User talk:Clovermoss

Talk page stalkers are strongly encouraged to pitch in if they know of anything. Thanks! Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 22:30, 17 February 2026 (UTC), last edited 12:39, 23 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

I'm not a French speaker (although I learned that in school), but while browsing other-language Wikipedia's, I have noticed that French Wikipedia uses CET/CEST (UTC+1/UTC+2) as their default for times on signatures, as most French speakers live at that time zone. And they have a different layout for talk page discussions saying when the last comment was, how many comments in the thread, and how many people have commented. Additionally, their equivalent of the teahouse also has tags at the top saying (using machine translation with some copyediting:)

• Une réponse a été apportée à cette question. An answer has been provided to this question.
• Requête en attente d'une réponse. (comment y répondre?) This request is awaiting a response. (How to respond?)
• Cette question est hors sujet par rapport à la mission de cette page d'entraide. This question is off-topic in relation to the purpose of this help page.

JuniperChill (talk) 23:46, 17 February 2026 (UTC) Reply

Some of these comparisons can be found in main namespace articles about various Wikipedia editions like German Wikipedia. The German Wikipedia is the largest edition to use pending changes exclusively and translate Wikipedia articles by importing their edits. There's an old comparison page on them at User:Elian/comparison. There's also an old Signpost series called "interwiki report" which may be of interest to you. Graham87 (talk) 04:27, 18 February 2026 (UTC) Reply

You can also find out more by poking around in Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Series. Re the Danish Wikipedia putting AFD's on talk pages: that's how the English Wikipedia sometimes did things around 2004, though they've been moved to AFD subpages by now (see for example this revision of Wikipedia:Archived articles for deletion discussions/May-June 2004. But they seem to do deletion proposals on a subpage like us ... like da:Wikipedia:Sletningsforslag/Kristian Rem. Some things that other projects do are similarly holdovers of how we used to do them. Graham87 (talk) 04:35, 18 February 2026 (UTC) Reply

@Graham87: Thanks for the correction! Was basing my original statements off some comments on Discord so I suppose that specific tidbit was wrong. I'll strike it. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 15:09, 18 February 2026 (UTC) Reply

The Meta-wiki pages on the different projects, e.g. meta:English Wikipedia, tend to have a "unique qualities" section. Some of the entries are quite dated, though. Updating an improving them all might be a good place to record the information you're looking to document. Sdkb ^talk 19:16, 18 February 2026 (UTC) Reply

I think what I'm looking for in total is a bit broader than unique qualities, but I'll try to update what is relevant as I come across it between both pages (there and mine). Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 19:43, 18 February 2026 (UTC) Reply

En-WP allows some non-free use of pictures, many others (perhaps none? Take the language versions of Marian Ewurama Addy for example) WP:s don't. German WP has pending edits for almost everybody, I think. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:25, 21 February 2026 (UTC) Reply

One of the things I notice a lot is that articles from smaller wikipedias tend not to have sourcing. I don't know if this is a desired norm or more like 'beggers can't be choosers', or whether some projects are just in a 'pre-2007' stage where it's normal for people to add their own knowledge to topics and not provide references (or if that's a chosen path given most knowledge in some societies is only recorded orally). Regardless I think inquiring about differences in norms between smaller and larger projects would be fruitful, makes me question whether mw:Reference Check is appropriate for all wikis Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 02:00, 27 February 2026 (UTC) Reply

hi! i'm not sure if you're still looking into this or you have other norms in mind, but here's some info in case it's helpful. (some references are 'older' so things might have changed)

1. language wikis that skew toward specific countries tend to reflect national norms/values (though this doesn't work for languages common in multiple countries) (Konieczny & Lewoniewski, 2024). differences between language wikis are especially clear in comparisons of the same history articles (Bridgewater, 2017; Kubś, 2021; so many things written by Luyt), current events (Otterbacher, 2014) and the types of content disputes people have (Apic et al., 2011; Yasseri et al., 2014).

2. enwiki biographies usually include more info on people's personal lives and controversies; polish wiki biographies usually include more mentions of communist ideology and polish ethnicity (while omitting other ethnicities, at the time of the study), and polish bios tend to describe how people overcome personal hardship (which reflects certain polish values) (Callahan & Herring, 2011).

3. Jemielniak (2014) sometimes compares enwiki and polish wiki in his ethnography. (imo) one of the more interesting mentions is user talk pages (p. 92–96). on polish wiki, editors respond to each other using the other person's talk page, so conversations are split between those two pages. this is more convenient for the editors, but it means everyone else has a harder time following discussions. on enwiki, all replies are kept on one person's talk page and structured like a forum chat. this contributes to more questioning in enwiki RfAs, compared to polish wiki.

4. i've also been meaning to learn more about namuwiki (Kim, 2023) and baidu and hudong (Zhang, 2014). i think u.s. researchers tend to overemphasize laws and censorship in asia, but i wonder if different encyclopedia traditions are also involved. that's been on my back burner though.

5. i hope this was helpful or at least interesting to read! also, i'm sorry school/research is taking a million years on my end. turns out information infrastructure along with AI and questionable research studies have made things more complicated. but i'm still working through it and trying to think of practical ways to help. it's slow, but i'm getting it done! SmolPetra (talk) 04:31, 9 March 2026 (UTC) Reply

@SmolPetra: I'm definitely still interested. Your observations of actual research done here make me curious if all of this is mentioned on the actual articles for these projects. I did some work on the Wikipedia article earlier this year to incorporate more secondary sourcing. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 12:26, 9 March 2026 (UTC) Reply

hmm... it does seem like the Wikipedia article generally describes content biases under 'language editions' and 'reception'. but it also seems like secondary sources attribute bias more to editors than control of information (eg, book burning, incentivizing 24/7 news, monopolizing orgs...) and unfortunately, articles for other projects are very short (eg, Polish Wikipedia). lemme see if i can update Bibliography of Wikipedia with secondary coverage, and maybe i can expand on some shorter articles as a start SmolPetra (talk) 03:45, 10 March 2026 (UTC) Reply

The kind of conversation that SmolPetra describes, alternating between the talk pages of the participants, was common in English Wikipedia when I first became involved, in 2006, and continued for I'm not sure how many years later. There were some editors who preferred to keep conversations together on one page, but in that situation, if you wanted to make sure the other person was aware you'd posted a reply, you had to go to their talk page and post a message telling them. Many editors, probably most, took the line that if you were going to have to post on the other editor's talk page anyway, you might as well just post your response to their message there. Things changed dramatically when pings were introduced, so that you could alert the other editor to a message on your talk page without needing to go to theirs. Keeping the conversation on one page then very quickly became almost universal. JBW (talk) 08:34, 16 March 2026 (UTC) Reply

@JBW: My understanding of early Wikipedia history is that there also used to be subpages of articles and talkpages? Daniel Quinlan has been around forever, maybe he knows what I'm talking about? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 12:36, 23 March 2026 (UTC) Reply

Hi Clovermoss, you might want to look at Meta:Wikipedia sociology. Additionally, you might reach out to WMF's Movement Communications Team to ask if they're already aware of or have internal documentation which compares wikis. Also, you could look into Meta:Research:Index. And if you're aware of practical real-world applications for synthesizing this information in an easily accessible way, and such a synthesis doesn't already exist, then I could see this becoming a small but formal research project and you might consider looking into requesting WMF grant funding for the work. ↠Pine (✉) 05:05, 16 March 2026 (UTC) Reply

@Pine: I was actually inspired to start this after a conversation with a WMF employee, some initial observations came from them. Still, it wouldn't hurt to ask around to see if anyone knows more. This is more of a casual side-project for me, so I wouldn't really want to request funding for it. If I was to work my way up to requesting grant money for the first time, it'd be for something like writing a book about the institutional history of the English Wikipedia. A lot of changes are scattered all over the place and word of mouth tidbits but I think it's valuable information. As you know, I have my own offline collection of useful links. I also keep track of what people tell me in that sense. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 13:23, 16 March 2026 (UTC) Reply

More Chinese Wikipedia specialties: Without autoconfirmed, you can create pages, but you cannot publish an edit from the source editor without previewing it first. Many projects have very incomplete policies and guidelines when compared to enwiki (e.g. Meta doesn't have a rule against canvassing), but zhwiki doesn't – they've imported nearly all of our policies, with the same shortcuts too! So you can type "WP:CANVASS", with its Latin letters and wrong colon (: vs. :), into the zhwiki search bar and be taken straight to their behavioral guideline on canvassing. In case you didn't know, you can also find local versions of policies using the Wikidata interlanguage links in the top right (new Vector) or left sidebar (old Vector).

Another point on which Wikipedias diverge is their attitude to orgnames. Some explicitly require them with a verification process, some allow them but have no verification process, some discourage them, some prohibit them, and some prohibit them but have a grandfather clause for accounts created before a certain date. Here's an example of a comparison I did for one long-term editor: Special:Diff/1333533304. Toadspike [Talk] 16:09, 23 March 2026 (UTC) Reply

On Simple English, blue links are a full-on requirement for both GAs and VGAs (Very Good Articles, our version of Featured Articles/FAs). GAs there can get away with very few red links, but for VGAs, there can't be any red links left in the article at all. ShadowBallX (talk) 18:38, 17 April 2026 (UTC) Reply

I don't know how many Wikipedia language editions have a draft namespace, but neither German nor Russian Wikipedia have one. I wouldn't be surprised if enwiki was the exception here.

What ruwiki does have is a separate namespace for their version of ArbCom (ru:Википедия:Арбитражный комитет). —⁠andrybak (talk) 00:46, 10 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

German Wikipedia doesn't use infoboxes for articles about people – compare de:Jeanne d’Arc and Joan of Arc. This is similar to how it is done for some composers on enwiki – compare Gustav Mahler and Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, more info at Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers#Biographical infoboxes. —⁠andrybak (talk) 00:52, 10 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

How do I start a new page? --Zoomancer (talk) 18:46, 28 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

Hi Zoomancer. The guide you're looking for is here. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 20:32, 28 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

Hello, and welcome to the second Wikimedia Apps newsletter of 2026!

In this edition, we’ll walk you through the main updates, launches, experiments, and improvements in the Wikipedia mobile apps during March, April,May, and June.

Hi. Can I change my user name? --Zoomancer (talk) 16:54, 29 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

@Zoomancer: Yes, it is possible, and there's a guide on that. But if you're not too attached to your current account, you can just create a new one under your desired username without going through all that. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 18:58, 29 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2026).

Administrator changes

added

• Chipmunkdavis
• TechnoSquirrel69

removed

• Mlaffs
• SpuriousQ
• Lectonar
• Dennis Brown
• Hog Farm

CheckUser changes

readded

• Giraffer
• TonyBallioni

removed

• Dbeef
• EdJohnston

Oversight changes

readded

• Giraffer
• TonyBallioni

removed L235

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment asks whether the criteria for autoconfirmed and extended confirmed should be modified.
• A request for comment proposes an addendum for the Real name section of the Username policy.

Technical news

• The special page Special:RangeCalculator has been created for any users to use to find an IP range. (phab:T268429)
• The "indefinitely" button in Special:Block for temporary accounts can be replaced with a preferred block duration stated on MediaWiki:ipb-indefinite-expiry-temporary-account. (phab:T427125)

Arbitration

• Following a series of motions, changes to the contentious topics procedure to restructure awareness have been implemented.
• The arbitration case Michael Jackson has been closed.

Miscellaneous

• The 2026 Developing Countries WikiContest will run from 1July to 30September. Sign up now !
• 10 candidates have been appointed to the U4C.

Hi Hannah. I'm new to editing on Wikipedia. I have an interest in a specific page, for the USS Gunnel, a WWII submarine. I made some very minor edits (an apostrophe and a space) and changed a link from one that is no longer working to the new link for that reference. I saw there is a "talk" page for the actual Gunnel page. The last entry there was almost 20 years ago. Two questions:

1) Is there a way to see what other people, if anyone, are following the page and potentially contact them to coordinate improvements to the page?

2) One of the comments in the "talk" page from 19 years ago references the old external reference site. I'd like to "fix" that so it refers to the current, working external reference site, but it seems like poor practice to edit someone else's comment and make it look like it says something they didn't write (even though it is an undisputed correction). What is the etiquette /best practice here?

Thank you! DeepBlueCatShark --DeepBlueCatShark (talk) 16:36, 2 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Hi DeepBlueCatShark. Thanks for asking me such thoughtful questions. So, you can't really tell who has a page on their watchlist for privacy reasons. It's pretty common for a lot of articles on fairly niche topics to not have that many pagewatchers or years between talk page threads, which is why I try to encourage people to be bold and fix problems directly when they can. In regards to the other comment, you could reply to it with the correct information, but it's unlikely the original commentor will come back to see it 19 years later. However, that could still be useful information for whoever reads it in the future. Hopefully that answers everything you were hoping to find out, but please let me know if you need further clarification. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 21:58, 2 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Thank you for the quick reply. I am doing some research and then will be bold and propose what I feel are reasonable and supportable edits and improvement and, on the outside chance anyone else ever reads this page, I'm happy to discuss any items that could be viewed differently. Thanks again! DeepBlueCatShark (talk) 02:56, 3 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Hi, Clovermoss. You are cordially invited to the brand new Wikipedia:Mentorship noticeboard. I get the impression sometimes that we mentors are each toiling in our own cubbyhole or hamster wheel, quietly answering mentee questions with little to no interaction with other mentors. I think we have a lot to share and learn from each other, and I know it will make me feel better just having the opportunity to interact with you and other mentors there, and I hope it will for you, too. When you have a look, don't be surprised if part of it looks kinda familiar. I started out including a homebrew manual survey of Mentors' experiences and feelings, and then remembered your survey (though it took me a while to find Editor reflections as I thought it was on your Talk page, and I never knew it had a name). I threw out the homebrew version, and copied your idea. Anyway, I look forward to seeing you there, and hearing your thoughts! Mathglot (talk) 06:49, 4 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Hi Mathglot, I appreciate you thinking of me and creating your own spinoff project. It's always great to find out I have inspired other people. It might take me a bit to actually get around to giving it a good look, but I plan to eventually. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 02:03, 8 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

What’s the start to a great relationship between a mentor and a newbie without a hi? Thank you for being my mentor and kudos to all the inevitable questions I have for you in the future! (InsertSuperCoolUsername) (talk) 01:15, 5 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Hi (InsertSuperCoolUsername). Nice to hear from you. Feel free to come by anytime. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 01:16, 5 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Hi, I think I submitted a page for review, would you be able to assist me to check if it has been received? --JacquesBlindguydeBruyn (talk) 09:40, 6 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Hi JacquesBlindguydeBruyn, I assume you are talking about your userpage? Let me know if you're talking about a different draft. I do not see that draft being officially submitted for review, but even if it was, I think it's incredibly unlikely to be accepted. Wikipedia has very specific standards for inclusion when it comes to creating new articles. Generally speaking, that is three reliable and independent sources that cover the subject in significant detail. Think newspaper articles instead of Medium posts. Hope that helps, Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 02:06, 8 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Hello. Please can you help me on how to get my link to open my account on Wikipedia --APSKH (talk) 03:45, 7 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

@APSKH: I'm a bit confused about what you are referring to because you don't need to have a link to open an account. You're posting with an account right now. If you're talking about verifying the email in which you can reset your password, all those settings can be found at Special:Preferences. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 02:08, 8 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Wikimedia Canada is developing a Train the Trainer program to train volunteers to lead Wikimedia workshops across the country and we'd love your input!

If you are interested in learning how to teach others to contribute to a Wikimedia project, please fill out our short survey by July 10, 2026. It only takes a few minutes and it will help us create a program that works for our community.

You have received this message because you are on the Wikimedia Canada Interest list. To remove yourself from the list, please click here.

_________

Wikimédia Canada élabore actuellement un programme de formation à la facilitation destiné à former des bénévoles à l’animation d’ateliers Wikimédia et nous aimerions connaître votre avis !

Si vous souhaitez apprendre à former d’autres personnes à contribuer aux projets Wikimédia, merci de répondre à notre bref sondage avant le 10 juillet 2026 afin que nous puissions créer un programme adapté à notre communauté. Cela ne vous prendra que quelques minutes.

Vous recevez ce message car vous faites partie de la liste des personnes intéressées par Wikimédia Canada. Pour vous désinscrire de cette liste, veuillez cliquer ici.

-- Wikimedia Canada via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:22, 7 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Hello, How i update this article? --Sushetta (talk) 17:59, 7 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Hi Sushetta. If there are specific changes you'd like to make, I'd encourage you to be bold. The gist is that you need to cite reliable sources for any content you add and write in a neutral tone, but feel free to ask me further questions if you find anything confusing. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 02:10, 8 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

MediaWiki message delivery 23:54, 7 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Hi Hannah, nice to meet you. I'm preparing my first material so I'll come back to you soon to ask for review and opinion. I would be happy if you could help me to start with good material. Have a good day. Regards. Anna --AnnaEwaMaria22 (talk) 08:31, 8 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Hi AnnaEwaMaria22. There are some links on your talk page that will hopefully help you get a good start. I also have some more information here. I look forward to hearing from you in the future. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 22:43, 8 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

↠Pine (✉) 03:10, 13 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Hi, I need help on this article. How can I add info and citation on this article? Thank you in advance for helping me out. --Randevoir (talk) 06:55, 14 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Hi Randevoir. There's a guide for adding references here. Let me know if you have any further questions. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 02:09, 15 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Hi, I would like to ask you for help and review my first article. What should I send you? I started to write it in my userpage as I understood from guidelines but it disapperaed. Luckily I have a copy on my device. It's overhelming me a bit. Another story is (I read all the policies) that I'm not sure about the conflict of interest. I'm working with a person that I want to write about here in Wiki but this publication is NOT paid because I am also a journalist, working as a volunteer in IWAK woman association, helping them to be widely visible to be able to achieve their goals and help other women. I would be greatful for help and recommendation. Regards. Anna --AnnaEwaMaria22 (talk) 13:00, 14 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Hi AnnaEwaMaria22. If you're not being paid, but you know someone, you have a "regular" conflict-of-interest. There's a few more rules that need to be followed if you were being paid, but I believe you. The standard guide for anyone with a COI can be found here. From there, I'd suggest reading this guide for creating an article. The most important part is assessing whether or not the subject meets Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion. Let me know if you have any further questions. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 02:12, 15 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Thank you for your answer and guidelines. I will go through and follow. Have a good day. ~2026-40022-52 (talk) 16:47, 15 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Hi, I submitted the draft which meets the criteria and somebody almmost immediately declined it. I'm afraid of being a victim of Russian propaganda here because I'm writing about Ukrainian people. Could you please check it for me also? Thank you. AnnaEwaMaria22 (talk) 12:11, 16 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Hi AnnaEwaMaria22, sorry for the delay. I've been busy for the past few days and I was unsure how to best approach your comment. I mean this in the nicest way possible, but I don't think Russia is involved in the decline of your draft. I understand why you would be concerned about such a thing because Russian propaganda and bot campaigns do exist, but I don't think that's what happening here. Your first concern seems to be the speed and I can provide an explanation for that. A lot of the people who are reviewing drafts are looking at a queue of thousands and thus look for "easy" passes or failures when a draft is submitted into that queue. Your draft was not immediately accepted due to concerns about notability. I don't read the languages in question and it's possible you're right and that the draft does meet our requirements. Even reviewers make mistakes. I think Piotrus speaks Polish so they may be able to provide more specific advice than me. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 01:35, 19 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

I could offer a WP:30 if someone would link the draft in question, which I don't see has been done here, unfortunately. Is it about Draft:Mariya Terekhova? If so, I concur this is not a good article. Setting aside techical problems such as lack of hyperlinks and bolding suggested AI writing, she is mentioned in rather niche soruces, and more in passing than in the WP:SIGCOV. Regarding pl sources, https://www.rp.pl/biznes/art44065941-co-trzecia-polska-przedsiebiorczyni-chciala-miec-wlasna-firme-juz-wieku-20-lat-znamy-finalistki-xvii-edycji-konkursu-sukces-pisany-szminka is certainly not SIGCO; https://forsal.pl/wideo/obiektywnie-o-biznesie/wideo/11266643,wojna-zmienila-ich-plany-zamiast-podboju-usa-najpierw-zbudowaly-bizne.html is not just about her, it's an interview with her and her co-business owner about their business. Anyway, I am more concerned about this being a draft cobbled by AI with poor sources, ex. she is not mentioned in https://www.imd.org/news/start-up/imd-launches-initiative-on-responsible-reconstruction-starting-with-ukraine/ . I wouldn't publish this without a review by WP:AI noticeboard, and even then I concur WP:NBIO case is pretty weak (a businessperson covered in niche sources, mostly in passing) - I'd vote delete unless better sources were shown. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here} 06:10, 20 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Piotr, thank you for your time, review and advice. I understand media issue, I'll wait then for wider media coverage. When it comes to AI writing.... I use AI tools but not for writing. I am many years experienced journalist so AI learns from what I've created for 25 years not reversely :) I have another people and initiatives to write about so we'll see if this will be good for Wikipedia. AnnaEwaMaria22 (talk) 13:38, 29 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

I would like to create a page or article for a non profit I love. How do I do this? --Rebecca Ruddell (talk) 18:36, 14 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Hi Rebecca Ruddell. My first piece of advice would be assessing whether or not this non-profit meets Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion. If it does, your next step would be following this guide for creating an article. Let me know if you have any further questions. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 02:13, 15 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Hello, Every time I drag a photo into the upload window, using the upload tab as instructed, I get a message that reads: "Safari Cant Find That Page." What am I doing wrong? --Keith Plex Barnhart (talk) 22:52, 16 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Hi Keith Plex Barnhart, that sounds odd and there's probably some technical issue going on. I'm going to "ping" Sohom Datta to see if they have a better idea of what's going on. I have some guesses, but I don't want to sound more confident than I am. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 01:37, 19 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Hmm, that feels like a Safari/web browser problem in that it is trying to open the files as a URL (which it definitely should not be trying to do). I'd suggest using the "click and select files to upload" functionality, the browser's click and drag is sometimes dubious (alternatively if you put details about what exact OS I can try to reproduce how it exactly happens). Sohom (talk) 06:57, 19 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Hello, and I would like to add my book "Coral reef - Australian sites for learning environmental education" published by Lambert Academic Publishing in 2016 --Cstepath (talk) 14:30, 19 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Hi Cstepath. Sorry for the delay, I attended a conference and I've been dealing with a lot in my personal life lately. In general, we don't list information about specific books unless there's a reason to do so. Is there an article about you where this should be included as part of a bibliography? Is there somewhere you believe this book should be cited as a reference? More information would be helpful. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 04:59, 31 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 20 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

hi! just wanted to say ty for pinging me and others on meta regarding m:Talk:Wikimedia Foundation elections/2027/Proposed eligibility criteria. i didn't catch this when it was first posted, so i greatly appreciate it SmolPetra (talk) 17:23, 21 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

@SmolPetra: I think a lot of people miss stuff like this because the WMF has a huge communication problem. I think 5 people showed up to their video call about board reform, iirc. I've seen limited participation in these sorts of discussions taken as a sign people are not interested instead of the obvious problem of not telling people in the right places. I hope to change that, although I have lost confidence over the past several months that I'll ever see that from this current iteration of the board. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 17:30, 21 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

@Clovermoss u r def helping to change that. there are probably other ppl who appreciate it as well, but may not leave messages, but i don't think ur efforts are going into the void. at least, it's making a difference on my end. and i empathize with ur feelings on the current board. without rehashing the last couple years of events, i've personally felt conflicted and confused in trying to understand some of the board's actions (or lack thereof). i find a lot of solace in the community, so it means a lot to me that u and others r still trying to look out for everyone. it helps me keep going in trying to do my part as well SmolPetra (talk) 18:02, 21 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

MediaWiki message delivery 23:23, 22 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Hello Clovermoss, I’m fairly new to Wikipedia editing and would appreciate some guidance. I’m currently learning how to improve articles while following Wikipedia’s sourcing and editing guidelines. Could you please share some advice on how to identify reliable sources and make well-supported edits without accidentally violating any policies? Thank you for your help! --David001122 (talk) 08:52, 29 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Hi David001122. We have lots of "rules", but most are fairly minor and matter when it comes to formatting etc. In other words, they're not very vital or existential. The most important thing to have a grasp on, in my opinion, is our general notability guideline, verification policy, what constitutes a reliable source, and being civil when interacting with other editors. The rest generally comes with time, but feel free to ask me whenever there's something specific on your mind. I hope that helps. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 05:03, 31 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

I'm looking for high-quality, independent sources that discuss how smart lighting, audio, and automation influence home ambience and user experience. Are there any peer-reviewed studies or reliable publications that would be suitable for expanding the article while meeting Wikipedia's sourcing guidelines?

Thanks for any recommendations. ~2026-42417-57 (talk) 13:53, 30 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Hi, there seems to be a level of technical familiarity that you have in this subject that I do not, and that affects the advice I might otherwise give. In this case, I'd suggest you rely somewhat on your own judgement. In a Wikipedia context, what's important to know is our sourcing guidelines, but it seems you're already aware of that to some extent given your search for reliable sources. Google Scholar might be helpful if you have specific search terms. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 05:06, 31 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

how do i create an article? --G0ld3nD00dl3s (talk) 04:28, 31 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

@G0ld3nD00dl3s: The information you're looking for can be found here. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 05:07, 31 July 2026 (UTC) Reply