User talk:SSR07

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 71, September–October 2025

• Spotlight: 1Lib1Ref 2025 in Nigeria
• Frankfurt Book Fair
• Tech tip: Wikipedia Library access template

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team – 15:21, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 72, November–December 2025

• Renewed partnerships
• Spotlight: Strengthening Wikimedia Collaborations with and for Open Science

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team – 12:43, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello SSR07 (talk · contribs) Thanks for welcoming Epicperson238219 . You can become their mentor using the Mentor Dashboard. I recommend picking them up using the adopt a mentee tool. Tonymetz 💬 22:21, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I would like to start with creating a page on myself. I am a mathematician and would like to list my math equations and conjectures that I have worked on. What advice would you have for me starting out, like the top 5+ things to look out for and not do. --TFMassad (talk) 14:25, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello @TFMassad! Thank you for reaching out. I'm no expert on math content on Wikipedia, but here are some things to keep in mind:

1. Articles on Wikipedia must meet the General Notability Guideline. To summarize: There must be reliable sources (articles, books) that treat the topic non-trivially. Additionally, these sources must be reliable (reputable), secondary, and must have been produced by people not too closely affiliated with the subject. Getting this level of coverage on an equation or conjecture may prove challenging.
2. You may need to disclose a conflict of interest if, say, you "discovered" or first formulated the math you want to write about. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for a more thorough treatment of this topic.
3. If you believe what you want to write about meets these criteria, I would recommend looking at how other math articles are written on Wikipedia (e.g. Derivative) and trying to improve them before starting on your own article. This will help you gain a basic familiarity with the conventions on Wikipedia.
4. When you're ready, read the page Help:Your first article.

Hopefully this is helpful. I would suggest reaching out with more topic-specific questions in Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics. That's a community of Wikipedians who specialize in editing about math. Cheers! SSR07 (talk) 17:24, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

how do i make a link so it will take someone to a related page? --AryBoyDAEDITOR (talk) 21:11, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi @AryBoyDAEDITOR, thanks for reaching out!

To make a link on Wikipedia, use two square brackets "[[" (without the quotation marks) and start typing the name of the article to which you want the link to go. You can also do Cmd+K on Mac or Ctrl+K on Windows. This is probably more information than you're looking for, but our style guide on linking can be found at: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking. Let me know if I can help you with anything else! SSR07 (talk) 22:47, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

I want to delete the picture of me with a person that has no relation to me in any way and just have an individual picture. --Ted Barton (talk) 18:46, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Ted Barton, thanks for reaching out!

The photo you're referring to, I assume, is on Wikipedia? All photos that appear on Wikipedia are hosted on Wikimedia Commons.

You may find it helpful to review their policy on photographs of identifiable people. Let me know if I can help further! SSR07 (talk) 00:23, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you but wondering is there any way possible to have the current photo replaced with an individual picture of myself. Do I have to get someone to do that? I was able to delete it but then it came back. It should just be a picture of me so if you could help me understand what I have to do to make that happen I would very much appreciate it. Ted Barton (talk) 16:48, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Hey @Ted Barton, I would recommend uploading a photo to Wikimedia commons of just yourself (Upload Wizard) and then suggesting in the talk page of your Wikipedia page that it be added. A photo won't be removed (except if it goes against our policies, see above) unless there's a better option. I hope this helps. SSR07 (talk) 02:31, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the suggestion. I will give that a try. Ted Barton (talk) 08:14, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

The sunlight is yellow and water are blue Yellow and blue mix green is that why plants are green --Alex Mahek (talk) 23:40, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Alex Mahek, I'm happy to answer any questions, but let's keep discussion to Wikipedia and its policies, please! SSR07 (talk) 00:26, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello SSR07! Would love your guidance in my discussion concerning my recent edits to Dominique O'Rourke's page. You can see the discussion here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Penpalstoday#Welcome! --Penpalstoday (talk) 18:17, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Hey @Penpalstoday, thanks for joining Wikipedia! It's great that you've decided to add to the corpus of knowledge and have seemingly invested the time to read through some of our policies and meaningfully engaged in them—that's more than most do!

I find your first round of edits pretty innocuous; you add some extra decimal points and move phrasing around a little bit. If anything I see it as a little unnecessary and perhaps lowering the stylistic quality of the writing. You changed "earned" to "garnered" for instance, leading to the word being repeated twice. It's a little thing, but there are a couple of examples.

The second round definitely has some problems, and I understand why they were reverted. Primary sources should generally be avoided, particularly those that resemble blogs. We'd really prefer sources to be high-quality secondary sources: from reputable news sites, journals, books, etc. You mention the Carney example—It's different to cite an authorized publication of a speech on the PM's website than to cite an Instagram reel or a Reddit post with a Twitter screenshot. Linking to the actual Tweet instead of a screenshot of the Tweet on Reddit is marginally better (both websites are strongly discouraged for use as sources) but it would be best to get a secondary source treating that Tweet, or an official transcript if obtainable (a la Carney). If you're building an argument (as opposed to just supplementing it) with these primary sources, you're probably breaking our original research guidelines. And, I should add, if you don't find those secondary sources, it likely means the subtopic you're writing about doesn't meet our standards for notability (WP:UNDUE). Unfortunately, even if you think this discourse is important in Canadian politics right now (which, my two cents, I don't really buy is the case) it's not really up to us to make that determination—The spirit of due/undue weight is to reflect the world, which in turn is reflected in secondary sources.

Next steps: I would suggest you incorporate some of what you've been reading about into a revised edit for the page in your personal sandbox (follow the link here), which you can then circulate for further notes before ultimately adding it to the page. Thanks for your commitment and effort!!

SSR07 (talk) 20:08, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the thoughtful reply. I'll heed your sandbox suggestion, while considering all the discussion here and in the original thread. For now, I've made these edits while thinking about the sandbox: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dominique_O%27Rourke&diff=prev&oldid=1340972511 Penpalstoday (talk) 20:31, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

How are we looking on this? User:Penpalstoday/sandbox

Secondary sources used, which I believe addresses the many of the concerns raised. The use of the Youtube link for the "Guelph All Candidates Meeting" was indicated in the included secondary source, https://www.guelphtoday.com/2025-federal-election-news/guelph-candidates-talk-tough-on-crime-guns-and-trump-tariffs-10529700, which directs the reader to the recording at the end of the article. Guelph Today is an Asset of Village Media. Penpalstoday (talk) 01:19, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello @Penpalstoday, thanks again for your hard work. Some notes:

1. "two ways" --> "two way"
2. "has paused" --> "paused"
3. Adding other non-Levant topics under the "Time in parliament" heading is great. It does a lot of the (un)due weight work that your previous edits were maybe missing.
4. It's not my area of expertise, so I don't know the convention, but you may run into some trouble with other editors about the genocide sentence. I would say leave it in and then respond if someone contests it.
5. Source #10 is probably as good as a reliable primary source as you're going to get. Good find!
6. Don't link to Vote Palestine
7. I'm a little confused by source #12. It doesn't mention O'Rourke?
8. Source #13 looks good
9. Source #11 isn't going to cut it, unfortunately. Even if a youtube video is linked in a reliable source (as this one is), that doesn't mean we can use it on Wikipedia. A news source might link to Twitter, too, but the same applies. Watching the video and finding clips to support your claim counts as original research.

I know this isn't what you wanted to hear on the whole (not ready to publish yet), but this is a momentous improvement over your previous submission. Keep at it and don't get discouraged! SSR07 (talk) 16:53, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello --Kajaljot Bawa (talk) 15:40, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Hey @Kajaljot Bawa! Thanks for joining Wikipedia. Let me know if there's anything I can help you with regarding Wikipedia or its policies. Cheers! SSR07 (talk) 16:50, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi. On the page 'Pauline Hanson' I recognised a lack of neutrality in that it is written she "has adopted Christian values in her speeches and political rhetoric." The term 'Christian values' is difficult to make a claim on, without stating a definition for what 'Christian values' means. Would it be better for me to remove this altogether or to replace it with, "she has appealed to the conservative Christians in her speeches and political rhetoric" with a link to 'Christian right' or something else. Thanks so much, Zac --Zacharyb5 (talk) 08:10, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Hey @Zacharyb5, thanks for reaching out! You have a good instinct: That sentence, though not necessarily egregious, definitely could be improved. The key in revising phrases like this is not to start from what you think it should say, but rather what the source itself says. If we're sticking with the source already present, I think your proposed revision reflects the content well. Maybe you could add "despite being an atheist", because that's the context in which it's brought up in the article. Ideally, though, you might want to go hunting for an article that goes a little more in depth on her use of Christian rhetoric (the article currently cited only has a couple sentences). I hope this helps; don't hesitate to reach out if you have further questions! SSR07 (talk) 17:57, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

I went looking for other articles but all I found was https://australiainstitute.org.au/post/imported-the-american-far-right-origins-of-pauline-hansons-anti-islam-rhetoric/ which states "“Investigation of origins of One Nation’s statements on Islam reveals a political and intellectual debt to far-right right-wing groups in the United States, especially American Evangelist Christian opponents of Islam and a handful of obscure right-wing anti-Islam propagandists. These assertions have attracted little media scrutiny to date,” Would this be appropriate? according to Wikipedia, "The Australia Institute states that it takes a bipartisan approach to research, but it has been described as "progressive" or "left-leaning"". If so, how would I go about it?

In addition to this I found an official statement from Kanishka Raffel, the Anglican Archbishop of Sydney (Sydney is where the Anglican church is very strong) condemning comments she made that their are "no good Muslims". Would it be appropriate to add this in some way? If so, how would I go about it? Zacharyb5 (talk) 22:22, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

@Zacharyb5, thank you for your research into this! Two things to note:

1. When you don't find coverage of a topic in the secondary sources, that means that it—the topic—probably isn't notable enough (see also Wikipedia:Undue) to include in an article. Here, I think you have a borderline case: It looks like there are some secondary sources and at least one primary source (the archbishop's statement). Not a ton of coverage, but it probably warrants a sentence or two in the article.
2. Building off of the above, Wikipedia generally prefers secondary sources (this is part of our Wikipedia:No original research policy). So, that means we prefer a news outlet covering the archbishop's statement over the statement itself. If you can't find a secondary source, or you particularly want to quote directly from the statement, you can, but it's not ideal.

How you choose to weave these threads together is up to you, and I encourage you to take a stab at it. If you'd like, you're welcome to draft something in your Sandbox, and I can look over it before you publish it to the article's page. For contentious topics like this, it's important, too, to remember encyclopedic neutrality. Cheers! SSR07 (talk) 16:45, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I would love to send a draft to the Sandbox Zacharyb5 (talk) 02:29, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi @SSR07 Have you found some time to check out my sandbox? Zacharyb5 (talk) 04:59, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Hey @Zacharyb5, my apologies--I didn't realize you had finished a draft. I've added your sandbox to my watchlist so I shouldn't miss anything again. I think you're ready to uththis on the article page with a couple twaeks. Feel free to ping me to look at another draft or just go ahead and publish it. I trust your judgement! SSR07 (talk) 15:19, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

1. Wikilink "atheist" as in the original
2. Is there a way to make the second sentence stronger? For some reason I can't access the Daily Declaration source (might be an IP address thing? I'm based in the US), but it seems to suggest she's been accused of hate speech. If that's the case, it's probably something you want to mention.

SSR07 (talk) 15:19, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Kanishka Raffel did not directly accuse Hanson of hate speech but rather called her words "foolish and dangerously divisive". His broader statement was titled "We must reject hateful words and threats of violence” and was directed at the issue of Hanson as well as threats of violence against a mosque in Lakemba not by Hanson. How should I best update the sentence in that regard? Zacharyb5 (talk) 10:44, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

The title of the Daily Declaration article is highly 'spun'. It is gently written but responds to Hanson from a very politically conservative perspective. Is it okay to use this as a source? Must I write it differently? Zacharyb5 (talk) 10:47, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Create a page for website --Aheesch (talk) 20:15, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Hey @Aheesch, thank you for reaching out! It looks like you may be looking for information about creating a Wikipedia article for a website? Please note a pair of things before you start:

1. Wikipedia discourages people with a close association to a subject (if you own the website, or work for the company that does, say) from editing about the topic. See our policy on conflicts of interest here.
2. Wikipedia has a relatively strict notability guideline for articles on its site—Not every website gets an article. Review the notability requirements for a web-related article here.

Once you have read these policies, understand them, and if you believe the article you would like to create adheres to them, see this page on how to get started. Please reach out with any further questions, I'm happy to help you along the way! Cheers! SSR07 (talk) 21:16, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I don't intend to modify anything, I just want to know the origin of certain information placed in a band profile. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_Sculpture. This article mentions that the group second LP (Forma & Feelings) was released in December 1969. However, this information is not publicly available in the references section. Could one of the contributors clarify the source of this article claim? Historically, the oldest evidence of this record dates back to 1970. The only possible mention of December 1969 comes from an encrypted Google Books file, "Records and Recording - Volume 13 - Page 12," which suggests this date. So, is Wikipedia referencing that magazine, or where else did they get that date from? --Oxpetals (talk) 04:27, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Hey @Oxpetals, thanks for reaching out! This is a question best posed on the Love Sculpture talk page, where you can reach editors who "watch" that page. Unfortunately, a lot of content on Wikipedia is unsourced. That doesn't necessarily means its untrue, just that there's no record of where the information was pulled from (if anywhere). In this case, though, if you can't find a source, it may well be wrong. I'd suggest you post on the talk page and see if you get any responses. If not, and you feel you've done a deep search, feel free to Be Bold and change the date with a reliable source. I'm sorry to give such an unsatisfying answer—please feel free to reach out with any further/other questions. Cheers! SSR07 (talk) 04:35, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 73, January–February 2026

• Four new partnerships
• User survey thanks

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team – 12:05, 11 March 2026 (UTC)