Wikipedia:Teahouse: Difference between revisions

Bonadea, 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

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.

References needed

Hello, this is my first time creating a Wikipedia page; see Draft:Michel Goguikian. I have added references wherever I thought them necessary but the article was declined for some missing ones.

I've got the following section:

Michel Goguikian was born in Lebanon into a diplomatic family. His father, Ambassador Jean Goguikian, Lebanon’s first ambassador of Armenian origin[2], held several diplomatic posts, including at the United Nations where he participated, among others, in the first International Symposium on Industrial Development held in Athena in 1967[3][4]. Michel was raised in an environment shaped by international affairs and later earned degrees in economics and finance in the United States. He eventually became a naturalized citizen of Venezuela and Spain.

I've added reference links for the "first ambassador or Armenian origin" and the United Nations sentence.

Do I also need to add reference links for the degrees in economics this person obtained? These are proving quite hard to find.

Thank you. MBG2025 (talk) 15:41, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

For an article about a living person, you need a citation for each statement in the article.

How do you know he has a degree, if not from a source? Do you know this person, or work for them?

See WP:LIBRARY for places where you can find, or get help finding, sources. You may also get help at your local public library (or your school or college library, if you are a student). Remember that paper sources, as well as those found online, can be used. Help:Find sources also has some good tips. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:51, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll get on it then. :) MBG2025 (talk) 13:17, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

@MBG2025 The first (and maybe most important) part of "getting on it" is just to answer Andy's question. TooManyFingers (talk) 18:52, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

@MBG2025 What does "Michel was raised in an environment shaped by international affairs" really mean? You might want to remove that. (It probably applies to every human on Earth.) Unless it means something like "his parents were ambassadors", etc., which of course, if something like that is what you mean, and you want to say that in the article, it needs to be sourced. David10244 (talk) 07:19, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

I see that you've quickly resubmitted this draft, after making one or two tiny changes to it. I can make an absolute guarantee that in the form it is today (30 November), it will fail. The sources are not the right kind, and you have not done anything about that.

If this draft was a broken-down car that you needed to fix, then what you've done is like just wiping the windows. You haven't fixed anything. TooManyFingers (talk) 07:48, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Guidance for improving physics topics for school students

Hi everyone! 👋😊 I’m looking to contribute to physics-related articles, especially for school students in Grades 7–9. I can help simplify concepts like light, sound, electricity, force, motion, and basic astronomy with clear examples. Could you suggest active physics pages or sections that currently need improvements, reliable sources, or better explanations? I’d love to learn and contribute with accuracy and clarity. Thanks a lot for your guidance! 🚀📘 Night-Vector (talk) 15:54, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

@Night-Vector There is a handy bot which looks at tags on articles and allows editors to focus on areas that interest them. See external link to WikiProject Cleanup Listings. It has a physics section. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:00, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

I dont think so 🤔 Night-Vector (talk) 16:11, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Sections are sorted alphabetically; "Physics" is present. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:17, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

@Night-Vector There is also simple.wikipedia.org Polygnotus (talk) 16:04, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

what do you mean dude Night-Vector (talk) 16:09, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

@Night-Vector I mean that some school students in grades 7-9 may prefer simple.wikipedia.org, dude. Polygnotus (talk) 16:12, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Simple Wikipedia is a simplified version of Wikipedia Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 16:13, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Not exactly ... It's a different Wikipedia that doesn't have the same articles. But they do use simpler writing. TooManyFingers (talk) 18:50, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry but the contrast between this and the professional sounding parent comment is hilarious. mgjertson (talk) (contribs) 19:50, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Hence why I believe the original is AI, no one uses multiple emojis for posts, especially a smiling face and a wave, either an old person made the original, or AI. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 19:54, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

WikiProject Ageism is over there ==> Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:03, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Request for Review of Draft:Giacomo Billi

Hello!

I’ve been working on improving the draft Draft:Giacomo Billi over the past days. I’ve rewritten several sections, adjusted the style to keep it neutral, and added more independent sources to strengthen the article.

Could someone please take a careful look at it and let me know if it now meets the requirements for notability and reliable sourcing? Any feedback or guidance would be very helpful.

Thank you for your time! Mihai Catalin 11 (talk) 19:09, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Mihai Catalin 11. According to WP:SURNAME, this person should not be referred to by their first name after the initial mention of their full name. Their claim to notability seems to be as a senior executive of a company that is not itself the subject of a Wikipedia article. That seems strange to me. This sentence is also strange: Giacomo is mentioned in Romanian economic media in connection with the development of renewable energy projects, the listing of Alive Capital’s corporate bonds on the Bucharest Stock Exchange, and the company’s integration into Premier Energy Group. Being "mentioned in media" is not something worth writing in an encyclopedia. We want significant, in depth coverage which we summarize rather than stating that coverage exists. Cullen328 (talk) 20:21, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

@Mihai Catalin 11:

• "Early career" is a repeat of "Early life and education", please delete.
• Career is mainly about the company rather than Billi. The draft is about Billi.
• You mention that he's been mentioned in Ziarul Financiar, FoodBiz, Energy Industry Review, Financial Intelligence, Forbes, and InvesTenergy but it's the information about him in those articles that need to be in the draft with inline citations, rather than information about the company. (Not all the information, just pertinent information.)
• Most of your sources are in foreign languages. This will delay review because only people who know those languages can read the sources but, because you have bare references, you've made it even more difficult for someone to verify.
• Most of your sources are bare references in some manner (ie they're missing descriptions). Please fill in the name of the author (if known), the title of the article, the name of the publication, the location of the publication (if not in publication name), a date of publication, the translated title, the language (use the two letter language code). It would also be helpful to fill in the type of source (eg, interview, profile page)
• But at the end of the day, there are criteria for a Wikipedia article. You thinking he's important is not enough. He needs to have been covered in depth (eg, a feature article) in multiple, reliable sources for inclusion. Suggest read WP:42 and WP:BOSS.

MmeMaigret (talk) 00:47, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Does the result of this close make sense?

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian genocide in Nigeria

Close says: "The result was redirect to Religious violence in Nigeria. While a fraught topic, there is not consensus that sourcing establishes this as a distinct issue. History is preserved should that change."

I went through the comments and tallied up the comments. I know it's not a vote but the resulting close doesn't make sense.

Delete - 8

Oppose/Keep - 5

Redirect - 4 Guz13 (talk) 21:48, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

First of all, the last commenter who "oppose[d] deletion" did not have a position on whether to keep the article vs redirect. 12 !voters opposed a standalone article while only 4 supported a standalone article. On the basis of headcount alone, even without getting into the actual arguments, this strongly suggests a consensus to not keep the article. On the other hand, the delete commenters did not argue strongly against a redirect, so it makes perfect sense for the discussion to be closed as redirect even though more commenters !voted "delete" (choosing to redirect vs delete is very common in closing AfD discussions per WP:PRESERVE). In general, questions about a closure should be asked directly to the closer, in this case @Star Mississippi. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 23:34, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

See WP:ATD

Remember, the point of Wikipedia is to build an encyclopedia, and that means we want good, well-sourced information here; it's just that that information might not always warrant an article of its own. If the content from an article can be redirected or merged into another article resulting in an improvement to the encyclopedia, that's always better than outright deletion. Athanelar (talk) 00:09, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks @Athanelar and @Helpful Raccoon for the ping and stepping in while I was offline. @Guz13 please let me know if you need further information. Star Mississippi 15:51, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Review my Draft:Ramayana (2026)

Draft:Ramayana (2026)

@Hello, I am writing film articles like Ramayana (2026) I want to know about correct title usage and references. Can someone guide me? Republic of Hindustan (talk) 01:22, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

The title (and several disambiguation) have been deleted numerous times. It does not meet WP:NFF as determined in a deletion discussion. Why did you create it under a different name than what had already been used? --CNMall41 (talk) 02:16, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

@CNMall41 Thanks for the clarification. I created the draft under a different title because recent reliable sources such as India Today, NDTV, and Pinkvilla have consistently referred to the project with the 2026 release year, and I believed this fell under WP:NFF as the production is already underway with confirmed cast, director, and studio. If the previous deletions apply to this version as well, I am happy to follow the correct process. Please guide me on whether the article should remain in draft space until stronger production-confirmation sources appear. Republic of Hindustan (talk) 02:45, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Why would it not apply to the same film but different title? Notability does not come from the title. You were aware of the previous deletion discussions and drafts correct? --CNMall41 (talk) 02:50, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

@CNMall41When I tried to move the draft to mainspace, the system did not allow the title “Ramayana: Part 1” due to prior deletions and protection. I changed it to “Ramayana (2026)” only to bypass the technical block. The title change was not intended to bypass previous discussions; I am happy to keep the draft in draft space and improve sources as needed. Republic of Hindustan (talk) 02:55, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

That should answer your questions then. If the title is protected from creation, it doesn't mean you should create it under a different title. It means it cannot be created. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:57, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

@CNMall41 Understood. I will keep the article in draft space and work on improving references and content without attempting to bypass the protected title. Thanks for clarifying.. have a nice day dear (: Republic of Hindustan (talk) 02:59, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

User now blocked as SOCK.--CNMall41 (talk) 21:49, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Getting my media properties onto Wikipedia

Hi,

So in the ongoing struggle as a small publisher, it's been recommended to us that having Wikipedia pages for each of our properties is a good way to increase our Google traffic and hence revenue/survival/ongoing employment for my 40 odd staff members. As I've thus far found Wikipedia article creation to be extremely time consuming and more than a little bewildering, I turned to an LLM to help. However my pages have been subsequently rejected.

I'd really love to have them made, but am really struggling with the motivation to persevere.

Is there no easy path? DaveHov (talk) 23:44, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Whomever you spoke to has given you bad advice. Wikipedia has exactly zero interest in increasing your Google traffic. Our only interest is in summarizing what independent reliable sources choose on their own to say about topics that meet out special Wikipedia definition of notability, like a notable company. Writing a new article is the most difficult task to attempt on Wikipedia even without a conflict of interest, it's even harder with one(and you are also a paid editor under our rules and must make a formal disclosure per the Terms of Use). It's not easy to write an article and it isn't intended to be. LLMs do an especially bad job at it(see WP:LLM as to why). Also please see why you are unlikely to succeed at your efforts and the reasons an article is not something to desire. 331dot (talk) 23:53, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

LLM use isn't the only problem, DaveHov. Draft:The Misfits Media Company tells the reader that The Misfits Media Company Pty Ltd (The Misfits) [...] owns and operates the industry publications B&T and Travel Weekly... The draft has six references. One is to the Misfits. Four are to B&T. The sixth is presented as if it's a link to "The Misfits founders on transforming Australia's trade media". Mumbrella. However, it isn't. Instead, it's a link to the top page of Mumbrella, which currently has no mention of "Misfits". -- Hoary (talk) 05:21, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Your reason for being here is immediately contrary to two very important principles on Wikipedia; Wikipedia is not for promotion and editors are expected to be here because they want to build an encyclopedia.

If you're exclusively here to try to create pages to increase traffic to your properties in order to boost your company's performance, you are not here to build an encyclopedia and you are engaging in promotion. The result, as you've already experienced, will only be frustration and wasted time for you. Athanelar (talk) 23:16, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Getting a second pair of eyes on my draft article

Article Draft Link: User:BluePixelLOLLL/sandbox2

Hey there, I'm making an article and would like some constructive feedback and suggestions on how to improve it. I've gotten lots of feedback so far, and would like to hear from you guys at the teahouse. Thanks! BluePixelLOLLL (talk) 21:01, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

@BluePixelLOLLL The main issue, IMO, is that most of your sources are not independent of the park, nor are they secondary. Your draft would be much improved if it had some sourcing from newspapers, for example. Note also MOS:BOLD, which is a minor style point. Mike Turnbull (talk) 21:23, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! I will improve it according to your feedback. BluePixelLOLLL (talk) 21:28, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

I always go for picky little things ... "Public use and events" should have only one capital letter, like I just did it. ("Kitsap Live Steamers" is OK because that's the name of an organization.) TooManyFingers (talk) 21:25, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for the hint! BluePixelLOLLL (talk) 21:29, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Sunset Song

The map in Sunset Song is obviously user generated content, and possibly original research. Should it be removed? Lexiconaut (talk) 22:05, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Delete it. Not suitable for MOS. GarethBaloney (talk) 22:11, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

What does the MOS have to do with it? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:30, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Why is that obvious. Have you read the book? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:14, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Because the description at Wikipedia Commons says: "Source Own work" --Lexiconaut (talk) 02:26, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

It's not unusual for that to be wrong.

And if someone read a textual description, or looked at a diagram then redrew it in their own hand, from memory, it is not unreasonable to say it is "own work". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:42, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

We should perhaps check that it isn't based on a map in the original (or another) edition of the book (it's not in my 1983 paperback): and if nothing else it should be made smaller. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2025-31359-08 (talk) 22:24, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Writing higher biological taxonomic ranks in italics

There is an article:

"Thines, M., Aoki, T., Crous, P. W., Hyde, K. D., Lücking, R., Malosso, E., May, T. W., Miller, A. N., Redhead, S. A., Yurkov, A. M., & Hawksworth, D. L. (2020). Setting scientific names at all taxonomic ranks in italics facilitates their quick recognition in scientific papers. IMA Fungus, 11(1), 25–5. doi:10.1186/s43008-020-00048-6"

That states that all higher taxonomic ranks should be italicized. Should someone add this? I would love to go through some pages and add italics to higher rankings, and add the reason to this. But I would love to hear more opinions on this before I go and italicize all taxonomic ranks… MagnusVandbakk (talk) 22:40, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

MOS:LIFE says capitalize and italicize the genus: Berberis, Erithacus. (Supergenus and subgenus, when applicable, are treated the same way.) Italicize but do not capitalize taxonomic ranks at the level of species and below [...] Higher taxa (order, family, etc.) are capitalized in Latin (Carnivora, Felidae) but not in their English equivalents (carnivorans, felids); they are not italicized in either form, except for viruses, where all names accepted by the ICTV are italicized (Retroviridae). Athanelar (talk) 22:49, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

I know well how you write taxonomic names. Historically all higher ranks have been written normally and capitalized, and genera and epithets written italicized.

this article however proposes writing all names italicized for easier recognition in texts. I think it really makes sense. There is no reason not to write names in italics. I just want more opinions on this from the Wikipedia community. MagnusVandbakk (talk) 22:54, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Your best bet would be to raise it at the Manual of Style talk page then, since you'd have to get MOS:LIFE changed before you go about changing it in articles. Athanelar (talk) 23:02, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Okay, I will, thanks!! MagnusVandbakk (talk) 23:03, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

The key part of your comment is "this article however proposes...". It is a proposal. We follow what is most common in the sources we cite; and they have not, in general, adopted this proposal.

When you can give examples of the proposal being adopted by the majority of, say, the top ten most cited journals in taxonomy, then you may have a case to make. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:07, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Okay, I get that, thank you. Then I will wait. MagnusVandbakk (talk) 12:09, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Understanding draft feedback

Hello, I recently had my first draft declined (Draft:Short-Baseline Near Detector) and I struggling a bit to understand how to move forward. The notability comments I am working on, and I am reaching out to other people in the physics wikiproject to see if they have advice. The comments that I am struggling with more are the claims of that my article is "obvious AI output", which is a bit disheartening because there was no AI involvement at all in the writing of this article. I have been reading the various links shown in the LLM template, but I am struggling to understand what I can do to not sound like AI. This experiment is in the same program as MicroBooNE and ICARUS experiment, so I took inspiration but also tried to improve to make it more readable. This is my first draft, so any advice would be appreciated! Thanks - Ajheindel (talk) 01:02, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

@WeirdNAnnoyed Do you mind explaining why you said that the article is obvious AI output? I myself don't understand that either. Wikieditor662 (talk) 02:38, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

I suppose "obvious" isn't the correct word. The draft looks like LLM output to me because a) it has a tendency to treat central concepts and peripheral details with equal weight (for example, describing the pitch of wires in the detector before ever describing the physical principle on which it works, in "Design"); and b) formatting quirks, such as the use of title case and the tendency to provide an abbreviation for every term, some of which are only used once (I appreciate that some terms are best known as acronyms, but there is no reason to say "tetraphenyl-butadiene (TPB)" when the term is only used this once and is excessive detail to begin with. None of these is definitive, and if the author says they didn't use AI, I believe them (most editors caught using AI at AfC slink away silently). @Ajheindel:: Please don't be discouraged by my review, and thank you for commenting here. The draft can be improved but I think you're well on your way. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 12:12, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, I included more specific details about this experiment because there are links to the specific kind of detector this experiment uses, but I can definitely expand on that so it is more inclusive. As for the acronyms, that was a deliberate choice because these are really common acronyms in this field and I find it helpful to have those defined in beginner friendly articles, but I understand I went a little overboard with that. I will try to take this feedback and make some improvements before resubmitting. Ajheindel (talk) 12:33, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

I hope reviewers are not starting to assume that any competently written draft must be AI generated. I used to be a professional non-fiction book and periodicals desk editor, and although I have not so far (in 20 years of editing on Wikipedia) wanted to create a new article, if I did I would be able to ensure it was structured, written and presented (as well as properly referenced) in accordance with Wikipedia's standards and house style. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2025-31359-08 (talk) 03:33, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

20 years? Why haven't you made an account, if you don't mind me asking? Wikieditor662 (talk) 03:57, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

I made a deliberate decision not to: partly because I try to 'join' or subscribe to as few things as possible, particularly online; partly because (from past self-experience), if I opened an account I would feel (irrational) mental pressure to spend more time 'working' here that I ought (this is just my personal quirk); partly because I feel that any edit should stand or fall by its own merits, not on the perceived reputation of its contributor. Since my last fixed home IP became dynamic (due to a company takeover) I have used it as a 'pseudosignature' merely to preserve continuity in dialogues. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2025-31359-08 (talk) 20:38, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

But wouldn't it get frustrating after 20 years to not be able to edit semi protected or extended protected articles among other things? Wikieditor662 (talk) 21:51, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

I rarely if ever want to do so. On articles I usually perform minor copyediting and typo corrections when I see the need; my additions or corrections to factual content are made on topics that interest me (often book-related) that are almost never protected. I avoid embroiling myself in anything contentious – I'm here for relaxation (and, of course, factual research), not angst. Mostly I answer queries or advise on procedures (which I have had 20 years to observe) on the Reference, Help and Teahouse Desks.

If I ever see the need for a change I cannot myself make, I request it on the article's Talk page or bring it up at an appropriate Desk. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2025-31359-08 (talk) 00:51, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

@Ajheindel My view is that the article relies far too much on primary sources: those written by people associated with the Project and hence not independent. You need to summarise what secondary sources have said, e.g. in newspapers or technical review articles. If there are no such sources, then your draft fails to establish the notability of the topic. A limited amount of primary material is OK once you have got clear notability. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:11, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes I am looking for some more sources, it is difficult for these experiments which are relatively new and don't have much media coverage. The suggestion of the physics wikiproject was to look at funding agency reviews, so I will try to find some clear notability from there. Ajheindel (talk) 12:37, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Ajheindel, and welcome to the Teahouse. Unfortunately, that may simply mean that it is too soon for an article on this subject. ColinFine (talk) 14:56, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Articles with multiple languages

How exactly do we indicate in the reference template that an article contains multiple languages? I run into this a lot with articles in the Philippines, as many of them contain, for instance, prose in English but a lot of untranslated statements in Tagalog and/or Cebuano. English, Tagalog, and Cebuano all have language codes in Wikipedia, but how exactly do we mark stuff like that? Thanks. Bloomagiliw (talk) 07:06, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Bloomagiliw, and welcome to the Teahouse. You can use the cleanup tag {{Not English}} ColinFine (talk) 14:58, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello,

Thanks so much! But I'd like to clarify that I'm pertaining to *reference* articles. A lot of news and magazine articles, especially in the Philippines, switch between languages.

Thanks again. Bloomagiliw (talk) 20:00, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

If you aren't quoting directly what they wrote in that source, then I think you don't really have to do anything special. References are allowed to be in any language, as long as they're good and reliable. If there are easy ways to "be nice" to an English-only reader, like keeping the original title but also translating the title into English so I know what's supposed to be in the referenced article, that's appreciated. TooManyFingers (talk) 03:12, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Edit statistics abnormality

Hi all. Though this isn't exceptionally important, I thought it should be noted that there appears to be an issue where edits over 10,240 bytes don't appear in the edit statistics breakdown under 'Number of edits in that size change interval, in bytes*'. I'm not certain if a specific threshold needs to be reached before they appear (given how small it would presumably be relative to smaller-sized edits). If someone could give me some direction on where to note this bug, it would be appreciated. My best to all regardless, and well wishes as we approach the new year. Best, CSGinger14 (talk) 07:14, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

@CSGinger14 Please report this at How to report a bug - MediaWiki. There are instructions at the top of that page. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:58, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

@CSGinger14: I have reported it in phab:T411310. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:36, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

@Michael D. Turnbull and @PrimeHunter, many thanks for the assistance!

CSGinger14 (talk) 06:38, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

@CSGinger14 Apparently now fixed, which you might like to check. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:01, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

@Alien333: My example [1] in phab:T411310 with 4 large page blankings is fixed but CSGinger14 has a recent +11,143 [2] and currently says 0 at >10,240.[3] Does the feature use cached data? By the way, is it intentional that the whole histogram is omitted in narrow windows? PrimeHunter (talk) 13:59, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: not cached, no (well, five minutes after a query, but that's negligible). I think I made another error in the little calculations to determine the right index. Mea culpa.

Re being omitted in narrow windows, yes, it is intentional. Due to the library we use for charts (and probably due to our using a years-outdated version of it), it jumbled up on low widths. — Alien  3
3 3 15:26, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Actually, after checking, it doesn't say 0: it says 4. It's just that 4 measly edits get dwarfed by the hundreds on the lower-size side (and, of course, that we're using a canvas-based library which means you can't zoom). And, after checking, our maths are in fact correct. — Alien  3
3 3 16:05, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

@Alien333: Thanks. At normal browser zoom I only see the grey grid line and always get 0 both when approaching very slowly from below and above with the mouse numerous times in Firefox on Windows 11. I doubt there is any cursor position which would show 4 for me but I notice there is a red square at the 0 so it apparently only means 0 removals. The 4 additions are completely invisible for me unless I make a browser zoom to 240% or more. Then I can both see green and point at it to see 4. If I then return to normal zoom then it remains green. If I reload the page then it just becomes the grey grid again. I would call it a bug (maybe in the used library and not XTools) when you always get the red 0 instead of the green 4 but it doesn't seem important. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:15, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Yep, there probably is no mouse position where you'd see the 4; given both the green, red and blue are zero pixel high.

However, I think I know why the one you can get is red: we effectively use three stacked bar charts (well, one chart with three datasets, but globally the same thing). When stuff overlaps, on hover the library shows the one drawn first (which is a pretty reasonable choice). The second dataset to be drawn is stacked on top of the first. Therefore the dataset you see on hover when all three overlap can't be green. We could make it blue without changing anything, but blue only exists in the leftmost bar anyhow. We could make it green by putting the blue below the zero line, pushing the red further down, but I'd rather not: for most people the longest bar for blue and green will be noticeably taller than the longest bar red. Currently, the two "tall" datasets are side-by-side, but putting blue below the zero line would make the lower half of the graph noticeably taller, which, knowing the chart has a fixed height, makes the bars smaller: before, after. (And yes, a lot of thinking goes into these little charts :).) — Alien  3
3 3 17:54, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Message regarding draft

Hi, I had recently tried to sumbit a draft of a an old Pakistani football club which played in the 1940s, the draft contains around 22 references in total, I'd like to know why it was rejected, I believe that the draft article is good enough to be published, but I'm open to any feedback, Thank you. Sandwichesandpancakes (talk) 08:23, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Draft:Jinnah Gymkhana FC was declined, Sandwichesandpancakes, not rejected. You're asked for multiple published sources that are: in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject) [and] reliable [and] secondary [and] independent of the subject, and each italicized term is linked to an explanation. If you believe that you have done this, then here, in this thread, please nominate three good examples. -- Hoary (talk) 08:53, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

There are about 5 good sources but they were hard to find.

MmeMaigret (talk) 13:59, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

@Sandwichesandpancakes You certainly haven't made it easy to verify sources with the bare references, ie. links to newspaper pages with a dozen-odd articles but no indication which article on the page is the source. MmeMaigret (talk) 09:49, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

As well as what others have said, more references isn't necessarily a good thing, nor does it establish a stronger case for the notability of a subject. We'd rather have three good sources than 50 passing mentions of the subject. Athanelar (talk) 12:11, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello.

I am looking, just for a list of things that make a good article and how to write a good article this may seem oddly specific, but, I would like to help expand the scope of Wikipedia. :) 🇳🇿 Ｒ. Ｆ. Ｋ. Ｔ. Ｎ. Ｇ. (ｔａｌｋ) 🇳🇿 11:15, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

@RFKTNG You should read WP:GA and WP:FA, which describe the process and criteria for good and featured articles. See also WP:Assess. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:54, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

If you mean what makes an a article good in general, it is relevant and up-to-date content, well cited, demonstrating notability, written in clear prose; and with a reasonable number of relevant illustrations. We also have an assessment for what are classed as "Good articles"; see the GA link, above.

I have left links to some other guidance, on your talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:58, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Assistance with Wiki Article Creation

Hello Team

Can anyone help me with Wikipedia page creation, and submission for review - Draft:Grahaa Space.

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malaya Kumar Biswal M (talk • contribs) 11:16, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

@Malaya Kumar Biswal M The draft has been submitted for review and in due course an experienced editor will get to it. You don't need a pre-review review from Teahouse hosts. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:52, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

There is a notice on the page, saying:

Review waiting, please be patient. This may take 2 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 2,837 pending submissions waiting for review.

-- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:53, 29 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) 12:07, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

@Athanelar: Are you familiar with the "shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted" metaphor?

The draft is written, and submitted for review, with the CoI declared. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:14, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

I think it's still good to get the spiel out there so there's no "well, nobody told me it was a bad idea" when the draft (as corporate COI drafts often do) gets declined five times for being promotional and poorly sourced. Athanelar (talk) 12:23, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

User talk:Malaya Kumar Biswal M#November 2025. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:36, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

@Malaya Kumar Biswal M I've had a quick look:

• The tone is promotional
• I can't work out what the relevance of the "Early foundations" section is besides to give the backgrounds of the two "important" people mentioned. How are those early activities actually related to the company (eg did they decide they needed to incorporate to further their business)?
• Sources: you've got bare references like msn and srmsat. Sources 3 and 4 are the same article "provided by PNN" - delete the ANI version. You've got things in the "first name" and "last name" fields that are[n't] people's names and names that aren't capitalised. There's a source error in 10 that needs fixing.
• The misspelling of "its" jumped out at me so I wonder what else needs spell checking.
• tl;dr If you don't have two well-regarded sources that discuss the company in depth and aren't WP:CORPTRIV, the article will get declined.

MmeMaigret (talk) 13:08, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

@Mmemaigret Sir, Mr. Loganathan, a former ISRO scientist, played a key role in guiding SRMSAT to success. During this period, he met Mr. Ramesh Kumar, and both agreed to collaborate on Mr. Ramesh Kumar’s proposal. Mr. Loganathan later applied the same principles and expertise to Grahaa Space as well.

With regard to the sources and names, I will make the necessary changes in accordance with Wikipedia’s guidelines. Thank you for your review and feedback. As I am new to this platform, your support and guidance are sincerely appreciated. Malaya Kumar Biswal M (talk) 18:00, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Userboxes on articles

Is it possible for articles to have userboxes? WinningGame480 (talk) 12:59, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Userboxes are for user pages, not articles. Why do you want to use a userbox on an article? 331dot (talk) 13:09, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

No, but there are similar-looking templates for some purposes, such as {{Commons category}} and {{GeoGroup}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:12, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Temporary Accounts replacing IP editing

Why would temporary accounts replace IPs for privacy reasons? ~2025-37176-86 (talk) 13:01, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

IP addresess can be used to identify someone's location. 331dot (talk) 13:10, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

IP addresses reveal your location.

See also:

• Say Hi to Temporary Accounts
• Access to Temp Acct Policy

MmeMaigret (talk) 13:14, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

There's more at WP:Temporary accounts. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:14, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

IP is now considered to be personal information according to EEA regulation. Icelandic, Danish and Swedish Wikipedia all have temporary accounts now instead of showing IP numbers due to this regulation and I presume that most language version inside the EEA have done so as well. Bjornkarateboy (talk) 02:02, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Need new mentor

Hello, I would like to request a new mentor. My assigned mentor has been inactive for a long time, so I need guidance from an active editor. How can I get a new mentor assigned? Kurangi v nagraj (talk) 13:18, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Mentorship#How can I get a different mentor?. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:39, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Better citation template

Hi. Can someone modify my edit so that it uses a better citation format? Thank you very much Comte0 (talk) 14:14, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

I have made a start, using {{Cite journal}}. Somebody else will have to advise how "publié sous la direction de Ivan du Jonchay et de Sandor Rado" should be included, if at all.

It may be that the title should just be "Un nouvel Atlas internationale", as per the actual paper. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:29, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. Under the "Référence bibliographique" tab on the left, Persée.fr disagree with your proposed title, and they provide a bibtex file that should help. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 15:17, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Sadly, it's not unusual for publishers to screw up digital metadata.

What title would you use, if you had the original, on paper, in front of you? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:41, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

I wouldn't ;)

I do not work with scientific articles, this is why I'm asking here. Feel free to use whatever you think is best. Again, thanks for the help. Comte0 (talk) 16:04, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

CLAT

Guys,This is not related to any edits.I just want to know if there are any Wikipedians like me ,who are preparing for the CLAT exams. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 15:17, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Very likely, but this isn't a social forum, and neither does Wikipedia host one.

You might try WP:Social if you want to find other Wikimedians who share your circumstances. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:44, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

AI and Wikipedia

I recently read a discussion on Icelandic Wikipedia about the use of LLM and AI when editing Wikipedia and if there should be a policy about the use of these things when editing it. So I would like to ask, does the English Wikipedia have policy on these issues? I study at University and there are strict rules about using ChatGPT and other AI when solving a schoolproject (especially BA and Masters essays). The AI is the future for our technology and in near future people will use it far more than today, and that's why we need to have serious discussion about how to use it properly when editing Wikipedia just like the Universities have the discussion about how to use it properly in their work. Bjornkarateboy (talk) 15:58, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Large language models and Wikipedia:Signs of AI writing Jothefiredragon🐲talk🔥contributions🧨log✨mail🐉global 16:02, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you Bjornkarateboy (talk) 16:05, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

As of right now there is the guideline NEWLLM in place, though right now that is being workshopped. mwwv ^converse∫_edits 16:05, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

I was thinking if someone can help the Administrators of the Icelandic Wikipedia to create their policy on how users should use AI and LLM properly when editing Wikipedia. Bjornkarateboy (talk) 16:09, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Ideally it should be avoided - we're having so many problems that there's an entire noticeboard dedicated to fixing the errors it's causing - Wikipedia:WikiProject AI Cleanup. If you take a look over there, you'll see how bad things are getting. Half the incidents at Wikipedia:ANI are caused by people using AI.

Even if it might be useful in the future, right now it's just not reliable enough to be used by anyone other than very experienced editors who understand how to detect and fix the errors it introduces.

The paradox is that very experienced editors don't need to use AI.

Currently AI is just an extra step, an additional thing that needs checking before you can edit and an additional risk to accuracy. I've not seen it make Wikipedia better for anyone so far, only cause problems.

That may change in the future but we're not there yet, it's too early.

There's a Wikipedia Discord, the admins could speak to each other there? There's also the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Alternatively, let them know about the policy page links you've been given and the AI cleanup noticeboard. Blue Sonnet (talk) 17:54, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

To be clear, the administrators of the Icelandic Wikipedia are not seeking help regarding this subject. The OP is indefinitely blocked from editing the Icelandic Wiki and is trying to insert himself into its processes in roundabout, unasked for ways. TKSnaevarr (talk) 19:41, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Blocked for something relating LLM use by any chance? Athanelar (talk) 21:22, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

No, for unrelated breaches of conduct. TKSnaevarr (talk) 22:48, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Best Practices for Editing Articles

Greetings Fellow Friends of Wikipedia! Some time ago I edited a few Wiki articles and my edits were removed with no comment. I would like to support the community by improving articles so I’ll start again by seeing what I can contribute to the articles linked above.

In the meantime, can you tell how the editing process works? Perhaps there is a page that might guide me. Cheers! Petuniabaa (talk) 16:27, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Petuniabaa, and welcome to the Teahouse.

There are no such edits in your history, so I guess you made those edits under a different account, or not logged in. There's nothing wrong with that, but it means we can't look at them and advise you what happened then.

But in general, I suggest looking at WP:BRD.

I see that you began your recent edits by creating a draft for a new article. 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) 16:57, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi Colin-Fine, yes, the previous edits were a few years ago and under a different account.

Thanks for the WP:BRD suggestion. I’ll have a look. I hope my understanding of the core policies is close to correct with this new article. My ‘template’ was the other published social psychology Wiki Articles—not to deep but complete. Time will tell...

In the meantime, I have joined some Wiki Projects as a means of experiencing how disagreements with other editors are handled. (I think that’s what happens in Projects?) If not, please feel free to ‘redirect’ me. :-)

Thanks again for your response. Petuniabaa (talk) 17:29, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello again @Petuniabaa. Beware of copying "other published social psychology articles". Unless you make sure you are only looking at good articles or featured articles you may be trying to build on something that does not meet current standards: see other stuff exists.

Actually your draft Draft:Clark Unitive Effect theory is not properly formatted, as it does not use standard markup for headers. But that is a superficial matter. Far more seriously, it has two sources which are from the originator of the theory, and two that predate the theory, and so cannot be talking about it at all. (There is absolutely no point in citing a source about Maslow: just wikilink to the relevant article Maslow's heirarchy of needs.)

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.

Consequently, unless you can find several sources wholly independent of Clark, there can be no article. If you can find some, then you need to set aside pretty well anything that Clark said, and base the article on those independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 00:15, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

@Petuniabaa, I largely agree with Colin above. The essay Wikipedia:Writing Wikipedia articles backward covers this well. One way to think about Wikipedia, is that we are not asking a reader to trust any Wikipedia editors. The editors could be anybody; many people edit under a pseudonym or an anonymous temporary account. We're asking readers instead to trust the cited sources, but so if there is no cited source to point towards, editors will say the topic is not "notable", which is almost a misnomer as it kind of implicitly means the subject is not notable enough for anonymous editors to summarize external sources as a cohesive and neutral encyclopedia article. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 04:59, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Awkward sentences in my page

Hi! I’m working on improving an article i have created. Some sentences feel awkward or unencyclopedic. Can someone help me on how to improve grammar, flow, or tone according to Wikipedia’s style guidelines? Selim beg (talk) 16:31, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Selim beg, try the Wikipedia:Manual of Style, there's a ton of helpful information there. If you still need help after checking that out, let us know? Blue Sonnet (talk) 17:57, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Need neutral uninvolved eyes to ensure I understand everything I did wrong

Not here to re-litigate. Just want to make sure I know all my wrongs to apologise for in future appeals. I am currently topic blocked and my past disputed and disliked edits includes this[4] and this[5]. In my list of wrongs, I lazily used a LLM in ANI thread when cautiously pondering how to best answer off-topic and politically triggering questions without escalating tensions.[6] That backfired as it wasn't transparent. I did however answer a same repeated question later without LLM to show how I would have answered it regardless if it aggravates.[7] I am aware of my bludgeoning or repeating myself on talk (asking for clarification repeatedly)[8] [9], and repeatedly disagreeing that my proposed edits weren't original research or violated any policies etc)[[10]]. I also didn't follow DRN rules, but accidentally, when I eeported someone to ANI for reverting edits that most weren't even being disputed.[11]. But I know it's my responsibility to read all the DRN rules. But personally, I feel an indefinite block seems overly harsh for all this. As I had good intent, only broke DRN rules unintentionally, my edits were well sourced direct from mainly experts in The Conversation and Max Planck encyclopaedia of International Law, was willing to avoid edit warring and wanted DRN to resolve. I figured a warning would have sufficed if it's at least not of bad intent but rookie mistakes. Tho in hindsight, I think a topic block was more beneficial to me as it not only helps me cool off but gave me time to properly reflect and create essays to personally help me or others avoid very same mistakes above.[12][13] I only intend to cover my bases, so I know what to apologise for entirely in any future appeals. Please only neutral uninvolved parties to explain if I missed any. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 16:41, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @JaredMcKenzie.

I don't know for sure, but I guess that the reason that nobody has answered you so far is that nobody is prepared to wae through the wall of text to even work out what you are asking, let alone dig into the diffs you link to and try and understand what is going on.

Basically, this is not an appropriate question for the Teahouse. I'm not sure where is - perhaps WP:AN, though it doesn't seem to fit in any of the heading at the top.

Have you read the guide to appealing blocks? That may give you a better guide. ColinFine (talk) 21:45, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

@ColinFine Ok, I will make it very simple. An editor, who voted for me to be blocked, made allegations that these edits here are pov pushing / against policy.[14] I genuinely do not see it. If anything, these edits were made to improve Wikipedia and give readers a complete picture. I still genuinely believe that to be the case tho it's possible I may be wrong about these accusations made at me. If they violate policy, I want to understand as I am sincerely unaware. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 21:50, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

I saw some of what happened.

You seem to still be convinced that making someone unhappy was the problem, and it never was. Smoothing things over with someone who you had a fight with is not the point at all. (It's a nice thing to do, and if you can you should, but it's not the main thing.)

There is no magic planned apology that can cover for what happened, because it's necessary to listen to each individual and react to them in real time. But I think the biggest positive step you can probably take is to admit "The edits I wanted to make on that topic were basically all wrong, I don't know the topic nearly as well as I used to think I did, and if someone disagrees with me about the topic I will start by assuming I'm probably wrong again."

That's pretty harsh, but also unfortunately pretty close to the truth. TooManyFingers (talk) 21:54, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion but I didn't come here to discuss the subject. Just want to cover my bases but don't think content policy is one of them. Also I do remember you. You also said my sources were unreliable. But a different Teahouse host contradicted you and said it was a reliable source.[15] Regardless, my edits were only mirroring a subject expert with a degree in international law - I don't claim to be an expert but I believe they are. If anything, I am probably closer to being guilty of plagiarism as I maybe too closely mirrored what they were saying. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 22:08, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Content policy is not the point. It was not basically a policy matter. It was not basically a problem of relating to people. It was you being flat-out wrong about the facts. You refusing to see that you were flat-out wrong about the facts was exactly what went wrong. TooManyFingers (talk) 23:15, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Ok, if the issue that lead to my block is about me being flat out wrong on facts then even tho I disagree - I believe it's for the community to decide. Not me as I am only just one editor here and it's the community overall that bears that larger responsibility in the end. I understand the best I could really have done in my past dispute - is tell others that Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law is a good source and the info they present is all true. But if hypothetically a RFC or the community consensus do not agree later, then I assure you I have zero intentions in arguing further, as that would be against community consensus. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 23:30, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

The community DID decide. TooManyFingers (talk) 01:22, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers They didn't. DRN[16] never reached that final stage. I had primarily criticised a section for being full of original research that is also likely wrong, and needed to either be deleted entirely, or needed to show the sourced info from experts saying the exact opposite to them. I should mention after my topic block - that problematic section has now been completely removed by (others) without my input who also recognise it's unacceptable original research.[17] Also I noticed the editors who disputed me before, have not challenged this. So the article has already resolved itself without needing my input when more experienced editors had arrived to edit it. And I am 100 percent happy with the article's current revision (that is far better than the flawed version I fought against) and do not want to change the article any further, as I support and fully agree with it now. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 01:43, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

@JaredMcKenzie

• You say you're not here to re-litigate then, rather than a simple explanation, you rehash what happened (with links!) Then demand to hear only from people who didn't comment before. Honestly, your Teahouse query isn't getting off to a very good start.
• You didn't just use AI but you used in an ANI thread?!
• You weren't indefinitely blocked so why are you explaining - I thought you didn't want to rehash?
• Your response to TooManyFingers was rude suggesting that you haven't reflected long enough.
• What future appeals? Are you planning to do something to get ANI'd and topic blocked again?
• As TooManyFingers pointed, apologies don't matter. Learn the rules and stay out of trouble.

MmeMaigret (talk) 23:11, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

My intent was not to "push a pov", or to be rude to others. I have at least reflected on what to do if I believe Wikipedia is wrong yet the community opposes me. My reflection[18] is simply if the community decides I am wrong, it's not my responsibility to try to fix Wikipedia further. But please note I never actually got the chance to reach this final stage on DRN. I was frequently accused of not being here to build an encyclopaedia (WP: NOTHERE) but I assure that was never my case. After my topic block, I have abided to it, and contributed constructively such as improving articles, and the creation of 2 new articles[19] [20] to demonstrate that I am both capable of building an encyclopaedia, and my intent to do so. However if my question to know what to apologise for in future appeals, isn't welcome on Teahouse, then I can take a hint and will leave it here. Thanks for your time. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 23:42, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a place like any other with policies and procedure and a culture. Think of it like a company or a social group. You don't know the all the unspoken rules and other people have been there longer than you. For you to go to ANI this early, doesn't reflect well. To get topic banned is even more grave. But you're still talking about how unfair it was. If people just thought you said the wrong thing, you probably would have just gotten told off but you got topic banned. So my advice would be to set aside what you know, or think you know, and actually figure out how things work. Also, no one's surveilling you. You don't need to prove to anyone you know how to be constructive. Your record will eventually prove that. MmeMaigret (talk) 00:23, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

But to answer your implied question - if you want to know what to do in future appeals (since you seem determined to go to ANI again), go to the ANI noticeboard, read the page or the archives, see what (if any) apologies were received well. MmeMaigret (talk) 00:26, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

@Mmemaigret I am not an experienced editor like you. I used LLM for a crash course to reduce the high learning curve on Wiki policies, but unfortunately it did not fill me in about not going to ANI too early. So thank you for telling me that unwritten rule. I will remember that. But here on this thread, I only rehashed things that I admit fully that I did wrong and am not disputing it. I am just requesting if there were additional things I have to apologise for. The key reason that prompted me to ask is that I have noticed other editors, who cast ugly aspersions and edit war, yet only get blocked for a few weeks after warning. I never got a clear warning and personally always felt my first time topic block was maybe too harsh. And as you say indef blocks are typically only for the most grave crimes but I just don't think I reached that level, and feel a warning instead would had been more proportionate. So maybe I missed something. I just needed to be sure before submitting my appeal in future. I already created a draft appeal letter for future.[21] But nonetheless if Teahouse do not want to deal with this albeit intensive question, I will respect it. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 01:00, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Something to note; ban appeals are generally made at the admin's noticeboard, rather than ANI, so looking through the archives of that page is likely to be better. There a couple of ban appeals on that page currently. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 01:02, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry to have to contradict you, but pushing a POV was exactly your intent, though I think to a person who's in the process of doing that it doesn't feel to them like that's what they're doing. Pushing a POV probably often feels like trying to bring truth to a description or debate that has been based on serious mistakes until the POV-pusher came along. (That's more or less how it felt to me when I did it.) TooManyFingers (talk) 02:00, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers Unfortunately that is where I cannot agree. It was explicitly called as POV pushing with these edits - [22] [23] [24] but I genuinely don't see it. I merely added in sourced info from a RS and if they are pushing a pov, then it means legal experts and scholars are pushing pov, as I only cite them faithfully. I believe neutrality is proportional to what reliable sources says on the matter and they all emphasise this in their articles. But I guess we can agree to disagree. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 02:09, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

No, we cannot agree to disagree. It was called POV pushing because that's exactly what it was. You saying you "genuinely don't see it" is exactly why your topic ban needs to continue; your genuine not-seeing is a fault you currently have. I'm sorry for putting it so bluntly, but there it is. TooManyFingers (talk) 08:14, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Editing restrictions on Wikipedia are preventative, not punitive. I.e., we block or ban people to prevent them from continuing to disrupt the encyclopedia, not to punish them for wrongdoing. If ever you're sanctioned in some way and want to apologise or appeal, then ultimately the goal therefore is not to demonstrate some kind of moral contrition, but rather to demonstrate that you aren't going to repeat the (perceived) disruptive behaviour. The best way to do that is first and foremost to demonstrate to the community(/the admin who sanctioned you) that you clearly understand what you did, why it was detrimental to Wikipedia, and what you plan to do instead going forward. For example, if someone were sanctioned for repeated edit warring, their apology/appeal would probably look something like "I understand that by repeatedly re-inserting disputed content into this article without seeking consensus on the talk page, I was engaged in an edit war and contravening WP:ONUS. By doing so, I understand that I compromised the collaborative nature of Wikipedia and allowed my ego to dictate my editing decisions rather than my desire to build an encyclopedia. In the future, I'll seek dispute resolution or third opinions in the case of content disputes and refrain from repeated reversions of article content."

That's what we want out of an 'apology' or appeal; an understanding of what led to the edit restriction, and why it should be lifted. Athanelar (talk) 08:12, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

What was difficult for me to process is how some editors would describe my edits as pov pushing or disinformation. But sources I primarily relied on are the Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law and a subject expert from a community-recognised RS per WP:THECONVERSATION. And because of their reputation, I didn't ever doubt their credibility so I added their expertise in. So the reactions to my edits was unexpected for me. I did try to work things out on DRN but my topic ban happened before the process was finished. I am merely trying to understand how to avoid same situation but I do believe I was following what high quality sources said in my key edits.[25] [26] And I can't apologise for relying on sources that seem reliable. I can however commit to handling disputes more calmly and stepping back earlier when it becomes clear I cannot reach an agreement with them. [27] JaredMcKenzie (talk) 09:47, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

POV pushing doesn't necessarily mean your information is incorrect, it can just mean giving undue or unencyclopedic focus to certain information that aligns with the viewpoint you're trying to promote. Saying "but my sources are reliable" isn't an answer to an allegation of POV pushing. See WP:CIVILPOV for example. Athanelar (talk) 11:49, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

@Athanelar I was only trying to be a good editor when I see errors. There is important context that hasn't been mentioned. I noticed a large section of the article making problematic claims that were the exact opposite of what relevant subject matter experts are saying. They didn't cite any reliable sources and much of it seems to be Original research. (WP:SYNTH). That's inconsistent with standard Wikipedia policies. I already knew there was no legal experts making that bold assertion and instead there was multiple prominent scholars saying the opposite. Yet the article didn't include any of their viewpoints and that imbalance struck me as not neutral, and I raised this on DRN.[28] What would you or anyone had done in this situation? Ignore the original research or the fact that many legal experts are saying the opposite? My understanding is if a bold section is unsourced and mostly original research and contradicts established scholarship without backing then it needs to be minimally corrected by adding scholars that contradicts it, or be removed entirely. After my topic block, another editor deleted that entire problematic section and nobody challenged.[29] So underlying issue has been dealt with and the article no longer conflicts with what many reliable sources say. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 17:10, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Query regarding reporting a user

There is an account on social media which spews vile and racist content against a specific region/ethnicity. The person who runs that account also happens to edit on Wikipedia which I can prove with near certainty, with a good amount of evidence. He makes unconstructive and possibly bad faith edits on that region's articles, and openly admits doing it on his social media account.

I was wondering if there is a Wikipedia policy that deals with this situation, and which I can invoke to get this person barred from editing anything regarding that region. If not please let me know how I should proceed further with this knowledge. This is also my first time on Wikipedia and I don't know if Teahouse is the correct place to ask this question so I apologize for any inconveniences. Bhattigang (talk) 18:13, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

If "He makes unconstructive and possibly bad faith edits on that region's articles" can be evidenced, than that alone is actionable, regardless of anything said elsewhere, which is out of out purview. Before taking any further steps, it is vital you read WP:OUTING. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:57, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

WP:ANI is the place for behavioural reports but as Andy said, please refrain from WP:OUTING the user by speculating on or disclosing the identity of their other social media account(s), and stick to reporting them based only on their (mis)conduct here on Wikipedia. Be sure to include links to specific problematic edits, see WP:DIFF for how to get those. Athanelar (talk) 21:05, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

I am aiming to add an article about a living person

David E. Walter

Born; Perth, Western Australia

September 1st 1949

EDUCATION; Bellview Primary School, Perth.

Governor Stirling Senior High School.

PROFESSIONAL TRAINING; Indentured as an Apprentice Clock and watch repairer for six years.

Issued a Certificate by the western Australian Industrial Commission

After examination on June 24th 1971. Further professional training

followed as a horologist in London, England and in Vienna, Austria. NGS Arts (talk) 18:23, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Courtesy links Draft:David E. Walter and David E Walter. both unsourced and failing to meet WP:GNG. Theroadislong (talk) 18:38, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Do you have a question, or something else with which you need help? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:05, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi, it doesn't look like David Walter meets the criteria for inclusion in this encyclopedia. I'd suggest you read the links you were given on your Talk page when you first asked about this, because they explain what the problems are. So will the links in the draft decline notice and from Theroadislong.

The information is there, you just need to read it.

I'd honestly recommend that you leave trying to create this article and work on any other topic of your choosing. Blue Sonnet (talk) 19:28, 29 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) 21:03, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

How is my article now?

My article: Draft:South Kitsap Regional Park

I've capitalized and uncapitalized stuff, I've unbolded stuff, someone even added a whole interactive map, and now I just need some feedback and suggestions before I can move from draftspace to mainspace. Thanks! (IRC doesn't work) BluePixelLOLLL (talk) 20:03, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

I've added a template to the top of your article which you can use to submit it for review. It will be checked by a reviewer in time, and if they approve it they'll move it to mainspace for you, otherwise they'll explain the issues that you need to improve.

I wouldn't suggest moving a draft to mainspace yourself unless you're 100% confident in your article. Athanelar (talk) 21:01, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you so much! BluePixelLOLLL (talk) 23:53, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Micrometer (microscopic tool) merge

Merge the stub article Ocular micrometer and non-existent article Stage micrometer and redirect them as a common article Micrometer (microscopic tool)

Originally discussed here: Talk:Ocular micrometer

Stage micrometer and Ocular micrometer are often used together as a pair, where the stage micrometer is first used to calibrate the ocular micrometer (under a very specific set of Objective lens and Eye piece lens of a specific microscope), and the ocular micrometer is then used at the exact same setup (But the stage micrometer is then replaced by the specimen mounted on a microscopic slide and cover-slip using mounting medium, and the microscopic image is drawn using a camera lucida).

The article is still in a Stub status, and there is no article yet for stage micrometer. Therefore, merge of the two topics may improve both amount of article content, as well as a bigger and meaningful picture of the topic.

Regards, RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 20:30, 29 November 2025 (UTC) RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 20:30, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

If the stage micrometer article doesn't even exist, then what content is it that you're suggesting to 'merge' from it?

Surely you could just include the information about stage micrometers as a new section on Ocular micrometer and then if it's still necessary you could move the whole article to Micrometer (microscopy) or something similar. Athanelar (talk) 20:59, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

If it's already discussed elsewhere, what are you asking here?

This is a general help desk; we give advice, we do not decide such matters here. Our advice would be to discuss the matter on the talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:16, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Archive

How can I bypass Cloudflare to archive a site? I can’t archive it because of Cloudflare’s verification issue. Rafael Ronen 00:49, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately this board is for beginner questions about things relating to Wikipedia. We can't help you with this. Athanelar (talk) 00:58, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

You might get some useful advice by asking at WP:VPT, or User talk:InternetArchiveBot. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:19, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

They already asked at VPT, and were told to post here at Teahouse. -- GreenC 15:32, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

That was not helpful. People should not be referred here from more specific help forums. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:13, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Moved to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) § Archive url

 – Nardog (talk) 09:37, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Asking for help

I've been editing Wikipedia for one and a half year now but unfortunately I have faced number of challenges. Sure I am good at writing but the thing is that it is often hard for me to decide if subject is notable for Wikipedia. I want to help to make Wikipedia a better website but it is often difficult for me to do it properly so I want to ask for help to be a better user. Unfortunately I have been accused of deliberately disrupting Wikipedia but the truth is that it is hard for me to understand many things on Wikipedia. Bjornkarateboy (talk) 01:20, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

So I was thinking if someone can talk to me and teach me to edit Wikipedia more properly so I can return to Icelandic Wikipedia like a honorable man as well as helping you all make English Wikipedia a better website like honorable men do. Bjornkarateboy (talk) 01:25, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

For what you're describing, I think what really might help the most is just some studying. What you wrote here is good English; how is your confidence level for reading a lot of rules and explanations in English? TooManyFingers (talk) 02:07, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Of course I want to read the rules but I guess I will need some help.

I am smart and talented man who wants to help making Wikipedia a better website but I have autism that maked some things harder for me to understand.

Unfortunately I am banned on Icelandic Wikipedia and I am not proud of it. The truth is that it often takes me very long time to learn certain things but some people doesn't seem to understand that. I repeatedly asked for help in the Icelandic Wikipedia but I didn't get the proper help that I deserve so I need you to help me.

My dream is to be better user and return to the Icelandic Wikipedia.

I see that you have mentors so I was wondering if they can help me. Bjornkarateboy (talk) 02:23, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm not an official mentor, but I'm willing to do that unofficially for one person right now, if you like. (I could also sign up to be an official mentor, but I'm not sure I want to continue doing it in the later future.)

If you want to try that, knowing that if you find out I'm not that helpful or you don't like me then you can just stop and get someone else instead, I'd be happy to try it. TooManyFingers (talk) 02:58, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

@Bjornkarateboy If you want to try that, please put a message on my user talk page. If you would rather use the official mentor system and maybe get someone else instead of me, I can show you how to make that request. TooManyFingers (talk) 03:28, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

I have a feeling that there are very many autistic people doing a lot of good on Wikipedia. I know (at the same time) that social expectations are difficult online just as they are when meeting in person, and that Wikipedia has some weird and complex rules which are often stated in ways that are inconsistent.

And I know enough to know that a lot of social interaction with people you don't know, plus trying hard to follow a lot of weird inconsistently-stated rules that keep being mentioned, might sometimes make Wikipedia extremely difficult for you - even though Wikipedia may also be where some of your greatest strengths will be very useful to you, and to everyone.

I know that you're already honorable. I expect that with some help to get a better start and to get used to the interactions and expectations on Wikipedia, everyone here will have a much easier time understanding that you are. TooManyFingers (talk) 02:47, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

@Bjornkarateboy, welcome to English Wikipedia. You wrote, "Sure I am good at writing but the thing is that it is often hard for me to decide if subject is notable for Wikipedia." I have two ideas:

1. Rather than starting a new article, you could work on an existing article.
2. Or, before starting a new article, gather your sources for the topic. I recommend reading the essay Wikipedia:Writing Wikipedia articles backward. It talks about the importance of finding the sources first. If you're not sure if the sources establish notability for the subject of the article, you can always post them here and ask for input.

Hope that helps, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 04:42, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

There are lots and lots of ways to help at Wikipedia other than creating new articles. See Help:Contributing to Wikipedia. If you aren't very good at understanding notability, that's totally fine. You can certainly try to learn and improve on that, but in the meantime there's no need to worry about trying to create articles. I just passed 1,000 edits and I've still never even tried creating an article. Athanelar (talk) 07:58, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

@Bjornkarateboy I took a short look, and it's clear that you haven't really been telling the truth. You are never ever going back to the Icelandic Wikipedia, because you have been permanently banned from there. (It must take some effort to get a permanent ban!) Banned from some other Wikipedias too, for vandalism and sockpuppets. You did a lot of dishonest and really wrong stuff, after people tried to help you.

You are not some misunderstood autistic person trying to do the right thing, but an intentional and long-term vandal. Sorry, but I am not willing to help a vandal who doesn't listen when people help. TooManyFingers (talk) 08:03, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Draft: Gharanas of Indian Music

I’ve created a draft for Gharanas of Indian Music(Draft:Gharanas of Indian Music), as this book has recently been used as a source in articles such as Inayat Hussain Khan, Raghunath Singha Dev II, and Nasir Moinuddin Dagar by various contributors.

I felt that creating an article for the book would help provide clearer context, support verifiability, and benefit both contributors and readers who may want to understand the source more fully.

I am still a beginner on Wikipedia, so I would be grateful for any guidance you can offer on how to improve the draft, especially regarding structure, neutrality, and meeting notability expectations. I have already submitted the draft for review and I understand there is a long queue for AfC submissions.

If the draft is considered ready, is there any way to publish it directly to mainspace, or should I wait for the reviewer? Any advice on the correct process would be very helpful. Thank you again for your time and support. Serviceeternity (talk) 02:05, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse.

If you've already submitted your draft for review, there's no need to request additional review here at the Teahouse. Someone will get to it in time and either approve & publish it, or decline it and give you feedback.

Since you're a newer editor, I would advise against unilaterally moving your article to mainspace even if someone tells you it's ready. Let a reviewer look at it first. Athanelar (talk) 07:54, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank You for the clarification :-) Serviceeternity (talk) 12:29, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Serviceeternity.

A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what several people wholly unconnected with the subject have independently chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, (see Golden rule) and not much else. What you know (or anybody else knows) about the subject is not relevant except where it can be verified from a reliable published source.

You appear to have only one independent source - the review from Vocal Media - which looks like a good source.

None of the other sources you cite is of much relevance to a Wikipedia article.

I suggest that, while you are waiting for review, you find some more sources that meet WP:42, and remove all the ones that don't, along with any information sourced only to those unsatisfactory sources. ColinFine (talk) 18:56, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank You for your detailed feedback @[[User:ColinFine|ColinFine]. I appreciate your help. Serviceeternity (talk) 18:59, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I am new here.

What can I do to help here?

I want to be able to voice my opinion on Wikipedia policy too. Samuel Thomas Gu (talk) 04:37, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome!

Helping here essentially means interacting in a civil and helpful way with all the rest of us, to improve this encyclopedia to the best of our ability. Maybe the best thing to do first is to read some articles on topics that you're interested in. Editing articles to improve them is an important part of the work, and Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia can tell you a lot about that.

Wikipedia:Community portal is a page that shows a lot of ways to connect with Wikipedia.

I suggest that you not voice opinions on policy until you've already spent a lot of time working on Wikipedia, so that your opinions will come from experience instead of from assumptions. TooManyFingers (talk) 05:06, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

I have left some introductory links on your talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:16, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Names of fictional characters

Hello! I was recently editing the page for Jabba the Hutt and I may have made a mistake. In the Star Wars lore, his full name is Jabba Desilijic Tiure, but obviously the vast majority of people know him simply as Jabba the Hutt. Should his full name be mentioned in the lead, or just in the infobox? I took it out of the lead but I could put it back in. Thanks. OrdinaryOtter (talk) 06:03, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm going to guess "put it back the way it was, because it's Star Wars, and many fans probably argued about that exact detail for many weeks already". :) TooManyFingers (talk) 06:37, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

This is something that (if there is not already a discussion there, or in its archives) should be discussed on the article's talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:14, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

You're clearly right, and your answer is better because it shows what to do in future situations.

(I went straight to the "balance of probabilities" on whether there would already have been such a discussion, on a famous character in one of the most famous movies ever, which has also had a large number of enthusiastic wiki-editing fans for a long time.) TooManyFingers (talk) 15:39, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks to both for your insights. I changed the segment back to how it was :) OrdinaryOtter (talk) 15:42, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Acclaro Inc Draft

@Pythoncoder, thank you for the invite. I tried to update the draft and am hoping I followed your feedback appropriately. Draft:Acclaro, Inc. Any guidance is appreciated. I also posted in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk#November_30 for help to make sure I am getting up to standard and making useful contributions! Thank again for reviewing my first draft and I am open to any critique/feedback that can help me in this process. Mark Teget (talk) 08:27, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

I think you may have misunderstood Pythoncoder's list of requirements - in-depth, reliable, secondary, and independent. Wikipedia does not need a selection from that list. Wikipedia needs several different sources that all meet all four requirements at once. TooManyFingers (talk) 09:16, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, welcome to the Teahouse.

First, if you are involved professionally or personally with this company, you must disclose this per the policy linked there before making any further edits to your draft.

Secondly, your article currently shows no indication that this company is what we call notable (i.e., qualifies for a Wikipedia article) according to either the general notability guideline or specific corporate notability guideline. The sources and information you've included about the company's mergers, expansions, product releases and market performance are what we call trivial coverage of this corporation. I.e., pretty much every company on the planet can link to sources that report this kind of information, and it doesn't tell us that this company is specifically notable compared to any other company. The golden rule tells you what kind of information we need to see in order to determine that your company is notable enough to be included here on Wikipedia.

Lastly, I can see some indications that AI generation was involved in the creation of this draft. Did you use any AI software to help you create this draft? You should be aware that we have a new guideline that prohibits the creation of articles 'from scratch' through the use of AI. Athanelar (talk) 09:23, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, that's a guideline not a policy, so editors can decide to ignore it, even though it is wise advice. More to the point, newcomers are going to continue to try to create articles using LLM because they don't know any better. The issue is unlikely to disappear. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:21, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Guidelines are a little more binding than that; you need to at least have a good reason if you want to ignore them, and "because I wanted to make an article without putting in the effort to write it" would not be a good reason. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 14:24, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm not being facetious when I suggest that a bot make frequent sweeps of the entire project summarily wiping all AI edits that have occurred. Such a bot could have some safety features built in, but even if it didn't - even if it was embarrassingly primitive and ham-fisted - it would be better in the long run. Real humans learning to clean up after an AI-removal bot, and having to apologize to a tiny number of false-positive victims, is a much better prospect than what's already happening. TooManyFingers (talk) 15:24, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

i don't really think that would work, for similar reasons for which using ai to detect ai is not really all that efficient. no, wait, the reasons can't be similar if they're the same thing...

still, i do think an edit filter and either warning or forcing a captcha for non-extended confirmed users whose edits have more common tells could be workshopped, as that could also catch false alarms (like when someone's writing style just happens to look like ai, or when they're discussing ai) without just reverting their edits consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 13:08, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Your point about AI not being efficient or effective at detecting AI seems absolutely right to me, and I'm sorry I hadn't considered that.

You already saw which "camp" I'm in, and I'd support anything that would really help. I think if a warning can be clicked through without paying attention to it, then that's what people will do. In this case, the people who are scrupulous enough to read warnings are the ones who didn't need one anyway. TooManyFingers (talk) 19:35, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Userpage

Why couldn’t Temporary Accounts create their own userpage? ~2025-37397-24 (talk) 11:42, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Because if you clear your cookies or don't use the account for a while then next time you log in you'll get a new temporary account. If you want a permanent presence on the wiki with a userpage etc there's no reason not to just create an account. Athanelar (talk) 12:13, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Another reason? ~2025-37397-24 (talk) 13:12, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

@~2025-37397-24 @Athanelar What makes you think that temporary accounts can't create user pages? Help:Temporary accounts - MediaWiki specifically says that they can. There is also an associated talk page. The point is that, even if an editor keeps editing from a given device and is hence assigned to same ID, after 90 days the account will be automatically closed and the device re-assigned another ID if use continues. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:12, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

@~2025-37397-24: Page creation is restricted for anonymous users to prevent spam and other problems. I've created a blank userpage for you; you can choose to edit it if you wish. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 15:28, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

@ChildrenWillListen Thank you for creating a userpage for me to publish something. ~2025-37397-24 (talk) 17:25, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Foreign legal terms

What is a wiki-policy in regard to using foreign legal terms in English-language articles?

I wrote a section in this article Constitution of Austria:

Legislation may be vetoed only on procedural (but not substantive) grounds.

which basically says, that the President of Austria can veto a law, only if the Parliament violated the process of passing the law. This is different from the US practice, where the president can veto an Act of Congress, just because he disagrees with the substance of the Act. User:Errantios reverted my edit to the original form, which was a LITERAL translation of German terms, that are mysterious to someone with training in the Common Law (i.e. people in most English-speaking countries). Since this is a English-language Wikipedia, I feel that we should use well-established English terms even when writing about other countries. Is there a wiki-policy about it? And how do I proceed with our dispute? ApoieRacional (talk) 12:35, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Someone at WikiProject Law might be able to give you some better advice on this. Athanelar (talk) 12:41, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

@ApoieRacional: I don't know if this played any part in what happened, but you should probably link 'procedural' to Procedural law and 'substantive' to Substantive law; not only would those be the correct link targets (I think), that would also make the statement easier to understand by most readers. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:46, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. I added those links

Constitution of Austria (search the webpage for "substantive")

before I posted this question here, but AFTER the aforementioned user reverted my edits. ApoieRacional (talk) 12:53, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Your link to User:Errantios was malformed; I have fixed it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:11, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

I want to add (in your favour I suppose) that all Wikipedia articles, including the ones on law, are for a general audience.

German experts on German law have an understandably strong tendency to make their writings in English conform in a very literal way to German law - as if they needed to prove to a German judge that they hadn't done anything to modify the law. :) TooManyFingers (talk) 16:32, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

I did NOT make that revert, as I have explained to ApoieRacional on my Talk page. Errantios (talk) 23:07, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Updating articles as a non-expert

How much should I read on an article before expanding/updating it? I worry that if I don't know much about a topic, I will use a misleading source without being able to tell the difference. Lucevium (talk) 13:59, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

I would refrain from trying to add new material to an article if you aren't confident in your ability to select appropriate information from appropriate sources, especially if it's an article which is quite technically intense like a chemistry article or something.

Obviously use your discretion; if there's obvious factual errors you can fix, obviously relevant information to add, or other edits to make like copyediting, be bold and do it. If you make a mistake, someone else will revert it sooner or later. Athanelar (talk) 14:20, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

If you know that Wikipedia considers a certain source reliable for the purpose you're using it for, then it's quite likely to be OK. (Often, new editors have sources they personally consider reliable but that really aren't - IMDB is an example of an unreliable source that people frequently try to use in movie-related topics.)

In topics that I don't know a lot about, there's always a chance that I'll misread the source and add the wrong thing. I just avoid doing anything important in those topics, and stick to fixing spelling or writing style. TooManyFingers (talk) 16:16, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Lucevium, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Any time you want to make a change to an article, but for any reason you're unsure or hesitant, the best thing to do is to open a discussion about the chanve on the article's talk page. Editors interested in the article are likely to see this, and come and join the discussion. They may say "Yes, of course" or "No, because ... ", or "That's part of a good idea, but ... "

(Of course, different editors might disagree about this!)

The thing to bear in mind is that as long as you're editing in good faith, the worst that is likely to happen even if you do go ahead and edi tthe article is that somebody reverts your change (and, if you're lucky, puts a comprehensible reason in their edit summary).

You might find it helpful to read WP:BRD. ColinFine (talk) 19:09, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

W. Chambers

My uncle Francis Xavier Plant FBI agent mentioned many times in the book called the Witness I feel that you should look into it and note him investigating of W. Chambers.

Michael F Plant ~2025-37416-59 (talk) 14:22, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

We don't have an article called "W. Chambers"; it's not clear which person you are talking about.

Please clarify—or, better still, make your comment on the talk page of the relevant article.

It would also be helpful if you could give the ISBN, or author and publisher, of the book. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:02, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm going to guess Witness by Whittaker Chambers.

OP, if you mean we should create an article about your uncle (and his investigations), mentions of him in Chambers' book would not be sufficient: we would have to have at least three independent sources (or two really good sources), that complied with all of the requirements at WP:42. The fact that Chambers has been judged Notable by Wikipedia's standards does not mean anyone connected to him is also notable. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2025-31359-08 (talk) 22:18, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Re-using a citation in a template

Hello all,

I managed to update a footnote inside a template on the article I was working on by going to source mode and copying the new citation I put in the lead into the box where the previous citation was. Problem is, now the citation in the lead and the one in the template are showing up as two different ones, and when I try yo edit the page I can't figure out how to make one of them a "re-use" of the other, because the citations on the template simply don't show up on edit mode. A little help?

Thank you and good tidings, غوّاص العلم (talk) 14:22, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

This is the article btw, and the citations I'm speaking of are currently numbered 3 & 5. غوّاص العلم (talk) 14:23, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse! Basically, you need to follow two steps:

1. Give the first reference a name, e.g. name="dohanews".
2. Replace the second reference with <ref name="dohanews" />.

I've gone ahead and made the edit so you can see what it looks like for the future. Happy editing! —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 14:29, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you so much! So quick and helpful. غوّاص العلم (talk) 14:36, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Creating redirects

How would I be able to create a redirect to another article? Would that be something I do at AFC or is there a specific place I go to ask someone to do it for me? ~2025-37425-74 (talk) 15:48, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi @~2025-37425-74, you can request new redirects at Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects after reading the instructions. Skynxnex (talk) 16:09, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

OK thank you @Skynxnex! That was easier than I expected it would be. ~2025-37425-74 (talk) 06:19, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

"Please sign with four tildes"

I remember receiving this advice long ago, and I still see it being given. Am I doing something unusual or wrong, that it seems to me that my signature shows up automatically in (almost) every case?

The existence of automatic signatures makes me unsure where typing four tildes is really required. Maybe it's that way on a lot of pages where I don't usually go.

If I do use the tildes on an automatic-signatures page, am I signing twice? Or does that system avoid duplicates? (Trying it now, haha) TooManyFingers (talk) 15:55, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

I may be wrong since I joined pretty recently in Wikipedia time, but I think you didn't automatically sign once upon a time. Now, the reply button on most places meant for sending messages signs it for you. However, if you choose to make a reply in source editor, you still have to remember the tildes. jolielover♥talk 16:15, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers: Yes, if "Enable quick replying" is enabled at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing and you use a [reply] link then a signature is automatically added. A lot of our documentation is old and doesn't mention newer features like the reply tool. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:16, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

A-ha! Thanks, that makes sense. I am "older than" the reply tool, but not by much, so when it was introduced I was ... even more lost and confused than I am now. :) TooManyFingers (talk) 22:38, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers: The reply tool and VisualEditor are still new-fangled ideas to me. I prefer the source editor. And how the hell do people get any editing done on a smartphone? I don't even like laptops and have a stationary PC. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:18, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

To answer your question: inefficiently.

On my PC, I have (a copy of) a 1980s IBM keyboard, and I'd much rather be using that. TooManyFingers (talk) 02:21, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

The visual editor on mobile also likes to freak out if you type too much or too long. One minute everything's fine, then the Preview is showing complete gibberish. It's persisted across two phones so it's not my tech, I've genuinely got no idea why it does that. Blue Sonnet (talk) 03:17, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Ah. I thought something was strange there. I've used the visual editor for about 20 minutes of my life. It mostly works, but to me it feels like driving a car while sitting in the back seat. Or something. TooManyFingers (talk) 04:20, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter Last night, jokingly in honour of this little exchange, I got myself properly logged on so that I can edit Wikipedia from within Emacs. On my phone, using just the phone's on-screen keyboard. It's ... a bit like trying to create an exact duplicate of instant macaroni & cheese using only what would have been available in 1850. :) TooManyFingers (talk) 19:16, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

I’ve been a Visual editor fan since coming on board Wikipedia several years ago, definitely feeling in the driver’s seat with it. That is, except for major initial confusion about where the “required 4 tildes” were supposed to go. I’d type them at the bottom of my messages, then wonder why they showed up along with my User name and time stamp that were magically inserted by pressing the Publish button.

Eventually I realized that guidance wasn’t for those of us using the Visual editor, only for those using the Source editor. But that hadn’t been clear in the directions I’d read.

I wonder how much head-banging among new editors it would save if all the directions about signing messages made note of this for Wikipedians of both editor persuasions. (Or perhaps this has already been figured out and something’s been done about it …) Augnablik (talk) 16:09, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Welcome messages

How to avoid getting a welcome message on every single language version of Wikipedia?

Whenever I switch to any other language, on purpose to check what's written there or by accident, wikipedia seems to make an account for you in that language. This leads to you being welcomed by bots to e.g. the Romanian, Italian or Indonesian wikipedia projects even though you do not speak the language. I'd rather avoid getting useless notifications about being welcomed to every single wikipedia project out there. Is there a way to avoid this (other than not accessing other languages) or is it a flaw in Wikipedia/the bots that I'll just have to deal with? Parcynthia (talk) 16:35, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, it is not possible to avoid such messages (other than by logging out before visiting, which is probably overkill). But not every Wikipedia does that. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:04, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

There is a proposal (not sure if it will go through) that Wikipedias should not be allowed to send those messages unless the person has already made an edit or otherwise participated. TooManyFingers (talk) 17:15, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

@Parcynthia: The proposal is discussed at meta:Requests for comment/Welcoming policy. Many wikis don't post welcome messages but it's common. Special:CentralAuth/Parcynthia shows your current accounts. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:09, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, those two links are very helpful. Parcynthia (talk) 20:05, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

sourcing an article

Hello!

Yesterday i edited the article of the British Rail Class 52, as i intended to add the missing information on the last 23 members of the class, plus correct some erroneous information on others, but my edit was removed do to not citing the source.

I recognize i failed to cite the source (mostly due to me being very tired when doing so), but since i now intend to correct it, i got curious: does BRDatabse.info count as a reliable source? Mr. Dr. Eggman (talk) 17:47, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

@Trainsandotherthings: Do you have an opinion? Polygnotus (talk) 19:22, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

The correct URL is brdatabase.info. From a quick look it appears to be a self-published source. I'd recommend asking at WT:UKRAIL regarding sources as I live in the United States. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:21, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

PROD, XFD, or neither?

Should I be nominating this article (Razawin Linka) for deletion. If yes, should I do it with Proposed Deletion or nominate for deletion after a discussion? I don't understand how the source can be reliable and establish notability. Kingsacrificer (talk) 18:58, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

The person who started that article, @Hybernator: last edited yesterday. They also mentioned it over at Anawrahta. I'd say the information is probably correct, and if you ask them nicely they might be able to add a source or two. Polygnotus (talk) 19:17, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

I should have checked that, my bad. Apologies. Kingsacrificer (talk) 19:48, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

@Kingsacrificer No need to apologize. Maybe you'll like User:PleaseStand/userinfo.js. It is pretty useful. It shows you some info about a user when looking at their userpage/talkpage. Polygnotus (talk) 19:51, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Looks useful. Will add. Thanks! Kingsacrificer (talk) 19:55, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

كيف يمكنني الحصول على هاتف a56سامسونج بالمجان

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.

---

كيف يمكنني الحصول على هاتف a56سامسونج بالمجان انا مهجر من سوريا واعيش في جنوب لبنان وشكرا ~2025-37484-99 (talk) 20:32, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @~2025-37484-99. This is a help desk for questions about editing Wikipedia - nothing else. We cannot help you get free phones.

(Google translated version:) هذا مكتب مساعدة للاستفسارات حول تحرير ويكيبيديا - لا شيء غير ذلك. لا يمكننا مساعدتك في الحصول على هواتف مجانية. ColinFine (talk) 20:45, 30 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.

Category:Film articles needing an image

I am starting to work on film poster additions per this category, Category:Film articles needing an image and I just added one film poster image to this article but it still shows up on the list. How do I update that or remove it? Iljhgtn (talk) 20:47, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Also others I see appear to have images but somehow are in that category, making it difficult to find what is legitimately in need of an image and what is not. Zombiez for example. Iljhgtn (talk) 20:57, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

I think I may have figured it out, but it is not a good solution. It looks like someone will need to manually go through the entire list and remove "needs-image=yes" from the banners on the talk page once an image appears on these. This seems like a task well suited for a bot, but I will manually go through them as well in the meantime and help clean up this list so that only film articles which actually still need an image are left. I would love a hand in this task if anyone could help. @Kingsacrificer I think I may have another task for us to work on if you are up for it (sorry, noticed you just a couple comments above me here). Iljhgtn (talk) 21:26, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

I'd like to complete the first one Kingsacrificer (talk) 19:48, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

What do you mean you'd "like to complete the first one"? Iljhgtn (talk) 22:14, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Coming back to Wikimedia Commons and trying to figure out what I wasn't doing right and how I could improve.

Hi, I edited images and uploaded images of flags, heraldic shields, flag maps, or anything in relation back in 2023, however, i noticed that although rarely with given context, my images were deemed not needed for use, and the only images that I uploaded that (majorily) had ever gotten used were flags of lithuanian district-municipalities.

Although I do understand the reason for some not being used, like my flag map of belarusian districts being somewhat a copy of this flag map of belarusian districts, I almost or completely fail to understand why most of my images were not used, I would like to be given suggestions on how I could get my images used more, and what images I could upload?, I would like to note, I am not only limited to flags but anything like buildings such as high schools, sporting arenas, etc, which I notice were used, like this image of a game at the Capital One Arena. TresForBe (talk) 21:05, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

@TresForBe, most articles have little to no editing activity. Nobody is inspecting your images and rejecting them as "unneeded", unless someone actively removes them from articles. The best way to ensure that your images are used is to add them yourself to relevant articles. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 21:47, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello! If you'd like to add your images to articles you can actually do it yourself. If you find an article with either no image or a low-quality one, feel free to add it yourself! Thanks, Chorchapu (talk | edits) 21:48, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

I'll also direct you to the Commons Help Desk, where you can ask questions and get better responses from editors at Commons itself. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 21:50, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

I'll add (though it was already implied) - if I upload an image when there's no article about that topic, that image is less likely to be used. TooManyFingers (talk) 22:05, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Musical artist new article declined

Hello, I hope you are doing well. I’m reaching out for some guidance regarding my draft article about Rea Nuhu. I have made significant revisions to the draft, especially in terms of formatting the references properly, improving the structure, and ensuring that all sources are reliable and clearly cited.

However, the draft has been declined again, and I would greatly appreciate your help in understanding what specific improvements might still be needed. I want to make sure I’m following Wikipedia’s guidelines correctly, especially regarding notability and sourcing.

If you have the time, could you please take a look at the updated version of my draft and let me know if there’s anything I should adjust or strengthen? Your mentorship has been very helpful to me so far, and I would be grateful for any direction you can offer.

Thank you very much for your time and support. Best regards! Negra.perlog (talk) 22:42, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Let's look at why this was declined on 11 November, Negra.perlog. I quote: This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage.... Since that time, the draft has been slightly improved, but -- as far as I can see -- not a single reference has been added. Do sources exist that provide significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject? If they do, use them and cite them. If they don't, no article can be created. -- Hoary (talk) 23:48, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

@Negra.perlog I'm only saying something that Hoary already said, but in simpler words.

None of your sources have written a long article about the history of Rea Nuhu. Interviewing them and making announcements about them are just little things that don't count. TooManyFingers (talk) 00:30, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello — thank you for taking the time to review my draft and for the feedback.

I understand the concern raised about “significant coverage”. I respectfully disagree with the conclusion that the sources I provided are only passing mentions. My draft is supported by multiple independent, published, secondary sources that give substantive coverage of Rea Nuhu’s career, including feature articles, interviews, festival coverage and reviews that focus specifically on her work and public impact.

To make this explicit and avoid any misunderstanding, I have done the following and can paste full citations on request:

• Collected national and regional press articles that profile Rea Nuhu (feature-length pieces or multi-paragraph profiles, not just event listings).

• Added in-depth interviews and feature segments published by independent media outlets (print and online).

• Included coverage of Rea’s festival appearances and releases in reputable music/entertainment outlets that discuss her songs, reception, and career—again, not only short announcements.

• Marked which sources are independent secondary sources (i.e., not self-published, not social media, and not press releases).

A few clarifications about Wikipedia’s notability guidance that I relied on: significant coverage can be established by multiple independent sources that together provide sustained attention and context about the subject (not necessarily a single long article). If any of the individual sources I submitted are considered borderline, taken together they demonstrate the subject’s coverage and impact.

Thank you for your time and for any further guidance on which sources you want to see strengthened. Negra.perlog (talk) 18:31, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

In-depth interviews are still just interviews.

To Wikipedia, the only impact that counts is their impact on independent publishers wanting to produce stories. Having the subject sitting there makes the publisher non-independent. TooManyFingers (talk) 18:45, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Taking several inadequate sources and imagining that they ought to count for one good one is (a) not valid reasoning and (b) deliberately and systematically rejected by Wikipedia. TooManyFingers (talk) 19:01, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

The Voice

Why is there no playoffs after the knockouts Season 28 of The Voice Brycelegend (talk) 00:50, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Which Wikipedia article are you asking about? TooManyFingers (talk) 01:05, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

The Voice season 28 Wikipedia. They don’t have the Playoffs Brycelegend (talk) 01:22, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

after the knockouts Brycelegend (talk) 01:23, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi Brycelegend. The Voice (American TV series) season 28#Ratings says playoffs air on December 1 and December 8. I guess information will be added when they have aired. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:39, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

So they will add it tomorrow? Brycelegend (talk) 01:41, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

@Brycelegend: It's a popular American show so somebody will probably update the article shortly after the airing, or start while they are still watching it. Editors are volunteers and choose when and where to work. Nobody is assigned to specific work so we cannot say when something will be done. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:46, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

You can fix that. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:22, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Okay Brycelegend (talk) 02:03, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

I went overboard and very much so in the wrong direction in unmasking a user. Will I be punished? Should I?

I'm responsible for this; diff=1325035869

I basically doxxed the guy. I definitely did it in the wrong place, not out of malice but because of how new I am and unfamiliar I was with the right place to send such a complaint.

I basically did it in the user's talk page.

I now know it should've gone through the appropriate channels for disruptive users, or that I should've just straight up emailed the oversight. Not done what I did.

I'm now kind of wondering whether to keep making (or planning) to make contributions to wikipedia or whether I should expect my contributions to get reverted. I don't know what kind of punishment I'll get nor what should be warranted. All I know is that I made a pretty sizeable mistake conducting my complaint the way (and where) I did.

If I'm also understanding things well enough, I believe only those with elevated enough privileges can see the diff, so I don't believe 'general editors', much less unregistered editors can actually see what this is about beyond what's described here. Lafi90 (talk) 02:23, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Lafi90! Blocks are meant to prevent misbehaviour, not punish people, so as long as you understand what you did wrong and won't do it again, I don't think you have much to worry about on that front. Don't get me wrong, if you post private or non-public information again, that would be a problem - but as long as there's no evidence that you acted maliciously, you aren't going to be blocked for one mistake. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 02:30, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello and thanks!. Thank you very much! Lafi90 (talk) 02:39, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Replacing image within 'template'; how to NOT mutilate the template code...?

Hi, I was attempting to update our band photyo on its wiki page, and I made a real mess when i tried to copy and paste the 'link' or 'file name' or 'code' into the 'template; I ended up giving up and was 'blocked (for good reason) cuz I was obviously NOT helping the page at all.

I was successful at uploading the new image (it reside on the 'commons' now) but inserting any of the 'links' or 'code' is the big obstacle I face.

Any help would be greatly apprercvited. Thanks in advance. Tommy Niemeyer The Accused Addiron (talk) 02:58, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

@Addiron Hello Tommy! Welcome to the Teahouse, the most trash metal environment on the planet! So the article we are talking about is The Accüsed. I see you have uploaded File:Accused The-2025.png and File:The Accused.png. The photo currently in the article is File:The Accüsed live 2023 Seattle, WA.jpg. I have replaced it with the new one which actually shows the people in the band (and the delightful Martha Splatterhead of course). Have a nice day! Polygnotus (talk) 03:11, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Is it too soon ion the relationship to say I LOVE U..? Thanks, my friend! YOU ROCK! Addiron (talk) 03:23, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Are you available on Tuesday for our wedding? Dress in white please, I will too. Thanks, Polygnotus (talk) 03:25, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

I gotta work all day Tues. but will check my schedule in the following weeks...ha ha thank you x a million! Addiron (talk) 03:30, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

@Addiron You added a © 2025 The Accused to the photo, but you then released it in the public domain. I think that was a mistake (people just use copyright declarations because they look cool). Should I just crop the copyright declaration out? You do understand that the photo is released in the public domain so that no one has copyright over it and anyone can use it for any purpose right? Polygnotus (talk) 03:22, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

SHIT..! No I thought I HAD to release all rights to use it here...!

Yikes! Is it too late to try and pad it w some protection..?

T Addiron (talk) 03:25, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Addiron.

You have to license the image in order to upload it to Commons, but you don't have to release it into the public domain as you have. It is more usual to release it under a license such as CC-BY-SA, whereby you retain the copyright, but permit anybody to reuse or alter it for any purpose as long as they comply with a couple of conditions- the chief of which is that they have to attribute the source. The way that you have released it gives up your copyright, so there are no conditions on how anybody may reuse or alter it.

There is probably not much practical difference, so I wouldn't worry about overly. But in future, I suggest you use CC-BY-SA.

On a different point, please note that as a member of the band, you have a conflict of interest, so you should not be editing that article directly, but instead should make edit requests. ColinFine (talk) 11:07, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes feel free to crop away

Whatever is easiest. Thank you very much for the help it's been a drag til now Addiron (talk) 03:27, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

@Addiron You don't want or need protection. Fuck capitalism! Thank you, Polygnotus (talk) 03:27, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Eeek! There are lefties on WP! Someone inform the press and Larry Sanger! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:19, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång No no, I hate capitalism because our Glorious Leader knows best, including how to spend the money. Polygnotus (talk) 05:37, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

what is this & why

what is this KS (talk) 07:02, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

@KingC8218 This is a place where you can ask questions about Wikipedia :) Toadspike [Talk] 07:10, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

oh Thanks ^^ KS (talk) 07:15, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

You can ask it at the Reference desk, Versions111 (talk • contribs) 08:48, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Reliable sources

hello , on his enstoolment day the news agence we invited couldn't come to capture the program , so plz what should we do now . Kyidomhene (talk) 13:03, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

@Kyidomhene I have no idea what you're trying to ask. Is this question related to Draft:Okogyeaman Ahunako kwakye okotobregya II - Apaamanhene, which was tagged as an autobiography? mwwv ^converse∫_edits 13:07, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

@Kyidomhene (e/c) You don't need to do anything. Your draft will be deleted in due course as it lacks sources. Shantavira|^{feed me} 13:12, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Kyidomhene, and welcome to the Teahouse.

A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what several people wholly unconnected with the subject have independently chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, (see Golden rule) and not much else. What you know (or anybody else knows) about the subject is not relevant except where it can be verified from a reliable published source.

It follows that if nobody unconnected with a subject has written about it in reliable sources, there cannot be a Wikipedia article on that subject, as the subject cannot meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability. ColinFine (talk) 14:59, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Reporters not arriving is a clear sign that reporters are not interested. TooManyFingers (talk) 18:40, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Quantum Beams

Could someone please comment on this User:Harold Foppele/Quantum Beams ? Would be much appriciated so that I can devellop it further. Thanks ! Harold Foppele (talk) 14:13, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Harold Foppele. While I understand it's a draft, each point should be cited by reliable sources. I'm not well-versed in science or math on Wikipedia, but I think it would be extremely important in those fields to cite sources. Also, the template placed at the top should instead be placed at the bottom, after the references.

Thanks, PhoenixCaelestis ‣ _Talk // ^{Contributions} 17:51, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks !!!! Since the article for now has few points for citing, it is not very complicated. But I try to have more cites.

Thanks again, More comments welcome! Harold Foppele (talk) 18:21, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Having a citation to an independent source for each "salient fact" (if I may put it that way) is important. TooManyFingers (talk) 18:39, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

I did addd sources to the ones i started with to create the article. Would you be so kind as to look at it again? Thanks ! Harold Foppele (talk) 22:04, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

I see that you are already quite an experienced editor, and yet what you've done in your draft doesn't look or function like a Wikipedia article.

Unfortunately, you're not free to use your own style of organizing an article, especially not in an article about such an obscure topic. I hesitate to say "you need to make every article conform with Wikipedia's expected structure and Wikipedia's expected content" - but that actually seems like a pretty good description of what I mean.

And ... with all your experience, why would you not already be doing that? I would only expect this kind of mistake from someone who generates article after article with no attention to whether those articles turn out well or not. TooManyFingers (talk) 00:21, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

is it considered "bad form" to make multiple small edits instead of one big edit?

i want to make minor typographical edits as i spot errors, but this means making several separate edits to a page, each with only 2-3 changes...i was wondering if this is somehow considered poor etiquette on wikipedia, like, i'm clogging up the edit history instead of just making one thorough edit to fix all the errors on the page.

i'm totally new to wikipedia, i have more lofty page editing dreams for one day but for now i'm starting small cause this is kinda scary lol 999timez (talk) 14:36, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

No; in fact it's preferred in some ways, because if one of your edits is problematic but the rest are fine then it's easier to isolate the problematic edit and keep the rest. Obviously don't make a separate edit for each word you change, but if you edit one section at a time that's totally fine. Athanelar (talk) 14:40, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

I often make series of little edits, probably just because that's convenient for my short attention span, and no one has ever said anything about it.

I would also say that it's probably better to avoid making numerous unrelated edits all at once, so that it's easy for someone (including yourself) to revert only the part that was a problem. TooManyFingers (talk) 18:34, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Views since last edit on the User’s homepage

I was wondering whether there is a way to see the views on all my edits (not just the five or six that Wikipedia puts on the User’s homepage), I’ve always been curious to see what all the other pages get (because it’s usually the same pages displayed, but that only equates to about 600,000 to 700,000 pageviews, and I’ve always wondered where the other 200,000 comes from, as it says I have around 980,000 views on edits, but the ones displayed only add up to the numbers provided a couple of words ago).

Would be really grateful if there is like a webpage or userbox to see all the views of your edits.

thanks in advance everyone and have a great day. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 14:54, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

And btw. I know that Wikipedia isn’t about views, I’m just asking in a more curious way as opposed to an egotistical way. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 15:08, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Other than Special:Impact we got https://pageviews.wmcloud.org But I don't have a full answer to your question, sorry, and the stats are quite limited in my opinion. Polygnotus (talk) 16:51, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Draft: SD Worx

Hi there,

I have written (or re-written, from a previous editor) a page about the company SD Worx in the English language after the previous one has been rejected. It has been flagged several times as promotional language - something I've tried to avoid (I have a COI). Would anybody be able to give me some guidance on this?

Many thanks! Sjm0308 (talk) 15:18, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

It might be time to simply accept that your company simply isn't notable enough to be included on Wikipedia. When we talk about corporate notability, the question we're asking is essentially 'if you replaced this company with any other company, would the article say essentially the same things?' If so, the company isn't notable.

Pretty much every company in the world can point to trivial coverage of things like their market performance, acquisitions and mergers, promotional campaigns etc etc, but because you could just change the numbers and names and have essentially the same article about any other company, these things do not indicate notability just because they've been reported on. Athanelar (talk) 15:33, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

I think people who attempt to write an article about a company are listing the kind of items you named because they believe that's how to market themselves. I don't think they intended it as support for notability, because notability simply doesn't interest them.

I wonder if specific guidance for writing company articles saying "Do not include [description or list of those items] anywhere in the article; they will be removed" might be appropriate.

Wikipedia already does tell them what kind of article to write, and they don't; I assume from the relative uniformity of their results that they are literally following a completely different and equally rigid set of instructions. I suspect the most efficient way around that might be for Wikipedia to reverse-engineer their playbook and prohibit each aspect of it item by item. TooManyFingers (talk) 20:03, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

I think it's a mix of things. Firstly, as you say, their goal is not to build an encyclopedia but to get their article published for promotion/SEO purposes. So, they take a glance at the notability requirements (because if they don't meet them their article will be removed) and see that they need to have 'significant coverage in independent secondary sources' and they say 'a-ha! well, we're in this list on Business Reporter dot com which says we're in the top 10 foo producers in southwestern Italy. We're notable enough to be reported on!' and call it a day. I.e., their understanding of the word 'notability' is the more common and colloquial sense since they don't have any interest in actually learning about Wikipedia policy.

Secondly, it's LLMs. Even if they don't AI generate the whole article as they often do, I have no doubt many of these people just open their LLM of choice and type "give me a list of sources that demonstrate the notability of Example Inc for Wikipedia" and go from there. Athanelar (talk) 20:47, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Should Template:Population WD be used?

I just edited the Meppen article to automatically pull the population data from Wikidata using {{Population WD}}.

However, having read Wikipedia:Wikidata I must say I was left very confused as to the actual, up-to-date consensus as to whether using Wikidata templates such as Population WD is permissible outside of infoboxes.

Could anyone shine some light on this? Amberkitten (talk) 15:28, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

@Trappist the monk: You probably know. Polygnotus (talk) 16:47, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

I really don't. I do know that there are those who think that use of wikidata is great and there are those who think that use of wikidata is awful (and, of course, those who haven't made a determination either way). For this particular article, the infobox already has population data (taken from wikidata) with a reference. Therefore, Editor Amberkitten's unreferenced addition seems to me to be unnecessarily redundant so should probably be removed.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 17:47, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Article rejected, even though it includes secondary sources

I’m working on a new article draft (Draft:Nagish) and it’s been declined twice for “insufficient significant coverage.” I’d appreciate guidance on what additional type of sourcing is expected. The draft already cites multiple independent, secondary, non-trivial news sources, including:

• The Daily Moth – one of the largest Deaf news outlets – with an in-depth report on Nagish’s FCC IP Relay certification: https://www.dailymoth.com/blog/nagish-gets-fcc-certification-as-ip-relay-provider
• The Jerusalem Post – reported coverage of Nagish’s acquisition of sign.mt: https://www.jpost.com/business-and-innovation/article-871685
• The Hearing Review – industry journalism covering Nagish’s funding and an award naming it “Speech to Text Solution of the Year”: https://hearingreview.com/hearing-products/amplification/amplified-caption-phones/nagish-wins-ai-breakthrough-award-for-speech-to-text-solution
• AlleyWatch – editorial coverage of the company’s funding and technology: https://www.alleywatch.com/2024/07/nagish-deaf-hearing-loss-accessibility-companion-phone-call-speech-to-text-real-time-platform-captioning-tomer-aharoni

These are all independent editorial reports, not press releases. The draft also includes the relevant FCC rulings, but I recognize those are primary sources and do not count toward notability.

Given the above, what further type of source or coverage is typically required for an organization to meet Wikipedia’s notability guidelines? I want to understand what gap still remains so I can address it appropriately. AmitMY (talk) 15:30, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

@Smallangryplanet: See above. @AmitMY: WP:NORGANISATION. Polygnotus (talk) 16:27, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

@AmitMY a lot of those links are reproductions of press releases - even the interview has a lot of (imo) softball stuff about how it's a big moment and how great it is. Smallangryplanet (talk) 19:02, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

@AmitMY Also, it sounds like you are the Amit mentioned in the draft, so please see WP:COI and all that. Thanks! Polygnotus (talk) 16:30, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

See WP:CORPTRIV A lot of 'secondary sources' that report info about companies are reporting on trivial matters like acquisitions, mergers, market statistics etc which do not demonstrate that the company is encyclopedically notable. Athanelar (talk) 17:50, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Yeah and interviews are usually not considered independent, because the journalists task in an interview is to write down what someone says. Polygnotus (talk) 17:51, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps more important about interviews is that everything the journalist says is calculated for the effect it might have on the interview: for the interview to turn out a certain way, to avoid displeasing the person they're interviewing, and so on. TooManyFingers (talk) 18:24, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks all, that clears up a bit.

So, if there was an independent review of the service by The Verge for example, or a legal controversy, those would be valid sources making it encyclopedically notable?

(I looked at a few other small company articles, and a minimal example would be "Dbrand" that only has controversies) AmitMY (talk) 21:35, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

@AmitMY I am not so sure Dbrand is actually notable. A few minor incidents (in the sense that there is no widespread coverage) that got some attention is not really good enough, usually. Annoyingly the rules are vague and precedent is difficult on a website where precedent often means that no one has fixed a problem (yet). Polygnotus (talk) 21:37, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

I wouldn't use other corporate articles as reference. There's a lot of unnotable corporate articles lying around on Wikipedia.

But yes, you've got essentially the right idea. There needs to be some kind of significant, in-depth coverage of the company itself in order to make it notable. Our corporate notability guideline is the best reference here, specifically the subsection WP:SUBSTANTIAL which gives some examples of good coverage that might make a company notable. Athanelar (talk) 21:41, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Userboxes

I made a userbox, but how do I put an image into the userbox? also, does the image have to be in commons? Starry~~(Starlet147) 18:13, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Starlet147. The image has to have a free license. Commons images, I believe, automatically have this, though some images are uploaded locally on the English Wikipedia with free licenses. This page has more info on that specifically. Another subsection on that same page gives info about adding images. PhoenixCaelestis ‣ _Talk // ^{Contributions} 18:29, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

@Starlet147 I added a quick example here: User:Starlet147/Userboxes/Secretlyagoat Polygnotus (talk) 18:33, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, but how do I put an image on? Starry~~(Starlet147) 18:56, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Never mind actually Starry~~(Starlet147) 18:59, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Where should I report a suspicious editor?

Hi everyone,

Hope all of you are doing well. I wanted to ask that if I see a new editor account that is heavily editing a page, and is disregarding the policies and guidelines. While having a gut feeling that they might be using multiple accounts or might be the subject himself. In such situation, what is the best way to approach it? MsAzra (talk) 19:47, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

First, you have to talk with them, kindly explaining what the problem is and asking them to change to a better way. That might be on the article's talk page or on their own talk page. TooManyFingers (talk) 20:07, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

If what they're doing is real-world illegal, or is VERY obviously intended as trying to disrupt and ruin (i.e. they are obviously not trying to make ANY point at all), then you bypass the talking. TooManyFingers (talk) 20:11, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

• If they're edit warring; warn them first using {{uw-editwar}}, and if they persist without any discussion, report them at WP:ANEW
• If they're blatantly vandalising, report them at WP:AIV
• If they're not so blatantly vandalising, warn using the {{uw-v}} series of warnings, then AIV if they continue.
• For any other issues (unsourced edits, misleading edit summaries etc etc) warn using the relevant warning template, then report at WP:ANI if the behavioural issue continues and they don't discuss at all.

Athanelar (talk) 20:52, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Declined Draft Questions

Hello! My draft article about the company I work for, Print.Save.Repeat. (User:TaylorBerry/sandbox/Print.Save.Repeat.), was recently declined for lack of significant independent sources. I’ve since moved it to my userspace (sandbox), and I’m trying to understand what the correct next steps are. I’ve searched extensively and found some coverage, but most articles are either press releases, routine announcements, or brief mentions that don’t appear to meet the depth required for notability. At this point, it seems there may not be enough substantial secondary sources yet. My questions are: Is it appropriate to continue improving the sandbox page even if the company may not currently meet notability guidelines? If additional independent coverage is published in the future, can I later resubmit the draft? Is there anything specific I should not include in my sandbox version to avoid issues while the page is not being actively submitted? For transparency, I have a conflict of interest, and I’m following COI and AfC guidelines by working only in my userspace. Thank you for any guidance! Taylor Berry (talk) 22:49, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Well, it needs to have more than 3 reliable sources. While using cite highlighter, it shows the light green highlighter is seen on one source, so you may need more than 1 reliable source. NicePrettyFlower (talk) 22:57, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Taylor Berry.

The answer to your question is probably, No, you will be wasting your time.

If, like the vast majority of companies on the planet, nobody independent has so far seen a reason to write extensively about iyour company, then that's probably going to continue to be the state of affairs, and the company will never meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability.

If you think there is some reason why this is going to change, then you could retain the draft, hoping that suitable sources will appear. But remember that your company has absolutely no control over this (Wikipedia is basically not interested in anything commissioned or stage-managed by the company); also consider that if something happens that causes people to write about your company, it might be something that you would prefer didn't go all over the internet - but you will not have control of this either, inside or outside Wikipedia. See WP:PROUD ColinFine (talk) 23:30, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi Taylor,

Thanks for being sensible with this and understanding that your company isn't currently notable. Echoing ColinFine, I really advise you don't waste your time preparing an article on the presumption your company will eventually be notable. First of all, that would be writing an article backwards; the right way to write a Wikipedia article is to find sources and then write the article based on what's in those sources, not to write down what you want to include and then find sources to confirm it. So, if no good sources currently exist, then you don't have any information you could include in your article without breaking policies like WP:No original research anyway. Secondly, there's no guarantee your company will ever be notable. The vast majority of companies in the world, even very successful ones, simply never get involved with anything extraordinary enough to justify giving them any more attention than all the other companies doing the same thing they do. There's nothing wrong with that; having a Wikipedia article isn't some kind of goal to aspire to. Athanelar (talk) 00:17, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

How to upload a sample of a song like Timbaland's 'Give it to me'?

Hi.

I'm wondering how to upload a sample of a non-free song akin to what was done with regards to Timbaland's 'Give it to me' which is used in the article for the song of the same name.

I would like to, if possible, make use of this on the Icelandic wikipedia (is.wikipedia) with regards to albums of one of my country's more known artist who already does have wikipedia articles, however said articles don't have any samples of the artists' songs.

I intend to add only the most well known song to each album's article.

Again. This is all assuming it's possible.

The Icelandic musician in question doesn't own the copyright to their songs anymore. They recently sold their catalogue to Alda Music which is a subsidiary of Universal Music Group.

As such said artist's catalogue should now fall under the fair use doctrine, allowing samples for the same logic 'Give it to me' is technically legal under. Lafi90 (talk) 01:02, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

My initial reaction: Shouldn't you be asking this question on the Icelandic Wikipedia, in case they have different rules on this topic?

Also, how does an ownership transfer change the fair-use status? TooManyFingers (talk) 01:18, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

(My own quick skim of our article on Fair Use makes me think that the rights having been sold to a corporation makes no difference at all - and my cynical side says a large media corporation has expensive lawyers on permanent staff and a litigation budget, while an individual singer doesn't.) TooManyFingers (talk) 01:30, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

How to Handle Original Research, User-Generated and AI Sources in an Article

Yesterday, I noticed some problematic content and sources in the article Flourished Peony. The issues included original research without citations, sources cited from social media that were written by AI or users, and forum discussions being used as references. Even for those reliable sources, the cited content does not appear in the news. So I did an improvement, removed these sources and reminded the editor who added these in their talk page.

However, when I checked the article today, I found that they had re-added all the problematic sources I had removed. In the past, the situation ends after my talk page reminder. I am not sure what I can do for the next step, so I am asking for advice. Thank you. EleniXDD※Talk 01:25, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

I'd probably revert their changes again, drop another warning on their talk page, and then if they don't engage with the conversation and instead continue their edit war by reverting you again, take it to WP:ANI with diffs of the original problematic content and the edit warring. Athanelar (talk) 01:35, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice. For the new warning, shall I start a new section in the talk page, or just reply in the earlier one I added (I am inexperience in this). Thanks. EleniXDD※Talk 01:37, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

If it's still the same month, just put it under the same heading (as the convention is to post warnings in sections titled after the month the warning was given) Athanelar (talk) 01:42, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for helping out. EleniXDD※Talk 01:45, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Main article link criteria

In the past, I've seen some articles have a heading, then a little thing under that that says something like, "Main article: [link to main article]." What are the criteria to add that, and how do you add that? Specifically, I'm talking about the article MicroPython § Syntax and semantics, and I'm thinking of linking that to Python syntax and semantics. Mxwllhe (talk) 01:46, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

You're talking about Template:Main and as per the documentation on that template page, it's designed to be used on very large articles where the sections consist of summaries of topics which are covered in more depth in a dedicated article. For example, you can see United Kingdom#History uses the template to link to Formation of the United Kingdom and History of Great Britain and also uses the {{further}} template to link to a couple more articles. It does this because, of course, trying to comprehensively include all the information in those articles would excessively bloat the article.

So, in your case, if the 'syntax and semantics' section of MicroPython is essentially redundant to Python syntax and semantics, you could trim the section down to a briefer summary and use {{main}} to link to that article. Otherwise, you could use {{further}} to direct people there for further reading. Athanelar (talk) 01:58, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Really?

I tried to make an edit but some person named "Quake1234" reverted it and told me to "go fuck myself". If this is the type of community that exists on Wikipedia, then it's not much different from websites like 4chan. I thought Wikipedia had a good community, but I guess not. ~2025-37863-43 (talk) 02:04, 2 December 2025 (UTC)