict of Interest and Subjective Tone, and in the first sentence it states that he is “known for his metalworking technique of shaping malleable metals.” I know opinions like this typically need to be cited, but it could be a ‘don’t cite the sky is blue’ situation where it’s blatantly obvious that that is what he is famous for. What should I do? Should I add citation needed? As always, please and thank you. --TheBirdinator3000 (talk) 17:33, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The lead is a summary of the article, so it doesn't necessarily need to have citations, as long as the information is in the body of the article. The policy on this is at WP:LEADCITE, and generally I'd advise putting citations in the lead for direct quotes from sources and for potentially controversial statements. You're right that generally, you don't need to cite that the sky is blue, though opinions vary. Finally, to add a link to something, you can either highlight the word and click the 🔗 symbol above (if editing visually) or put double brackets on either side of the words you want to link, like this - [[Portugal]] (if editing in source code). —Ganesha811 (talk) 18:16, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question from TheBirdinator3000 (17:47, 23 March 2024)

How do I know what sentences need inline citations and which don’t? I’ve been having trouble trying to come up with a consistent answer. --TheBirdinator3000 (talk) 17:47, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good question, and the answer is that there is no consistent answer. But this short essay on the verifiability policy might be helpful to read. Basically, if it's not in the lead and not an obvious statement of widely-known facts (like "Thailand is a country" or "Taxes fund the government"), it should probably have an inline citation. Sometimes a few consecutive sentences are cited to the same source, in which case it's fine to put the citation at the end of the whole passage. —Ganesha811 (talk) 18:18, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question from TheBirdinator3000 (16:02, 24 March 2024)

Hello again, I hope you’re having a wonderful time of day. I have two questions today! First off, I’ve realized I could study editing by looking at a page’s history and slowly going forward, noting the edits that were made. Are there any good articles for this, like ones that have been copy edited multiple times and never had an edit war? Second, what are the rules on user customization, especially signature customization? What ARE signatures anyway? As always, please and thank you! --TheBirdinator3000 (talk) 16:02, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! The details on signatures can be found here - basically, feel free to customize your signature as much as you like, just keep it readable and not distracting to others. As to pages to look at, you could try any at the list of featured articles; pick a topic you're interested in. —Ganesha811 (talk) 17:55, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question from TheBirdinator3000 (16:37, 24 March 2024)

I’m back again, and I know it’s probably not there, but is there a tool to add notes specifically for yourself when editing? As in i can leave a note to not change something and why and not have to go back through all of what I did to delete the notes? Basically, hidden text that deletes itself once an edit is published. Please and thank you. --TheBirdinator3000 (talk) 16:37, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard of such a thing. Maybe it's possible, but I don't know how. If you want to keep notes for yourself, you can use your Sandbox. Although it isn't secret, your sandbox is in your own userspace and generally out of the way. Here's mine, for an example - I keep some links to useful tools and sources for future articles I want to create. —Ganesha811 (talk) 17:59, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question from TheBirdinator3000 (15:08, 28 March 2024)

I’ve been going through my suggested edits, and nearly all of them are ones that are ones tagged as “Written like advertisement”, and I can very well see it and vaguely where it’s becoming advertising, but I can never seem to figure out how to fix it. How can i fix things like these? How can you fix neutrality issues in general? Please and thanks. --TheBirdinator3000 (talk) 15:08, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's just up to your best judgment as an editor. You can read through some featured articles to get a sense for high-quality encyclopedic writing on Wikipedia, or check out the Manual of Style for specific guidelines. —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:12, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

how can i write my own article --Dsljeb (talk) 14:08, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Any Wikipedian in good standing with a little experience can publish articles, but it is difficult to do so! I recommend starting out by making fixes to pages which already exist. What topics are you interested in editing about? —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:45, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - I created a draft for Fergie Chambers yesterday before I realized that you had a similar idea. I see that you have some sources in your sandbox but if you'd like to use the draft article instead, it's at Draft:Fergie Chambers. I will probably do some expanding later today but I agree with you that there's enough there to meet WP:GNG, especially with the new Rolling Stone article. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 11:41, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, great - I'll take a look over today in draftspace or mainspace, if you've published by then. Thanks! —Ganesha811 (talk) 11:49, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also - what's your read of the consensus in the RSN discussion on The Free Post I started? I would say it's probably no consensus, but I could also see a weak consensus against reliability. —Ganesha811 (talk) 11:51, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think no consensus makes the most sense - There was some good back-and-forth and it seems split around 50/50 if we're looking at numbers. Of course, it wasn't a formal RfC so I don't think it's something to worry about it at this point anyway. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 14:38, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ThadeusOfNazereth, I added some material to the draft. Anything else you want to include, or should we publish it? —Ganesha811 (talk) 00:41, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will take a deeper look tomorrow but it looks good enough for mainspace at first glance. Sorry I didn't add more, it's been tough to find time to edit during the work day recently! ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 00:53, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On 28 March 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Anna Filosofova, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that after being criticized for dressing "like a doll" at an important meeting, pioneering Russian feminist Anna Filosofova (pictured) replied that "clothes do not make the woman"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Anna Filosofova. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Anna Filosofova), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Z1720 (talk) 00:02, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I’m not sure if hat happened. Could you send me a DYK credit for Townsends? Thank you, Thriley (talk) 00:57, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done! —Ganesha811 (talk) 01:17, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Thriley (talk) 02:21, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Ganesha. Can you take a look at the Interstate 85 in North Carolina article to see if it meets GA criteria? I nominated it, and I'm not entirely sure. I'm of course a newbie at GA noms and would like some advice. Thanks. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 01:51, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also didn't create the article, but I heavily renovated the route description. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 01:52, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! First off, welcome to GA! While I generally don't take requests, I hope someone picks up the article and reviews it soon. A note: due to the backlog, it could take a couple months before that happens, so be patient! The article looks like it's in pretty good shape. Per WP:ORMEDIA, maps are acceptable as sources, but a lot of the route description you added doesn't cite any source at all. It would be good to add inline citations for the sources you used to describe the route. Road descriptions from maps have been a point of controversy in the past, so you might ask for guidance at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Highways. Happy editing! —Ganesha811 (talk) 02:00, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! That was helpful. Okay then, I'll take your advice. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 02:01, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, sorry to bother you but I was wondering if I could get 1 point for my last GA review that's still On Hold? I was hoping to be able to get to 7 points. The review has been on hold for more than 7 days because the nominator asked for more time to address feedback. WP:Good articles/GAN Backlog Drives/March 2024#Mokadoshi. Either way, thanks for all you've done to coordinate this drive. Mokadoshi (talk) 04:57, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't award a point for a review that's not complete yet, but I don't think you need to worry - any reviews started before April 1st will count towards the drive. The reviews only have to begin in March, they don't have to finish in March. As long as it's closed in the next week or two, a point will be awarded at that time. Thanks for your contributions! —Ganesha811 (talk) 05:14, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the incorrect undo just now, I got confused because the DYK update bot said it had promoted queue 7, which made me assume it had also wiped it, and I further assumed you'd then promoted a fresh set over the top of that (forgotting it is the 31st today not the 30th). In fact, it turns out the DYK bot didn't get around to wiping queue 7, so your set is now good to go for tomorrow. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 14:15, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, no worries! —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:39, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Where is Kate? is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Where is Kate? (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 11:45, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2024).

Administrator changes

• Kbdank71
• Kosack
• NrDg
• TLSuda

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC is open to convert all current and future community discretionary sanctions to (community designated) contentious topics procedure.

Technical news

• The Toolforge Grid Engine services have been shut down after the final migration process from Grid Engine to Kubernetes. (T313405)

Arbitration

• An arbitration case has been opened to look into "the intersection of managing conflict of interest editing with the harassment (outing) policy".

Miscellaneous

• Editors are invited to sign up for The Core Contest, an initiative running from April 15 to May 31, which aims to improve vital and other core articles on Wikipedia.

Thanks a lot, wanted to know the criteria followed to edit a content posted .Thanks again --Bbumba Eliya (talk) 10:48, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can visit WP:Learn to edit to get started! —Ganesha811 (talk) 19:14, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I got notified about changes to the Ellen Bernstein page - not sure if you directly notified me or if you made a significant enough change that I automatically got notified.

I appreciate that you tightened up the text and removed some verbiage that didn't absolutely need to be there. But by removing the sentence "She notes 'If we focus on abstract theological and allegorical readings, we miss the deeply embodied and enlanded dimensions of the text that are so needed today... We miss the possibility of finding God in nature.'", I think this removes an essential essence of her work - this quote is from her words from an interview about her latest book. Do you object to me changing it back? Nnev66 (talk) 19:07, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind, though I would recommend paraphrasing it a bit more - perhaps split it up into two sentences. The second part of the quote is stronger, while the first part could be rephrased in our own words. —Ganesha811 (talk) 19:13, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

		The Premium Reviewer Barnstar
		Thank you for participating in (and co-ordinating) the March 2024 backlog drive. Your contribution (21.5 points total) helped reduce the backlog by more than 250 articles! Here's a token of our appreciation.

asilvering (talk) 01:09, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I want to create my own wikipedia --Baqeer shuwa14 (talk) 10:21, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Any Wikipedian in good standing with a little experience can publish articles, but it is difficult to do so! I recommend starting out by making fixes to pages which already exist. What topics are you interested in editing about? —Ganesha811 (talk) 12:41, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]