Jump to content

User talk:Perfect4th

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Question from Spindella000 (14:47, 24 September 2025)

[edit]

Hi, so nice to meet you! Any recommendations for edits to begin with? I am currently picking out the topics I am interested in. Any advice would be amazing! How do I access instructions for different templates? I'm kind of going in here blind so would really appreciate "how to" forums, etc. --Spindella000 (talk) 14:47, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Spindella000! Lovely to meet you as well! Wikipedia is pretty broad, so you can edit (pretty) much anything you'd like – it just depends what you're interested in! Your Homepage offers suggested edits based on topics, but you can also take a look at Wikiprojects, which are collections of Wikipedians interested in certain topics and resources they've collected about them. Many are inactive or semi-active, but they should still have some resources, and often a section of articles you can improve in that area as well. Or if you're more interested in a type of edit rather than a type of article, there's lots of those too! I find fixing typos and de-orphaning articles really satisfying, and adding references to unverified information is hugely helpful, but you can find other kinds as well at the Task Center. And for any and all newcomer questions you have, definitely visit the Teahouse, especially if I'm not around! There's a lot of hosts there who can answer pretty much any editing question you have.
As for templates, there's usually instruction pages associated with each one – if you search "Template:" followed by the template name (like Template:citation needed), you can find more information there.
I know that's a lot of information, so please feel free to ask any further questions you may have! I see you've already been welcomed by another Wikipedian, but I'll drop my mentor welcome on your talk page as well – it has a few more links you may find helpful. Welcome to Wikipedia, and happy editing! Perfect4th (talk) 16:47, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fab! Thanks for the warm welcome. I just had want to triple check with you to make sure I’m grasping what “de-orphaning” is ~~
Is this when a Wikipedia page does not have any links featured on it? Or is an “Orphan” when a page is not linked onto any other Wikipedia pages? Or do both apply for orphaned pages?
Kinda viewing this like a spiderweb ! Lmk + thanks again! Spindella000 (talk) 17:59, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again Spindella000, and sorry for the delay! An orphan has not been linked to from other Wikipedia pages. It is kind of like a spiderweb, but every web should be linked to every other web; for an orphan, no strand from the general encyclopedia ever reaches its web. You should have a link in your Tools dropdown entitled "What links here"; this lists every link coming into a Wikipedia page. There will often be pages linked that begin with "Talk:" or "User:" or similar, but only pages in the article namespace (which have no prefix) count for that. So the goal is to add links to that article on other Wikipedia articles.
Just a quick note as well that not all articles can be de-orphaned, so good quality links are much better than a "See also" section link and similar – more info about that is on the main project page.
Glad you're getting deeper into Wikipedia, and do let me know if you have any further questions! I'll do my best to answer in a timely manner, but you can also always head by the Teahouse for a faster answer as well. Happy editing! Perfect4th (talk) 18:16, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No problem! I'm sure you're a busy bee. Ok, that makes sense & thanks for pointing out that "What links here" feature, very cool. I'll make sure to check out that Teahouse if I have future q's so that I'm not buggin' you all the time haha! Thanks again xoxo Spindella000 (talk) 17:37, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Of course! And just to be clear, you're always very welcome to post here as well! I just want to make sure you're aware of the Teahouse, since sometimes I may be a bit delayed and I don't want you to have to wait too long. Happy editing to ya! Perfect4th (talk) 17:40, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are the sweetest, thankssss! Spindella000 (talk) 17:58, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am back! (if you are busy lmk and i can try teahouse!) I asked this on the Talk pg of a topic I'm interested in updating, but just in case......I thought I would ask my handy dandy mentor lol
Is there a Wiki page that lists all the source code for different tags? I've been using "visual" to make my edits, so the source editing is still a little too much for my brain. Spindella000 (talk) 22:26, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Howdy Spindella000! I'm not sure what you mean by 'tags' – can you give an example? I know there's a cheatsheet (which links another, longer cheatsheet) and also a tutorial about the basics of WikiMarkup you can use, though, if that helps! Happy editing, Perfect4th (talk) 03:30, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Actually that was helpful! I meant more when there is a message at the top of a Wiki entry or section a la "more citations needed" or "needs update". Those kind of flags! Spindella000 (talk) 16:29, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that makes sense, Spindella000! The exact text that should be used for those is listed on each template page, of which you can find a list at Wikipedia:Template index/Cleanup. So for example, if I go down to "Structure, formatting, and sections", I can see the {{sections}} template linked; clicking on that link shows you how that template is used in the "Usages" section. However, would it help to use Twinkle? It's a tool that you can enable in your preferences that makes it easier to use such templates; it'll give you dropdowns to add issues semi-automatically. Hope this helps, and let me know if you have any more questions! Perfect4th (talk) 17:55, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

thank you x1,000,000 !!!!!!! Spindella000 (talk) 16:42, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again!! (also if this needs to be a teahouse question, no worries) I was editing Nuro to help address a promo flag. I had some q's and left a discussion on the talk pg, but noticed there was a paid editing flag. This wasn't on the main pg, only on talk. I just want to make sure this isn't a special entry that only editors hired by Wikipedia can edit. Could you explain how paid editing works? I saw the provided WP:PAID link but am still confused because this appears to contradict the neutrality of Wiki. Just need some more clarity, thanks! Spindella000 (talk) 19:28, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
UGH I just edited Cruise and same thing !!!! I will just stop editing for the time being lol no rush though! Spindella000 (talk) 19:39, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Heavens no, Spindella000, don't stop editing an article because someone else was paid to edit it. Wikipedia basically doesn't employ editors at all, and nobody ever owns article content – if you have the technical ability and the willingness to research and edit according to policies and guidelines you can edit whatever you want. We actually don't really like paid editing – paid editors have a harder time editing according to our policies and guidelines, because of conflicts of interest and the neutrality issue you mentioned and other similar things. That's why they have to follow all the many items outlined on WP:PAID; the talk page flag is just to let other editors know that the article content is more likely to be promotional because a paid editor edited it. Volunteers like us are more likely to be able to make article content line up with our P&Gs, so please go for it by all means! Happy editing, Perfect4th (talk) 06:08, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
o !!! the more you know haha ok thanks for explaining that is....wild and I will do my best to keep removing promo where I see it tysm Spindella000 (talk) 13:46, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please do! The encyclopedia is much the better for it :) Perfect4th (talk) 16:09, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Planningvoice (07:04, 27 September 2025)

[edit]

Hello! I have written an article on planning objections: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Planningvoice How do I get this to appear live if someone searches planning objections? Thank you! --Planningvoice (talk) 07:04, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Planningvoice, and welcome. Currently your text is on your user page, which is a space Wikipedians generally use to talk about themselves and their work on Wikipedia. To put it into the article process, you should use your sandbox, where you can create your draft and submit it to the Articles for Creation process. This will get you started on details of getting it published as a full article. I should warn you, though, that writing a new article is one of the hardest things to do on Wikipedia. Newcomers generally have not had enough time to get familiar with content policies, so what you write when you get started is much less likely to fit in Wikipedia than what you can write once you have a handle on how it works. You can check out the Your First Article help page for more information about writing an article, and feel free to let me know if you have any more questions ~ Perfect4th (talk) 18:16, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question from DEskribe (01:20, 29 September 2025)

[edit]

HI! @Perfect4th I am not sure if I did this correctly, but I copied this stub into my sandbox and (I think) I left a message for you there in that process.. let me know if you get a separate alert than this message because I didn't see that comment on your talk page. Where do those messages go? it was about the improvements made and whether the work needed to be exhaustive or providing additional stats and citations was acceptable. Thanks! Here is the link to the sandbox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DEskribe/sandbox --DEskribe (talk) 01:20, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, DEskribe, nice to meet you, and sorry for the delay! It looks like there's one message on your sandbox talk page and one on the article talk page, and both pinged me successfully. It looks about like what you'll see from this message, as I'm pinging you too. I've unfortunately been pretty busy but will try to get to the substance of your questions later today! I'll also leave a few helpful links on your talk page. Glad to have you around, and let me know if you have any more questions! Happy editing, Perfect4th (talk) 18:16, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question from TAG9INC (13:23, 29 September 2025)

[edit]

HELP ME SET MY BUSINES AND MY BRAMD ON WIKIPEDIA --TAG9INC (talk) 13:23, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, TAG9INC! Wikipedia is not designed for self-promotion and an article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. You may want to check out some alternative outlets for that. Let me know if you have any further questions about editing Wikipedia, and happy editing ~ Perfect4th (talk) 18:16, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 2 October 2025

[edit]
This time "not merely negative".
Wickedpedia wrangles post-truth politics.
Unexpected news!
Fifty hot topics from fourteen noticeboards.
Policy, politics, icons, captchas, and LLMs.
And other recent publications.
When to walk away.
Rest in peace.
Celebrities, deaths and software.
All invited!
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:51, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Mindfold24 (01:48, 9 October 2025)

[edit]

Hello! I hope you are doing well. I was trying to make some edits on the page for Fingerprinting however when I click edit a message comes up that says the following.

"This page is semi protected so that only auto confirmed users can edit. If you need help getting started with editing, please visit the Teahouse."

I was wondering what this means and if there is any way to still edit the page. --Mindfold24 (talk) 01:48, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Mindfold24! To answer your question generally, article/page protection is a technical limitation preventing users without a certain benchmark or right from editing an article. Semi-protection is one of the most common and lightest forms; all you need to edit past it is an account with four days' tenure and ten edits (it's often just used to prevent run-of-the-mill vandalism). When articles are protected, you can usually make an edit request (here's an Edit Request Wizard tool you can use) on the talk page. All of this makes your case rather odd, because you are definitely autoconfirmed. Is it possible you were logged out of your account when you tried to edit? Perfect4th (talk) 02:29, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Ayliminmn on Control Panel (Windows) (16:38, 11 October 2025)

[edit]

Hesap nasıl çalarım --Ayliminmn (talk) 16:38, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Ayliminmn! I don't speak Turkish and Google Translate is pretty confused, but I'll do my best. If you're asking about how to ping users, you can do this by linking a user (such as with [[User:Example]] or a ping template like {{u|Example}}) and making sure your edit is signed. If you're clicking "Reply" this is done automatically; otherwise, add ~~~~ at the end of your message to sign it. Though I'll likely be more help with questions in English, feel free to drop by if you have any more questions and I'll do my best! Happy editing, Perfect4th (talk) 23:17, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Happy 4th Wikibirthday!

[edit]

CREditzWiki (Talk to me!!) 00:23, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, CREditzWiki, this was a lovely surprise to start the day! Perfect4th (talk) 16:33, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Day!

[edit]
Hey, Perfect4th. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee!
Have a great day! DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 03:40, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, DaniloDaysOfOurLives! I'd forgotten that was today. Four years! Time sure flies when you're having fun... Perfect4th (talk) 16:34, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 20 October 2025

[edit]
And the "Global Resource Distribution Committee" emerges.
Two shortlisted WMF Board candidates removed from the ballot.
Who was bumped and why?
...while Musk prepares to launch "Grokipedia".
Serial-killer miniseries, deceased scientist, government shutdowns and Sandalwood hit "Kantara" crowd the tubes.
Don't get too excited before you read this.
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:43, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question from LacusClyne20 (02:40, 21 October 2025)

[edit]

Hello Perfect4th,

Good day!

I’m reaching out to request help in reviewing and improving the article I created:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filmocan_San_Miguel_Eskrima_International

It currently carries several maintenance tags, and I’d appreciate guidance or edits to address the following:

Promotional content – I’ve revised the tone to ensure neutrality and factual accuracy. If any sections still appear promotional, I welcome suggestions for further improvement.

Additional citations – I’m working on sourcing reliable references. If you can help identify or add citations to support key claims, that would be greatly appreciated.

Orphan status - I linked and referenced it to a related article.

If you have time to review the article or contribute edits, your support would be very helpful. Thank you in advance for your time and collaboration.

Best regards, LacusClyne20 --LacusClyne20 (talk) 02:40, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, LacusClyne20. I took a brief look at the article; I might have time to go more in depth later, but here's what I noticed:
  • The article still has a heavily promotional tone. Phrases like This system continues to be taught to students today, preserving its practical and cultural significance, His interest in the art of self-defense deepened over time, and He was known to wake from sleep with new techniques in mind, which he would immediately practice and record on the back of a paper calendar are great for storytelling, but are not encyclopedic. If you've ever read an entry in Encyclopedia Britannica or the World Book, imagine that's what you're going for; it should be as neutrally-worded as possible. You can check out our tone guideline for the general principles, and Words to watch for some specific words to keep an eye out for.
  • The reference tag is quite correct. I think fell into the very common newcomer trap of writing this article backwards. Wikipedia articles should be a summary of what the sources say; they should not say something and then add a source that supports it or some of it. If a source says it, we summarize it; if a source does not, we don't say anything. Both the "The Life of Grandmaster Filemon “Momoy” dela Cuesta Cañete" and the "Successor: Panto Cañete Flores" are interesting to read, but they're not what Wikipedia is for; they'd belong better on a site with a different purpose. If it doesn't have a source, it shouldn't be said. Rewriting the article neutrally and purely from what the sources say is probably the single best thing you can do to help the article meet Wikipedia guidelines.
  • The orphan tag is a purely black-and-white single-link issue; since there is one incoming link from another article, it can be removed, and I have done so.
Let me know if you have any more questions, and happy editing ~ Perfect4th (talk) 06:29, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again Perfect4th,
Thank you for your detailed response and for providing all those helpful links. I truly appreciate the guidance. It’s clear that my usual writing style still needs some improvement to meet Wikipedia’s standards, but your assistance has been invaluable.
I have revised the article and removed information that lacked proper citations. If you have time, I would greatly appreciate it if you could review the updated version and share any suggestions for further improvement.
I am really enjoying and treating this experience as a challenge actually.
Thank you again for your support! LacusClyne20 (talk) 04:25, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again, LacusClyne20! I've taken another quick look. The additional citations are helpful, but it's still lacking some – for instance, the entire Organizational Development section is unsourced. In reading the article, it looks almost as if it's trying to be a biography of Filemon “Momoy” dela Cuesta Cañete (and partially Panto Cañete Flores) rather than focused on the organization. The tone is definitely much better but could still use some work; Wikipedia's tone is pretty impassionate. I couldn't find an exemplary article based on a quick search alone, but the lead (beginning paragraphs before the first section, so everything before 'Etymology' in this case) of Shooto is a good example of a good lead. It is a simple explanation; you're not trying to convince the reader of anything about the subject (its worth, whether it's beneficial, etc.), but simply inform them of the basic facts. Leads are especially good at this because they are meant to be a summary of the rest of the article. (In this case, the rest of the article is not as good an example of tone, and you should not take lessons from it on writing article bodies.)
I hope this helps, and happy editing, Perfect4th (talk) 17:56, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Dinosaur and aviation enjoyer (22:43, 21 October 2025)

[edit]

How can i find accurate sources for tropical cyclones? --Dinosaur and aviation enjoyer (talk) 22:43, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Dinosaur and aviation enjoyer! The general guideline for reliable sources can be found at reliable sources – it explains the components that go into a source's reliability, so you can judge sources generally yourself. More specifically, tropical cyclones is one area of interest that has a WikiProject, which is a project put together by several editors interested in the topic area; many are inactive, but I believe the tropical cyclones one is at least semiactive. The nice thing about WikiProjects is that they often have a central repository of resources you can use, so I'd check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Project resources first! Going to also ping HurricaneZeta in case he has any more help for you as he edits in that area. Happy editing! Perfect4th (talk) 06:16, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Growth News #35

[edit]

I have many questions

[edit]

Hi its me Lutitium again! First, thanks for answering all my questions in such detail :D. I have multiple questions regarding some of my articles, they are-

1) It has been well over 2 months since i submitted my article 'night vision contact lence'(sorry but I'm having issues linking it right now) for review and it still is a draft.

2) my article's title has changed after grading

3)my article has drastically changed since i last cheked it

btw Kazachstania weizmannii is that article in questions 2 and 3 Thanks and Bye! Lutitium (talk) 07:15, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Lutitium, good to hear from you again!
  • Regarding Night vison contact lens, one thing you could try is working on some of the tone of the article – wording like Although it is a major breakthrough with huge applications is wording for someone reporting about it. It's Wikipedia's job to summarize the stuff people are reporting, so those kinds of claims should only be made if cited in reliable sources. I'm afraid I don't have much further advice for you beyond that of last time. The current wait time is listed as "2 months or more" and your draft has been in the queue for about five weeks, so I can't advise much more than patience.
  • As for Arxiozyma heterogenica/Kazachstania weizmannii's rename, it looks like Tyroxin did so stating that it was renamed. The other edits, meanwhile, are normal Wikipedia editing processes and largely standardized it with other taxonomic Wikipedia articles. That's a good thing! On Wikipedia we all work on improving all articles – nobody owns any particular articles, and everyone can work on improving them. Wikipedia worked exactly as it should here, and now the article you started is looking good and Wikipedia is the better for it. Thanks for your contributions!
Let me know if you have any more (or follow-up) questions, and happy editing! Perfect4th (talk) 17:56, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot again :D Lutitium (talk) 14:14, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Mtomg (11:14, 27 October 2025)

[edit]

Hello. A year ago, I created a Wikipedia page titled "Genocide in Tigray", which I survived and witnessed. Recently, one Wikipedian suggested a title change from "Genocide in Tigray" to "Tigray Genocide", which I agreed to. However, when I attempt to move the page to "Tigray Genocide," it is not successful, and I am unsure why. Could you help, please? Here is the suggestion I got from a user:

Thanks in advance~

[Title Change - Tigray Genocide Hi, I have noticed a lot of articles on Genocide put the name genocide after the name of the group or the place, hence changing the Title of this article from "Genocide in Tigray" to "Tigray Genocide" falls within similar standards and norms, such us Rohingya genocide, Rwanda genocide, Gaza genocide, Armenian Genocide, etc. It will also make it easier to follow. I am contacting you because, you created the article, and it might be easier to change/move to new title from your side. It will also get easily found during searches. PCR Mafia (talk) 18:26, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for contacting, and you are right. But I failed twice when I try to move it to "Tigray Genocide" for some unclear reason, which I don't know it exactly. Mtomg (talk) 09:32, 25 October 2025 (UTC)] --Mtomg (talk) 11:14, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Mtomg! That's odd. I'm assuming you're using the 'Move' dropdown – are you getting a specific error message? Perfect4th (talk) 03:32, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. When I try it, it says:
"The page could not be moved, for the following reason: The page could not be moved: a page of that name already exists, or the name you have chosen is not valid. Please choose another name, or use Requested moves to ask for the page to be moved. Do not manually move the article by copying and pasting it; the page history must be moved along with the article text."
When I check it now, I see the reason is I already used the title Tigray Genocide in the Infobox (| title = Tigray Genocide) and the main heading (The genocide in Tigray ) on the page. I'll fix it now. Thanks! Mtomg (talk) 04:16, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Glad it helped! Feel free to stop by again if you need to rubber duck in the future, and happy editing! Perfect4th (talk) 04:19, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Guide to temporary accounts

[edit]

Please check my draft

[edit]

Hi its me, Lutitium again :D I sent this draft of TOI-6034 b I did check it multiple times but Pleas will you check it to look for any mistakes. I really love this draft so I want it to become an article and are you German?

Bye :) Lutitium (talk) 11:29, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, Lutitium! Sorry about the wait, I've had a busy weekend. I haven't dug in super deep yet, but I glanced at the references and I'm not yet seeing anything enough to establish notability by Wikipedia's standards. Notability is the guideline that determines whether or not Wikipedia should have an article on something, so it's the first thing you should look for before creating an article. Luckily, for this case, astronomical objects have their own notability guideline that you can check against, so you can evaluate your sources and subject against that. (Also, yup, I am part German!) Hope that helps, and let me know if you have any more questions. Happy editing! Perfect4th (talk) 18:32, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Thanks for going in such depth in the answer. I read both of the guidelines but I'm still having issues understanding what is notable or not. Lutitium (talk) 11:01, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Lutitium! I'm going to go general here, because the basic requirements for the general notability guideline is the same regardless of subject. The big idea is that you have to come towards an article from the sources first. You don't want to be writing one backwards! When you're looking for something to write an article about, see what sources you can find. You want to find things that are independent and not connected to the subject – no interviews or press releases or anything like that. You want them to be reliable – what can you tell about the fact-checking or research done in the source? For online resources, you can check their 'About' pages to see what you can find. The sources should also have spend time discussing the article subject, rather than just a couple of paragraphs or a passing mention.
These are some thoughts to help you get started, but the big idea here is that you need to identify reliable sources that help establish notability and be able to evaluate them. That comes easier with more time and Wikipedia experience, too. (That's why many editors at the Teahouse recommend that newcomers not start by creating articles but by editing existing ones.) Reliability is a scale, and if you have specific questions about certain sources, you can also ask about them on the reliable sources noticeboard. Let me know if you have any more questions/follow-ups, and happy editing! Perfect4th (talk) 19:07, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question from BombshellCarousel (20:06, 31 October 2025)

[edit]

Hello!! I'm pretty new to this, but I just wanted to ask if you have any tips or tricks for editing pages. Thanks. --BombshellCarousel (talk) 20:06, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, BombshellCarousel Sorry for the delay, I've had a busy weekend. The answer really depends on what you want to edit. Generally, you can check out Help:Editing for basic editing how-tos and info, and User:Chaotic Enby/Plain and simple guide to Wikipedia for general guidelines. There's also a couple of tutorials you can use (one for the visual editor and one for the source editor). There's so many things you could do, so if you have questions about something specific let me know and I'll try to help out with more tips for that! I'll also put a welcome on your talk page with more links. Happy editing! Perfect4th (talk) 18:32, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Deep1019972025 on User talk:Deep1019972025/sandbox (11:41, 2 November 2025)

[edit]

how do i know that my page is published --Deep1019972025 (talk) 11:41, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Deep1019972025! Are you talking about User:Deep1019972025/Sample page? One avenue for publishing an article in mainspace is using the Articles for Creation process. Currently, though, I don't see notability in your draft article – Wikipedia looks for significant coverage from multiple secondary reliable sources, so you'll want to find sources that demonstrate that first. Let me know if you have any further questions, and happy editing, Perfect4th (talk) 18:32, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
This user is a super nice person :D 
Lutitium (talk) 11:05, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! That's very kind of you :) Perfect4th (talk) 19:08, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Perfect4th&oldid=1320447844"