Wikipedia:Teahouse: Difference between revisions

Cullen328, a Teahouse host

Welcome to the Teahouse!
Your go-to place for friendly help with using and editing Wikipedia.

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

Can't edit this page? ; a volunteer will visit you there shortly!

New to Wikipedia? See our tutorial for new editors or introduction to contributing page.
Note: Newer questions appear at the bottom of the Teahouse. Completed questions are archived within 2–3 days.

Help Wikipedia

https://minecraft.wiki/w/Special:AbuseLog?filter=27&mobileaction=toggle_view_desktop&offset=20251124&wpSearchActionTaken=block for Nvdtn19 and P. ĐĂNG and Kim Jang 1 And Hiyuune and MinhVN123 and Kateru Zakuro and Plantaest and Pminh141 and Yuki Shiromita and Higashizakura

Assistance for new editors unable to post here

The Teahouse is frequently semi-protected, meaning the Teahouse pages cannot be edited by unregistered users, as well as accounts that are not confirmed or autoconfirmed (accounts that are at least 4 days old with at least 10 edits on English Wikipedia).

However, you can still get direct assistance on your talk page. ; a volunteer will reply to you there shortly.

There are currently 0 user(s) asking for help via the {{Help me}} template.

Can somebody help me ?

I need to find the Worcester-born female artist whose brother was a sculptor of wild felines and whose work was admired by Whistler. Can someone help? I want to create a description of myself in real wikipedia. Not in the sandbox . How do I do it? Can somebody help me Mykeljackson (talk) 02:36, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Click on your name, and then edit that page titled "user page". I see that you've already created it. Wikieditor662 (talk) 02:55, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

If you want to make a user page follow what the user above commented, if you want to make an article about yourself then I’m afraid that isn’t possible, Wikipedia doesn’t allow (most of the time) articles about oneself, especially if they have no sources. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 13:24, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

on the topic, what are the cases of someone notable writing their own article? Spongebuddymaniac (talk) 14:13, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

I've been tempted to ask the same thing. If I one day become notable enough for a wikipedia article, perhaps I could be that mythical wikipedian that got an autobiography in mainspace mgjertson (talk) (contribs) 19:41, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

I think if an individual is famous enough they should be able to edit their page (but not start it, someone else has to deem it notable), because if I had a Wikipedia page I would want to edit it with my own personal info which I have lived through, which might not be out in public knowledge. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 19:52, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

@KeyolTranslater On the contrary, you provide an excellent example of why Wikipedia does NOT want people editing their own article. Everything in an article must be based on published references, so anything "not out in public knowledge" would be inappropriate content and should be removed. Madam Fatal (talk) 20:33, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Yeah but imagine I’m a famous person and the section of where I was born is blank, I think it would he appropriate to put where I was born if I can prove I am the person I say I am. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 21:13, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

If that happens, then what prevents someone from making stuff up to make themselves look better? Wikieditor662 (talk) 22:23, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

That’s a tricky question, especially as people in history have some such, I think if there is evidence you can prove (birth certificate, family testimonies and overall timeline correlation) then I think it’s ok. For example if my Wikipedia article said “Born on dd/mm/yy “ and it was incorrect or missing information and I added “Born on dd/mm/yy in London” and if I could prove it then I think that should be allowed, but is it a tricky subject I will give you that. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 11:05, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

birth certificate for most famous people their birth date is already known.

family testimonies they could also make stuff up to make you look better.

overall timeline correlation not sure what that means...

Either way, if there is enough evidence to add it onto that article through reliable sources, then you wouldn't need the subject to write it themselves.

Wikieditor662 (talk) 14:17, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Usually the birth date is known but usually not the birthplace (unless they’ve mentioned it in a biography, interview etc.)

Overall timeline correlation meant that if I edited my page as a famous person and out my birthplace as Cambridge for example, and there is evidence to say I went to nursery in Cambridge then that’s timeline correlation (which I know is an assumption but I thought I might as well add it in).

However I completely understand you and this was more of a general discussion as opposed to me actually having a wiki page, I’m not that relevant (yet) 😂 Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 16:22, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

(which I know is an assumption but I thought I might as well add it in) that's called WP:OR. You probably need a longer answer for why the rule exists, perhaps you can take a look at the WP:ORSOURCE essay.

However I completely understand you and this was more of a general discussion as opposed to me actually having a wiki page, I’m not that relevant (yet) I wish you the best of luck! I hope you will make it someday. Wikieditor662 (talk) 16:37, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks same to you. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 16:42, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Pigswithwings (or Pigsonwings) I believe is a lecturer and scholar and he is also a Wikipedia and has a main space page (Andy or Andrew something is his name) Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 19:49, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

I think that happened with Jordan Peterson, either him or someone pretending to be him in his name edited his article. Wikieditor662 (talk) 19:50, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

@KeyolTranslater: This is not correct. Wikipedia strongly discourages writing about oneself, but it is not actually disallowed. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:26, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Yeah that’s what I meant. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 15:34, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

WP:Notability explains it Versions111^{talk to me :)} 14:29, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

I would like add myself and accomplishments to Wikipedia ~2025-34738-64 (talk) 02:19, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

You can on your userpage, but if you're talking about the mainspace, see WP:notability. Wikieditor662 (talk) 02:23, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

I dont think temporary accounts can make user pages Versions111^{talk to me :)} 08:46, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Well, they can always make one and then do that. Wikieditor662 (talk) 18:17, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

They can. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:38, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

I didn't know that - not familiar to temp accounts yet Versions111^{talk to me :)} 15:41, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Correction to Higherlife Foundation page

 Courtesy link: Higherlife Foundation

These messages appear at the top of Higherlife Foundation article, how do I fix the issues in order to clear them?

The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for companies and organizations. (November 2025) This article reads like a press release or a news article and may be largely based on routine coverage. (November 2025) Colette2204 (talk) 12:09, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Essentially both of those notices are saying that the article doesn't have enough good sources demonstrating that the subject of the article meets the corporate notability guidelines and that many of the current sources are what we call trivial coverage

Once you've fixed those issues you can simply remove the banners. Athanelar (talk) 13:23, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your help and the explanation, how will I know which part of the article this applies to so I know what to fix specifically? Colette2204 (talk) 14:07, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

But, @Colette2204, remember that you should not edit the article directly, because of your COI. It's best to open a discussion on the article's talk page. Pinging @331dot, who added the tags last week. ColinFine (talk) 13:31, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your guidance, I am editing on behalf of Higherlife Foundation as part of work with Twine Connect (Pty) Ltd. I am following Wikipedia’s conflict of interest guidelines. Please give further clarity here regarding the COI. Colette2204 (talk) 14:09, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Note that your COI also means that you should not be the one who removes the banners, @Colette2204. ColinFine (talk) 10:35, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, I don't understand how I am in COI when it is declared that I am editing on behalf of Higherlife Foundation as part of work with Twine Connect (Pty) Ltd - my employer. Please help explain further? ~2025-35086-01 (talk) 10:37, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, I don't understand how I am in COI when it is declared that I am editing on behalf of Higherlife Foundation as part of work with Twine Connect (Pty) Ltd - my employer. Please help explain further? Colette2204 (talk) 10:41, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Anyone with any relationship to the Foundation - business or personal - is in a conflict of interest when writing about them. Because the Foundation pays your employer, your employer has an obligation to the Foundation. Because your employer pays you to advertise for the Foundation, you have an obligation to both of them.

When a person has declared that they have a conflict of interest, that's good - but the conflict of interest still never goes away. TooManyFingers (talk) 22:50, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Please use the edit request process(this can be facilitated with the edit request wizard. 331dot (talk) 13:37, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Clearly, I have no idea what I'm doing...

Hi all, I tried to submit an article about a well known figure in the music industry, and it was rejected because I'm not citing it correctly apparently. I also don't know why it rejected the links to news sources, and unlinked them, etc. My head hurts from tying to understand this. Part of the information comes from personal interviews with the subject, a former VP of Promotions for Epic Records, responsible for bringing the singer Sade to America, and pushing Michael Jackson's album Thriller to the top of the charts. The rest are from news sources, though there are more available. Clearly I'm doing it wrong. The information is solid. The citations, etc. are clearly not.

Suggestions please? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SmoothLanding/sandbox

Thanks.

SmoothLanding (talk) 18:48, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi @SmoothLanding. A cursory read of your draft: it is written entirely inappropriately for Wikipedia. It's written like a blog post, or an autobiography, or a magazine feature: not a neutral purely descriptive encyclopedic article. It genuinely needs a total re-write, from scratch. Please carefully have a read of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Words to avoid.

If you re-write (and considerably condense it down) you then need to prove how this person meets our criteria for inclusion at Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion (people). qcne (talk) 19:18, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Some more advice: we require biographic articles to have in-line citations, and you have none. Have a look at the referencing tutorial here: Help:Introduction to referencing with VisualEditor/1 which explains how to create proper references. qcne (talk) 19:20, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

You're a brand new editor attempting to create an article as your first ever action on Wikipedia. Creating an srticle is by far one of the most complex and difficult tasks for any editor to undertake, let alone someone brand new.

The best advice to give you right now is for you to give up, get involved in editing existing articles and participating in discussions for a few weeks to get some clue as to how Wikipedia works, and approach the project with more information at a later date. If you don't know how to cite references you shouldn't be making an article yet. Athanelar (talk) 19:38, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Aside from the things mentioned above by other editors, that "Other occupations" list is incredibly long and wholly unsuitable for an article. Instagram, YouTube and Facebook are also not reliable sources. GarethBaloney (talk) 20:01, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do, but try to avoid promotional citations (e.g. your VP of promotions).

--DollarStoreBa'alConverseMy life choices 18:56, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I'll read it again - the Neutral POV and words to avoid.

I don't understand the "avoid promotional citations" part as that was his position at Epic Records though. He was Vice President of Promotions in fact, like Barack Obama was President of the United States.

Thanks for responding. I'll read. SmoothLanding (talk) 19:23, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

"Promotional citations" refers to the citing of material which was written or is included in the draft to promote (publicise, praise, advertise) the subject (Thompkins), rather than neutrally document him. It has nothing to do with his coincidentally having a job and job title involving promoting things. Wikipedia specifically forbids its being used to WP:Promote anything. Hope this helps. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2025-31359-08 (talk) 19:54, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. SmoothLanding (talk) 19:52, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

My mistake! I thought one of your sources came from a VP of promotions, not that he WAS a VP of promotions. That's different, and fine. --DollarStoreBa'al^ConverseMy life choices 20:55, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

hi ~2025-34345-83 (talk) 21:22, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

@~2025-34345-83: To the unregistered user, not the original poster of this thread: Hello there. You have posted "Hi" on a few pages. Wikipedia is not like Twitter or Facebook. It is an encyclopedia, and discussions are for the purpose of improving the encyclopedia. Please don't continue to post chat-type messages on Wikipedia. Thanks David10244 (talk) 05:44, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you (to whoever is doing it) for putting the notes on the editing page for this article, many asking for source references. It is helping me understand how to correct some of this.

Part of the reason that I wrote the entry was because there is so little formal information about this man anywhere, and no books written about his life other than his own book. I didn't reference it because I wan't sure it would be considered legitimate, though it is completely. Also on Wikipedia, there are several people taking credit for work I know he did because I followed his career since he launched Natalie Cole's career in the 1970s, and that needs to be corrected. So how is that dealt with? Keep in mind that the City of Houston would not have given this man his own day, and President Biden would not have given him an award, were he not real and his accomplishments not important. He is a stickler for accuracy and not claiming anything that he did not actually do.

That is part of the problem. He is an unsung hero. Much of the information was taken from a series of interviews I conducted with him, because that is the only source for it. Someone said before that I wrote it like a magazine article. I'll own that, since I did write for Upscale and other magazines and entertainment publications for years.

Also, I read the Phil Specter for a long time before writing this article, and tried to follow the tone of it, which apparently from some of the comments, I did not accomplish.

Thanks to all who are contributing. I appreciate your effort. SmoothLanding (talk) 14:34, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Part of the reason that I wrote the entry was because there is so little formal information about this man anywhere, and no books written about his life other than his own book. You're falling into a common fallacy here; if there's no published information about the man, that's exactly why there shouldn't be a Wikipedia article about him. Wikipedia is a tertiary source, all we do is collate information which is already published in secondary sources. We do not publish original information. Our role is not to broaden the available information about a subject, it's to concentrate and summarise it. Even if someone could be considered notable by their achievements, if there simply aren't any reliable, independent, secondary sources to draw from, then we can't make an article. Athanelar (talk) 14:45, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

None of that is true. He is well known, just not well documented in an historical, collected manner, which is what I'm thing to do..

I really need some thinking help in this, not just repeat of some rules that do not apply please.

This is him. The 6 foot 7 man in that photo with Michael Jackson, Sade, and Boy George .

https://eurweb.com/music-executive-tc-thompkins-pens-powerful-and-insightful-book-when-radio-was-king-photos/

But acccording to the constant repeated comments, this is not a source that would be allowed, right? That is the problem.

It would be very helpful if you folks who understand Wikipedia would actually help me address the REAL problem, not the perceived problem. He is exactly who I said he is. I am not an idiot. If you have a solution that pertains, that would be helpful. This test for "reliable" is the problem here, not his existence or importance. Can you help with that please? The problem is that he never cared about chronicling his journey, and a lot of other people have taken credit. It needs to be addressed and his story needs to be told. Isn't that actually the point?

And I truly hope this is not actually true, because it says much about Wikipedia and their definition of ''reliable.":

Even if someone could be considered notable by their achievements, if there simply aren't any reliable, independent, secondary sources to draw from, then we can't make an article. SmoothLanding (talk) 19:16, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi again @SmoothLanding. I actually think that source is fine? It is a reliable source, it provides some significant coverage of him, and it has a little bit of independent analysis. It's not a really strong source - as it is mostly quoting the book - but it's not a terrible source. qcne (talk) 19:40, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. He was known for working hard for his clients and taking little of the limelight. Thank you for your helpful comments. SmoothLanding (talk) 20:58, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi qcne, Do you mind taking a look at the article now to see if I'm on the right track? I am trying to track down some other articles written at the time he was most active. I know the article is still heavy on the project listings. I can rewrite it to put it in the body if needed, but honestly, I thought it would make more sense to keep them listed like they are since he was always in promotions, just different phases of it, and he didn't have "colorful" like like Phil Specter - whose entry is long. His has a lot to do with his prison time, assaults, etc. TC's life was really about the work and catapulting some major musicians of our time into the spotlight.

Thank you. SmoothLanding (talk) 09:12, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi @SmoothLanding - unfortunately I think the draft is now in a worse state. I would really recommend cutting this down to just the bare essentials. Find three really strong sources (and only three!), and remove any and all uncited content and any sources that are from interviews with no analysis, social media, etc.

Most of the awards are not notable and should be removed. Most of the External Links should be removed. The Other occupations table is ridiculously long and should have, maybe, 10 entries tops.

You might get somewhere better if you cut 75% of the draft, and mostly start from scratch. qcne (talk) 17:03, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. Unfortunately, I think you are seeing the first one because I gather there is no auto save, and I saw no save button, and was afraid to hit "publish" because that is irrational and I thought it would just get rejected again prematurely, but apparently that is what I should have hit, so when I came back to it, it is just back to the original version. I kept seeing the updated version for days as I was working on it, and then all of a sudden it was gone and back to the original. This is downright laughable at this point in its absurdity. Thanks for looking. Not sure I want to do this anymore. I don't need another full time job for the only entry I'll ever do, and in the scheme of things, Wikipedia just is not that important or considered valid by whose looking for him, for his long career. I appreciate you though. SmoothLanding (talk) 17:26, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

I am sorry, yes - there is no auto save function on the editor, and "Publish" is akin to "Save". You are "Publishing" your new edits to the page.

To re-submit for review you would hit the blue button "Re-submit for review".

Sorry. qcne (talk) 17:44, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

LOL! Not your fault. This is a long, long time in the making. Thank you for being so kind and patient. I'm trying not to turn into "that person" who keeps posting actual definitions for what words mean, but it is forcing me to go look up words to see if I have misunderstood words I've been using for decades - like "publish", which has absolutely nothing to do with the way this platform is using it. Why in the world could they not just use a word that actually means what the action is - like "save?" It boggles the mind.

Truly I've crossed over to laughing, rather than being annoyed. Thank you for being so patient and kind. I'm more worried that many people think this is normal, and what that means for their world and their future. Feeling like my name is "Not Sure" at this point!

It has also made me look at some of the entries and compare them to other actual research and established encyclopaedias. That was equally eye opening!

Thanks and have a good evening. SmoothLanding (talk) 01:22, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

@SmoothLanding Wikipedia can indeed be byzantine at times, remember we're a volunteer human-led project that has evolved patchwork over two and a half decades. The reason "Publish" was chosen was because as soon as you hit "Publish" it publishes the changes to the encyclopaedia, and is then publicly viewable. It was thought that "Save" might suggest the changes are private until separately published, which is not the case. qcne (talk) 11:40, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I follow, but in fact, that is a misuse of the word. This is a closed loop, not a general distribution channel. You want to store it, not send it out into the world yet. No creative logic would need to be applied, if the words were used according to their most evident definitions. There is a lot of that going on here. No need to reinvent the wheel. That is why responsible people must look things up and not make them up. That needs to be a rule. It is not publicly viewable, it is viewable within this closed loop. I can't come in from the outside, looking for his name in the Wikipedia search bar yet, can I? Then it is not public. It is insular, as in separated from other people or cultures. Right?

Publish - https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/publish

save - https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/save

What you say about the evolution is more than obvious and not in a good way at all. Somebody needs to run the ship, and this one is sinking and hitting glaciers and running into other ships all at the same time, continuously. This system needs a major overhaul on so many points, including the fact that if you don't know what something is, or have not read the entire article, make no edits or comments. Whoever changed the section title to "Other Occupations" did not bother to look up and clearly did not know what a "promotions" person does in record/radio arena during that time period. All those positions were a progression of the same job, not "other" occupations.

Somewhere in this evolution, and with all these complicated and super bizarre, confusing, inefficient workings, should be a rule that says if you don't know what something is, you must research it enough to comment and CERTAINLY to edit it, and if you do not do so, leave it alone. There are a bunch of keyboard warriors wielding power they have not earned or deserve. You have to work to earn respect, not just have it handed to you like trophies at little league games, for both teams. Might be part of the problem here too, come to think of it.

That should come with the If you have not fully read the entire article, don't edit or comment. One would think these things would be obvious.

So, I looked at the entry to see how to delete it and not surprisingly, I can't find a direct, obvious button to do so. Can you point me to it? I had no idea what fresh hell I was getting into, but you can pick up a phone (if you could find her) and speak to Patti Labelle and mention his name and she would say some version of "Of course I know him. Everybody in the industry since the 70s does!" This process is not appropriate for him at all, and in fact is a gross insult. I'm sorry I subjected him and his name to this.

Frankly, for those of you who seem more responsible and dedicated, as opposed to the power freaks who derive pleasure from berating others, and there are way too many on here from reading other threads - just as there are way too many confused contributors, you deserve better too. This is a hot mess!

Delete button would be nice please, and I will take a different approach, and leave you folks to it. Thanks though for you calm and taking the time. You do stand out here. Now if you would be so kind as to help me escape this level of Dante's Inferno, I would so appreciate it. SmoothLanding (talk) 13:28, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

You can indeed come in from the outside and look him up on Wikipedia. You would just append "Draft" to the start of the search, and it'll pop up in the search bar. That is what I mean by, once you have pressed Publish the content is now out in the world and accessible to anyone. It could be clearer.

Only administrators can delete pages, but you can mark the draft for deletion by adding the code Wikipedia:G7 to the top and pressing Publish changes again, which will add a deletion template to the draft. An administrator will then come along and delete the draft. qcne (talk) 13:39, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Oh good grief! That makes this even more ridiculous and absurd, and I didn't think that was possible!.

So I can be sure this can happen, to the top of what exactly? I need this to happen now. If I can't find it quickly, I'll just start erasing all the data within and hit publish. That should do it, right?

When you put his name in a google search, he comes up in 2610 places it says. Hopefully Wikipedia is not in the top 10 pages.

Thanks. SmoothLanding (talk) 14:03, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Drafts are not usually indexed, but some search engines and aggregators will index draft articles - we don't have any control over this. If you blank the draft (remove all content, press Publish changes), then add that G7 deletion template it will be deleted in a few hours. qcne (talk) 14:17, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Do you have time to check, because I don't know how this turned out. "add that G7 deletion template it" Thanks. SmoothLanding (talk) 14:24, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

I've marked that for deletion for you. qcne (talk) 14:28, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

I so appreciate you and all your help. I will think of you kindly and send good thoughts your way for a long time! Have a safe holiday season. I'm out! SmoothLanding (talk) 14:31, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

You too! qcne (talk) 14:32, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Thought this was interesting. Not sure how it fits with what you said about indexing.. Just FYI.

https://www.google.com/search?q=gracia+tc+thompkins&client=safari&sca_esv=cda68e4edcd9e4a3&rls=en&sxsrf=AE3TifPKUEdzkWp8_cYPRbkNIyxuGBsmwA:1764012556238&ei=DLIkafmQDvimmtkPzOTksAY&start=20&sa=N&sstk=Af77f_ein0gocow12po2iPPcVNlH2RrINUFeJ6h19zvJIgAOv8yWJwZ8tXG8FlyutgDVult1H5W5Pb5xOCm2qMC9KCn1J5vqvI-q7_d_M-wqTq3ZyfIL3FJHx_J8IgxtXgQX&ved=2ahUKEwj5xqzuwouRAxV4kyYFHUwyGWY4ChDw0wN6BAgMEBc&biw=1261&bih=784&dpr=2 SmoothLanding (talk) 19:32, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Every Google search is unique and personalised to the user making the search, so I don't know what I am looking for on that URL. If it's a link to the draft or it's talk page: then, yes, we don't control search engine indexing and so Google may have indexed it. qcne (talk) 20:44, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I think you are right. It has been deleted. Thank you so much for all your help. SmoothLanding (talk) 02:20, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

He is well known, just not well documented in an historical, collected manner, which is what I'm thing to do.. Again, the point of Wikipedia is to summarise information which has already been published in secondary sources. If those secondary sources do not exist, there is no material for a Wikipedia article. As for him being 'well known,' fame does not necessarily mean someone is 'notable' in the Wikipedia sense of that word.

But acccording to the constant repeated comments, this is not a source that would be allowed, right? That is the problem. That source is a press release about the publishing of his book and largely consists of quotes from the man himself. Again, see the golden rule for what a good source should contain.

The problem is that he never cared about chronicling his journey, and a lot of other people have taken credit. It needs to be addressed and his story needs to be told. Isn't that actually the point?

No, the point of Wikipedia is most certainly not to make sure somebody's story is told. We call that promotion. The point of Wikipedia, as I've said, is simply to summarise information that has already been published about a subject. It is not to publish new information where that information is lacking. You're explicitly saying that you're trying to create this article to 'tell' this man's story because nobody else has done it before; but if nobody else has done it before then there's nothing to make a Wiki article about, because a Wikipedia article should summarise already-published information. I understand the frustration you're having, but if the information hasn't already been published in a reliable, independent, secondary source then you can't include it in a Wikipedia article, except for limited use of primary sources to corroborate simple biographical data and the likes.

And I truly hope this is not actually true, because it says much about Wikipedia and their definition of "reliable.": You're simply fundamentally misunderstanding the purpose of an encyclopedia. Would you go to the publishers of a travel guide and argue they should include a small town with no tourist attractions? Would you go to the publishers of a business directory and argue they should include some random person's home address? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It has a particular purpose and function, and that purpose is to act as a tertiary source which summarises information available in secondary sources. Athanelar (talk) 19:44, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. Much has been illuminated with this process, including my rethinking of my donations to Wikipedia yearly, and my understanding of why less than 8% (or whatever the figure I can't remember right now) of users donate to the foundation, and why they are constantly begging for money.

I will forge forward and hope to be free of this soon. Sincerely, thank you for the answers. SmoothLanding (talk) 20:01, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm a volunteer editor the same as you, I have no connection with the Wikimedia foundation or any involvement with where their donation funding goes, so I'm not sure what you hope to achieve by telling me this. Athanelar (talk) 20:07, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Not directed to you specifically. Truly thinking about this experiment that Wikipedia actually is, and how it is working and not. Being in the workings of it is highlighting how it is not.

I will say this though. This is the actual definition of an encyclopedia.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/encyclopedia#:~:text=%3A%20a%20work%20that%20contains%20information%20on%20all%20subjects%20or%20one,and%20Greek%20paideia%20%22education%2C%20child

And this is Wikipedia's directive(s) -

Wikipedia

with this line illuminating some things but is not its sole purpose:

" Articles on breaking news are often accessed as sources for up-to-date information about those events.'"

Since Thompkins is nearly 80 years old, everything about him is historical in nature. So there won't be many current articles/data about him at this point, other than his book, and the way the world actually works now, through people who have found him and want to interview him through social media networks. That is reality, and does not reduce his importance or legitimacy.

Something about your examples seems to be thinking in terms of current events it seems, but that's not all Wikipedia is from their description, or should be.

All that doesn't take into account the description of Wikipedia's purpose really. "breaking news" is only a part of it. History is history. SmoothLanding (talk) 20:33, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

You might benefit from reading the 'about Wikipedia' page and the policy "what Wikipedia is not." Athanelar (talk) 20:38, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. So might you. Thanks. SmoothLanding (talk) 14:04, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Articles on breaking news are only a very small part of Wikipedia, SmoothLanding (and see WP:NOTNEWS). Historical topics are in many ways Wikipedia's bread and butter. There's no requirement for "current articles/data" on a topic - contemporaneous sources are fine. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:45, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. SmoothLanding (talk) 21:03, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Need help with formatting

Hi again, I can't figure out how to fix the collapse list/hidden content issue at Details (album)#Singles. Please help, thanks! Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 11:30, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

I've marked the list (singular) up correctly; there's no need to collapse it in parts as separate lists. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:07, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Andy Mabbett, thanks for the help. In future, please do tag users when addressing them, as I had no idea you had replied to my message. Cheers! Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 12:49, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

@Revirvlkodlaku: You can't ever rely on people doing that; but see WP:SUBSCRIBE. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:40, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

@Andy Mabbett, thanks for that, I'd never noticed the feature before. Btw, I may not be able to rely on people tagging users, but it's not too much to ask, is it? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 22:42, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

How to report ip vandal hidden behind the new temporary accounts?

I expect this has been discussed somewhere, and simply pointing to the solution would be fine:

• Kelly Ripa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Battle of Lepanto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I think it's clear enough that the recent edit-warring by temporary accounts on these two articles are by the same person or meatpuppets. ~2025-32240-12 (talk · contribs) has been blocked, ~2025-34952-78 (talk · contribs) warned multiple times, yet the edit-warring continues now by ~2025-34684-24 (talk · contribs). ~2025-31445-28 (talk · contribs) is very likely, ~2025-32239-27 (talk · contribs) less clear with only a single edit. - Hipal (talk) 17:43, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

@Hipal Please make a report at WP:AIV, following the instructions at the top of that page carefully. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:03, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, but am I missing something? If this was a case where it was clearly a dynamic ip, I'd have gone to AIV immediately. If I treat them as separate accounts, each needs to be warned, and maybe a SPI requested...

I'm going to throw it at AIV regardless and see what happens. Further comments appreciated. --Hipal (talk) 18:14, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes, that seems to be a downside of the new temporary accounts system. However, unless the vandals are very devious, each device they use will retain its temporary account number for ~ 9 months 90 days. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:18, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm going to wait for more feedback. Maybe someone can provide examples on how they've addressed similar situations or seen them addressed. --Hipal (talk) 18:29, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

To my understanding, admins are aware that they often need to check the IP behind TAs, and would block it especially if you posted this explanation at WP:AIV. I do believe TAs only stay the same for 90 days though, according to WP:Temporary accounts. Perfect4th (talk) 18:30, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

I took it to ANI, where it's hopefully settled now. Thanks everyone for responding here! --Hipal (talk) 21:41, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

@Hipal When temporary accounts were introduced, so was a new user right, Temporary account IP viewer, which can help patrollers identify IP vandalism. For privacy reasons an agreement needs to be "signed" (through a user preference) and there are clear conditions on when these tools can be used, but as an experienced editor and rollbacker you may be a good candidate for this right. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 04:08, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

To be fair, this annoys me a bit. The whole idea of the temporary accounts was to ensure privacy of non-registered editors. But the checkuser right is very carefully controlled, taken extremely seriously, granted only to about 50 people I believe - it is seen as such a serious privacy issue that it is not automatically granted to admins. Meanwhile the temporary account IP viewer right has been given to 300 non-admins, and is semi-automatic for all admins, meaning about 1100 people have the right at the moment. The current situation doesn't exactly smack of dedicated attention to privacy for those who choose not to register an account. Elemimele (talk) 17:44, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Previously, any reader could see the IP address of non-account holders and geolocate it, so that's millions down to 1100, which should help the privacy issue. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:25, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the information and discussion. I'm going spend time getting used to the changes due to the temporary accounts. It's going to take time adjusting to not being able to immediately see obvious conflicts of interest, block evasion, and edit warring. --Hipal (talk) 22:42, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

What doesn’t have a wikipedia page yet?

~2025-35181-43 (talk) 18:08, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Many different subjects. They might not have pages for one of two reasons: they don't meet any of the notability guidelines, or they meet one of them but their article hasn't been created yet. mwwv ^converse∫_edits 18:12, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

For a humorous essay on that question, see WP:WHAAOE. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:16, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

For a idea of some potential articles that people would like to see, take a look at the pages linked from WP:Requested articles and Category:Wikipedia requested articles.

If you are looking for something to write about, see WP:Your first article; but we strongly recommend that you get some experience making smaller changes to existing articles, first. I'll leave some links to guidance on your talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:26, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Or WP:Missing articles. DS (talk) 02:49, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Many things, you could check Special:WantedPages for a list of them. dot.py (alt) 22:11, 24 November 2025 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dot.py (alt) (talk • contribs)

Opinions on tone / content of article I overhauled a while ago

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

I largely rewrote this article a few months ago, but now, I'm not thrilled with how it reads. I'm considering rewriting / reformatting it again into a more concise footprint without diving into such detail on each author's theory. Opinions / suggestions / edits of your own are welcome. Thanks! Trombonist04 (talk) 03:43, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly how to explain what I mean, but to me the tone reads as a little repetitive, even if the info differs in each paragraph. I think compacting some of it and reducing the amount of "Evans says/Evans believes" etc. could make the article read as more "encyclopedic".

Another thing that would help is more sourcing -- many sentences and paragraphs are unsourced. Even just using the same sources (if they support what you're saying) is fine, you don't necessarily need new ones.

Best, aesurias (talk) 05:14, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

I get what you mean about the tone and I agree.

Question, though, about sourcing: is it better to reference the same single paper after each subsequent sentence/paragraph, or just once at the end of its use? I kept citing the single Evans paper throughout the 'original proposal' section and I feel it looks clunky. But if that's proper, I'm happy to keep it / do it the same way for other sections. Trombonist04 (talk) 12:55, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

You should do it in a way that is clear to readers where each important fact has come from. If you come up with an elegant but clear way of giving readers that information while minimizing clutter, good. TooManyFingers (talk) 22:19, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Advertising a WikiProject

Hello. I am trying to recruit new editors to join WikiProject Nevada, but I am unsure how to advertise it. I would appreciate it if you could point to a place or guideline that will guide me or help me advertise the project. Thanks, 🌀Hurricane Wind and Fire (talk) (contribs)🔥 04:34, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Template:Wikipedia ads would work, but i don’t know how do add one Versions111^{talk to me :)} 04:54, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

You might be able to graze over articles and see who is editing them a lot then ping them on the talk page. The 20,000 challenge might also be of help for finding editors. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 12:28, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Not sure how many people look at it, but you may be able to advertise on the community bulletin board. OutsideNormality (talk) 20:27, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Submitting a page removal request

Hello. I recently came across a few Wikipedia pages with a lot of gore on them. Is there a way to get them taken down, or does that not violate wikipedia’s guidelines. Images of gore, and illegal acts can be very traumatic for some users, and they normalize violence. I have never edited anything on Wikipedia, so I don’t know how to submit a page deletion request. I don’t know what reporting mechanisms Wikipedia uses, but hopefully the police in the countries that the photos originate from will be contacted. I am sending this message from my IPad, So if I need a reply suited to mobile view, it would be great to have that. Here are the links to the pages https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&search=Blood+sport&wprov=acrw1_9 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&search=Cockfighting&wprov=acrw1_0 thank you so much, and I look forward to hearing a response soon. ~2025-35285-24 (talk) 06:11, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't much censored. You can't censor what I see of it; I can't censor what you see of it. But either of us can remove particular images, or even all images, from his or her own sight. Please see Options to hide an image. -- Hoary (talk) 07:20, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

See WP:NOTCENSORED Athanelar (talk) 13:05, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

 Comment: I responded to the {{Help me}} tag on the temp account's talk page. Happy Editing -- IAmChaos 22:45, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Article review

Hello, I made a new stub article called Scraggy Lake. Can somebody review it? Thanks, Versions111^{talk to me :)} 13:39, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

I've checked it, looks good to me. Plus, you're quite prolific. Of course, I only have ~200 edits, so my opinion is probably flawed somewhat :) --DollarStoreBa'al^ConverseMy life choices 14:09, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing it — your feedback is helpful regardless of edit count Versions111^{talk to me :)} 14:29, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

@Versions111, @DollarStoreBaal44 Reference 1 appears to be user-generated and therefore not good for showing notability. Also, ref 1 is used as a source for "nearby lakes", but I don't see nearby lakes listed at that source. So that part fails verification.

Ref 3 is an app, requiring any reader who wanted to verify the info to zoom and navigate around in the app. I don't think that is a good ref.

I didn't check any more. The way to get a real review is to submit the article for review.

DollarStore, you need to check references before giving your opinion on a draft. You are right, you don't really have enough experience to give advice here. David10244 (talk) 04:38, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Separate page for podcast steve comisar

steve comisar

There is someone persistently asks to create new article about podcast of steve comisar .But it doesn't have notable amt of source to support it..what can and can't do?? Spbvj (talk) 17:02, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

@Spbvj There is nothing to be done. If there are insufficient reliable sources to indicate his notablility then no Wikipedia article on Steve Comisar (podcaster) is possible. This is the WP:Golden rule. Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:39, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Account

I've not edited before. I open and deleted an account though, and now cannot log in. ~2025-35310-50 (talk) 17:04, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

You (presumably) deleted the account, so therefore it doesn't exist anymore. What was the name of the account? GarethBaloney (talk) 20:33, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia accounts cannot be deleted. DS (talk) 23:00, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

How do I get permission to create an article again??

I'm angry. I'm a long-time editor. At least since 2009. I have 500+ edits. I've created articles before. I'm an expert in Computer Science, Math and Economics. Now, when I create an article, some bureaucrat-wannabe comes back much later and says "You're attempt to create an article has been denied, for blah-blah-blah reasons. We'll auto-delete your work, but if you want to appeal please submit your TPS form in triplicate to ...".

WTF. I'm not writing trash. I'm adding significant works. On an existing article, I'm allowed to add or delete as much text as I want, but creating a new article is banned effectively?? For this latest change, the Wikipedia style is for each probability distribution to have its own page, so because I followed the style and created a page, my work gets deleted?!

How the fuck do I get permission to create an article again? I'm angry. This delete-first approach is driving me away from wanting to work on this project which I've been proud of. Mdnahas (talk) 17:14, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

I think there may have been a misunderstanding somewhere. Let me look into it. DS (talk) 17:21, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

I assume this is Draft:Random_Group_Formation_Distribution? If so, the likely problem is that you have only one source (okay, you've got two, but the second source is for a different distribution). The difficulty for an AfC reviewer is that they need to distinguish between a clever idea that's appeared in a single piece of primary literature but never achieved wider traction (not notable), and an idea that's widely adopted, and is recognised in the field (notable). More citations to other authors would help the reviewer see the concept as notable. In terms of distributions, there is obviously an infinite number of possible distributions, so although each notable distribution gets its own article, not all distributions are notable enough to get an article. An expert such as yourself is best placed to argue the case for notability, but the argument needs to be made. Elemimele (talk) 17:29, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

I didn't think this distribution deserved its own page, but I did think it deserved inclusion with the others on Maximum entropy probability distribution. Each of those had its own page, so I created a page for it. If there's a better way to do this, I'm happy to do it. But getting a reply "You did wrong. Delete!" is not the best reply to a fellow volunteer who took the time to write. Do you have a recommended way to include this distribution on the Maximum Entropy Probability Distribution page? Mdnahas (talk) 21:13, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

If that is the article concerned, another issue is wording such as "Many real-world samples seem to follow a...", which expresses a view in Wikipedia's voice. That should be avoided. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:36, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Another day, please. Mdnahas (talk) 21:13, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello Mdnahas, It looks like the last two pages you created were in Draftspace and were submitted to the WP:Articles for Creation process. Volunteers assess those drafts before they are moved moved into Mainspace. Anyone is welcome to use the Articles for Creation process, but experienced editors can also create articles directly in mainspace. There is the new page review process which will apply even to articles made in mainspace and reviewers might find issues with a particular article and move it to Draftspace, but you wouldn't be banned from creating new articles without some discussion or right to appeal. What happens when you try to create articles in mainspace? Mgp28 (talk) 17:33, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

yes, Mgp28 is absolutely correct. You should be able to move the article into mainspace yourself. If you do, there is a possibility someone will send it to AfD (they can't redraftify it as it's come from draft space - that would be move-warring), but at least that way it will be debated by the wider community, you get to say why you think it's a valid article, and you aren't dependent on a single AfC reviewer. Elemimele (talk) 17:50, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean that it can't be moved back to draftspace at all. Users are allowed to draftify articles once per WP:DRAFTIFY. Tenshi! (Talk page) 17:59, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

@Tenshi Hinanawi: see WP:DRAFTNO reasons 6 (and 7). If an editor takes a draft (these articles were written in draft-space) and moves it into mainspace they are, in effect, asserting that it belongs in mainspace, so it shouldn't be unilaterally restored to draft by someone else. It should instead be debated, with AfD as the likely venue. Elemimele (talk) 23:04, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Interesting, didn't know that. Wouldn't that mean that bad AfC accepts would either have to be PRODded or sent to AfD? Tenshi! (Talk page) 23:25, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Unless they meet WP:CSD, yes. That's exactly the issue when people publish directly to mainspace. Athanelar (talk) 23:32, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

I get the gist of what you mean by mainspace and draftspace, but I am not familiar with how to manipulate pages in these. Mdnahas (talk) 21:13, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

As somebody who describes themselves as a 'long-time editor' you should know that subject matter expertise does not necessarily make one an expert in Wikipedia procedure, nor does somebody need to be a subject matter expert in order to decline your article based on not meeting Wikipedia's notabiity guidelines (which you imply here when you say to the reviewer that your page does not list you as an expert)

In that comment you also say I'm an expert and I consider this a noteworthy, if minor, development. but what you consider to be noteworthy, even though you're an expert, is irrelevant, because that's original research. What matters, as you should already know, is Wikipedia's agreed-upon definition of what makes a subject notable. Athanelar (talk) 18:33, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

A valid point. This is one of a class of maximum entropy probability distributions. This individual distribution may not match Wikipedia's definition of "notable" but the class certainly does. Just like a single species of ant may not be "notable" but it should be in the list of ants. And someone who is looking through the page of maximum entropy probability distributions may want to find this one. As an expert, I can say that is likely. I wanted to add it to the list on the maximum entropy probability distributions page. In that list, each distribution had its own page. So, I created a page for it. Do you think this should not be in wikipedia? Should it be somewhere else? My anger is that the response was "You did wrong. Delete." not "You did wrong. Can I help fix this?". There is a world of difference. Mdnahas (talk) 21:13, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Draftspace is self-deleting, by virtue of CSD G13. The reviewer is not the one choosing to delete your draft. Furthermore, they're not obligated to help you fix your draft, though you're more than welcome to ask them to. Tenshi! (Talk page) 21:21, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure if anyone has succinctly explained it to you yet, but no human made the decision to delete your draft because it was unsuitable; that's not what happens when a draft is declined. Your draft was seemingly automatically deleted because it was over six months since it had last been edited. Athanelar (talk) 21:35, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

I left a message on your talk page. Draft:Quantity controls has been restored. Cheers, MediaKyle (talk) 21:24, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Regardless of guidelines like "distributions get their own article", if a distribution is better added to another article, I see no problem with that. We should be driven by what best serves our readers. Elemimele (talk) 23:07, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Lets make the WikiProject Bowling active again!

Hello! I was looking to see if we could WikiProject Bowling active again! It is a inactive project and if you want to help bring this back please approve or oppose down below. YourLocalZakkFromSomewhere (talk) 19:04, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

This is not the pace for votes. You would do better to invite people to join the project, on the talk pages of regularly-edited articles about bowling, or on parent projects, like WP:WikiProject Sport. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:00, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

That sounds like a wonderful idea, YourLocalZakkFromSomewhere. You do not need approval to start reviving a WikiProject, all you have to do is get started. I encourage you to add your name to the list of members at WikiProject Bowling and maybe tidy up the project page a bit. I will warn you to temper your expectations, however. WikiProjects are generally pretty quiet - I myself have been working at reviving WikiProject Nova Scotia, and it has been a slow process. I like to look at WikiProjects with the mindset of "if you built it, they will come." Good luck! MediaKyle (talk) 21:34, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Sandbox for temporary account warnings?

Is there a sandbox for temporary account warnings like for IPs? Something like Sandbox for user warnings (registered user), 192.0.2.16 (IPv4 address), or 2001:db8:10::1 (IPv6 address)? — Rtrb (talk) (contribs) 20:01, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

@Rtrb I'm not sure these are needed. Temporary accounts get user pages and talk pages just like regular accounts and can receive alerts (although not by email), so using standard templates like {{Uw-vandalism1}} directly on their talk page should work fine. If they are newbies with few edits, a personalised warning may work better than a canned one. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:31, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Request for review of Draft:Giacomo Billi

Hello! I have updated Draft:Giacomo Billi with multiple independent and reliable sources (business press, independent Romanian media, etc.), and I kindly request feedback to see if it now meets Wikipedia’s notability guidelines. Any help or advice from experienced editors would be greatly appreciated. Thank you! ~2025-35444-21 (talk) 20:52, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi @~2025-35444-21. The way to have it reviewed is to resubmit it for review. I have added back the decline notices that were removed. There is now a "Submit" button on the page. StarryGrandma (talk) 20:57, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Logos

On wiki data once i completely did the logo image and make sure it has a source then i could add it to the article PostmasterCJ (talk) 22:16, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Which logo are you asking about? TooManyFingers (talk) 22:56, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

For Roblox and Roblox Corporation PostmasterCJ (talk) 23:13, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

We already have the Roblox logo here. Athanelar (talk) 23:38, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

This what im trying to add Roblox Logo 2026.png PostmasterCJ (talk) 02:56, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

You can't add it when it's already there.

Or: What do you want to use it for? TooManyFingers (talk) 03:49, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

PostmasterCJ, my calendar says that this month is November 2025 and I assume that yours does too. Because Wikipedia editors do not have access to functional crystal balls or time machines, we should not be using an image file dated January, 2026 since it is obviously in error and cannot be trusted. Cullen328 (talk) 06:46, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

@PostmasterCJ you literally reuploading files that look outdated such as File:Microsoft logo (2026).png, which is based on File:Microsoft logo (1980).svg. So please stop reuploading files with incorrect date or you will be blocked. –LDM2003 ^{talk to me!} 13:33, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

@LDM2003 From @PostmasterCJ's talk page, it's clear that they are a new editor. Postmaster, please don't upload fake images and don't try to add images to articles until you have more experience. Thanks. David10244 (talk) 07:54, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

I’ve always wondered why people come to Wikipedia and mess around, I’ve seen so many editors (mainly new) who ask (no offence) stupid questions, for example recently someone asked “How can I make money on Wikipedia” among many other questions, do people seriously not read or think it is appropriate to add an image with a Year date which we haven’t been in (because last time I checked we aren’t in 2026). I don’t mean offends but I genuinely wonder why people do these type of things. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 13:42, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Manual of Style question

In MOS:ERA, it states to use either BCE/CE or BC/AD. But how do you chose which one to use on an article? And does it make any difference which one you use? (asking cause an edit war is happening on Peshitta and i dont understand whos right) microTato^{(🗯️) (✍🏻)} 01:33, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

There's no standard on which to use when, only that it should be kept consistent within an article and shouldn't be changed from one to the other without consensus. Athanelar (talk) 02:13, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

This means if there is any kind of fight, then whoever is on the side of keeping it the way it was before the fight started is immediately the winner. Period. (Not because that's better, but because that's how fights are settled on this topic.) TooManyFingers (talk) 02:55, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

removed article

I had an article removed for not having any sources, the problem is, there aren't any sources. All my Information was gathered from me. Blake74744 (talk) 02:16, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Blake74744. If there are no secondary sources, then the article should not exist. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 02:20, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Blake74744, an unreferenced article violates the core content policy Verifiability. An article based on information gathered from you violates the core content policy No original research. Please do not write articles that violate Wikipedia's Policies and guidelines. Cullen328 (talk) 06:34, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

See also WP:Your first article. But we strongly recommend that you get some experience making smaller changes to existing articles, before starting a whole new article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:47, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Can somebody help me

I want to change my name on the id - how do I do that Sourav Sembcorp (talk) 02:38, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

See WP:RENAME Cremastra (talk · contribs) 03:23, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

This might help. Kvinnen (talk) 04:10, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Irish plumbers?

I just noticed Category:Irish plumbers is filled with Irish hurlers. All mention they are a plumber in the infobox, but only one of them has a reference for this! Am I missing something, or do hurlers automatically become plumbers when they retire from sports?? ~2025-35265-35 (talk) 04:02, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm only guessing when I say maybe it's because Irish plumbers who aren't prominent in sports don't usually have an infobox with "occupation=" sitting there waiting to be filled, and that it's difficult to become notable purely by plumbing prowess.

(On the other side of the Atlantic, hurling is an entirely different thing.) TooManyFingers (talk) 05:04, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

No clue, mate. If the category "plumbers" was under "sports", I might think it was another word for hurler.

The only other thing I can think, is that someone copied the categories from one article to the next and the subject of the source article was also a plumber. MmeMaigret (talk) 11:35, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

This was added, for example, to Aiden McCabe in 2022 by User:Gaois, shortly after they created the category. Perhaps they can explain? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:38, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

This is also the case in others like Category:Irish carpenters and Category:Irish builders. Most are hurlers or Gaelic football players with no reference for their other occupation. ~2025-35265-35 (talk) 16:16, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Obviously I'm not the editor you mentioned, but the fact that other similar occupation categories also have disproportionately large numbers of sports figures in them, and that they've often been added without a reference, makes me think a) one problem with infoboxes is that they make editors want to fill as many slots as possible, b) maybe there's been a sort of fad among the frequent editors of Irish team sports, and c) I think said editors are inclined not to question each other's (lack of) sources.

I did do a semi-cursory search trying to see if some individual was responsible for most of them, but that didn't seem to be the case. TooManyFingers (talk) 15:30, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Annoying Table on Wikipedia pages.

We need to change the template for tables, I spent ages making one, wanted to delete a row which was dormant, and ended up deleting the whole table that took me half an house to make, and I’m thoroughly annoyed, who decided to put the “delete” button when you edit a column or row, of course people are going to think that the “delete” means to delete the row- not the whole flipping table.

(I have a normal account but it’s on a different device). ~2025-35521-36 (talk) 10:52, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @~2025-35521-36, and welcome to the Teahouse.

I hear that you are upset and annoyed that a button misled you (I guess this was in the Visual editor, which I don't use?)

I wonder if you had already saved ("Publish") the draft or article before you picked that button? If so, you can go back in the history ad pick up the earlier version. (Since you're not logged in, and this temporary account has no previous edits, we can't tell which page you're working on).

Questions about the software and its user interface are much more likely to be seen by people who work on that if you post them at WP:VPT than here, where most people are interested in editing rather than in developing the software. ColinFine (talk) 12:17, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Sadly I didn’t press publish. I’m KeyolTranslater btw. Just on an alternate device. The page hasn’t been deleted, just the table which I did take a while compiling, yes it was visual editor, which I find easier to use, but I think that delete button should be elsewhere or not misleading. Will tell the people over at VPT ~2025-35521-36 (talk) 12:35, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

VisualEditor has a curved undo arrow at the top left but it's too late now if you aren't still in the edit window. Ctrl+z may also work. If you want to delete a column then click the column and then an arrow above the column to get a menu which includes "Delete column". You clicked "Delete" next to a table image with two rows and columns and the text "Table". PrimeHunter (talk) 12:40, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Yeah I know, still a bit “cheesed off” but oh well will have to go back and do it again another time. ~2025-35521-36 (talk) 15:43, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Scottish feudal barony

Question about requirements for adding a verified holder of a Scottish feudal barony to a list

I am the current holder of the barony of cononsyth in Angus, a Scottish feudal barony which is recognised as an incorporeal heritable dignity. My acquisition of the barony was independently covered in AngusWorld, a UK news outlet, here: "I paid £104,000 to become a Naron - now I’ve launched my own luxury wine" (AngusWorld, 19 September 2025) https://www.anguscountyworld.co.uk/business/i-paid-ps104000-to-become-a-baron-now-ive-launched-my-own-wine-5326091

Before making any edits, I want to ask:

1. Is this level of independent sourcing sufficient to be included as the current holder in a list such as "baronage of Scotland" or a list of Scottish feudal barons?

2. Are there any additional requirements for listing verified current holders of Scottish feudal baronies?

3. Should the barony itself have its own article first, or is inclusion in a list acceptable.

I am not requesting a biography or promotional article- only to understand the requirements for appearing in a baronial holder list. Grlmas (talk) 14:28, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

There's a list of Scottish baronies at Baronage of Scotland#List of Baronies, I don't see why you couldn't add your barony to that list with yourself as the holder while properly citing that source. Athanelar (talk) 14:33, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your assistance. Grlmas (talk) 14:42, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Grlmas. Welcome to the Teahouse, and thank you for asking first.

I would advise more caution than @Athanelar for two reasons.

First, adding information about oneself is regarded as a conflict of interest - the usual recommendation is not to edit the article directly, but to raise an edit request on the article's talk page.

Secondly, as far as I can tell, the source is written by you, which means that it is not independent. Wikipedia has a strong preference for independent, secondary sources. It's true that uncontroversial factual information can be verified from primary sources; but when this is combined with your COI, I would advise caution.

There are surely better sources for the existence of the barony? And did your purchase not get reported anywhere indepenfently? ColinFine (talk) 16:42, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't think OP wrote the article, it's just written in first person in the headline. The byline is 'James Craig' whereas the purchaser is named differently in the first line of the article. Athanelar (talk) 18:50, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Above: My acquisition of the barony was independently covered in AngusWorld, a UK news outlet, here: "I paid £104,000 to become a Naron - now I’ve launched my own luxury wine" (AngusWorld, 19 September 2025) As the very title suggests, this is not independent of its subject: instead, it's based on what he says. Also, it reads rather like his plug for his "luxury wine" (whatever that might mean). ¶ I think I understand from the article Baronage of Scotland what a "baronage" was centuries ago, and what it now isn't; but what it now is, I fail to understand. And so the article's "List of Baronies" looks to me like a list of unencyclopedic trivia. -- Hoary (talk) 21:48, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

@Grlmas In view of the comments here and the general guideline explained at WP:LISTPEOPLE, I don't think your name should be on that list. Several other names ought not to be either, IMO. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:21, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

query regarding citations/references

Hello everyone!

I am compiling a note on a vocalist of the Hindustani Classical music, for Wikipedia.

I am providing references to published sources. I have two queries. 1. I have a digitised compilation of all published news reports in pdf format, stored on a google drive. Can a link be provided to this drive in the references section? 2. the drive also contains recordings of her concerts on All India Radio. Can a link to the drive be provided in the references section. Thank you. Prachi Khandeparkar (talk) 15:19, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Instead of linking to a compilation, it would be best if you just provided the information about the sources themselves so someone could (theoretically) locate them themselves- like publication, publication date, title, author, page numbers, etc. You don't need to post them online somewhere. 331dot (talk) 15:40, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you!

I will be providing the citations.

However, several newspaper reports are from Marathi newspapers, for which archives don't exist and information about whether they are "reliable sources" also does not exist as far as i know.

Is there a way to work around this problem? Prachi Khandeparkar (talk) 15:51, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

The answer to your second question is "no". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:44, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

thank you! Prachi Khandeparkar (talk) 15:51, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Can somebody help me on my draft

 Courtesy link: Draft:Start Survey

I made a draft called ''Start Survey'', made yesterday, it was declined because there was no links, and I couldn't find no links about Start Survey, just videos. They told me if I could'nt edit/fix the draft, it would be deleted becasue it would be considered ''Abandoned'' ~2025-35392-81 (talk) 16:05, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello @~2025-35392-81 and welcome to the Teahouse. Your submission Draft:Start Survey was not declined due to a lack of links, but because it is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. Wikipedia articles are based on what reliable sources say, not on what you happen to know from videos. You need to find those sources or give up. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources. Shantavira|^{feed me} 16:11, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

See WP:Your first article; but we strongly recommend that you get some experience making smaller changes to existing articles, first. I've also left some links to guidance on your talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:14, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Making a new article is one of the most challenging things to do on Wikipedia, even for experienced editors. It requires a robust understanding of policies and guidelines like notability and neutral point of view, as well as technical skills like finding and citing sources and formatting your article in accordance with the manual of style. It's not something we recommend new editors try to do right away.

I would strongly advise that you first spend a while (at least a couple of weeks) participating in discussions here at the Teahouse and at noticeboards, asking questions, and editing already-existing articles to build the knowledge and skills I've mentioned above, and then come back to the article creation process later.

Like the rest of us, you're here because you want to contribute to an encyclopedia. Luckily, there are a lot of ways to contribute other than creating articles. You can copyedit (see gnoming), patrol the Recent Changes page to revert vandalism, get involved with a WikiProject you're interested in (like WP:AICLEANUP for me), read through discussions on boards like WP:ANI to see how disputes are handled here, etc. Athanelar (talk) 16:17, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Jailbreak draft

Sorry for all the draft related stuff, but is there any things that could be improved for this draft? Does it look like it’s article worthy or no? rave (talk) 16:47, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

oops i meant this draft rave (talk) 16:47, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

I'd say it's ready. Are you submitting it for review or publishing it directly? GarethBaloney (talk) 17:58, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Probably publishing it. Review if I want to be more careful rave (talk) 17:59, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

The worst someone can do is send it back to draftspace, so I would say be BOLD and publish it. GarethBaloney (talk) 18:01, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Just did publish rave (talk) 18:02, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

It got.. nominated for deletion Versions111^{talk to me :)} 06:25, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

eh it’s ok i did not feel too bad about it, im a newbie so i guess that was a lesson for me maybe rave (talk) 12:10, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

When that happens, people give you a lot of quite long pages to read. Even though they're long and boring, read all of them carefully. It's not fun, but it's way less bad than getting things rejected all the time. TooManyFingers (talk) 19:07, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

I can't be the only one who read all of those for fun before doing anything on the encyclopedia, right? mgjertson (talk) (contribs) 19:57, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

How do you guys make money here on wikipedia.com?

My aim is to make money,the rest will be added. Mookodi Baleni (talk) 17:51, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

You can’t make money on Wikipedia, it’s an encyclopedia. If you saw that you can make money then it’s a scam or misinformation and likely dangerous rave (talk) 17:54, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

You have formatted this question wrong and have taken over someone else's question. GarethBaloney (talk) 17:55, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

We are volunteers and don't make money. Tankishguy 17:55, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

We are at wikipedia.org to signal that we are non-commercial. The site is run by the nonprofit Wikimedia Foundation which gets money from donations. The editors are unpaid volunteers. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:27, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

😂 no offence but to people not look up what Wikipedia is before making an account. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 16:59, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Evidently not. GarethBaloney (talk) 21:46, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

😂 evidently not indeed. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 13:59, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

AI upscaling in portraits of dead politicians

It has come to my attention by the user Bill L. Hal the issue of potential use of AI upscaling in portraits of Greek politicians (after their death). Examples include the infobox portraits of the following: Andreas Papandreou, Konstantinos Karamanlis, Georgios Papadopoulos, Panayiotis Kanellopoulos, and Christos Sartzetakis. Unfortunately, I have very little understanding about this issue, in terms of detection, interpretation and implementation of the current guidelines. Wikipedia:AI guidelines is rather vague and looks underdeveloped policy-wise. The following statement: AI upscaling might be an appropriate use of AI, depending on context can mean anything provided the subject is not alive since there is not explanation on how to decide on what counts as relevant context. It appears that it needs clear examples for us to better understand what is ok and what is not ok. Has this issue been raised up previously and what is the current consensus. If things are murky, what is the appropriate forum to request clarification or if necessary request for adoption of a new policy. Your input is most helpful. Thank you in advance. A.Cython (talk) 18:08, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @A.Cython, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Discussions of policy generally take place at one of the sections of the Village pump. ColinFine (talk) 19:31, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

@A.Cython and ColinFine: WikiProject AI Cleanup is also a very active WikiProject dedicated to these discussions, with its own noticeboard. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 01:37, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the valuable information. A.Cython (talk) 02:17, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Looking for help improving a draft I rewrote by hand

Hi everyone. I’m working on a draft for Moebius Syndrome Awareness Day, and I’d really appreciate some guidance. The earlier version was declined because I used AI too much in the beginning. Since then, I’ve completely rewritten the entire article by hand and rebuilt the references using verified news stories and materials from 2011 through 2025. I’m still learning how Wikipedia prefers things to be written, so I’m hoping someone with experience can take a look and let me know what it still needs or how I can get it into the right shape. Here’s the draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Moebius_Syndrome_Awareness_Day Thank you to anyone willing to take a few minutes to look it over. MoebiusTim (talk) 18:13, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

You've already submitted your draft for review. In time a reviewer will get to it and look it over and give you any feedback if needed. Athanelar (talk) 19:00, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

In my opinion there's no such thing as "using AI too much" - because using any AI, even a little bit, is already a problem. It's true there are features of AI that are technically OK, but those aren't the features people mostly want to use. And the errors that AI makes are often ones that the AI users don't even know how to find, let alone correct.

Monty Python's "Hungarian Phrasebook" sketch was (in part) funny because of how ridiculously and obviously wrong the phrases were. AI is wrong just as badly as that phrasebook, but instead of being funny, the false material is hidden so some people have a hard time finding it. TooManyFingers (talk) 22:37, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

When you say you "rewrote it by hand", do you really mean that? Did you actually wipe the entire thing and start again from blank?

If you didn't, I think it would be a great idea to save all the references, delete and forget ALL of the text, wipe all copies you have personally as well, and start absolutely fresh in 100% human words. Even if you don't like your own style, it will be a better article. TooManyFingers (talk) 02:55, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes,

I did rewrite the entire draft manually from a blank screen. I kept the verified references. I’m hoping someone can look at the draft and let me know if anything still needs to be fixed so it fits Wikipedia’s style. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MoebiusTim (talk • contribs) 03:29, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Great!

One little thing I would suggest changing: in the history section, you have "Larger news publications like The New York Times ...". This obviously means "there are other news publications comparable to the New York Times involved, but we won't name them". I don't imagine this is what you intended. :) TooManyFingers (talk) 04:01, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out. MoebiusTim (talk) 22:25, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

I should note that my eyes always go to the little details like that - I have likely missed things that are more important. TooManyFingers (talk) 04:05, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

IP Addresses Banned

Why are so many large ranges blocked on Wikipedia? For example, 2607:FB90::/32. RD1484 (talk) 18:30, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Some people have wandering IPs and banning a single IP address isn't enough to stop them vandalising. If vandalism comes from within a particular range, then blocking the whole range solves the issue. Athanelar (talk) 18:59, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Submitting draft translation

Hello, I created a draft translation (User:Confused cantaloupe/Angel Hou) for (https://zh.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=90130355). How may i submit the draft translation for review?

Confused cantaloupe (talk) 18:53, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Your draft doesn't cite any sources. Sources are mandatory in a Wikipedia article. Please see Help:Your first article and consider gaining some editing experience before trying to create a new article. Athanelar (talk) 18:57, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

May I use the sources from the original article? Confused cantaloupe (talk) 19:06, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

@Confused cantaloupe Yes,.. Also, it's a good idea to add your own inline citations rather than just linking to the original article, so that your draft stands on its own. CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 19:18, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Ok I have put in the sources. How do I put my submit my draft for review? Confused cantaloupe (talk) 19:37, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

I've added a header, with a button which will allow you to submit for review.

If you cite non-English sources, it is helpful to readers and reviewers to include a translation of the title. {{cite web}} has a parameter trans-title= which you can use. ColinFine (talk) 19:42, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Confused cantaloupe. Yes, you can use non-English sources if there are not better English sources.

You still need to make sure that the sources (or at least most of them) are reliably published and independent of the subject, as explained at WP:42. Looking at them quickly with Google Translate, it seems to me that they are all almost entirely about her marriage and family, and so most of the article is unsourced. This is not acceptable for a new article in English Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 19:37, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Be aware that an article with no or few English-language sources may take longer to be reviewed, because of the limited number of reviewers who can read the necessary languages. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:16, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

See also help:translation#Attribution to attribute your translation from another language's project. // hekatlys [talk] 20:15, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Ok I credited the source article at the bottom. Not sure if the formatting is correct. Confused cantaloupe (talk) 20:23, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

To have it formatted correctly, it's supposed to go into the edit summary. Here's a quick way to do that:

Start editing your draft. Add an extra space where it won't matter, or make some other little change. When you go to save your changes, it will ask for an edit summary. Copy this, and paste it into the box:

Content in this edit is translated from the existing Chinese Wikipedia article at [[:zh:侯湘婷]]; see its history for attribution.

'

(My own comment: This way of writing the link is the proper one for this situation, not the one with https:// etc.) TooManyFingers (talk) 03:37, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Barnstars

Is there a limit to how many barnstars I can give? Emperor Sheev Palpatine of Naboo (talk) 20:47, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

There is no formal limit; just don't be a nuisance. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:32, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Abbreviation explanation

Hey! I'm looking for a way to abbreviate something with an explanation that appears when hovering the mouse on said abbreviation, much like the following: lit. I want to be able to customise the abbreviation and explanation, unlike the example. Is there a template for this? Rockfighterz M (talk) 21:29, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Template:Abbr. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:33, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

A Fly

Why do some users feel the need to add a fly to their talk page? Is it meant to distract readers? Perhaps annoy them? Kvinnen (talk) 23:10, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

See User:Nagualdesign/Die Fliege. (Courtesy ping to @Roxy the dog) Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 23:24, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! Kvinnen • dispatch an owl 23:34, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Stephen the fly is a long term companion on my Talk page. I'm looking after him for a friend. If he annoys you, then I'm happy. - Walter Ego 01:40, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Roxy.........looks like you have unhealed wounds. Touch some grass, pal. Kvinnen • dispatch an owl 09:38, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

If you want, you can hide these elements by going to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets and selecting "Remove sticky elements from userpages" under "Appearance". Helpful Raccoon (talk) 02:13, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Oh thank you very much! I will make use of this. Kvinnen • dispatch an owl 09:36, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

I know I have tried to shoo away Die Fliege at least once. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:56, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

I have succeeded. :) Kvinnen • dispatch an owl 09:48, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

@Kvinnen It's intended to fool people and it's performing its task fairly well. Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:30, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Because they don't know about, or care about, web accessibility.

On a more sensible project, such gimmicks would be prohibited. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:19, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

I completely agree. Kvinnen • dispatch an owl 12:23, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

A question

Who was the first account ever on wikipedia Hamstertoy464 (talk) 00:34, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

WP:RECORDS says that @ScottMoonen was the first ever Wikipedia user. He has not edited since 18 January 2001, two days after his account was created.

Two people edited Wikipedia before him, but they didn't have usernames. aesurias (talk) 00:45, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

See also: History of Wikipedia. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:17, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

opinions about possible new article

I am considering a short article about a modest peak nearby a reasonably well known area. The peak itself only reaches 8800' elevation with a 1400' climb (hike). It is at a "gateway" to the Rockies, Estes Park, which serves probably a million visitors into Rocky Mountain National Park each summer. The surrounding peaks are distant but much more notable; at 12-14k ft elevation. However the peak in question is a piece of the history of attracting the attention of the US President to drive the creation of the national park. A photo taken in 1909 from the summit is a striking landscape and was included in a published book that help build the case for the area being established as a national park. There is another landmark mountain ridge with is nearby, is not dramatically high in elevation, and has a wiki page. Because the town of Estes Park is so striking itself, with the high peaks framing it, this peak I am considering documenting is not known though it is very prominent from the roadsite view sites. Plus it is in the national forest so there is a trail to it's remarkable summit.

Does this warrant an article? Nornotlob (talk) 01:26, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

What is the name of the peak? I looked on Google Maps and one contender may be Lily Mountain, but without the name it's difficult to confirm whether or not an article would be warranted. aesurias (talk) 02:01, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Mount Olympus Nornotlob (talk) 02:51, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

@Nornotlob That's a grandiose name for what you describe as a modest peak! Happy editing. David10244 (talk) 08:05, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

If you have sources (preferably three or more) that meet all the requirements at WP:42, there's no intrinsic reason not to have an article. See Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features) for a detailed treatment of that topic. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2025-31359-08 (talk) 02:18, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Per WP:GEONATURAL, Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist [...] The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article.

However, as you're a very new editor I wouldn't advise trying to make a new article at this time. It's a very complex task which is challenging even for experienced editors. Hang around and edit other articles for a while first. Athanelar (talk) 03:32, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Request for advice on Draft:51Talk

Hi everyone,

I recently resubmitted a draft article: Draft:51Talk.

It was previously declined, but I have made significant improvements based on the reviewer's feedback. I specifically focused on removing subjective language to ensure an objective tone, and added citations from professional media reviews to demonstrate notability.

Could someone kindly take a look and let me know if it is now on the right track? I would appreciate any feedback. Thank you! Sam15176 (talk) 02:42, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

First things first, I have re-added the declined review and comments that you scrubbed from the page. They say "Do not remove this line" because you aren't meant to remove them.

You still have an undeclared conflict of interest -- see here. It appears multiple of you at the "51Talk Team" are working on the same account(s) as well as using temporary accounts.

- Previously, we created the Wikipedia page for 51Talk Chinese

- Sincerely 51Talk Team

It is a bad look to fail to declare a CoI. It is an even worse look when you ignore repeated requests to do so. aesurias (talk) 03:03, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Dear Aesurias,

I sincerely apologize for the frustration caused. I am new to Wikipedia editing and misunderstood the protocol regarding draft cleanup. I promise I will never remove reviewer comments or decline notices again.

Regarding the Conflict of Interest (COI):

I have now officially added the {{paid}} tag to my User Page to fully disclose my employment with 51Talk.

Regarding the account sharing concern: I confirm that I (Sam15176) am the sole individual operating this account. The previous use of "we" and "Team" in my comments was a mistake in language habit representing the company, but I assure you this account is not shared.

I am here to follow the rules. I will wait for further instructions before making any more edits to the draft.

Sincerely, Sam15176 Sam15176 (talk) 03:39, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Sam15176. As well as Athenalar's warning, I want to add my own: My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 11:06, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse.

You've indicated that you want to write an article about a company or organisation you appear to have a connection to.

First of all, we strongly discourage editors from creating or editing articles relating to subjects they have a connection to, especially in the case of corporations and organisations where this usually takes the form of paid editing. If you still wish to proceed, please thoroughly read everything below.

Warning against COI editing

First and foremost this is because conflict of interest editing often results in issues with the neutral point of view expected on Wikipedia, due to biases whether consciously or unconsciously. While you may not intend to be biased, the types of information you include or exclude from an article are likely to be skewed by your connection to the subject. It's also very common for conflicts of interest to result in promotional writing such as advertisement-like articles for companies or resume-like articles for people. You may innocently intend to 'raise awareness' or 'correct misinformation' about the subject, but this is still promotion, and promotion of any kind is not allowed on Wikipedia.

People with conflicts of interest tend to be very bad at gauging whether the thing they're writing about meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. In order for a subject to have a Wikipedia article it needs to be 'notable,' which is a word that has a particular and slightly unintuitive meaning here on Wikipedia. There are a number of different criteria for notability depending on the subject, such as the 'general' notability guidelines, the guidelines for notability of companies or organisations, the notability of creative professionals etc. The vast majority of people and companies are not notable in the Wikipedia sense, and do not warrant a Wikipedia article about them. A good rule of thumb is that if a person or company is notable enough to justify a Wikipedia article, then soon enough somebody else will write it for them, and there's no need to do it yourself. So if you're here to write an article about yourself or someone or something connected to you, it's generally a good indicator that the subject does not yet meet Wikipedia's notability requirements. A special note is necessary here that ChatGPT and other AIs do not understand Wikipedia notability. It's very common for COI-writing newcomers to get themselves confused because they ask ChatGPT whether they should write an article about themselves/their company and it spits out a few trivial sources and claims that these sources constitute 'notability.' You need to thoroughly read the notability guidelines relating to the subject you want to write about and make sure you understand whether the available sources support the notability of the subject. Do not try to take shortcuts by asking an AI, it will likely be wrong.

It's very common that articles written by those connected to the subject end up being written backwards. This means that you first write the article with everything you know about the subject due to your connection to it, and then try to find sources to confirm the information you've written. This is the wrong way to write a Wikipedia article. As an encyclopedia, the purpose of Wikipedia is to summarise the existing information available about a subject in reliable, independent secondary sources. The goal is not to present new information or to synthesise multiple existing sources to provide new conclusions. When writing an article you must first search for sources relating to the subject (appropriate sources, those meeting the golden rule) and only include information in the article which is written in the sources. You may well know information about the subject which is not available in any of the existing sources, but you must not include this kind of 'original research' in your article. It is understandably frustrating to want to provide certain information and not be able to, but that is the limitation of writing for an encyclopedia, and precisely why we strongly discourage people from writing about subjects they are connected to. If the existing sources don't say it, you can't put it in an article.

You should also keep in mind that having an article about yourself, your company etc is not always a good thing. You (or the person or company you're writing on behalf of) do not own the article, and cannot control what is in it. If you're writing about this company because you're an employee and your boss or colleagues have asked you to do it, then please thoroughly read WP:BOSS and report the information therein back to them.

If after reading all of that, you still think you can go ahead and beat the odds and create this article, then follow the steps below.

Writing a COI article

First, and most important, you need to disclose your conflict of interest. There are instructions on how to do this at WP:COI If your conflict of interest involves being paid to create this article, you should follow the instructions at WP:PAID to disclose that also.

Next, heed what I said above about not writing an article backwards. You need to forget everything you know about the subject of the article, which is obviously the most difficult part. Search Google and elsewhere for sources first. Remember that those sources need to be reliable, independent and secondary. Avoid trivial coverage such as listicles, especially when writing about companies as this type of day-to-day corporate coverage is very common. The sources you use need to actually prove the subject's notability (according to the most relevant guidelines) as I discussed above, which passing/trivial coverage does not. If you use ChatGPT or another AI to find sources for you (which you shouldn't), you must double-check the sources yourself and verify that they actually say what the AI claims they do, because source-to-text inconsistencies are extremely common when using LLMs to search for sources.

Once that's done, you can extract information from the sources and write your article. For guidance on that, follow Help:Your first article and feel free to ask any more specific questions here at the Teahouse.

Athanelar (talk) 03:51, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

what user has the most contributions

this includes ips and bots Hamstertoy464 (talk) 04:19, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

The page Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits covers this. South of the Tongass (talk) 04:47, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

We don't know about IPs since they don't count edits. User:Ser Amantio di Nicolao is the user with the most edits, with 6.6 million currently (he is an administrator). Wikipedia:List of bots by number of edits has the bots, User:WP 1.0 bot has the most with 11.9 million edits. jolielover♥talk 05:28, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi I noticed a bug in article

I was reading the Ho Chi Minh article and at the the relationship part and it when it's at his sister, it redirect to himself [1]. Thanks. Ilovemcribs (talk) 08:42, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

 Fixed. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 08:49, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Am I wasting my time? (Sports and geography related)

I like mountain biking and there's only 7 main MTB parks on the eastern seaboard of Australia, and I have been to all of them. I would love to document them for Wikipedia in next coming years however I have noticed none of them even have an article on Wikipedia. Even the world class Blue Derby[2] isn't listed on Wiki. I am assuming it's general lack of interest from editors and not that it doesn't deserve to be on Wiki. I have noticed a German[3] and Singaporean[4] MTB park is listed on Wikipedia so that gives me confidence. The issue is that whenever there's competitive races or mentions by the park, it's usually the local newspapers[5] and MTB magazines. They are independent but are they significant enough to make the article accepted? Or am I wasting my time building articles for the 7 main MTB parks, and I rather be told about this early, than later after building them all. I already submitted one draft of one major aussie MTB park[6] and hope it at least fulfils wiki minimal standards. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 09:07, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi @JaredMcKenzie: it all depends on whether you can find multiple (3+) sources that satisfy the WP:GNG standard. My guess (and it is only that) would be that these sort of facilities are unlikely to attract a lot of media attention in their own right, unless there is something genuinely remarkable about them; otherwise any coverage is likely to be of events etc. taking place there, with the venue receiving at best passing mentions. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:29, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

@DoubleGrazing Yep, your guess is half right and that is/or was my key concern. Blue Derby for example has IMBA Gold-Level Ride Center status[7], multiple local articles about it hosting the Enduro World Series. Yet if you visit Wikipedia's 2023 Enduro article [8], it lazily links Derby to the entire town of Derby instead of specifically an article for the actual venue, where I assume nobody has taken the time to make it yet. However I think maybe I misread the "significant" criteria. I originally thought it needed "significant" media covering it like international level stuff. But is local newspapers sufficient enough as long as the MTB park and its history is the central main focus of their reports? All 7 parks are being mentioned fully in-depth by MTB magazines and mostly local newspapers. It's just not famous enough to also get big sports media like ESPN and Fox Sports covering it due to lack of big corporate sponsorships and TV coverage. I only got minimal experiences in making new articles (only published one so far) so like to know - in my Draft:Kiwarrak Mountain Bike Park[9] - would these 4 sources count as satisfying the WP:GNG standard? They're the very best I can find. Sources - [10] [11] [12] [13] JaredMcKenzie (talk) 11:08, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

@JaredMcKenzie: you seem to have linked the same source twice. Also, Bicycle NSW is a primary source, so that one wouldn't count.

The problem with hyperlocal publications is that their news threshold is very low – if the village vicar's cat has kittens, they'll report it. I think you'd need at least one major regional (ideally national) outlet providing significant coverage, to demonstrate that the subject is of interest to a wider audience. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:20, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

From what I understand, this isn't the level of cats being born to a small family. It's of interest to many mountain bikers in my country. Many would travel hours just to ride those parks. However I have no interest in putting more time on a lost cause. Is it recommended that I unsubmit my draft for Kiwarrak Mountain Bike Park as the best sources I have are these local newspapers plus dedicated MTB magazines[14], that are independent reliable sources that support real objective facts about its history and details of the park? JaredMcKenzie (talk) 11:34, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm not telling you not to write about these subjects, and I certainly wouldn't tell you to withdraw a draft that you've already submitted. As I've not seen your draft or its sources, my comments here were hypothetical. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:01, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Is it recommended that I unsubmit my draft for Kiwarrak Mountain Bike I'd advise the opposite, really. Wait for a reviewer to look over that draft and let you know if it's notable. If it is, you can proceed with working kn the others. If not, you have your answer. Athanelar (talk) 12:02, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

@Athanelar Ok, I will wait. In the meantime out of curiosity, I have one last question - I also submitted a different draft that I worked on for a while. Similar issues. It's Adaptive Mountain Biking [15] where it's about the discipline of mountain biking that's adapted for disabled people. I was concerned that it is not mainstream and only of primary interest to disabled athletes. But do articles need to be world famous to be accepted? I created this in mostly on moral fairness as it's important to a niche group of disabled adrenaline seekers. Just to understand, will my sources here altogether be deemed acceptable enough to pass WP:GNG? They are MTB magazines, dedicated cycling organisations and only a few national or international media -[16][17][18][19][20] JaredMcKenzie (talk) 12:20, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

But do articles need to be world famous to be accepted? Certainly not; in fact fame and notability are very much not the same on Wikipedia

On concept alone I think adaptive mountain biking is a great article subject. We have articles like Wheelchair basketball for example. I can't speak to the quality of your sources without csrrying out a source review, which I'll leave for the article reviewer to do. WP:42 contains a good 'golden rule' about source quality. Athanelar (talk) 12:28, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

@Athanelar In that case, I will try to improve on that article if it got potential. Thanks for that tip on not conflating world fame with notability. That has been very helpful. :) JaredMcKenzie (talk) 12:33, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Is it considered a trivial edit to add stub templates to stub articles?

I feel like I might have contracted editcountitis. GarethBaloney (talk) 10:43, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

No; if they are genuinely stubs, it's a useful thing to do. But don't feel obliged. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:14, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Request for Help: Choosing WikiProjects, Improving Draft, and Guidance on Sources for Biography

H everyone, I’d really appreciate some guidance. I’ve been revising the article Tim Willasey-Wilsey and received helpful feedback from a reviewer who flagged issues and guided me to relevant notability pages.They suggested moving to draft so have pinged them to ask for help with that as there was an earlier issue with a redirect, I've made a few missteps so the redirect previously caused an issue, and I don't want to repeat that mistake.However,I’d really like to keep working on it now in Draft space. I 'd like to keep learning how to do this and improving the article . I think there is still a a case to build notability – former UK diplomat (significant honour,CMG award), Visiting Professor in War Studies at King’s College London, with reviews and citations in national newspapers, journals, and parliamentary sources but I need to improve the sources and I’d be so grateful for help identifying really strong secondary sources or advice from relevant WikiProjects. Could you suggest the correct ones , maybe Politics, International relations,Military history or Biography and maybe especially Politics & Government.Thanks so much for your time and help! 15700cathy (talk) 11:40, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm working on re-draftifying the page for you now. I've tagged the leftover redirect at Draft:Tim Willasey-Wilsey for speedy deletion. Once an admin has done that I'll move Tim Willasey-Wilsey back to draftspace as you requested. Athanelar (talk) 11:59, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Oh thank you so much. I'm really grateful. Best wishes 15700cathy (talk) 14:05, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

I've moved the article to Draft:Tim Willasey-Wilsey. Deor (talk) 15:23, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Ah thank you so much - are you able to action the speedy deletion notice of the Tim Willasey-Wilsey page so that it goes to the new Draft:Tim Willasey-Wilsey.I 'm so grateful for all the help. 15700cathy (talk) 16:22, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Drafts are (by design) invisible to ordinary readers until they are accepted as an article. TooManyFingers (talk) 17:17, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

@15700cathy, thank you for your responsible pro-active steps in making this move happen. I wish everyone took such initiative! Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 17:56, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Alpharetta Georgia

I tried to edit a page on Wikipedia's Alpharetta Georgia page and I don't think I did it right. I tried to add a famous person to the website and it's in the wrong alphabetical order. How can I fix it. It's on the notable people section. ~2025-35724-15 (talk) 14:25, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello @~2025-35724-15 and welcome to the Teahouse. I assume it was you who tried to add Damian Shine to the list, however we have no article on Damian Shine so I have removed the entry per our policy at WP:LISTPEOPLE. If you can first establish that he is notable and provide a reliable source for this, it may be possible to include his name in the list. Shantavira|^{feed me} 14:42, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

thanks for the response. ~2025-35724-15 (talk) 00:20, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Article

Hey there! I was trying to find topics to create articles about but I couldn’t seem to figure out what could be created because there are articles about them already, video games, space (didn’t know what could be considered) I didn’t know. Is there any suggestions of articles that should be on the namespace or could be considered to be added to article namespace? rave (talk) 15:24, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

You could take a look at WP:Article requests to see articles that people have suggested for creation. However, I'd probably suggest you proceed with caution, given that the only article you've created so far is currently being discussed at AfD. Athanelar (talk) 15:36, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @RaveCrowny, and welcome to the Teahouse.

You can find lots of articles that have been requested at Requested articles.

But remember that creating new articles is not the only way to contribute to Wikipedia, nor necessarily the best way. We have thousands of articles that need some TLC. You can find some at the task center.

Yours is still a relatively new account: I'd suggest you get some more experience, and in particular learn more about core principles like verifiability, reliable sources, and notability, before taking on that task. ColinFine (talk) 15:38, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

The three links that Colin Fine listed at the end - verifiability, reliable sources, and notability - might seem like a lot of reading. But they're absolutely worth it, because they explain a lot about how this place really works. It's far easier to read them, than to waste your time doing work that doesn't get accepted.

I'm sure there are articles on games or space where parts of the article need to be fixed or improved. Far too many people put stuff into an article without showing a reliable source for it, and someone like you probably knows where to find those sources and add them in.

If someone plans to build a car from scratch, they first need to be a very good mechanic. If they haven't done a lot of work on cars already, they won't know what's good and what to avoid. Fixing a lot of articles goes before writing new articles, for the same reasons. TooManyFingers (talk) 16:09, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

rave, Multiday race is an article about a subject that will have a (horrible?) fascination for many people. But the article is seriously flawed. Sample 1: August 2012 will see possibly the final 64 stage Trans-Europe race organised by Ingo Schulze. Unreferenced, and speculates about a future that's now 13 years in the past. Sample 2: The RacingThePlanet's 4 Deserts Race Series and the Marathon des Sables are among the most popular multiday races taking place today. Unreferenced, about the situation in an undefined "today", and with the ambiguous "most popular" (attracting the most applicants/participants? most reported on TV? something else?). My inexpert impression is that it's only been during this, internet-equipped century that multiday races have moved in the popular perception from "near-suicidal activity for a loony fringe" to "extreme sport"; so researching most of the events shouldn't require trips to a large reference library. Consider researching them (via Google Books, etc) and improving the article. -- Hoary (talk) 01:37, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Music publisher

Hello!

I am just asking if it is okay to add the music publisher on the credits section of a song article? I saw some of the credits in Tidal are disclosed the music publishers of the song.

Hope someone answer my question. ROY is WAR Talk! 15:51, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

If it's not meant to promote the publisher, yes. If it starts to look like a publisher is being promoted by getting their name into articles, then no.

Showing the evidence that they are the real publisher is important, obviously. TooManyFingers (talk) 16:20, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Protection Review Request

Could the extended-confirmed protection on the Dadvan Yousuf article be reviewed? Given the existing COI/cleanup tag and the absence of active extended-confirmed editors, reducing protection may allow needed improvements. ~2025-35833-90 (talk) 16:34, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Which improvements are needed? TooManyFingers (talk) 16:37, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

There are outstanding neutrality and COI-related issues, along with missing or outdated information that hasn’t been revised for years. Allowing broader editing access would help with the needed cleanup and to bring the article up to date.

Just to give you one example:

Grokipedia has a section for "Citizenship Matters" on it's Dadvan Yousuf article, while on WP no confirmed user is interested to touch the article or do independent research.

I think accuracy also depends on reopening access after long periods without vandalism, so the article can be properly updated and remain competitive with other encyclopedias. ~2025-35381-70 (talk) 16:50, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Grokipedia is a joke and is treated as such. Furthermore, wikipedia doesn't platform independent research, it only publishes what reliable, secondary sources have said mgjertson (talk) (contribs) 20:24, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

It's been my experience that when "needed improvements" are mentioned, the aim is to try to improve the subject's reputation. That is probably why the article needed protection.

Grokipedia has nothing to do with it. Competition has nothing to do with it.

Maybe confirmed users consider him non-notable, I don't know. TooManyFingers (talk) 16:54, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Given that Yousuf's main claim to fame seems to be his cryptocurrency "investments" I'm not surprised the article has protection. There is no bar to editors who can't edit directly to make edit requests on its talk page, which already has extensive discussion. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:00, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Urgh, "needed improvements" were obviously meant to add all the missing information since no extended confirmed user did it for years + doing independent research on the person.

If the article is considered non-notable, I would suggest you a speedy deletion request. Better to have no article on WP instead of something which is protected without confirmed users interested in it.

While I do see issues with the article years ago, It just looked fully outdated compared to Grokipedia. ~2025-35814-31 (talk) 17:02, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Again: "compared to Grokipedia" is pointless. TooManyFingers (talk) 17:11, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Seems, the ignorance towards Grokipedia from many WP Editors will bring this enclopedia down - I think we should be open for all and learn from the best. ~2025-35814-31 (talk) 17:18, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

No thanks. qcne (talk) 17:20, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Oh god this article. I spent a few months trying to clean it up a few years ago, it's had persistent COI editing - apparently Dadvan himself has asked his "fans" to improve the article and remove the criticisms and controversy.

This should absolutely not be unprotected. qcne (talk) 17:13, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Can you share where he asked his "fans" to edit the article? This might be worth to add on the talk page and cite - so editors are aware. ~2025-35814-31 (talk) 17:17, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Planning to save the entire Wikipedia, just by opening this one article up to random editors who insist on keeping under the radar and having no experience, seems ... odd. TooManyFingers (talk) 17:30, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Was talking in general terms. Grokipedia is doing a way better job then whats happening here. Maybe because it's less corrupted by personal feelings towards a topic. ~2025-35766-15 (talk) 17:37, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Or maybe because a lot of its content is lifted from us. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:46, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

There are many good editors here, but it’s surprising how little awareness there is of the fact that articles often remain outdated simply because confirmed users lose interest, while Grokipedia updates automatically. I also wasn’t aware of the level of antipathy toward Grokipedia among some WP editors until now. @QcneDoing some wild accusations without proof & @~2025-35381-70 doesnt really understand that I just tried to help. ~2025-35766-15 (talk) 17:50, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Tell me you're a COI editor without telling me you're a COI editor, lol. qcne (talk) 17:55, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Strongly support @Qcne. This should absolutely not be unprotected. The proper way for auto-confirmed users or Temporary accounts to request updates is by using the article's talk page and letting the community handle the changes. We can smell COI from 3,000 miles away :) CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 18:31, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Saying that another encyclopedia is much better, and yet claiming an urgent need to get secret access to this one, doesn't make any sense. If the subject of the article is in such desperate need of Wikipedia's help, that says some things about him, and about Wikipedia. TooManyFingers (talk) 20:03, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Those who want a reasonably well-researched comparison by Wikipedia editors between this encyclopaedia and Grokipedia should read WP:Wikipedia Signpost/2025-11-10/Community view. I know which one I will mostly use.... Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:31, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

We very much aren't corrupted by personal feelings and strive to ensure that isn't the case. However, to people who object to verifiable secondary information this might seem to be the case mgjertson (talk) (contribs) 20:27, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

How to add a reference a second time

I still thoroughly confused about adding a reference a second time. Sure this should be easy but its not. I tried to do as instructed but am getting an error now in three different places. Any way someone can explain this is even more simple terms for me? Thank you Rosemary Kimble (talk) 17:54, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

First time, you give the reference a name, thus: <ref name="Example">[http://example.com]</ref>. Every other time, you just say <ref name="Example" />. The extra "/" is important, as is the fact that you don't have to put anything else. DS (talk) 18:02, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

See also WP:Referencing for beginners. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:49, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't think that Help:Referencing for beginners is particularly helpful on the matter of named references. DragonflySixtyseven, I don't suppose that you intended to encourage reuse of a "bare URL" (disguised as a number), but I fear that this would be the result. Also, you're assuming that Rosemary is editing the "source" (as I assumed, earlier). But I inferred from the earlier thread that she's instead using the "visual editor". It would be good if somebody who (unlike me) is familiar with the VE would try answering this. -- Hoary (talk) 22:23, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

On my machine (which is my phone), when I use the visual editor, I need to click the big quotation mark to insert a reference. After I click that, there are three tabs visible: Automatic, Manual, and Reuse. If I click Reuse, I see a list of already used references that I can choose from.

I don't normally use the visual editor, so I don't know if the citations always work as well as they did on my trial run.

I deliberately chose a reference that seemed to have no name yet. The visual editor didn't complain at all about that, so I guess it was giving a name automatically. TooManyFingers (talk) 23:00, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't think that Help:Referencing for beginners is particularly helpful on the matter of named references. Then you must have missed Help:Referencing for beginners#See also.

But you are also welcome to edit the page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:55, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Seeking information on editing tools

I see a lot of edits tagged with "IABotManagementConsole [1.3]". I imagine it is a very useful tool to complete tedious tasks in a short time. How can i use this tool? Avidanalyst (talk) 19:11, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

See User:InternetArchiveBot. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:49, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Official language of Bosnia and Herzegovina

Hi all, if some1 would be so kind and change the official langue of Bosnia and Herzegovina and i have a proof for you on this link of official Government website of Council of Ministers of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The website can be also viewed english if you need it. Cheers https://www.vijeceministara.gov.ba/osnovne_informacije_o_bih/default.aspx?id=95&langTag=bs-BA Benori (talk) 19:54, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello. This should be discussed on the article talk page, Talk:Bosnia and Herzegovina. 331dot (talk) 19:58, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

From looking at it, you aren't the first to make your claim and won't be the last. Please review the talk page. 331dot (talk) 20:05, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Benori, Wikipedia dutifully notes "Gulf of America" and (within English as well as Turkish) "Türkiye", but it continues to use the terms Gulf of Mexico and Turkey. Please first read the discussions of the matter in Talk:Bosnia and Herzegovina/Archive_1, Talk:Bosnia and Herzegovina/Archive_2, Talk:Bosnia and Herzegovina/Archive_3, Talk:Bosnia and Herzegovina/Archive_4, and Talk:Bosnia and Herzegovina/Archive_5. Each of these five has at least one discussion (or attempt at a discussion) about the matter; Archive 4, for example, has at least three. If you are dissatisfied by what you read, you can bring up the matter yet again in Talk:Bosnia and Herzegovina, but if you do then your reasoning should show that you have digested and understood what has already been written. -- Hoary (talk) 00:18, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Static IP & ExpressVPN Login request - Banned domain?

Hi

Can you please direct me to the appropriate individual that would help me with allowing my static IP address from my ISP along with my use of ExpressVPN on WP here?

My previous account name 'n9nu' is not retrievable as my previous ISP & my email account I had has cease to exist thus I am unable to reset my 'lost' password.

Thank you much

Tim Dickerson ARS N9NU N9NU-9 (talk) 20:16, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by allowing (your) static IP address from (your) ISP, since unless there is a block on the IP it shouldn't matter, but for the VPN stuff the correct way is to request IP block exemption. In this case, since you are requesting it for use on a proxy, you need to email the Checkuser team, which can be found on the page. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 20:34, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

What is this

How do I load and put images ~2025-35954-64 (talk) 22:26, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @~2025-35954-64. If you are talking about an image that has already been uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, please see Help:Pictures.

If you are wishing to upload an image, first read and understand the image use policy. If the image is free to use (in the sense explained there) then see Help:Upload. If not, you probably can't. ColinFine (talk) 22:38, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Even though I'm not signed in, how do I block people?

I see administrators blocking vandals on articles. I know IP addresses can't block people, when I sign in, how do I block people?? Also I know I can just read articles on here what else should I supposed to do? ~2025-35954-64 (talk) 22:44, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Signed-in users can't block people either.

There's nothing wrong with just reading about things you're interested in; nobody minds if that's all you do. But when you sign in, I'm pretty sure you receive a "Welcome" message with ideas of what else you might do. TooManyFingers (talk) 23:07, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Other editors may send you a welcome message, but unlike some other Wikis it isn't automated. As far as I know, every welcome message is sent by another editor, rather than a bot. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 00:14, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Only administrators can block vandals. But any editor can file a report on a vandal at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Cullen328 (talk) 07:34, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

I think the source of confusion here is that on most social media websites 'blocking' somebody means making their content/contributions invisible to you (also called 'ignoring' on some sites). What we call 'blocking' on Wikipedia is what most sites call 'banning' and what we call 'banning' is something entirely different. Athanelar (talk) 18:15, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

This is true. @~2025-35954-64, on Wikipedia the ignoring type of block doesn't exist. We're all pretty much stuck with each other. :) (If someone is acting very badly, there are ways to report it.) TooManyFingers (talk) 19:00, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Temp account- Is this problematic?

~2025-35889-61 is adding the category of Indian Inventions to a lot of articles and I think that this might be nationalism-motivated but I'm unsure of the accuracy and if they should be reverted. Perpetually Blooming Rose (talk) 03:13, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

It looks like a problem to me, because in my opinion the origin of several of these inventions cannot even be definitively established. As far as I know, something can only be called an Indian invention if we know for certain that it was not also independently invented in other places. TooManyFingers (talk) 03:54, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

It should only be added if the claim is supported by reliable sources in the body of the article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:15, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

red links and disambiguation

I'm adding a list of notable alumni for William Cullen McBride High School. Specifically, Bill McDermott, a long-time (over 50 years) soccer broadcaster, was on my list to include. I was surprised to learn that there is no Wikipedia article on this Bill McDermott, but there are articles on another Bill McDermott (a businessman), a Bill MacDermott (a gridiron football player and coach) and a Billy MacDermott (a cricketeer). So my question is can I red link my reference to Bill McDermott the soccer broadcaster in my article and somehow disambiguate him from the other three?

(I don't know enough about Bill to write an article about him, but I do hope to enlist someone to do so.) Sickingm (Matt Sicking) 04:00, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

It seems clear that an article about him is going to be called Bill McDermott (American radio announcer), or something similar, whatever way it's normally worded for someone like him. TooManyFingers (talk) 07:07, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers, WP:NCPDAB says If possible, limit the tag to a single, recognizable and highly applicable term, so I ould suggest Bill McDermott (broadcaster). The "American" bit would only be appropriate if there were another broadcaster with the same name. ColinFine (talk) 10:43, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Ah - makes sense. That's better. TooManyFingers (talk) 16:31, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Adoption

So i was wandering, how long does the adoption process take?, Can i ask my mentor to adopt me? Emperor Sheev Palpatine of Naboo (talk) 04:53, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

If this is about WP:ADOPT, it says "So, it is up to you, as someone who wants to be adopted, not only to find and approach an adopter ... They might accept you, or they may turn you down for various reasons. Please don't approach more than one potential adopter at a time. Wait a few days before asking someone else." So it would depend on you and the people you decide to ask. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:31, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

@Emperor Sheev Palpatine of Naboo The "adopt-a-user" has now been largely replaced by a mentoring scheme (see WP:MENTOR). New accounts are automatically assigned a mentor and you can find who has been allocated to you at Special:Homepage. Your mentor will be very happy to answer your questions via their talk page, or you can ask everybody here at the Teahouse if you prefer. That may give you a fast response but is less personal. Threads here are also archived much more quickly. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:21, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Regarding the “Views on articles you've edited”

Hi! I’ve started editing on the platform quite recently, and I have been enjoying it immensely.

However, when I viewed the amount of views on articles I have edited earlier today, the number was above 13k. But later in the day, it somehow decreased to only around 10k. Is there any reason why?

This is not really that big of a deal, but I am just curious on why this has happened.

Thank you very much! Gileselig (talk) 09:09, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps one of the articles you edited was deleted? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:00, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi Gileselig. You don't have edits to deleted articles. Special:Impact/Gileselig says "Most viewed (since edit was made)". I think the total is also since your latest edit to the article was made. Maybe you edited the same article again and its count reset to 0. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:58, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

I see, thank you! Gileselig (talk) 13:01, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi again, so my view count suddenly dropped down to 142 this morning, and it only seems to be tracking down a single one of the articles I edited. Is this intended, or is it a glitch? Gileselig (talk) 02:18, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Never mind, I think it was a temporary glitch in the system, the count went back up to 18k. Gileselig (talk) 02:21, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps it went out of the “last sixty days” part as it says “views on articles you’ve edited in the last sixty days” therefore meaning that if an edit was made 60 days ago at 1:00pm and it’s 12;59 then the views would be displayed but after it hits 1:00 pm it gets wiped, that’s just my theory however. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 15:16, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Creating an encyclopedic article about an existing company

Hello, I would like to ask about the correct steps and guidelines for creating an encyclopedic article about an existing company.

For full transparency: I am affiliated with the company. Because of this, I want to make sure I follow Wikipedia’s rules properly and avoid anything that could be considered promotional. My goal is simply to publish neutral, verifiable information supported by independent and reliable sources.

Since we do not have anyone outside the company who could write the article for us, I would like to understand the correct procedure to submit a draft without violating conflict-of-interest guidelines.

Could you advise on:

• the specific policies I should follow,
• whether I should prepare the draft in my user sandbox, and
• the proper way to request a review so the community can evaluate it neutrally?

Thank you very much for your help. AntoninoTesta (talk) 09:59, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Please see WP:PAID, WP:COI, WP:AFC, and WP:Your first article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:02, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

AntonioTesta I would also advise you to read why an article is not necessarily desirable. There are good reasons to not want one. Wikipedia does not merely host information, and it is not a place for companies to just tell about themselves, their offerings, and their activities. That is considered promotional here, you don't have to be actively soliciting customers or selling something. See WP:YESPROMO.

Please read WP:BOSS, and show it to your superiors and colleagues. Writing a new article is the most difficult task to perform on Wikipedia, and it's even harder with a conflict of interest. Companies trying to force the issue and create an article about themselves are rarely successful. Our articles are typically written by independent editors wholly unconnected with the topic in any way, who take note of coverage of a topic in independent reliable sources and choose on their own to write about it, summarizing what those sources say- not what the company wants to say about itself. If your company is truly a notable company as Wikipedia defines the term, someone will eventually write about it. I suggest that you go on about the work of your company as if Wikipedia did not exist and allow an article to organically develop the usual way. 331dot (talk) 10:32, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanations and for the links you provided.

I understand the concerns regarding COI, promotional tone, and the difficulty of creating a new article on Wikipedia. I fully respect these guidelines.

I would just like to clarify the context of my request: the company has been operating for over five years and has served more than 4,000,000 passengers during this time. While this is certainly small compared to the large global players in the industry, I thought that these figures might indicate that the topic could be of some potential encyclopedic interest, and therefore worth evaluating for a reference page.

I understand that my attempt may appear promotional — this was absolutely not my intention. The goal was simply to “be present” with the same opportunities that many multinational companies already have, and to leave a neutral trace of the company’s existence.

The project was born during one of the most difficult periods in recent history (the COVID-19 crisis) and, despite uncertainty about the future, it managed to grow in a region like Sicily — a place that is often associated with negative stereotypes rather than technological innovation. For this reason, I believed it might be appropriate to check whether the company could meet Wikipedia’s notability criteria.

In any case, I appreciate the guidance and I will refrain from directly creating or pushing for an article. If, in the future, independent editors consider the topic notable enough based on reliable and independent sources, I would of course welcome an organically created article.

Thank you again for your time and your feedback. AntoninoTesta (talk) 11:18, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

@AntoninoTesta Please do not use an AI chatbot to communicate with us. qcne (talk) 11:22, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

I just translate from Italian to english AntoninoTesta (talk) 11:28, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

I would suggest you write an article on the Italian language Wikipedia instead. qcne (talk) 11:30, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

You clearly have not understood "the concerns regarding COI", because the very first link I gave you in my reply, the first one above, tells you must declare who you are being paid by and/or who you represent.

This you have not done. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:58, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I've never used Wikipedia before, only for research until now. I realized I needed to update my personal wiki page with a disclosure, I hope I did this correctly. AntoninoTesta (talk) 12:05, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

As user:qcne said, don't use a chatbot to talk here. It's considered rude, and we don't mind people making grammatical errors and the like. You wanting "the same opportunities" is considered promotional and not what wikipedia is for mgjertson (talk) (contribs) 20:31, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Ok, thanks all AntoninoTesta (talk) 21:59, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Old AfC decline tags on Draft:Giacomo Billi

Hello! My draft (Draft:Giacomo Billi) contains old AfC decline tags that I cannot remove.

I have rewritten the entire draft with neutral tone and independent reliable sources.

Could an AfC reviewer please clean the old decline templates so I can resubmit properly?

Thank you! Mihai Catalin 11 (talk) 10:45, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

People will object to the tags being removed, and will restore them if they are removed.

Which is odd, because if the draft is deleted, then a "new" draft is submitted, the tags are not shown. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:15, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

I am an AfC reviewer (though I haven't reviewed this draft and don't intend to), and I have restored the decline templates. Please do not remove them yet again. If/when the draft is accepted, the earlier decline templates will automatically be removed. -- Hoary (talk) 12:25, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Decline notices do not need to be removed in order for a draft to be resubmitted. They should be kept in place so other reviewers can see if/why your draft was previously declined to determine whether you've actually made an attempt to improve on the earlier feedback. Athanelar (talk) 18:10, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Support with page

Hi

The page I am editing has been declined with the reason as tone and not notable. Please advise, as there are lots of other people with wiki pages who have awards and news features teh same or similar to the subject in question - Draft:Beverly Clarke (consultant) - Wikipedia please advise on what needs fixing here. Thank you. TheEditShade (talk) 13:14, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello @TheEditShade. The draft's reviewers have left advice in both the templates and comments under those. You do not really talk about why the subject is notable. You also seem to have a somewhat promotional tone: Her podcast appearances and hosting efforts aim to educate and also to make technology careers and entrepreneurship more accessible to a wider audience, and her efforts to bridge the digital divide, and Clarke is also a life and career coach. Her coaching practice focuses on confidence, empowerment, and leadership development. I would remove the fluff and only focus on the factual information. PhoenixCaelestis ‣ _Talk // ^{Contributions} 14:38, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you TheEditShade (talk) 18:20, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @TheEditShade, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Unfortunately, we have thousands of articles which if they were submitted for review today would not be accepted; but few volunteers want to spend their time cleaning this up. But this is not a reason for accepting further sub-standard articles: see other stuff exists.

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 16:14, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Question with talk page formatting

Hey! All discussions on WT:SERBIA are under the 'about this talk page' section on mobile for some reason. I'm not that good at source editing so I was wondering if someone knows how to fix it (or knows where to find someone who can). TIA. JustARandomSquid (talk) 14:09, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi JustARandomSquid. Fixed by closing an unclosed table in the lead.[21] The fix means there is no longer a blue border around the sections. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:22, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Fantastic. Thank you! JustARandomSquid (talk) 15:27, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

To Move or Not to Move a Page Due to Conflict of Interest

Hi!

The article in question is Quirino station (MRT) of the MRT Line 7 (Metro Manila). Editors have apparently come to a consensus in a requested move that "Quirino Avenue station" is not the correct name for the article of the station.

As publicly stated on my userpage, I am involved with the said metro project, especially on its operations. Because of this, I can say that the correct station name is "Quirino Avenue" as stated on the maps inside the trains shown by the consultant (KORAIL). All our documents also use "Quirino Avenue" as the station name. The move requester mentioned the MRT-7 Project Briefer and this presentation as their references to support the page move. However, these are very outdated and does not reflect the current status of the project.

If we follow their references, then it would also mean that the names for station numbers 1 (North EDSA) and 9 (Regalado Avenue) are incorrect.

What's your advice on this? HiwilmsTalk 14:30, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Welcome to the teahouse, @Hiwilms. I would present this on the article's talk page and have a discussion with other editors. PhoenixCaelestis ‣ _Talk // ^{Contributions} 14:40, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

I understand exactly what you meant. However, "conflict of interest" almost always has a different meaning, and that more usual meaning is used often on Wikipedia. "Conflict of interest" normally describes someone who shouldn't be making decisions because they have friends or associates who can gain from those decisions. On Wikipedia we use it when a friend or associate wants to write about someone. TooManyFingers (talk) 16:48, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

How to stop vandalism

Hello I was wondering if it's possible for me to stop people from vandalizing Articles/pages and fixing the pages to the original form. Very high frequency (talk) 15:12, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes! Take a look at WP:Vandalism. You can also enroll in the Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit/Academy to learn more, which is what I'm currently doing. Wikieditor662 (talk) 15:14, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi Very high frequency, welcome to the teahouse. I would recommend getting twinkle; it is incredibly useful in general, but is nearly integral for counter vandalism. Twinkle allows for the easy reversion of vandalism, restoration of pages, and other useful abilities for counter vandals. The most common way to detect vandalism is through the recent changes log. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 16:26, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Which page (or pages) is an issue right now? TooManyFingers (talk) 16:36, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

To merge or not to merge...

I've been working on an article that has a variety of other extremely similar articles. In the Talk page (which is mostly from pre-2020), users have already suggested merging some of these articles, but it has never been done.

How can I merge an article? What are some good tips to correctly do so?

Also, I was wondering where I should discuss this article, since my message on the Talk page has gone quite unnoticed.

Here is the main article: firewood and some others for potential merging: firewood, firewood in Nigeria, wood fuel

Thank you! Paolo Roland Self (talk) 15:45, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

All the talk page comments about potential merging are at least 20 years old, Wikipedia was a very different place back then and the articles in question were very different articles. If you still think a merge of the articles in their current forms should take place you should start a new discussion as outlined in WP:MERGE to get more up to date opinions on the matter. Amstrad00 (talk) 16:22, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice. After looking through the articles proposed for merging with the guidelines from WP:MERGE in mind, I think that they each have enough of their own content to remain as standalone articles. I did however improve linking and connections between the articles. Paolo Roland Self (talk) 15:52, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Links to browse archives by page disappeared from some article talk banners

Hello, some article talk pages with recently archived content (via MiszaBot and lowercase sigmabot III) are not displaying the small links to browse archived pages ("1, 2"), years ("2023") or index that are displayed in the archive banner above the search bar on most other talk pages. Here is a talk page whose banner is missing these small links, compared with a talk page that has such links. Is there formatting to re-enable the links to archived pages of talk topics to appear on the talk page after they have disappeared? Thanks, Llll5032 (talk) 16:34, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi Llll5032. Iljhgtn incorrectly set counter = 4 (probably copied from another page) in Talk:Atlas Network when archiving was set up in [22]. This caused archive numbers to start at 4 instead of 1 which the index looks for. I have moved the archives and fixed the counter. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:19, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter, thanks very much, both for solving the problem and offering the succinct explanation. Also, my own reversion edit may now be causing some topics to be displayed on both the live talk page and in the archive (part of 1, and all of 2). Can you recommend a solution? Llll5032 (talk) 20:35, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

@Llll5032: I have removed the sections from the main talk page.[23] PrimeHunter (talk) 21:12, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Again, thanks, PrimeHunter. Llll5032 (talk) 21:17, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

National historic register places listings for Maryland and mid Atlantic

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi, been uploading photos of historic structures/boats for over a decade with no issues. Now it seems my photo contributions for Wicomico/Talbot Counties in Maryland are not getting posted in the Listings. I have retried to upload but then get a duplication message. Help. A lot of time, money, scary trips down back roads and dirt lanes involved. Linda Roy Walls (talk) 17:20, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

@Linda Roy Walls Please only ask a question in one place at a time, and see the replies you had at Wikipedia:Help_desk#National_Historic_Register_Listings_for_Maryland. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:31, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unexplained revisions

Sock AlphaBetaGamma (Talk/report any mistakes here) 05:52, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There is a mod, Belbury, who reverted an edit I made on Marx Brothers. I asked him on his talk page if since the multimedia files were removed because of WP:BE then they should probably be removed from commons as well. But he just reverted all my edits, without batting an eye.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/ChesterFingers23 ChesterFingers23 (talk) 19:14, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

What other accounts have you used? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:28, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

WP:BE doesn't mean that the files should be removed from commons. It would seem to mean Belbury suspects that one user is utilising multiple accounts to try to implement this edit, specifically in violation of a block on a previous account. Athanelar (talk) 19:36, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Belbury is not an admin. Osa Akwamarynowa (talk) 20:09, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Public Domain videos uploaded by sock puppets should be deleted. ChesterFingers23 (talk) 20:25, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Flag of Belarus

Hello. I corrected a significant error on the page about the Belarusian flag. Specifically, I changed the designer's name from Mikhail to Nikolai. I also added a link to his name and to the Belarusian National Movement (Slutsk uprising, Stanisław Bułak-Bałachowicz) mentioned in the article. But all of this was removed by user Materialscientist without any explanation. Could someone help please? Transhuman.singularity (talk) 20:43, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

From what I can tell, the only source you provided was the Russian Wikipedia- user-generated websites(like every version of Wikipedia) are not acceptable as sources. If the information is cited on the Russian Wikipedia, you may use those sources here(even if they are in Russian). 331dot (talk) 20:48, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

I understand, thank you very much. Transhuman.singularity (talk) 20:52, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

But I didn't actually want to use this link to the Russian Wikipedia as a source, but as a transition within the Wikipedia environment. But apparently, it's not allowed between different Wikipedia languages. Transhuman.singularity (talk) 20:54, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

It is allowed, you just need to use Template:Interlanguage link rather than an external link. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 20:57, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Or follow one of the options at H:FOREIGNLINK. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 20:58, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Nice, thanks Transhuman.singularity (talk) 21:06, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Transhuman.singularity, linking to Russian (or Swahili, or Welsh, or whatever) -language Wikipedia is indeed allowed; but (if I may simplify slightly) citing the Wikipedia of any language (including English) as a source is not allowed. -- Hoary (talk) 21:56, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

How does one copyedit?

How do you copyedit? I can't seem to figure out what I'm supposed to fix. CrepeVampire (talk) 20:59, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, CrepeVampire. Wikipedia:Basic copyediting should be able to explain the basics of how to copyedit. But basically, you just look for things to fix, such as spelling errors. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 21:03, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia saying my comments are unsigned

Hello. For some reason, it seem that whenever I make a comment, Wikipedia marks it as unsigned (see my reply in #What doesn’t have a wikipedia page yet? for an example), even though it is signed. Would it be an issue with my signature? I would understand if it is, as it does have a non-User: namespace wikilink at the end, and it doesn't link to this account's user page. dot.py (alt) 22:25, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Dot.py, it appears that your signature doesn't align with the instructions on Sinebot's page. Your signature doesn't contain a link to your alt's page. The autosignature can be avoided with the steps here. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 22:44, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi Dot.py. Wikipedia:Signatures#Internal links says: "Signatures must include at least one direct internal link to your user page, user talk page, or contributions page". The edit [24] was made by User:Dot.py (alt) and did have a contributions link (on a single letter) for that account but not the user page as normal. User:SineBot#What it looks for says "It should have a link to your user page", so the bot appears a little stricter than the policy. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:49, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

I see, I have gotten that fixed. dot.py (alt) 22:55, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Use of JSTOR

Hi there, I wanted to check that it's okay to cite articles found on JSTOR within Wikipedia articles? Thanks. Avawatson03 (talk) 02:35, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Avawatson03 Yes Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 03:25, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes, but remember that the criterion of reliability depends on the publisher, not the particular medium or site. I don't know whether material from any predatory journals or other sources that the community has decided are generally unreliable are hosted on JSTOR or not, but it wouldn't surprise me. ColinFine (talk) 11:00, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

@Avawatson03 Note that JSTOR is just like a library. While many have access to it via their academic institution or via The Wikipedia Library most will not. Hence when citing an article you found in JSTOR, you should use the digital object identifier, if there is one, not JSTOR's URL link. You can convert DOI to full Wikipedia citations using citer.toolforge. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:25, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

How to request mass merger of articles

Hi everyone

I noticed that several articles of Bible translation like Pashto, Turkmen, Uzbek, Kyrgyz, Konkani, Kannada,Buryat, Kalmyk and many more articles on Category:Bible translations by language those can't established notability under WP:GNG.

Some pages have info but not backed by citation.

Can anyone help me how to deal with it. 獅眠洞 (talk) 03:36, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Well, what do you think, 獅眠洞? If you post a suggestion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bible and invite comments on your suggestion, I think you're more likely to get helpful responses than if you ask there for unspecified help on how to deal with these article. -- Hoary (talk) 12:12, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

I mean most of the sources are not independent but primary for example official site link none of the sources providing mention above any context of Bible translation into that language Discription. 獅眠洞 (talk) 12:22, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

I am thinking to merge all these mentioned articles into List of Bible translations by language. 獅眠洞 (talk) 12:25, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

I'd say open a merge discussion at that article's talk page and do it.

Also, please be note WP:LATINPLEASE regarding your username, it would be very helpful if your signature included a latin transliteration of your username so that we have something to refer to you by. Athanelar (talk) 12:44, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

"Sleeping Lion Cave"? (NB I don't know Chinese.) -- Hoary (talk) 12:48, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

 Done Mr.Lazy (talk) 14:40, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! Currently the 'MrLazy' text links to User:Example rather than your userpage, so please do fix that. Athanelar (talk) 14:52, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Ok Mr.Lazy Guy (talk) 14:56, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

If you simply merge them into List of Bible translations by language, 獅眠洞, you'll have to choose between (A) cutting a large percentage of each of them and (B) ending up with an article that's bloated and grossly under-referenced. What you might do is go to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bible and there briefly describe the inadequately referenced state of these articles and announce your intention of making a start at (i) cutting from them all material that's inadequately referenced, (ii) moving what is adequately referenced to List of Bible translations by language, and (iii) converting these language-specific articles into redirects to List of Bible translations by language. -- Hoary (talk) 12:48, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

"Editor in good standing" criteria

Many policies and guidelines (i.e. WP:EXEMPT or WP:NAC) make reference to being an "editor in good standing" being required in order to perform a certain action, but as far as I can tell it's not defined anywhere. Is there any formal definition (confirmed? extended confirmed?), or does it just mean something loose and subjective like "no recent warnings" or "established enough to have a good reputation in the community"? The wording of this and other policies mentioning the requirement seems to imply there's some probationary period for newer editors, but it's never spelled out. IrisPersephone (talk) 04:03, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

It is, as you put it, loose and subjective. My understanding is it's a very low bar, and it can be thought of as synonymous with "not untrustworthy". If you're not viewed as a habitual menace to the community, or blocked, you are probably an editor in good standing. If it can be articulated that you are not an editor in good standing, and if that is consensus, then you are not. tony 04:15, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, IrisPersephone. My understanding of "in good standing" is that an editor is not currently subject to any formal sanctions such as blocks, page blocks, topic bans, interaction bans and the like. Also, that sanctions against the editor are not currently being discussed at any administrative or ArbCom noticeboard. The latter type of discussion is commonly called being "under a cloud". Cullen328 (talk) 08:02, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

I want to write about a computer hardware company as a beginner I want to know about corporate notability?

Hello all, I want to know about corporate notability for a computer hardware company i am interested to write. can anyone help? Mhasan0396 (talk) 09:20, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello and welcome. I would first advise you that writing a new article is the most difficult task to perform on Wikipedia. Diving right in without first learning about how things work here is likely to end in frustration and anger as things happen to work you spend hours on that you don't understand. We don't want you to feel bad here. We recommend that new users first spend time editing existing articles in areas that interest them, to get a feel for what is being looked for and how things work. Using the new user tutorial is also a good idea.

That said, you may write and submit a draft via the Article Wizard. Regarding companies, you should review the notability guidelines for companies to see if this company meets it; the vast majority of companies do not. The company must receive significant coverage in independent reliable sources; coverage that is more than just telling of the activities of the company or its offerings. Sources like press releases, interviews, and basic coverage do not establish notability. You should first gather any sources there are and have them in hand before you begin writing. 331dot (talk) 09:27, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

How do I proceed to get my page published?

Hi all! I'm new here, so please be kind 😅

I've submitted this page a while ago, and it seems to be stuck in draft. I don't know if I should make any further changes or or take any actions to progress towards a published page. Can anyone help me?

Thanks, P PaalAU (talk) 09:51, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi @PaalAU. It was never submitted for review. I have submitted it for review for you- this may take two months or more. qcne (talk) 09:52, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Awesome @Qcne, thanks! As mentioned, I'm new, and I thought I had already submitted it.

/P PaalAU (talk) 10:02, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @PaalAU, and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia.

On a quick look (this is not a formal review) the draft looks to be much more about the product than the company: I suggest you clarify which it is. Note that since notability is mostly about what has been published about a subject, it is perfectly possible for a product to be notable and the company not, or vice versa.

I need to ask, have you any connection with the company? When the first thing a new editor does is to start creating an article about a company, that is often the case. If so, you need to be aware of our policy on editing with a conflict of interest; and if you are in any way employed or remunerated by the company, with our policy on paid editing.

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 11:07, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for this very helpful reply, @ColinFine. And yes, I have not done my due dilligence here. I am affiliated with the company as an external consultant, and therefore I will withdraw the draft and cancel my attempt to get published. I did post the page because I was looking for information about the product, which I think is a product with both commercial, environmental and societal value, but I certainly understand that it should be written by someone with a neutral standing to the commercial aspect. My apologies, and again – thanks for your clear and informative feedback. /P PaalAU (talk) 11:36, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Uncivil Behavior

Hi I'm need advice if this should be consider under ANI. This user has been quite uncivil in the interaction with me and apparently some other pages as well. His summary on topic seems to violate edit summary do and don't but again not 100% sure. G Zhong 10:00, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

I'd say this is quite an instance of WP:OWN. So yeah, I think this should go to WP:ANI. 🐲Jothefiredragon🔥talk🧨contributions✨log🐉 10:05, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Upload an article

Upload an article, I am getting errors Dr. Moses Matur Chol (talk) 11:31, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

You have no edits (deleted or otherwise) beside your query here , that I could see. Which article/page are you talking about? Lectonar (talk) 11:45, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

@Dr. Moses Matur Chol: what you saw is an automated filter that stops new users from uploading PDF files. Please note that you can't create an article by uploading a PDF; you must use Wikipedia editors (either visual editor or the old style wikitext editor). MKFI (talk) 15:05, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Maintenance template @ Niels_Kuster

Niels Kuster

I am writing to request help to delete the maintenance template on the English language version of the article about Niels Kuster.

The issues:

• This article is an orphan, as no other articles link to it. Please introduce links to this page from related articles. (August 2022)
  • 3 articles -- Foundation for Research on Information Technologies in Society, Sim4Life/SEMCAD, and Computational human phantoms -- link to it now
• This article's use of external links may not follow Wikipedia's policies or guidelines. (September 2022)
  • improper external links have been addressed
• This article contains paid contributions. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. (December 2023)
  • the declaration regarding paid contributions has been added to the tlak page

I am not allowed to remove the box because I am the paid contributor. Thanks very much for your help on this matter. GoneDutch (talk) 12:17, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @GoneDutch, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Thank you for declaring your status.

The "orphan" tag has been removed, as there are now incoming links.

You should not remove COI notice, or directly edit the article. But you can clean it up by suggesting specific edits to it using edit requests. The thing to remember is Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources.

Almost nothing published by I'TIS or by Kuster is relevant, and also little by other organisations he is affiliated with such as IEEE. Given the paucity independent sources, I doubt that the article establishes that Kuster meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability - so offering sources that meet all the criteria in WP:42 would be helpful.

So for example, if you find an truly independent source that discusses some of his work, you might make an edit request that says "delete the paragraph ... and replace it with the following ..." (based entirely on what that independent sources says, and including a citation to it)

If you cannot find several sources that meet the criteria, then I'm afraid that is a strong indication that Kuster is not notable in Wikipedia's sense, and the article should be deleted and cannot be saved. ColinFine (talk) 12:48, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Dear ColinFine,

Thank you for removing the box, aside from the paid contributions part. To provide a bit of background, I was asked to translate the German language version of the article about Niels Kuster written by Wikipedia ID BBCLCD. That contributor contacted me after I submitted the translation to remark that I am too close to the subject (although a little digging revealed that BBCLCD had also contributed an article about himself):

Du bist erst seit kurzem auf Wikipedia tätig geworden und hast bisher ausschliesslich den Artikel über Niels Kuster erweitert. Bei WP-Artikeln über Personen sind der entsprechenden Person nahestehende Autoren weniger erwünscht, da sie oft voreingenommen sind. Du legst fairerweise offen, dass Du bei diesem Artikel von Prof. Niels Kuster angeleitet wirst. Bezüglich WP-Relevanzkriterien für Professoren sind Assistenz- oder Titularprofessoren per se für WP nicht relevant genug. Weil ich über die besonderen Verdienste von Kuster erfahren habe, entstand von mir der Artikel über Kuster. Mein ursprünglicher Artikel wurde bewusst knapp gehalten. Ich möchte nicht, dass auf dieser Basis PR-artige Erweiterungen gemacht werden (wie z. B. in Geschäftsberichten üblich).

...translated:

You've only recently joined Wikipedia and so far have only expanded the article about Niels Kuster. For Wikipedia articles about individuals, authors close to the person in question are less desirable, as they are often biased. You fairly disclose that you are being guided by Professor Niels Kuster on this article. Regarding Wikipedia's relevance criteria for professors, assistant or titular professors are not considered relevant enough per se. Because I learned about Kuster's exceptional achievements (italics from GoneDutch), I wrote the article about him. My original article was deliberately kept brief. I don't want any PR-style expansions (like those commonly found in annual reports) based on it.

The comment about assistant or titular professors being not considered relevant enough per se (implies that full professors in the Swiss system are automatically relevant? -- I beg to differ). Prof. Kuster's work began in the early 1990's, when he was a Titularprofessoren, with the development of a robotic system to measure electromagnetic radiation emitted from mobile devices. The first spin-off SME, SPEAG (Draft:Schmid & Partner Engineering AG), was founded to market the system, the current version of which is used worldwide for testing compliance of mobile phones and other mobile devices like tablets, smart-watches, etc. The IT'IS Foundation, a spin-off of SPEAG, continues to support the development of tools for studies of electromagnetic radiation and has spawned other spin-offs. To my knowledge, the majority of university spin-offs are "one-trick ponies", a single patent, product, or protocol that eventually gets bought up and marketed by a larger conglomerate. Prof. Kuster has kept his work in Switzerland, continued to expand and provide science and engineering jobs, as well as jobs in production and logistics, for more than 30 years.

I have since been drafting other contributions about the research, SMEs, products, etc. guided by Prof. Kuster, trying very hard to adhere to encyclopedic language. I model my contributions after Wikipedia articles about similar organizations and products. I haven't had much success so far with getting articles accepted. My contributions are criticized by Wikipedia editors for -- in addition to paid contributor problem -- as you point out, a paucity of independent sources. Many of the sources that I consider independent, e.g., research articles published in peer-reviewed journals, are dismissed, I suppose because the articles are co-authored by IT'IS researchers. In my opinion, the peer review process should be sufficient to overcome the independence hurdle.

I need help to make the contributions more acceptable to the Wikipedia editors making decisions. I appreciate the guidance you provide in your reply, especially about not being allowed to edit the articles myself -- I had not come across that rule. GoneDutch (talk) 14:03, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @GoneDutch. There are some different criteria for notability which may be used for academics - WP:NPROF. I don't really understand these, or how they interact with the basic criteria. But I'm pretty sure that you still need to provide several sources which are independent.

Even setting aside the question of independence, his peer-reviewed papers do not contain significant coverage of him, and so cannot be used to support information about him in an article about him.

There is a simple (though not easy!) approach to writing an article for English Wikipedia:

1. Assemble sources each of which is reliably published, completely independent of the subject, and contains significant coverage of the subject (as explained in Golden rule
2. If you have no sources, or few and they are not enough to form the basis of an encyclopaedia article, give up.
3. Set aside all other information you may have about the subject, and write a neutral summary of what those sources say.
4. Optionally, add a small amount of uncontroversial factual data (eg dates, locations) from non-independent sources about the subject.

There are few circumstances (if any) in which it is appropriate to cite a source which deoes not contain information about the subject. ColinFine (talk) 15:15, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Image for a draft article

I remember seeing (on Wikipedia) that images of someone who is deceased are allowed onto pages, is this true and therefore what license would it be, as the Wikimiedia commons image uploader doesn’t have a specific button to tick or “deceased persons”.

Here is the person who I’d like to add an image for —> Draft:Lord Blakie. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 13:40, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Images are not relevant to the draft process, which only considers the text and sources. You don't need to worry about images until the draft is accepted.

That said, I'm not aware of special rules surrounding images of not-recently deceased persons; you may be referring to WP:BLPIMAGE regarding images of recently deceased or living people. 331dot (talk) 13:45, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

I see, well if it is possible to add an image I do think that would be nice, so are there any specific rules on deceased images or is it the same with most other images (EG. Requires permission, or is free from copyright). Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 13:57, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

@KeyolTranslater: If a person is dead, a freely licensed photo of him or her can obviously not be taken, so a copyrighted image may be uploaded (to this Wikipedia, not to Commons) if it meets the Non-free content criteria. A non-free image cannot be used in a draft, however; it can be added only after the draft is moved to article space. Deor (talk) 14:51, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

I looked at the NFCC and the image checks the boxes, in fact it may be copyright free judging but it’s use on the TrinidadExpress website (news site) however I wasn’t able to see any Copyright or who exactly took said image (considering it was most likely taken in the 50s-early 60s), sure when it is published to the main space then I’d add the image, but like I just tick the box “my own work” as when uploading an image to a Wikipedia page that is the only way to add said image? Thanks for your help Deor and 331 Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 14:56, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi @KeyolTranslater. No, please do not tick "my own work" unless you personally hold the copyright to the image. You do not, so do not tick that checkbox. qcne (talk) 15:03, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Ok I see, so then how would I upload it if not via commons, wasn’t planning to tick the “own work” section, just a little confused, I’ve uploaded images before which were my own work/free from copyright but usually that was Via commons and according to Deor I couldn’t put this specific image of Lord Blakie via Commons, therefore I’m a bit lost on how I would put the image onto Wikipedia without using commons, and even then using commons I’m unaware of what copyright it is (if it has a copyright at all). Thanks for any help. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 15:09, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

@KeyolTranslater Since you're unaware of the copyright, you can't upload the image to Wikimedia Commons - sorry. Commons can only accept images under special copyright-free licenses, or where you are the copyright holder and are releasing the image to Commons under a compatible license. And as @331dot said, images are a "nice to have" feature but not a requirement for drafts, and have no bearing on acceptance. qcne (talk) 15:10, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Yeah I wasn’t thinking it was a requirement, I just thought as I remember hearing that deceased persons can have their image on Wikipedia, I think it was even in the Teahouse I saw that, hence why I thought it could be appropriate but perhaps I’m mistaken. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 15:13, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

@KeyolTranslater: Definitely do not claim that a photo that you did not take yourself is your own work. Go to the File upload wizard, click on "Upload a non-free file", then "This is a copyrighted, non-free work, but I believe it is Fair Use" and "This is a historical portrait of a person no longer alive", and the wizard will guide you through the upload process. If you can't determine who took the photo, just say that the author is "unknown". Deor (talk) 15:17, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Ah I see, thanks a lot, all this technical stuff can be quite confusing. I’ll add it when the article is accepted (as I do believe it has enough info to be accepted), thanks for taking your time today to help me 👍 have a great rest of your day, same goes to qcne and 331. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 15:21, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @KeyolTranslater. You're not entirely wrong, but you're misremembering.

As Deor explained, if a person is living it is almost never acceptable to upload a non-free image, because there is nearly always a possibility (even a remove one) that a free image could be obtained.

When a person is dead, that argument no longer applies, so the claim that "no free alternative exists" is easier to maintain. ColinFine (talk) 15:19, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

I see, thanks for the clarification. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 15:21, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

submission rejected

My submission has been rejected and cannot be resubmitted (LuniZunie) because it is "contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. What did I do wrong? Theangrymoms (talk) 14:00, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Theangrymoms. Your draft is not a valid Wikipedia article, it's just a list of people who have signed a petition? Go to a social media website instead if you want to get people to sign a petition. qcne (talk) 14:58, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

🤦‍♂️ I think we need a warning when creating accounts here on Wikipedia, too many people come thinking it’s social media. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 15:02, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry for the improper way that I've tried to provide validation for the documentation of the outrage for something that I feel everyone should know about: the underutilization of clozapine for it's current two indications: 1) treatment resistant schizophrenia; 2) suicide prevention. There's also a petition to the FDA for a third indication: anti-aggression. With the explosion of violence due to the increased occurences of untreated/undertreated Serious Mental Illness (SMI), and for the millions of US citizens affected by SMI, people need to know that there is possible help with proper utilization of clozapine. Our kids are dead, on the streets, or incarcerated because there is no help available. Institutions were closed decades ago, there is no place for them. Moms, first responders, jails, are left "holding the bag". Society pays a lot. Monetarily, and in public safety. It's a huge issue. People should know that lives, families, society, governments, etc. could save a lot of suffering, fear, and money, by educating people about clozapine. ~2025-36395-04 (talk) 16:21, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Seeking advice on article of prominent journalist, that has been marked for deletion.

Hello everyone! I am seeking counsel on an article that I wrote on a music journalist and author, Ben Cardew.

There is a discussion on whether or not the article should be deleted.

This journalist is also the programming head of a large music festival Radio Primavera Sound. He is cited 100s of times in Wikipedia and regularly sought out by leading music media outlets to write about and interview leading artists. Yes I understand that notability is established when others publish articles on the actual person, but it is what he does and not who he is that is of interest to popular culture, even though that is all tied together. So the issue is that obviously the journalist is a private person and avoids the spotlight, because that is not the point, and maybe does not have an agent who would arrange for paid coverage. (I am speculating! I have no idea if they have an agent or not.)

How can someone be cited many times and yet not have their own article? It does not make sense to me.

I understand and yet am wondering how to establish a more contemporary understanding of notability.

Thanks so much if you have any guidance to offer. I&I22 (talk) 15:03, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi @I&I22. Do any of the sources in your draft meet the criterion set out in Wikipedia:GOLDENRULE? From the deletion nominator, it doesn't look like it.

If not, that means this journalist does not pass our threshold for criteria for inclusion, which is at Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion (people). Criteria for inclusion is tested by evidence of multiple secondary sources that are independent from the person the article is about.

Note that we specifically exclude sources that are primary or written by the person the article is about, which looks like what most of your sources are.

What is your professional or personal relationship/connection to Ben Cardew? qcne (talk) 15:09, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

There are also many non-him articles cited and many that I chose the auto formatting option did not include the authors.

I follow his work as am an electronic music enthusiast and am working to protect the legacy of genx creators - their webpages and archives are disappearing and so trying to secure some of this important history in wikipedia as well as encourage other edm enthusiasts to participate here.

I follow the work of all the people that I have written about in Wikipedia.

If you are insinuating that I am getting paid to do this labour you are very wrong. I am not a capitalist and so don't follow capitalist rationale for my efforts. I&I22 (talk) 15:15, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Alright, so, again, what three sources meet the golden rule I linked above that prove this person meets our criteria? qcne (talk) 15:20, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

I will get them and here will be my guidelines taken from Referencing

"Citations

Citations are the most important element of any Wikipedia page. No page should be on Wikipedia if it cannot be backed up from a high quality published secondary source.

You should aim to have a citation at the end of every sentence, or at least every paragraph.

Your golden rule for sources used is that they should be published, and they should have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Scholarly material is normally fine, broadsheet newspapers, university-level textbooks and books from respected publishing houses. Blogs from universities or any organisations with an editorial oversight might be acceptable. Tabloids and clickbait journalism tend to be less reliable and should be avoided." I&I22 (talk) 15:27, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Indeed, those are the criteria.

Most of your sources are primary, which fail the "secondary source" rule. qcne (talk) 15:31, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

There are 2 others listed by journalist Christian Eede

Eede, Christian (July 29, 2021) New Daft Punk podcast examines each track on ‘Discovery’: Listen: The podcast series precedes a forthcoming book on the classic album DJ Mag.

( I will add in one at a time) I&I22 (talk) 15:33, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

This source is reliable, independent, but does not provide the significant coverage we require: it just states he writes the Podcast and does no analysis or discussion of Ben otherwise. qcne (talk) 15:36, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Now:

Bain, Katie (2021-06-03). "A Book About Daft Punk's 'Discovery' Is Coming This Fall: See the Cover". Billboard. I&I22 (talk) 15:53, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Cassidy, Johny (2011-04-14). "Could the indie record store be on the comeback trail?". BBC News. Retrieved 2025-11-25. I&I22 (talk) 16:02, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Do modern pop stars 'just pose at singing'?". BBC News. 2011-05-09. I&I22 (talk) 16:04, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

The issue with establishing notability is the Wikipedia editor aka me, not really the subject. Cardew writes a lot and is everywhere. It is a deep dive to get past his publications insearches. If the BBC is citing and interviewing Cardew in music articles, it cannot be that he is unnotable. In any case i can remove the lesser quality citations and do more work to find more solid ones. I&I22 (talk) 16:07, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Reynolds, Matthew (2008). "Why Music Should Be Socialized". The Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment and Technology Law. 10 (3): 5. I&I22 (talk) 16:10, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Reid, Andy; Rosni, Devin; Shelton, Darren. "Episode 23 - Daft Punk - The Ben Cardew Interview". Apple Podcasts. Retrieved October 5, 2025. I&I22 (talk) 16:11, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Writing about journalists(other than top tier journalists like Walter Kronkite or Lester Holt) can be challenging as they rarely write about each other, making it difficult for there to be appropriate sources. 331dot (talk) 16:23, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Navigating Wikipedia's information pages, etc

How do I find Wikipedia's information pages when I need them? There doesn't seem to be a search feature and the only way I have seen is through links. For example, is there some place I could search "noticeboards" and find the page WP:PNB? Lucevium (talk) 16:03, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

AfD closers

When an Afd decision arrives at a consensus, who decides to close it? Can any uninvolved editor do so? Kvinnen • dispatch an owl 16:03, 25 November 2025 (UTC)