User talk:SignedInteger

Hi SignedInteger! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! CNMall41 (talk) 01:37, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi there! I noticed you reverted my edit to FC Barcelona in international football. Thanks for that, I don't know what happened. Great catch, and thanks for looking out! Phuzion (talk) 15:57, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

No problem! SignedInteger (talk) 16:25, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi mate, about your last Galatasaray edit, I think you might be right. That paragraph could be in the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galatasaray_S.K._(football)#Crest_and_colours section but it is unnecesary for the opening section.

But I have a question. If I'm not mistaken, existence of that paragraph caused by existence of the "Fenerbahçe has won the Super Lig 19 times, but has also won an additional 8 pre-1959 titles which would put them ahead of rivals Galatasaray if recognised as official." paragraph in the Fenerbahçe S.K.'s opening section, as an opposite view and equal representation of the topic. And following your logic, that paragraph shouldn't be in the Fenerbahçe SK (football) title too. Because like you wrote in your last edit in the Galatasaray SK (football) section, I have never seen anything like this in the opening sections too. It may be have a separate topic or could be in the lower sections, ideally in the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fenerbahçe_S.K._(football)#Club_crest_and_colours section.

And of course you are Fenerbahçe fan and have some kind of bias, but you didn't seem to me that a guy who are too biased in that matter. So that's why I'm suggesting you should consider my suggestion as an edit possibility. Because I don't want to edit that page and cause an edit war.

Have a nice day! UniqueHornClub (talk) 02:31, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I know I am a fan of the club but that edit was made because for whatever reason in spite of the fact other Turkish clubs do not list them as official titles, The pre-1959 championships are listed in the same section as the Super Lig titles as if they were official. I made a talk page section about this on that page. SignedInteger (talk) 07:07, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

• I meant the Honours section which again unlike Fenerbahçe’s own rivals lists those titles as if they were official, something the official website of Fenerbahçe also does. SignedInteger (talk) 07:10, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

The redirect I regret nothing has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 31 § I regret nothing until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 22:55, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

The redirect Lonnie Kris Wellington has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 8 § Lonnie Kris Wellington until a consensus is reached. 75.188.222.163 (talk) 13:03, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

The redirect Billy Wilds has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 15 § Billy Wilds until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 00:13, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:ASGORE.ogg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:05, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Lehakat Pikud Tzafon, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as B-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a fantastic rating for a new article, and places it among the top 4% of accepted submissions — major kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You may also consider nominating a fact from the article within the next 7 days to appear on the Main Page's "Did you know" section.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

monkey_smashing^keyboards (talk) 20:36, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! S.G. (talk) 20:37, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

As I note on the assessment request page for the military history project. The bottom line is that I assess this as C class under the military history guidelines but I think that the article is not within the scope of the project. Since I think this might be considered a close call, I will also ask current and a few former coordinators for an opinion on the coordinator talk page and will make a decision with the comments in mind.

My conclusions require some explanation, especially since you are new to the project. Although my comments may be of some use to new editors or assessors, I need to make this somewhat lengthy to adequately explain my conclusions. I am posting this here to not add such a lengthy text to the request page. I do note that anyone who may be interested can find this on your talk page. So please bear with me. (I will also save this somewhere since I occasionall need to use some or all of it in other comments and I won't need to rewrite it every time. FWIW.)

Coordinators, former coordinators and, occasionally, experience users and assessors, check Bot B class assignments monthly. (We are a little behind right now.) The bot does not directly report lower level assessments (Stub, start, C) and does not make higher level assessments (GA, A and FA). Coordinators and assessors are only likely to see lower level assessments when requests for assessments are made here, or sometimes by chance if they happen to read articles in their specialty. The bot assessments sometimes are changed by coordinators when they don't agree with the bot as to b1 adequate citation, b2 adequate coverage and whether the article is even within the scope of the project. Most months, coordinators remove the project banner from at least a few articles because they do not meet the guidelines for military history.

Assessors for this project require more for adequate citations and meeting b1. This is found at Wikipedia:Content assessment. "Be aware that a few projects have opted out of the standard quality scale, and use their own variation of the criteria more tuned for the subject area, such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment." I think that there are now few, if any projects whose members do not follow the general information. The general b1 guideline is somewhat vague but it is repeated in our general assessment information which is the same as the overall information. I often forget to cite this but the guideline for this project is found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Academy/Citations and references. The whole academy information article is useful to see guidelines and suggestion for military history article composition. But the b1 requirements in the section "When to cite" are especially pertinent, The section specifically states that each paragraph must end with a citation. It is not presumed that a citation earlier in the paragraph verifies later information. The bot includes single sentence paragraphs, bullet point lists, tables and other lists as paragraphs. Human assessors do the same but if it is made clear or can be easily discovered that a caption, introduction or even a citation at the end supports the entire table or list, human assessors will not necessarily require that each point in the tables or lists have a citation.

In this article, there are paragraphs that do not end with citations, one or two sentences earlier in the paragraphs that are specific points which appear to require a citation because they could be contain information that could be challenged or required to be verified. In general, leads and infoboxes do not require citations for each paragraph or point, unless the information is not clearly cited in the body of the article. Also, at least two infobox points (origin location and recording labels) are not repeated or verified in the article. I will not go so far as to state that all the members in the member list or all the songs in the discography list need citations. The bot, and possibly some other assessor, might not agree but I doubt that would come into play, especially for the members who are the subject of articles or at the B level of assessment generally. If you have citations for the various albums, and can easily get them, from the recording label websites for example, it would be an improvement to add them. Also, it would avoid anyone tagging the list items for citations needed.

Occasionally I can determine or reasonably guess, the reason that the bot has found an article deficient under b2. There will be clues in what is in, or not in, the text. Other times, it is not so clear. In this case, the bot may have seen too little mention of the military and military history in general. I think the article meets b2. But it is for the suspected reason, that I think the article is not within the scope of the project.

Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history#What topics do we cover?, point 2 of the 8 items, and note 3 in particular. "Military service does not in and of itself place an individual within the scope of the project—particularly in the case of service in modern militaries. To qualify them, an individual's military service must have been somehow noteworthy or have contributed—directly or indirectly—to their notability."

The article Israeli military ensembles states there are two types of military ensembles, military bands and entertainment troupes which present musical and theatrical performances, often including songs and sketches, for soldiers and the general public. The Lehakat Pikud Tzafon is clearly an entertainment troupe. The members are in the military because they are subject to compulsory military service. However, other than giving some performances, they spend their time preparing compositions and recording albums and songs. They are notable for their musical and entertainment presentations, which is the subject of almost everything in the article.

The closest American example that comes to mind are the The Del-Vikings, military personnel who had separate entertainment and musical careers while serving in the armed forces. The only possible distinctions are that they may not have been required to perform and, in fact, the members were subject to reassignment so the group membership changed until the group was reformed as a civilian band. This may not be definitive but I think the nature of Lehakat Pikud Tzafon – and the eventual disbandment of such groups of entertainers on military duty – is definitive.

I will reassess the article as C class and will not immediately remove the project banner. I will add citation needed tags because that may be all that is needed for a B class assessment from this project. I will ask for other opinions about whether this is within the project topics.

This project's assessment is usually being considered primary, even if other projects assessments are higher and can be shown as such. As I recall, the overall assessment bot, cewbot (as contrasted with the project bot, milhist bot) will make this overall assessment when it reviews articles with the military history project banner.

If the project banner is removed, the B class assessment will be retained. You could request that I remove the military history project banner before a decision is made here about that. Then the B assessment from articles for creation will be restored (possibly automatically or I can do it). I think you can remove any citation needed tags that I add (but not the one that is there now). However, it would be better to add the citations if you have or can find the sources without much trouble so no question could be raised about missing citations later.

I suggest that you follow the articles for creation advice and skip submitting new articles to that page. You have done a good job with this article. In my opinion, you do not need comments from random assessors who may specialize in other topics in their own areas if you are writing about military history (or anything else as near as I can tell). If you find this still helpful and an easy way to get an evaluation, feel free to ask at articles for creation.

You can sometimes get comments on military history articles at assessment requests, by asking coordinators, task force members or general posts on the project talk page, if you need them at all. You are likely to get comments at peer review from members of this project because the request list is carrier over to the military history project talk page. Peer reviews are usually requested for B class articles when the author, or editor who greatly improves or expands the article, wishes to get advice about needed improvements or additions for higher level assessments. Donner60 (talk) 07:11, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. I will say that the reason I included it within that scope is because every other Israeli military ensemble page puts it within the scope of that project (See here, here, and and here). That is all I will say about this, since really, I would've requested an assessment at Wikiproject Israel, but that section of the Wikiproject has requests from 2014 and appears to be inactive. Thank you for your advice regarding the article, too. S.G. (talk) 13:56, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Also, I do recommend you include the other pages I linked in discussions about if my article fits or not and instead ask if any of the Israeli military ensembles fit or not. Those three pages (While not as in-depth as mine, they're still fine for what they are.) were clearly never assessed manually by a member of this project given your reaction to my article. I'd have to guess that the reason why they weren't assessed or requested for assessment is because they do fit within start-class (Take the IAF Band page for example) and thus there is no reason for them to be assessed. S.G. (talk) 14:21, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments and the information about other similar articles. They too will need to be reviewed. Although I think that the entertainment ensembles, are not within the scope of the project, I think it may be a close enough call that I should ask other coordinators and a few former coordinators to tell me what their opinions are. I think the military bands may be considered within the scope, so separate opinions for those would also be a good idea. I am open to a broader interpretation of the scope for entertainment bands if others think it is proper. This also becomes a more general question since there are other articles about entertainment ensembles that are tagged as within the scope and were not assessed by a human assessor. I am more satisfied than before that I should ask for more opinions rather than following my usual course of just removing the project banner from articles that I think are not within the scope of the project. I also think it would be good to have opinions about military bands that may be more closely considered to be a topic of "military history", not just entertainers who happen to be in the military.

Your comments about other project assessments brings up a point that I need to research. Many projects are now inactive. A few may still have editors/users who look at the talk page occasionally and may rate articles. I have not assessed articles that are not within the scope of the project but I am willing to assess articles according to the general guidelines upon direct request on my talk page from users who are obviously writing C or B class articles and cannot get the assessments elsewhere. I will let you know if I discover another way to request assessments other than from articles for creation and the individual projects. Donner60 (talk) 00:40, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

After writing the above comments, I turned to the assessment page and saw that Swatjester, a coordinator, gives at least a preliminary opinion about this being within the scope of the project. So I will take that into account and review this further. I have not posted this yet to the coordinator page which I will do shortly. It would be good, especially for me anyway, to have a definitive interpretation about this type of ensemble since the question is likely to arise again, and I, at least, have not made or seen a definitive conclusion about it. Donner60 (talk) 01:01, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

My belief regarding it is this: The Israeli military ensembles that fall within the entertainment sphere are in a weird spot where they fit as pop bands (several of them were voted as Band of the Year on the Israeli Annual Hebrew Song Chart) but they are also a part of the IDF proper.

There are three things that make them unique in this regard:

1. They are expected to be subordinate to their departments, and have their own commander, even though they're entertainment bands. This, to me, indicates that they are seen as units of whatever department of the IDF they fit into. The counterpoint to this is that, of course, they were expected to do that; they're serving in the military, but the entertainment ensembles having their own commander is what makes this point more important.
2. The Chief of the General Staff or any superior officer in whatever department the bands fit into have the authority to disband them. Rafael Eitan disbanded all of the entertainment bands in 1978 for example. A smaller example of this is shown in my draft about the Central Command Band where the band was disbanded in 1968 and 1989 due to behavioral issues. This is something that makes them clearly a part of the military to me (in the sense that they are more than just entertainers serving in the military, they are units that can be disbanded at any time, if the superior officers believe there is a valid reason to do so), but this is just my assessment.
3. Even though they did perform programs and record albums, these were things that were paid for by the Ministry of Defense. The financial part of the ensembles was part of the reason Eitan disbanded them in 1978. In this brief interview he gave to a newspaper in 1989, he states the following (translated by me): "I know personally that there's barely any money left for tank drills. We conserve ammunition and cut down on flight hours. We can't cut costs in the field equipment while also overspending on the entertainment department." Again, this indicates that all of the bands (marching or entertainment) are a part of the IDF as units.

I'd like to see what you think of these things that I mentioned and I think that you should bring these up in further discussions. S.G. (talk) 01:13, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Oh and one more thing. There is one example I can think of that is of someone who served in one of these bands but also served in the military on a combat basis. Uzi Hitman, in another draft of mine, he said that two-thirds of his service were in combat roles. I do think he is likely an exception, but I still wanted to mention him. I hope I'm not being too unclear here or maybe misunderstanding your words. I apologise if I am. S.G. (talk) 01:31, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

This article introduces another element, his popular song about a military topic. The article does not give an example of combat service notability, rather than simply service. Again, this may fall under point 2 note 3 cited of the topics we cover, cited in full above. The article is not about the song alone, but then again, it does seem to come under point 8 of the topics we cover. Perhaps this is a sufficient reason to include the article under military history as well as other projects. That may need to be a topic for discussion as well. Donner60 (talk) 01:46, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

@SignedInteger: I have reassessed the article as B class after your revisions. Since it is now B class for all projects, the inclusion in the scope of the project is the only open question for this and similar articles about entertainment ensembles. I am now tending toward a conclusion to keep it within the scope of the project. I will take a little time to decide whether to ask for further opinions or just leave it within the scope given the facts pointed out by you and Swatjester. Pinging so this later comment does not get lost among the others. Donner60 (talk) 02:15, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. For now, I will go back to improving existing articles. Ping me if you have an update on this. S.G. (talk) 02:25, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

In view of the additional information that you and Swatjester provided and the limited number of articles likely to have similar facts and circumstances, and in order to not spend more time on this or to involve others in the discussion at this busy time, I will leave the military history banner on this and similar articles as within the scope of the project. Thanks for your patience and contributions to military history and Wikipedia in general. Donner60 (talk) 01:52, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. I must mention that I have nominated one of these newly made articles for GA in the warfare subtopic. Hopefully, whoever reviews it is aware of the unique circumstances of these ensembles, but if not, I will inform them about it, assuming it gets reviewed soon but I can wait. There's a lot of articles there that need reviews (or just a check to see if they should get reviewed) too aside from mine, so I'm not expecting anything at the moment. S.G. (talk) 02:03, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

One final thing, I'm going to be adding the military history project tag to Ammunition Hill due to the fact that the song makes use of first hand accounts of Israeli veterans of the battle (see the article, all three accounts/interviews are cited). It is somewhat like the movie Gettysburg, it isn't that accurate to the actual battle but it is a depiction of it through another lens, in this case, music. If you disagree with that, please let me know. I'll be assessing it as start class for now. S.G. (talk) 02:16, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

You seem to be a mature editor and don't have to jump through the hoops of draft article approvement for articles with solid content. --Altenmann >talk 04:48, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, I do still have to get it assessed. If I'm being honest, with the amount of coverage and sources article has, I do think it could be reasonably nominated for GA. But that's for later, there are several parts of it that could be included on the main page as DYK factoids, though. S.G. (talk) 04:53, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

I agree with the comment by User:Altenmann. Donner60 (talk) 01:54, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I'm new to being a Wikipedia editor (just created an account 2 minutes ago). I don't see an edit button or tab on the Wikipedia page I'm on. What is the issue? Thanks! --Kosher Kitty (talk) 00:35, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello! Thanks for reaching out. What page are you on? It is possible that the page that you're on is protected from editing. See here for more information. This is usually the case, since instead of an edit button it says "view source." I should note that what I said applies to desktop; on mobile, it instead shows a pen with a lock next to it. If this is not the case, let me know. Thanks! S.G. (talk) 02:04, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

OK, I clicked "view source" for both pages ("Israel" and "Gaza Genocide" and both say

"This page is currently protected so that only extended confirmed users and administrators can edit it." Kosher Kitty (talk) 06:13, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

That means you cannot edit the page directly. Instead, you can file an edit request on the talk pages for both articles. (See what I linked for more information on that) The only way for you to edit them directly is by becoming an extended confirmed user, which requires at least 500+ edits, amongst other criterions. The only other way to become extended confirmed is by requesting extended confirmed rights from the admins but this is usually only given to legitimate alternate accounts of users who already have those rights, I'm unaware of any cases where this is given to a new user. I should also note that due to these being about contentious topics, you should ensure that what you're requesting to add is backed up by reliable sources. If you have any other questions, let me know. S.G. (talk) 06:19, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

It seems I have to know source code to request an edit...and I don't. Or am I missing something? Thank you, I am obviously new to this. Kosher Kitty (talk) 16:44, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Oh, this depends on the type of edit.

There's three helpful "invisible" comments (as in comments only viewable in the source editor/source code) that try to help on what to do:

"Place a description of your suggested change below this comment. Be sure to explain why your edit is needed. If your edit is more than one or two sentences, then delete the "Diff:" text below, put your changes in this template's sandbox and link to the sandbox below."

"Replace "ORIGINAL_WIKITEXT" (below this line) with the wikitext (source code) that you want to be changed."

"Replace "CHANGED_WIKITEXT" (below this line) with your requested new wikitext."

These should help you understand what to put in (it isn't really any code, for the second and third comment, just find the section that you want to change and copy and paste it into the "ORIGINAL_WIKITEXT" and then copy and paste your edit into the "CHANGED_WIKITEXT").

For anything more major than that, I recommend against filing those sort of requests since the chances of them being accepted is next to zero. This is especially true for requests related to any FAQs mentioned in the talk pages for either article. See the FAQs for Israel and FAQs for Gaza genocide for more info. I know this may come off as pessimistic but for these sort of contentious topics, there is a lot of protection put in place for major edits and major edit requests. Let me know if your edit request is minor or major, and if it is uncontroversial or not. (If not, do not file the request, it will be declined). S.G. (talk) 17:31, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, this is so helpful! My requested edit is pretty minor, I just want to change the statement that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza to "While some believe Israel is committing genocide in Gaza," because different organizations/countries/groups have different opinions. Then there remains the following sentence that some countries disagree. To me this is more accurate. So I did copy and paste the text I wanted changed, then typed in my suggested edit, then pressed "Publish" but not sure what effect, if any, that had; it just brought me back to the page of existing edits and discussion around them. Kosher Kitty (talk) 19:11, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Please see your user talk page for important information. 331dot (talk) 19:44, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

How do I add a google map screen capture to question the veracity of BRO's claim of building a road to 19,400 ft in Northern India? --Darkrangertelescopetours (talk) 04:49, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello! Thanks for reaching out, but to answer your question:

As far as I'm aware, you cannot use Google Maps screenshots for Wikipedia articles, likely due to copyright issues. I should also note that there is no consensus on how reliable Google Maps is as a source in general. instead you can use OpenStreetMap for the same purpose, provided it is backed up with a source, since we do not allow original research.

To check this, I've checked articles related to this subject and they all use OpenStreetMap and not Google Maps.

Also, I should note that if your claim does not have a source to back it up, it does have a chance of remaining on Wikipedia but do expect it to be followed by a "[citation needed]" tag since again, we can't just publish claims we ourselves made. If you have any other questions, let me know. S.G. (talk) 04:59, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

		The Helping Hand Barnstar
		For putting up with my nonsense helping at Teahouse! ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 13:05, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Aw, thank you! I wouldn't consider it nonsense. The Teahouse is the place for "nonsense" from beginners. Although, some questions really do baffle me. Like this one, I don't know why anyone would need a list of the editors who worked on the Palestine article, but I'll assume good faith here. But most of the questions are fine! And yours are too, of course. S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Contributions) 13:08, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

I suspect Pigsonthewing may be getting rather fed up with my ramblings, lol. Either way, I've learned a huge amount in a very short time, and you've been a significant part of that! ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 13:28, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

You're welcome! Andy (Pigsonthewing) might be fed up a bit, or he's trying to close lengthy discussions down to archive them, or maybe both. I'd assume that he's just trying to close these lengthy rambles to prevent the Teahouse from getting too bloated. There's only so long that a discussion that started about why Henry Stickmin doesn't have an article but then for some reason spiraled into talking about ancient Greek philosophers, can last on the Teahouse, I'd say. Either way, I wish you luck with your future contributions on Wikipedia and when you're ready, your first article! S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Contributions) 13:34, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes, that's the sort of "nonsense" I meant as far redirecting (or cutting off) tangents. Some of it was productive...some rather less so, lol. Those are the kind of paths my rabbitholes tend to take - but without anyone to put a stop to them! I've stumbled down an awful lot of strange alleys over the last few days. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 13:48, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Rabbitholes? I might have the thing for you. See also: Wikipedia:Wikipedia games. These tend to revolve around going from one page to another seemingly unrelated page. Like going from Iran to Undertale in the fewest possible links for example. This is almost certainly nonsense, but it is fun nonsense! I've played these before, I remember trying to get from Zoroastrianism to The Beatles. There are also other games on there that aren't like that, but I find these silly parts of Wikipedia to be so stupid yet somehow so valuable. Another example of this are humorous essays like this: Wikipedia:No one cares about your garage band. Absolutely stupid, but I love them so much. S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Contributions) 13:55, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

I already found the test within hours of signing up, took it, and bookmarked the adventure and Roblox for later. Adding this to the list 🫣 ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 14:07, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

I use female pronouns (or neutral). Not a big deal - I'm not overly picky about it and honest mistakes are fine. I may or may not remember to add them to my signature when I get around to it. Figured you'd rather know for the future though. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 11:05, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Oh, I apologise. I'll be sure to use the correct pronouns from now on. Usually, I use They/Them for any editor who hasn't already clarified what pronouns they prefer for obvious reasons. This time I didn't, so again, apologies. S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Contributions) 11:08, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

It's fine - like I said I'm not very particular about it, but I've had people get annoyed when I don't correct them 🤷‍♀️ I'm working on making neutral my default too, especially on here where there are no gender indicators unless someone explicitly adds them, but sometimes my brain seems to assign them for no particular reason. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 11:25, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Sometimes my brain defaults to the masculine pronouns, probably because my native language, Hebrew, defaults to the masculine for a most things. As a slightly related side note: Hebrew does not even have a gender neutral "You" (for both singular "You" and plural "You"), so the only truly gender neutral pronouns there are the first person pronouns. When translating things from Hebrew, I do try to make the language more gender neutral if I can. Here's an example of that. (Very rough draft, I know, I'll get to work on it later). S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Contributions) 11:32, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure if changing the form is appropriate there, since album titles are proper nouns. Is the Hebrew version definitely intended to be a default reference to any general person? Maybe get input from other dual speakers on it, especially if they're familiar with the work. Or if there's an English release (for the album label itself) just follow whatever was used. I suspect it's usually safer to leave such things as they are, unless there isn't a direct translation and the closest interpretation is the only option.

I can only imagine how much harder this subject is to deal with in languages that are inherently gendered (I speak a few words of Spanish). We at least have the language for it, we just need to convince people to actually use it. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 11:43, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

The direct translation is "A Man Within Himself", but here's my take:

• "Adam" means man, human, or person, depending on the context, obviously this comes from the Biblical Adam.
• Since it uses the masculine pronoun for "themself", that means it is using the default.

However, I must note that the song of the same name is likely an autobiographical song, so perhaps "A Man Within Himself" is better as the title with "A Person Within Themself" being used as an alternate translation. S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Contributions) 11:47, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

If it was just used within normal conversation you'd probably be correct about changing the form, but (at least in English) proper nouns should usually be preserved as close to the original as possible. If it was me I'd leave it male but keep the note (rephrased) regarding the difference in language - I think doing otherwise verges on assumption about what the artist meant to imply. If it is autobiographical he may well have still used masculine if he'd written it in English. But that's just my take as an en-N monoglot. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 12:02, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Looking through the sources that I have, I can confirm that it is autobiographical. Shalom Hanoch talked about the origins of the song in an interview with Yedioth Ahronoth where he said this (translated by me):

"I wrote this song when I was living in England, before the Yom Kippur War. I didn't speak English and yet I tried to make an album in English by using a dictionary, and then I wrote this song in English despite my lack of knowledge of it. I translated the lyrics into Hebrew on an evening when I was at my lowest point. I came into myself, and when I returned to Israel, I had the lyrics written out already except for the chorus. I simply dreamed up the chorus one night."

Therefore, "A Man Within Himself" is likely the best fit. I'll get back to that one later, though. S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Contributions) 12:13, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, if it's about himself as a man there's not much doubt, but again for proper nouns it's usually safest to retain the closest translation possible unless there's solid reason to believe that the artist/author/etc or an agent acting on their behalf would modify it if it was translated officially. They're the foremost authority on their own intent. When we're focused on learning to do something specific like this it's easy to look for opportunities to do so, but sometimes you need to step back and think about whether it's really necessary in context. In this case, what the artist intended and what other people are likely to expect it to translate to should be the priority, rather than linguistic shortcomings between languages. I'm sure there a relevant guideline or two somewhere but I haven't a clue where to look.

Tangentially, how are people who prefer neutral forms for themselves handling it in Hebrew? Is it something that's discussed, or still frowned upon? ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 12:25, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

To answer your question: It depends, I remember when a friend of mine was surprised to find out that Israel even has non-binary people, mostly because of the language problems. I also remember seeing some people that still use They/Them (either masculine they or feminine they). The preference appears to favor masculine They (probably because it is the default). In terms of how other people interpret it, I'm afraid it'll be a while before people will adapt to it. Personally, in Hebrew, I'm okay with any pronoun, so that's how I've helped my family adapt to it. That same friend of mine didn't need to adapt since he's used to gender-neutral language already. S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Contributions) 12:31, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

So they're using the (usually) multiple gendered form? Interesting. We only have singular "they" specifically for the neutrality; historically when it's a single individual of unknown gender, hence the established usage long before "gender stuff". I suppose Hebrew would default to masculine for those situations, so default masculine they for NBs is slightly less definitive than he, which explicitly assigns gender?

And yes, I do know nonbinary individuals did and do exist whether or not they have the language to explain it, just like trans individuals have since long before they had any medical options. I was just curious how they're dealing with the language limitations. English and our "pocket change" grammar just happened to have an existing workaround - although personally I feel that establishing an agreed upon singular neutral form would simplify matters a bit. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 12:48, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes, they are using the plural form of gendered they, I do remember talking to someone who had the same preferences as I did (all pronouns), but most use plural masculine They.

Because Hebrew was an extinct language for a while, there was no period where this could've been made into a singular gender neutral pronoun. That and most rabbis of this era would probably only be using the Hebrew alphabet in order to write their works, see for example, The Guide for the Perplexed by Maimonides.

There have been attempts to do this in Spanish, I'm pretty sure, but the chances of this happening with Hebrew are probably slim but I don't really know to be honest. I mean, this is a language that was brought back to life 200 years ago, maybe it will adapt to this eventually, just like how Eliezer Ben-Yehuda adapted words like "bomb", "ice cream" and "innovation" into Hebrew all those years ago.

The important part isn't really the language I'd say, it is more about the acceptance of enbies, and at the moment, outside of Tel Aviv, most Israelis don't understand what a non-binary person is. LGBTQ rights in Israel are famously progressive, and yeah, we have had a transgender female singer win the Eurovision Song Contest 1998 (That's Dana International and she won there with her song Diva) but we haven't really had too much awareness raised about non-binary people.

Why? I don't know, maybe one day we'll have our own equal to Dana International. (Though, even she didn't get that accepted at first, I've seen shows in Israel from the late 90s and early 2000s make jokes at her expense, including some very problematic ones) Oh, and a final example of the awareness of transgender people in Israel is a song from 1990 called "Draw Yourself a Moustache" that's about a cisgender female transitioning to become a transgender male. I'm a bit on the fence on if that song depicts it positively though. S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Contributions) 13:04, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

I think a lot of people still struggle to break out of binary thinking, even if they're comfortable with the idea of others identifying however they feel. The language issues as well as the national religious identity's impact on culture (even for secular individuals) might exacerbate that. It's difficult to learn new ways to think even when you want to. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 13:24, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

That is probably the case for a lot of countries. Heck, I'd argue it is the case for a lot of communities. For example: Kris Dreemurr (the main protagonist of Deltarune) has their gender identity constantly debated upon by fans. Although it hasn't been confirmed by the developers yet, r/deltarune has both a pinned post and a rule that basically amounts to "Kris is non-binary, whether you like it or not", unsurprisingly, this has mostly caused a bunch of troll posts, argument-filled posts and the like to be posted there. (Personally I do agree that they're likely non-binary, but as I mentioned earlier, it hasn't been confirmed). S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Contributions) 13:32, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, well, that's reddit for you. I doubt it would be much better even with official confirmation. Intentional insertion of neutral pronouns is about as close as you can get without doing so, though. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 13:44, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

In this case, the neutral pronouns are likely intentionally put in. Frisk, the protagonist of Undertale also uses They-Them, and in general it just appears to be a thing for these games' human characters to be gender neutral or at the very least for them to be referred to be with gender neutral pronouns. Toby Fox is intentionally coy about these sort of things, probably because he knows that no matter what he does, he's screwed. S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Contributions) 13:49, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I meant - they can make a statement in game that way without getting quite as much flak outside of it - maybe. As you said. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 13:52, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

On another unrelated note (sorry), could I get your eyes on this comment? It's not urgent, but I suspect it got lost in the shuffle. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 13:25, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

As an aside, do you think the current discussion on Teahouse might be related to the odd TA request for a contributor list yesterday? ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 11:28, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

I think it's possible, but neither you nor I know what the IP address of that account is. It's probably best not to speculate on that one. S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Contributions) 11:30, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Just a niggling suspicion from the hints. Doesn't really matter either way given the protections. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 11:32, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Just a passerby comment, ChompyTheGogoat, but you can always put your pronouns in your signature and/or put pronoun userboxes on your userpage! Hope this helps, Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 12:12, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I know. I only mentioned it because they'd specifically used he and pronouns had just been discussed recently. Like I said, no harm no foul. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 02:46, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Greetings, SignedInteger. I hope to start editing soon and I'll appreciate your expertise and insights. Copy editing is one of my skills; I'll begin in the areas of grammar and punctuation (unless you have a better idea). Question: Is there a preferred footnote/reference style (e.g., Chicago, MLA, etc...)? Best wishes for the New Year. - Island Daughter --Island Daughter (talk) 22:56, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Hey@Island Daughter! Thanks for reaching out. Copy editing is a fantastic place to start as a new editor. As such, you should probably join this: Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors. (Also see Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests for copy editing tasks.)

As for citation styles, while I do recommend that you see: Wikipedia:Citing sources, there really is no preferred style, I'd say. 2-4 good citations is usually good enough for most paragraphs/statements or claims. However, if it requires more than that, then it may be best to combine all the sources into one footnote. _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Contributions)} 23:02, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Who is farid lexus music --Farid Lexus Music (talk) 13:54, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Hey! Thanks for reaching out, but I have no clue who that is. Your username seems to suggest that you are this person. If you are, and are planning on making a promotional page for yourself on Wikipedia, then please, do not. _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Contributions)} 13:56, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

fix in --Abotreeka (talk) 17:07, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Hey @Abotreeka! Thanks for reaching out but, what do you mean by "fix in"? Fix in what? Do you have any questions or...? _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 17:12, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

SignedInteger,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Volten001 ^☎ 07:36, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Volten001 ^☎ 07:36, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

SignedInteger,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
GGOTCC 07:47, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Happy New Year to one of the nicest people on the site! GGOTCC 07:47, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello SignedInteger,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Pépé Bradock for deletion, because it's a redirect from an article title to a namespace that's not for articles.

If you don't want Pépé Bradock to be deleted, you can contest this deletion, but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 16:06, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

@Bobby Cohn: Thanks! I was just about to do that! I just hope that the draft doesn't get deleted either. _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 16:08, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Not a problem. To be honest, I didn't think Twinkle even bothered notifying about R2 nominations. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 16:10, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

I should note that .nhals8 did remove your notice earlier (I restored it, as I said earlier, I was about to tag it already). They are the same editor who tagged the draft (when it was on the mainspace) for speedy deletion per A7. Not too sure if that should apply to a still WIP draft, though, but I'll stay out of it for now. _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 16:16, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

@SignedInteger tagged it before it was moved to draftspace ///// JUMPINGISNOTACRIME (he/him) 16:39, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

@.nhals8: You're likely mistaken, I think. I'm the one who moved it to the draftspace. (See this Teahouse thread) Then @Bobby Cohn tagged the redirect for deletion, then you removed the notice, and then I restored it. That's according to the edit history anyway. _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 16:43, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I have just started editing on Wikipedia and have a question I thought you might be able to help with. I often feel uncertain as to whether a sentence contains biased language. If a sentence read: "Jonah Hill is a brilliant actor", this would obviously be flagged as an opinion, but would a sentence reading; "Jonah Hill is often considered one of the most talented actors of the 21st century" be considered opinionated if it then included a list of reliable sources all saying this? Thanks in advance :) --TheBoah (talk) 17:46, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Hey @TheBoah! Thanks for reaching out, here's my answer:

No, it is typically not considered in violation of Wikipedia:NPOV, if it is worded as "often considered" or "often regarded". For example: The Dark Side of the Moon, Final Fantasy VII and The Sopranos. All of these have a statement similar to the one you mentioned and they're all backed up with reliable sources. Again, the wording needs to be like the example you used, but I must heed: It needs to be backed up with a source! I'm sure you'd understand why. Hope this helped! _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 17:50, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the clarification :) TheBoah (talk) 18:22, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello. How do I add a photo to an entry. --Pazza346 (talk) 00:02, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Hey @Pazza346! Thanks for reaching out but there is just one problem. You're on mobile, and the mobile web visual editor does not even have the option of inserting images. Why? No idea. The desktop visual editor does, and you don't have to switch devices to use it, but it is awfully inconvenient to have to change from "Mobile view" to "Desktop view" to do this. Those are at the bottom of the page, tap the "Desktop view" one to change the view of the page to what it would look like on PC, then tap edit, and the desktop visual editor will load. It should have an option that says "Insert", tap that, a menu will appear with various options, tap "Images and Media" and then search for the file you want to add. After that, insert it, add a caption and publish the edit. (And also go back to mobile view). I know this is awful and very inconvenient, but that's how it is on here sometimes, sadly. _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 00:07, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi @SignedInteger I’ve been looking through your edit history and overall editing strategy, and I just wanted to say I’m genuinely impressed. You have a very strong and consistent record across articles, discussions, and process pages, and it’s clear you understand Wikipedia policies and content quality very well. Out of curiosity, have you ever considered applying for any advanced user rights (such as reviewer, page mover, or file mover)? Based on your contributions, you seem well suited for them. Just a note of appreciation and a genuine question. Thanks for your solid work on Wikipedia. Jr·NTR (talk) 13:16, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Hey! Firstly, thank you, but at the moment I'm not considering applying for anything yet, I'm more focused on doing more AfC related work and my own userspace drafts. I strive to help newcomers understand the policies we have on here because frankly, to most of them it will and likely already has looked like a nightmare. We're long overdue for our own Guide for the Perplexed to be made that could help newbies out. Again, thanks for your praise, I try my best to be helpful because with how complicated Wikipedia can be, most newcomers will likely be baffled by things like "Wikipedia:GNG" or "Wikipedia:Neutral point of view", I think when mentioning these, it works a lot better to make a piped link with the basic description of what they are, rather than just a link to them. Examples: "The language used here does not fit Wikipedia's neutral tone." or "This submission does not have enough sources cited to help verify its claims." These work a lot better than just a raw link to the policy in question. Again, thank you for your kind words! _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 13:24, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining.(: that makes a lot of sense. I really appreciate your focus on WP:AfC work and helping newcomers understand policies in plain language. That approach is genuinely valuable. Thanks again to the great work you’re doing. Jr·NTR (talk) 13:38, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

You're welcome! And since this is related, Qcne is doing a great overhaul of the templates used for AfC rejections and approvals. Check them out here! They're really great and I think you'd like them as well. _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 13:43, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Cool! I’ll definitely check them out — sounds like a really useful improvement. Appreciate you sharing this. Jr·NTR (talk) 13:53, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks @SignedInteger :) I also reiterate @Jr·NTR's comments. qcne (talk) 16:12, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

holy shit, i've been waiting for this. i don't have any questions, just wanted to say hi. --Atstatst (talk) 23:52, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Hey @Atstatst! Thanks for reaching out. I see you wanted to greet me, that's nice. Come by if you need any help. _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 23:53, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	Thank you for the quick, flawless GA review of "My Mind's Eye"!

VirreFriberg (talk) 13:11, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

@VirreFriberg: Thank you! I'm still somewhat new to reviewing GANs but after the third one, I got the hang of it. This is one that's been waiting for a month (and if I have to admit, it is from an era of music that I am interested in), so I felt it would be great for both the nominator and Wikipedia itself if I gave it a quick but still in-depth review. Once again, thanks for the barnstar! I hope that you'll keep doing the same work you did here in the future, because it's really solid stuff. _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 13:14, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. Will resume later. Best wishes to you. --Mathmet (talk) 16:52, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Your good article nomination of the article The Sixteenth Sheep is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Atstatst -- Atstatst (talk) 20:07, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Your good article nomination of the article The Sixteenth Sheep has passed; congratulations! See the review page for more information. 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 Atstatst -- Atstatst (talk) 20:46, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		Hey, thanks for your GA reviews of Load and Reload. I intend to use that spotcheck template in future GA reviews; it's so helpful. Also, if you're still struggling with depression, I'm sorry, and I hope you're doing ok. I know this is the first time we've interacted, but if you ever need someone just to talk to, don't be afraid to reach out! :-) – zmbro (talk) (cont) 22:34, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

You're welcome! And thanks for asking about my well-being, it could be better, but it really helps to know that there's others on Wikipedia who care about me. Oh, and by the way, the template is actually a script: User:Anne drew/Veracity. It is a really useful one, what it does is that it generates a table for you to use for spot checking for GANRs and the like. Again, thanks for your kind words, it means a lot to me. (And make sure to install the Veracity script, I use it for pretty much every GANR that I do) _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 22:38, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Done. Thanks again! :-) – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 23:04, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

hi! when i edit a wikipedia page, it asks me to describe what my edit was. is there a certain format to how i should word this? thank you!

(so far, i've just been writing things like "corrected a typo in sentence 2 of the third paragraph in the 'Introduction' section, typo being '___'") ---pompompomelo- (talk) 14:33, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi @-pompompomelo-! To answer your question, here's a few examples depending on your edit:

1. "Fixed typo" (you don't have to specify where and which typo it was, most editors can tell which typo you fixed by checking the difference between your edit and the last one)
2. "CE" or "ce" or "copyedit" or "copyediting", these are all for copyediting aka minor changes to the grammar and sometimes formatting of an article.
3. "Added a reference" or "Added a source", these are for when you add a citation to a paragraph that needs it (eg. one that has none or one that has the ^{[citation needed]} clean-up tag.
4. "Fixed the infobox", "Fixed the template", "Fixed the navbox" and the like are for when you fix formatting related to a template, eg. an infobox, and the like.
5. "Added a new section", this is for a very major change, if you're adding a new section, you should also write what it's called and if you think it is needed why you made it. eg. "Added new discography section to document (artist/band)'s discography"
6. "Changed section", similar to the last one, you should name which section you've changed or fixed. eg. "Changed plot section".

Now here's some examples of edit summaries that are not ideal

1. "Major changes." (This is way too short and tells the other editors nothing aside from the fact that you've made "major changes" to an article)

Instead do:

1. "Major changes. Changed the lead section, fixed the infobox, added new biography section" and so on.

Another example is one that is too long, like this:

1. "Fixed this honestly absurd typographical error, I mean, why would ANYONE make such a stupid error? Come on, learn English already!"

or this:

1. "This source is unreliable, and cannot be used, I can't believe anyone thought it was right to use here."

No, instead you should just say:

1. "Removed unreliable source"

or if you changed the source:

1. "Changed unreliable source with reliable source".

I know this is a long comment, but I hope that it helped. Happy Editing! _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 14:42, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

thank you so much for replying quickly! got it. -pompompomelo- (talk) 15:23, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Regarding special:diff/1332493391 and the subsequent warning: It's usually better to answer these types of odd questions with a reminder that the help desk is for Wikipedia matters, rather than random matters of life. I'd just like to err on the side of AGF since most of the people at help desk and teahouse are new and confused, rather than malicious. – Quinn ΘΔ 04:17, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Well, I should note that wasn't a warning, just a general note, even then I wasn't assuming bad faith, there's just no twinkle warning that specifically says "You posted this in the wrong area" or something to that extent. _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 04:22, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Fair enough, that was a small mixup in my part. It's just sometimes difficult to tell intentions through text. I'm just cautious about the odd person here and there being a little too bitey, and just happened to see that on my watchlist. No harm done either way. – Quinn ΘΔ 04:28, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Well, technically I did say "You posted this in the wrong area", it was just the final part of the warning: "The help desk is not the right place to ask questions like this one, sorry.", I wonder if there's any way to make specific warnings for stuff like this? Just for personal usage because these things do happen and it would work better if we had a specific message that said something like, "Hey, the help desk is not the place to ask questions about things unrelated to editing Wikipedia. You can try the reference desk, however." I haven't really used the reference desk myself much, but I do think that it's possible for it to be a better place for questions that don't fit the Teahouse or help desk. _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 04:33, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

I decided to put this here rather than at the Teahouse for a smidge more privacy.

I wasn't sure initially how to approach this, because I don't want to 'scold' you for your self deprecation, nor do I want to treat you with anything less than complete transparency and respect.

I'll start with my concern; when you respond to corrections or criticism with intense self-deprecation, it makes other editors less willing to correct or criticise you for fear of making you feel bad, which is not ideal in a collaborative project that relies on us all pulling each other up when we make mistakes. You shouldn't do that, is the main thing; even if you feel that way, it isn't fair or productive to place that burden on others for doing what they're supposed to do. I don't want to leave it there, though, as I do want to approach the actual root of the issue.

I understand this will sound like a platitude to somebody experiencing depression, but it is genuinely and entirely true that when somebody corrects you on Wikipedia it is absolutely not a comment on your aptitude, either as a Wikipedia editor or in general. Nobody thinks you are an inept idiot because you answered a question wrong or didn't know something. Wikipedia is nigh-incomprehensibly vast and it's impossible for any individual to have a comprehensive knowledge of it. That's why most people have a specialism or subject area. There are people who've been here for decades and tens or hundreds of thousands of edits who are equally capable of forgetting things or making mistakes; if not moreso because the rules have changed significantly in their time here.

You are just as much a welcome and productive part of this project as anybody else. When someone corrects you, it is not evidence of your ineptitude; it is an opportunity for you to learn and to only become even better and even more productive. All of us know the things we know because we were corrected or pointed in the right direction by others. Athanelar (talk) 10:48, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

@Athanelar: I don't want to say this because you clearly do care but your message is...not good. This message misunderstands everything, and I honestly had a reaction of "Are they kidding me?" when I saw this.

First off, no, I don't think the people correcting me think that of me. I think that of me. Remember that. These comments have nothing to do with who corrects or "criticises" me. I don't consider that "criticism", I can react well to criticism, this is not criticism, especially not when I see shit like tthis posted that only sets off alarm bells in my head and makes me feel like I'm being watched for every little mistake I make. These moments, these are the ones where I feel worthless on here, and would prefer to never return here. This place is hostile enough as is, with all the demoralising essays that everyone tries to pass off (I don't want to hear your opinion about them, no offense, but I've read about that already) I can't slip up with guidelines in my mind, because they're the only thing on here that I've been reading for as long as I have. "Nobody thinks you're inept because you answered a question correctly", no, I consider myself inept, remember that, again.

I don't want to come off as "high maintenance" or a "diva" or any of those other terms that made me scared to even register here all those years ago, but I don't like this message. It attempts to tell me something that I already know without realising that the problem isn't how I handle criticism, it is how I handle myself, this is not a problem you can fix. Nobody on Wikipedia can fix it, no matter how much they want to help, because frankly, unless they're one of the "niche" editors that knows a thing or two about mental health, they're out of their depth and should probably let someone who knows what they're doing handle it. If you want me to stop doing this, then I'm sorry, this is not your field of expertise and I really really consider it beyond my assumption of good faith to take other Wikipedians' advice when it comes to my mental health, this is not something you can help with, no matter how hard you try, you don't know me, you don't know anything about me, for you to even try here would be the same as me trying that with you, it's in good faith, yes, but I'm ultimately a complete stranger trying to tell you how to live your life. It has nothing to do with you as a person, but I can't take advice like this, unless it's from my therapist.

Again, as much as you tried to make this respectful, it didn't work, it misunderstood the root of the problem, and the root isn't the people criticising me, it's me, I react poorly because I hate myself, and again, this is not something that I want anyone on here to try to solve, because again, they're out of their depth. I'm sorry if you hate this reply, I know I'm probably a jerk by even saying all of this, but no matter how much good faith you had when making this message, it was still bad, and I still didn't like it. You're probably a fine person, but to conclude it with what I've already said earlier, this is out of your depth and goes beyond understanding how Wikipedia works. Let my therapist handle it, okay? I appreciate the effort, but it's not going to work. Thanks for the message anyway, even if I didn't like it. _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 13:14, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Okay, I apologise for my comment. The rest of it aside, then, I am still requesting that you not respond to other editors' advice or corrections in the way that you did here, because it is uncomfortable for other editors to feel responsible for such a reaction. Athanelar (talk) 13:31, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

@Athanelar: They shouldn't hold themselves responsible for that, again, they are not to blame, it is never their fault but I get it. It's just a tall order to ask of me when as I said before, this is a me issue, I can try but it's not that simple and it will take a while for it to get done. This reaction of mine to making mistakes is something I've had for almost three years, I think that from that you can gather that while I can try, it will be very difficult to pull off. Old habits die hard, especially old harmful habits. I don't disagree that it's bad on my end, but I also don't think that any editor should feel bad for that, but WIkipedians are humans, and humans are naturally empathic, so chances are, just like with your advice earlier, this advice of mine won't work because frankly why would anyone want to overlook their inner empathy just because someone has self-hatred? You didn't do that, considering you left this message. So yeah, I'll try to let this die off, it won't be easy, it might cause more harm than good, but again I think it is a taller order to ask about 200,000 people to try to look past their empathy for me than it is for me to let that habit that's causing them to react poorly die off already. I'll try, it won't be easy but I'll try. Thanks, again, even if it isn't the easiest thing in the world for me to do, I don't think it's invalid, I'm just saying that it will be hard and that I hope you understand why. _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 13:43, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi S.G. — just a quick heads-up that I restored the AfC submission template and your review comment at the top of Draft:Brandon Barwick after they were accidentally removed during an earlier edit. No content or sourcing changes beyond that — purely housekeeping. No rush at all; just wanted to be sure you saw it. Thanks again. PeteSeegerWorld (talk) 13:37, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

@PeteSeegerWorld: That's okay. I'm sorry I didn't get back to that draft. I've got a lot on my mind. Good luck with it, though! _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 13:44, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Your good article nomination of the article Lehakat Pikud Merkaz is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Atstatst -- Atstatst (talk) 07:06, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Your good article nomination of the article Lehakat Pikud Merkaz is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of BedsAreBurning -- BedsAreBurning (talk) 08:43, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

i have no idea how this works halp --Robin The Birb (talk) 17:07, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

um, is it possible for editors to have profile pics? --Robin The Birb (talk) 17:08, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Hey @Robin The Birb! I'm sorry for my late response (I'm in the process of moving and just arrived at my new place, so...) but to answer your question:

Yesn't, you can have a photo on your userpage but it won't be a "profile picture" akin to what they have on say, YouTube or Twitter or the like. The easiest way to do this is with this neat template: Template:Infobox Wikipedia user, this template also allows you to list your interests, and it allows you to list userboxes. The infobox template will allow you to put up a photo, this can be any photo that's hosted on Wikimedia Commons (non-free images are also included, but as they are required to have minimal usage, I doubt they'd be allowed on userpages).

Userboxes are neat little boxes that help provide info about a user, to give an example here's a silly one:

this user is cringe · · · · but they are free

And to give another example, here's one for a WikiProject:

This user is concerned about Human Rights

User pages should not be autobiographies, per WP:USERPAGE, you can have stuff like interests and basic info, but I recommend against revealing too much personal information for your own safety (especially if you're a minor). There are many other neat user-pages you can use as an example, like User:Oshwah, for example. Just remember not to make your user-page too big or difficult to navigate. You can have a silly user page (I have one, partially), but not a user page that's too silly.

Hope this long reply helped, and I hope that you stick around here. I will also be giving you a "Welcome!" template that gives you some other basic things that could help. :) _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 17:44, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

You have been trouted for: YOUR REASON HERE ~~TROUT~~

Your good article nomination of the article Lehakat Pikud Merkaz has passed; congratulations! See the review page for more information. 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 BedsAreBurning -- BedsAreBurning (talk) 19:23, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello,

I am a writer and i would like to add an artist/writer page for myself with biography and titles of my books. Is that allowed or possibly to create on wikipedia?

thank you Anaïs Giulia --Carmensta (talk) 22:32, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Hey @Carmensta! First and foremost, this is a clear autobiography, while is not prohibited but it is greatly discouraged, it is also a conflict of interest that you must disclose. Now with that out of the way, the important part is...and I don't want you to take this personally but...

Are you notable?

What do I mean by that? Well, Wikipedia has a general guideline for what subjects are notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. Since you are a writer/artist, and clearly a living person, yours will fall into Wikipedia:NARTIST and Wikipedia:NAUTHOR, you should check both out, However, I must stress that if you do this, you cannot write about yourself in a way that is clearly biased, whether in favor of yourself or against yourself. The tone of the article must come from reliable secondary sources. Have you ever received any significant coverage in reliable secondary sources? Have any of your books received that? (In which case, the books themselves may be notable enough for inclusion). I should note that for biographies of living persons, the sourcing standards are high, in the sense that everything requires a citation from a secondary source that's clearly reliable.

To sum it up...

Articles generally require significant coverage

in reliable sources

that are independent of the topic.

If you are not notable enough, you will not get an article, though, I'd recommend against editing your own biography, I did say earlier that it is not prohibited (at least as far as I'm aware), just discouraged. I hope that this long comment helped, good luck, and happy editing! :)

Oh, and I'll be leaving a note on your talk page, too. _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 22:40, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello,

Thank you for your response and help. No i am not a famous writer yet but i would like to write and add a short biography about me, what genres my books are and a list with my published books titles (around 50 books written and published until now). I don’t think is bias if is just a short biography and my book titles. Could you help me with some information about this if possible please? Writing the article and what i should consider.

Thank you Carmensta (talk) 23:27, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello,

Thank you for your response and help. No i am not a famous writer yet but i would like to write and add a short biography about me, what genres my books are and a list with my published books titles (around 50 books written and published until now). I don’t think is bias if is just a short biography and my book titles. Could you help me with some information about this if possible please? Writing the article and what i should consider.

Thank you Carmensta (talk) 23:26, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello again, @Carmensta! First off, to clarify, fame does not equate to notability, and obscure things can be notable. Now as for your comments about bias and it being a short biography, while you can start writing it in your sandbox, there is a very low chance that other editors will accept it if you submit it for review. Unless it is clear that you are notable (not famous, see for example: Highway 6 (Israel), it's an important road, yes, but it is not really "famous" per se.), amongst other things, it is unlikely that you'd have an article about yourself made on Wikipedia. As I said before, I will again discourage you from doing this, but since it is not prohibited, it is only up to you to decide on if to make it or not. Now if you've never received any coverage at all, then, I don't want to discourage you too much, but please do not try to make an article about yourself if that is the case. There is a very low chance that it will be accepted, and a high chance that it will get rejected or even deleted, and these experiences will frustrate you, I know that they will, so to avoid that, if you are certain that you've never received coverage in any reliable independent secondary sources, then that is where this autobiography will end. Wikipedia is not a place for promotion. Hope this long comment helped, and good luck :) _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 23:35, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Hey SignedInteger — nice to meet you! Thanks for the offer.

I’ve just drafted my first page for submission (proper first attempt), so I’m still learning the ropes — but I’m excited to get stuck in. I’ll definitely give you a shout if I hit any snags or have questions.

Cheers - Harry --HarryTheBest99 (talk) 23:39, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Hey@HarryTheBest99! I noticed you wanted to move your draft to a new title, so I moved it for you :)

Good luck, and happy editing, oh, and I'll also leave a little welcome message in your talk page. I'll be glad to help you out if you need any. _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 23:42, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Much appreciated for the kind words and also for moving the draft :)

Also always nice to see another MOT on the internet - I’m Ashkenazi, with a Sephardi wife!

Many thanks,

H HarryTheBest99 (talk) 23:54, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Oh! You're Jewish, too? That's wonderful! :D I agree that it is always nice to see a fellow MoT online :)

If you're interested, you can join Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism or Wikipedia:WikiProject Jewish history, I'd put Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel and Wikipedia:WikiProject Palestine here too, but while both are related to Judaism and Jewish history (no dispute there...), they're quite contentious, as you probably know, so if you do join either, stick to articles that don't have the lock with an E on them (that means they're protected, click the link for more information). I'm sure these may interest you :)

Good luck, and of course, shalom aleichem! _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 00:04, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

yes indeed! 🙏 UK- based but have loved the times I’ve come over :)

Oh amazing — thank you for flagging these, and for the warm welcome again. I’ll definitely check the WikiProjects out and really appreciate you sending them over (and the sensible steer re: the contentious pages / protected articles).

Kol tuv!

H HarryTheBest99 (talk) 00:10, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Evidence is given at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SignedInteger. --Yamla (talk) 11:04, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Pine Barrens (The Sopranos) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:08, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

The Sixteenth Sheep has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. GiftedIceCream 15:46, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Lehakat Pikud Merkaz has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Gommeh 📖   🎮 19:41, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

The first round of the 2026 WikiCup ended on 26 February. As some of you may have noticed, good article nomination reviews now receive 10 points, an increase from 5 points in the previous year, as per a consensus at WT:CUP. This point increase has been retroactively applied to all good article reviews for which competitors have claimed points in this round. Peer reviews, which continue to be worth 5 points, are now listed in the same section as featured article candidate reviews, rather than with good article reviews. Everyone who competed in round 1 will advance to round 2 unless they have withdrawn or been banned. No other changes to the round-point system have been made for this year.

Round 1 was competitive. Three contestants scored more than 1,000 round points, and the top 16 contestants all scored more than 300 round points. The following competitors scored more than 800 round points:

• Bgsu98 (submissions) with 1,467 round points, largely gained from 1 featured article, 5 featured lists, 15 good articles, and 42 FAC and GAN reviews;
• Olliefant (submissions) with 1,246 round points, largely from 4 featured lists, 9 good articles, 2 featured topic articles, 4 did you know articles, and 75 FAC and GAN reviews;
• Generalissima (submissions) with 1,095 round points, largely from 3 featured articles, 6 good articles, and 5 did you know articles;
• MCE89 (submissions) with 848 round points, largely from 1 featured article, 8 good articles, 1 did you know article, and 32 FAC and GAN reviews; and
• Rollinginhisgrave (submissions) with 838 round points, largely from 1 featured article, 8 good articles, 1 did you know article, and 14 FAC, GAN, and peer reviews.

The full scores for round 1 can be seen here. During this round, contestants have claimed 7 featured articles, 16 featured lists, 2 featured-topic articles, 168 good articles, 13 good-topic articles and more than 50 Did You Know articles. In addition, competitors have worked on 14 In the News articles, and they have conducted nearly 700 reviews. The tournament points table will be updated within the next few days.

Remember that any content promoted after 26 February but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, feel free to review one of the nominations listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:57, 27 February 2026 (UTC)