Wikipedia:Teahouse

ColinFine, a Teahouse host

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

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

Can't edit this page? Just use this link to ask for help on your talk 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.

To read the newest questions, skip to bottom
About the Teahouse

Most recent archives
1250, 1251, 1252, 1253, 1254, 1255, 1256, 1257, 1258, 1259, 1260, 1261, 1262, 1263, 1264, 1265, 1266, 1267, 1268, 1269

Assistance for new editors unable to post here

This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived.

The Teahouse is frequently semi-protected, meaning the Teahouse pages cannot be edited by unregistered users (users with IP addresses), 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. Use this link to ask for help; a volunteer will reply to you there shortly.

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

Correctness on Drafting an AfC Article

Hi people,

As a scholar and international professional soccer player, I am now working on a draft of an Articles for Creation (AfC) submission about myself, Josie Valeri. I am conscious of my conflict of interest as the subject, but I need and want to make sure the page satisfies Wikipedia's requirements for notability, neutrality, and sourcing.

I currently have a sandbox draft that summarizes my background, expertise, and professional career. Although some of my references are from social media or team websites (which I acknowledge cannot demonstrate notability), the majority of my sources are independent news coverage, league announcements, and scholarly publications.

I would like advice regarding:

Whether the draft satisfies Wikipedia's requirements for notability at this time.
Ideas for content rewording or reorganization that adheres to an encyclopedic tone.
Advice on how to safely submit with my COI.

Any suggestions on how to improve independent verification and which sources are appropriate is appreciated and exciting! Josie.Valeri (talk) 23:00, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You linked to your sandbox, but there's nothing there. If you thought you created a draft, you didn't. You need to click "publish changes"(which should be understood to mean "save"). It's actually best to use the Article Wizard to create and submit a draft.

Please see the autobiography policy. While not forbidden, writing about yourself is ill advised. 331dot (talk) 23:21, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much, 331dot! Josie.Valeri (talk) 20:13, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Josie.Valeri, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Remember that, once you have found adequate independent sources you will need to effectively forget absolutely everything you know about yourself, and write based only on what those sources say. They don't mention something important? Tough. They get it wrong? Tough - depending on how important the matter is in an article about you (which is an editorial decision, which should ideally be made by somebody other than you), it should either say what the sources say, or leave it out altogether. This might seem unreasonable to you; but an article should ideally contain nothing at all that cannot be verified from reliable published sources; and with a few exceptions (see WP:PRIMARY) from sources wholly independent from you. See WP:Verifiability. ColinFine (talk) 09:12, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ColinFine. :) Josie.Valeri (talk) 20:14, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Josie.Valeri Notability: I don't see significant coverage in multiple, reliable, independent secondary sources. Refer WP:42.

Rewording It's not encyclopedic and contains a lot of info that a third party's not interested it. I would suggest you read a couple of articles about soccer players that are classified as good articles. Choose a person you're interested in or someone of a similar level of achievement and compare the wording and layout of the article to yours.

"COI" read WP:COI, particularly the section on "How to disclose a COI". MmeMaigret (talk) 07:07, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Mmemaigret! Josie.Valeri (talk) 12:43, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IMDb page for Daniel Naroditsky

Courtesy link: Daniel Naroditsky

Hi, everytime I tried to add the IMDb page (*{{IMDb name|16276851}} for the deceased above but it keeps getting removed. Bare in mind, im not here to give out but just im just wondering if it can be added to the page at all as it is his exact page? Vlove1 (talk) 19:45, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Vlove1: IMDb is user-generated and so not reliable. Read WP:IMDB. Bazza 7 (talk) 20:07, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can add it as an external link, but not as a citation.

If you have done the former and another editor has removed it, follow the process described at WP:DR. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:46, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's no reason you can't add it to the page under "external links". But I would recommend you move on from this article. MmeMaigret (talk) 08:05, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files as sources

Can I use files on the commons as a source for articles that need citations?

This question is brought to you by Karl Ernst von Baer's statue. There is a citation needed for his statue at the Leningrad Museum. Looking around I spotted an image of the statue on the Commons. Now I'm wondering if I can use that as source, or if that would be too self referential.

MMichkov (talk) 21:30, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that @Pigsonthewing would be able to answer this question, though I'm not entirely sure. Apologies to Andy if I bothered him for nothing!

CSGinger14 (talk) 22:54, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:41, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can't simply cite the image on Commons.

What you could do is add the image to the article with a caption stating its location; then remove the 'citation needed' tag.

Only if you are reverted (or not) will you know what other editors think. I certainly would not revert such an edit. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:40, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MMichkov That image has been in the article Zoological Museum (Saint Petersburg) since before 2010, so I think you'll be justified in using it again now. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:15, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MMichkov Are you asking if you can use the picture of the statue as a citation to prove the existence of the statue? If so, no. You're going to need a secondary source that says there's a statue in the museum. You can use the image as an image. MmeMaigret (talk) 07:24, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that is what I'm asking. I wasn't sure if Commons works are considered secondary sources or not. If I get the time later I'll go with Andy's suggestion and just add the image to the article and see what the editing public does. MMichkov (talk) 17:36, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Film poster adds for movie/film articles missing film poster's

Is there a category of movie or film articles which are missing an image in their infobox of a film poster? I upload book cover images, but I am running out (have added thousands!) and now might work on movies next. Iljhgtn (talk) 15:17, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have an answer to your question, but thanks for the work you do!! jolielover♥talk 15:49, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Jolielover. Iljhgtn (talk) 15:54, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Iljhgtn I couldn't find such a category but I went to category:2024 films and hovered over each title. As I have navigation popups in my preferences, I was able to quickly find an example like Adult Swim Yule Log 2: Branchin' Out which has no image in its infobox. That article has no "missing image"-type category set. Maybe someone will be able to think of a faster way to do what you want. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:03, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So just go by year? Would it be possible to create such a category? I've never created categories before. Iljhgtn (talk) 18:32, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I used the year because it was convenient and I assumed that recent films might be the ones without images. Note that Category:Books with missing cover is a tracking category that gets automatically populated by {{infobox book}}. You would need an expert in infobox templates to do the same sort of thing for films as you would not want to populate that category "by hand" which is, effectively, what your question is asking for. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:23, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely would not want to populate that by hand. How can we get this made? Where do I find such an expert? Iljhgtn (talk) 22:36, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Usually you would try via the talk page of the template or someone active from its edit history. I note that User:Izno has made changes to the books template and may be able to advise. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:26, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Izno can you help with making a auto-populating category titled something like, "Films with missing poster" or something. Iljhgtn (talk) 16:12, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As Mike says, usually it's best to ask on the template talk page. I can but I am generally busy. That said, Category:Film articles needing an image also exists and may suit you; it is populated by the talk page. (And you can do the double bonus of removing the parameter if a page has an image now.) Izno (talk) 16:42, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If editors have determined that a film article needs a poster in its infobox, and could not do so themselves, there's Category:Film articles needing an image which can prompt other editors to help. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 19:14, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will work with that then. I did not know of its existence. I find it difficult to search properly for the best category sometimes. Iljhgtn (talk) 23:59, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Making an article

I know you guys have seen my other question and you guys have answered that so I was wondering what I should make an article about because I’ve edited about 10 times in a month… Sincerely, @Mookscade Mookscade (talk) 17:11, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We really suggest you gain experience by making smaller edits to improve existing articles, before you attempt your first full article, You will have a much more satisfying time if you do that. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:23, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Mookscade, and welcome to the Teahouse.

I wonder, why are you so keen to create an article? That's not the only way to make a contribution to Wikipedia. I have made almost 28000 edits over twenty years, but I've only ever created a handful of articles.

If you had a subject in mind that you knew you wanted to write an article about, that would be different; but since you've indicated you haven't, why worry about creating an article? Find some articles that interest you that you think you can improve - especially articles that are tagged as needing {{more references}}.

If you're determined that creating an article is the way you want to contribute, you could look at requested articles and see if there is a request that speaks to you. But with only 22 edits in your history, I echo Andy in saying, don't try it yet. 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) 18:15, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So your saying I should make more edits and to existing articles rather then making an article? Mookscade (talk) 18:42, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying that we very strongly recommend that you don't try creating an article until you've done a good deal more editing, and learnt about thos policies and procedures. I'm also asking why you are so keen on creating an article, and suggesting that that is not the only way to contribute to Wikipedia.

In fact, if more people worked on improving articles rather than creating new ones, we might have a lot fewer rubbish articles (see other stuff exists. I'm talking to myself here as well: I don't create many articles, but I also don't go back and fix existing ones very often). ColinFine (talk) 21:09, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mookscade I think the question is "why?!" We don't need any new articles and, if you don't know what you want to write about, then why would you create one? The other day, someone on the Teahouse wanted an article about Major-General George Clement Macdonald - you could write about him. MmeMaigret (talk) 07:48, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Political Correctness

Courtesy link: Political correctness

I am an who had an account years ago (pre-2010). So long ago, that I don’t remember my username. I am going to filter through some articles I believe I edited, and see if I can find my contributions and then resurrect my account.

In the meantime, I had a question about the article “political correctness”. I noticed there are 28 pages of talk archives, which leads me to believe it is a rather fraught topic. My idea was to expand the article according to the lede which states “politically correctness is generally used as a pejorative”. The body of the article seems to discuss *only* pejorative uses, but doesn’t touch on *non* pejorative uses. I suggested improving the article in TALK, but I am already getting the idea that consensus is against doing so.

Is this a bad article to start with? I don’t want to become involved with a maelstrom. Perhaps i should focus my efforts elsewhere.? Slyfamlystone (talk) 00:47, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Slyfamlystone - yes, this is probably not a good place to start! You can imagine that the idea of political correctness is something that leads to people having a lot of strong opinions. I would also strongly suggest avoiding all our contentious topics - there's quite a few of those. But luckily, most of Wikipedia isn't a contentious topic and there's lots of articles you can safely improve!

The best plan to ease yourself back in would probably be to read articles you're interested in and make small edits here and there. You might also enjoy finding citations for articles needing them, or looking through articles needing clarification or orphaned articles to see if you can help out there. Welcome back! Meadowlark (talk) 05:49, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is outright rejection there, more scepticism that you can adequately source such an addition.

If you can, I would suggest you write up a couple of paragraphs or so, with sources, in you sandbox, and then post them (or a link to the sandbox) on the article talk page.

Your point that "the lede currently states PC being “generally” used as a pejorative. If that’s the case, then the body should corroborate the lede" is well made. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:16, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would however add @Slyfamlystone that the discrepancy between the body and lede could equally mean the lede needs to change, not the body. I.e., if the sources don't seem to support the use of 'political correctness' as a non-pejorative term we should drop the 'generally' from the lede rather than trying to force the body to conform with it. If we want to avoid making too concrete of a statement maybe we could replace the 'generally' with 'almost exclusively' or something similar. Athanelar (talk) 17:04, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you are correct, the term itself *should* be described as pejorative. However a section on the underlying philosophy probably needs to be added. I actually have some academic sources I am currently reading. The issue at hand is the tension between the term (which is pejorative) and the underlying philosophy or phenomena: “we ought to avoid offence”.

There is a terrific academic source, one that was written relatively recently (2010): Geoffrey Hughes – Political Correctness: A History of Semantics and Culture'’ It explores in detail the distinction between the term’s pejorative use and the genuine ethical-linguistic movement it describes. Slyfamlystone (talk) 23:06, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So I’ve followed the advice here and am currently exploring some additional academic sources on the topic. Next I will begin work in my sandbox on the tension between the pejorative term and the underlying philosophy. The final step is to rework the lede so it accurately describes the ‘'term’’ as (almost exclusively) pejorative, while clarifying the normative application (avoiding offence) of the phenomenon. My primary concern is to establish reliable and due sourcing for the new section. Slyfamlystone (talk) 04:12, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Donations

Hi, a recent article by McSweeney’s promoted me to restart my monthly donation to Wikipedia. However, when I navigated to the site and logged in, I noticed that there’s no donation button on the home page. Does anyone know why this is? CianDikker (talk) 22:33, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CianDikker, welcome to the Teahouse. I'm sometimes surprised how many things are omitted from the mobile site to save screen space. The bottom of mobile pages have a "Desktop" link to view the desktop site which has a "Donate" link in the menu to the left. You may have to tap a hamburger button ☰ at the top left to see the menu. You can switch back to the mobile site on "Mobile view" at the bottom of pages. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:46, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Primehunter,

Thanks for your answer. There is no donate button in the hamburger menu either.

I doubt I'm the first to mention this but it is best practice for organisations that seek to raise money to have a donate button visible at the top of the page on desktop and mobile. Do you know if there is an existing discussion about this or has it been discussed and decided historically?

Thanks,

Cian 78.16.169.0 (talk) 16:35, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Cian. When I look at an article, or at the main page (but not on pages in the Wikipedia: space, such as this Teahouse) in the desktop version, I see a "Main menu" down the left hand side, which includes items such as "Main page", "Contribute", "Random article", and "Donate". If I hide it, it is replaced by a hamburger at the top, to the left of the Wikipedia globe.

Is that not what you see? ColinFine (talk) 10:43, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you haven't first scrolled down to the very bottom of the page and clicked the word "Desktop", then you're not yet looking at the correct menu. TooManyFingers (talk) 18:34, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I want to return to my wiki

I've been waiting one month to my answer in , and until now, I haven't gotten the answer I'm waiting for, I don't know if I have the message saved here yet, but I say that I will be able to do everything to return to my home wiki. PixelWhite (talk) 00:50, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, PixelWhite. Teahouse hosts only have knowledge of the English Wikipedia, and other language versions are separate projects with separate policies and administrators. Please read your block notice on your Portuguese user talk page carefully, and all the links. Have you formulated your unblock request precisely? Perhaps you can alert the blocking administrator and ask that person a question. Good luck. Cullen328 (talk) 02:35, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since your Brazilian, use the Portuguese Wikipedia. Versions111 (talk) 10:19, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Versions111, "Since your Brazilian ..." You refer to his (or her) Brazilian ... His or her Brazilian what? I'm very interested in hearing you're answer. Uporządnicki (talk) 10:51, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@AzseicsoK Your funny! David10244 (talk) 09:01, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

his funny indeed mgjertson (talk) (contribs) 18:48, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm tottaly blocked, and no one has responded to me for a month. I'm not able to actively edit here and I want to edit on the Portuguese Wikipedia, I just need a contact. PixelWhite (talk) 20:11, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can contact ptwiki administrators. I think this is the link for contacting administrators. I’m not 100% certain, because I can’t speak Portuguese. Versions111 (talk) 06:26, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Versions111: This cited article is for approval requests! PixelWhite (talk) 21:47, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this is the link for contacting admins. Versions111 (talk) 06:40, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notability issues?

I could use some help with this... I originally created this article in 2009, and didn't notice it was marked for deletion earlier this year, so it was deleted. I got it reninstated as a draft, and I've extensively rewritten it, and added a lot references, and submitted it again, but it still got declined. Without further specifics... any pointers on how to fix it? From what I can tell from similar articles, I have better sources than many of them... would it help if I add a Source Assess Table, using the template, on the talk page of the draft? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Real_Story_Group Therealpowerflower (talk) 13:04, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Therealpowerflower! My best advice is to deal with the feedback left by the reviewers and edit the article accordingly. PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 14:28, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There was no feedback :/ Just the generic template. Therealpowerflower (talk) 14:39, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, these are the two recommendations left by reviewers at the draft.

Your draft shows signs of having been generated by a large language model, such as ChatGPT. Their outputs usually have multiple issues that prevent them from meeting our guidelines on writing articles. These include: Promotional tone, editorializing and other words to watch. Vague, generic, and speculative statements extrapolated from similar subjects .Essay-like writing. Hallucinations (plausible-sounding, but false information) and non-existent references. Close paraphrasing. Please address these issues. The best way is usually to read reliable sources and summarize them, instead of using a large language model. See our help page on large language models.

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are: in-depth (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements), reliable, secondary, strictly independent of the subject. Make sure you add references that meet all four of these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

I would recommend looking over these are fixing these issues. Do not use LLMs unsupervised and take extra care that everything is supported by actual, reliable sources. Thanks, Chorchapu (talk | edits) 16:34, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned in the notes, the LLM was only used to format the references (I should have used the visual editor instead, lesson learned), not to find them or to summarize them. Therealpowerflower (talk) 17:07, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Therealpowerflower The sourcing requirements are summarized by our golden rules for good sources. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:36, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have sources that qualify -- hence my question whether using the Source Assess Table template on the talk page would make it easier to discuss those. Right now I'm only getting very generic feedback, which makes it quite hard to get it right. Therealpowerflower (talk) 17:09, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the time (not always), when an editor finds the feedback they've received to be much too generic, it's because the article has very major defects that can't be solved just by making targeted changes to specific points. An article that is fundamentally flawed, rather than one that needs a few tweaks. TooManyFingers (talk) 08:19, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Therealpowerflower. I've only looked at the first two references: they are both based on interviews, and don't contribute to notability.

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.

I suggest you eliminate all sources that don't meet all the criteria in WP:42 (don't throw them away, because you may be able to use some of them to support the kind of information that primary sources can be used for, once you've established notabily) and see if you have enough left to get over that hurdle. ColinFine (talk) 10:53, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that makes sense. Therealpowerflower (talk) 16:08, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How to fix possible LLM content?

So I've been going on wikipedia and I've noticed some articles have the tag mentioning that certain articles or certain sections of articles have tags concerned about text coming from LLMs so I was wondering how an editor would try to fix that? also is their any good way to check for possible LLM derived text besides just vibes? as someone who generally doesn't like generative AI I would love to help improve articles with said tags. Afishient (talk) 13:51, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya @Afishient, and welcome to the Teahouse! WikiProject AI Cleanup has a helpful guide for how to spot and clean up possibly AI-generateed content at Wikipedia:WikiProject AI Cleanup/Guide. If this is something that you're interested in working on, you can find a category with every article tagged as possibly having AI use as well. Cheers, GoldRomean (talk) 14:16, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks this is pretty much exactly what I was looking for. Afishient (talk) 17:26, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As well as what GoldRomean has said, you can flag articles/users for attention at WP:AINB if you want to get a second opinion. Athanelar (talk) 15:55, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Community labeled a cult

I have submited a COI request. It is pending since a long time. My problem and pain is me, my community, my Guru we are called cult because some journalist decided to write so. There are reputed media organizations like CBC who also characterized us as such but when we submitted counter proof, CBC apologized. Gujarat high court (in the same matter - not some other matter) called us a 'spiritual path' ... but these aspects are omitted and cult term is highlighted in the page. I have requested COI and one kind editor had a look but said she wanted alternate opinion. Requesting some remedy that we are not called cult. It is dehumanizing and cruel to us. I don't know what logic justifies it. It saddens me. Sorry for the lamenting. My request and prayer is for somebody to stop this cruelty against us. And guide what can be done : Please see this talk page : Talk:Nithyananda#Remove Cult attribution from journalist Poonam Joshi who has conflict of interest. 129.222.149.203 (talk) 15:55, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which article is this in? If it's Nithyananda, it is only mentioned once and in a very neutral way, in my opinion, saying that mainstream outlets have described it as such. Sorry, but we are unbiased towards all affiliations and can't remove information that is appropriately supported by reliable sources. Several sources do describe it as a cult, including many considered reliable on WP:RSP. jolielover♥talk 16:00, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a help desk. We can advise you what to do; but we can't make a decision like that here.

The best thing to do would be to raise the matter at WP:NPOVN.

But you must accept that Wikipedia is a summary of what other, reliable sources say about topics. The outcome may not be what you want. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:33, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Pigsonthewing @Jolielover for your guidance. I cannot help the situation, as much as there exists certain rules,policies,facts,circumstances, contrary to what I could have wished for, day in and day out I am haunted by this and unable to be in peace a single day. If I could brush this aside, I would have. And that is what we have done for a decade, but that did not help the situation and made it worse, every year the misinformation and dehumanizing characterization of community had only increased. It impacts my life beyond my control which I cannot help and I can neither stop living. So until I have option available and open to request I can merely request editors/people neutral to the topic to look into our page and consider some mitigation. Thank you for taking time to respond to my request and for the valuable response that you all have provide. I have raised a request for similar consideration in NPOVN board as well. 129.222.149.131 (talk) 06:59, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I feel I'm going to have to point this out since nobody else has yet: This entire discussion falls under a a 500/30 restriction as it deals with a South Asian social group. (Religious groups count.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 07:03, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry @Jéské Couriano could you please help me understand. The category, the page it directs to, it all seems quiet cryptic for me to understand. 129.222.149.131 (talk) 07:44, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What they are saying is that you are not permitted to edit any page on Wikipedia in the topic area of South Asian social groups unless you have an account that is 30 days old with 500 edits. This includes your community. 331dot (talk) 07:48, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot I don't understand. I am not editing any page. The page is already extended-confirmed-protection. I submitted a COI request which remains unaddressed. One editor considered my COI and then finally replied that she wanted someone else to provide alternate opinion, which brough me to Teahouse. @Jéské Couriano ? 129.222.149.131 (talk) 08:01, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By "page" I mean any type of page on Wikipedia, including this one- articles, talk pages, discussion forums, any type of page. You cannot make COI edit requests in this topic area. You must have an account that is 30 days old with 500 edits. I have posted a message about this on your user talk page. 331dot (talk) 08:10, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you telling me that without having 30 days old account with 500 edits i cannot even submit a request for COI? I cannot do 500 edits because I have no interest in wikipedia and will not meet the requirement of neutrality. I would be making edits just to submit a COI. How is this right or fair? What is the mitigation compliant as per rules? Do I have no rights to even ask? 129.222.149.131 (talk) 08:18, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's correct. The only edit requests that you can make are the most simple requests that do not require discussion to form a consensus, such as spelling or grammar fixes, or something which no reasonable person could possibly disagree with. Your request- directly at odds with what sourced information supports- would require you to discuss the matter, so you are not allowed to make it.

Please review the information on your user talk page, and the links within that message, but in short, the history of edits in the topic area of South Asian social groups attracts much disruption and argument- possibly due to the strong personal investment editors may have in editing about groups that they either know of or are associated with- which has necessated the Arbitration Committee to institute the restrictions to prevent disruption. If you are not interested in editing Wikipedia more broadly, then you will be unable to contribute about your community. I realize this seems unfair, but the rules are what they are. 331dot (talk) 08:38, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is a bit too much for me to accept, I really need time for this to sink in. As a final request I sincerely request @331dot @Jéské Couriano @Jolielover to review the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nithyananda https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nithyananda ; thank you. 129.222.149.131 (talk) 08:52, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot I want to inform the addition of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kailaasa and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kailaasa#Please_remove_cult_attribution to this category.

I thought about what you stated, and it seems it is impossible for our community to redress any misinformation about our community in wikipedia. The rules are impossible to meet. Kindly guide if there is a way to appeal for an exemption for these 2 pages ( Nithyananda and Kailasa) regarding this rule, because it will impact our community in ways which hurts a lot in real life. We are not asking for rights to edit the page, but merely submit COIs. 129.222.149.131 (talk) 10:29, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are more than 75,000 Wikipedia editors with extended-confirmed rights, so the requirements are clearly not "impossible to meet."

In any case, you have provided little evidence that there is any "misinformation," only that mainstream news outlets have characterized your group in a manner that you disagree with. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 12:12, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CoffeeCrumbs The requirements are indeed impossible not because of physical impossibility but because I am expected to have interest in wider wikipedia (which I do not have and I cannot pretend to have, it would be not-honest) and anybody can use the fact that I am not interested in wider wikipedia to challenge any of my edits in any article. In contrast journalist like Poonam Joshi who have conflict of interest against our community and devotees in UK can write anything and it is considered neutral and endorsed in the wikipedia article and cited in the first paragraph. Yard sticks are disproportionate, unfair, and impossible.

Regarding evidence of misinformation. The talk page of the article mentioned documents it. For instance there are over thousands of articles/video carrying misinformation of which around hundreds have been taken down because of legal complaints, legal notices to various media; this includes some media houses who have issues apologies - like CBC which has been documented. A list of this is in the talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nithyananda#Removals_by_Washington_Post,_CBC_Canada_and_major_Indian,_South_American_and_Malaysian_outlets with links and was noted by @MrOllie ; The most egregious misinformation was media falsely stating there are interpol notices on Swami Nithyananda, whereas the truth has always been from day 1 that interpol rejected issuances of any notice by Indian state authorities and even deleted the data. Another extremely egregious misinformation that media has weaponized is that in 2012 our Guru, Swami Nithyananda was illegally arrested. This arrest was warned by legal experts upfront as unlawful, still state authorities executed it with 1/2 million USD spent on it and paraded our Guru in the whole city to shame Him and us. A year later the high court of Karnataka in CRL.P. 3253/2012 (Order link - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/85011170) termed the entire state action as illegal, “without any authority,” “contrary to law,” “without jurisdiction,” alongside the court quashing the entire unlawful proceedings around this illegal arrest. And the list goes on. However as of now I can neither provide nor participate in this due to being barred as per wikipedia rules. Perhaps I cannot even request another wikipedia editor like you or anybody. I have ideologically given up ... but the pain this misinformation inflicts to be day to day bring me back here to request rectification. 129.222.149.131 (talk) 12:51, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Very few of the links go to anything, and the few that actually work don't match with what you've claimed. I don't see anything to substantiate your claims, so I don't see anything that can be done, and I wish you the best in your future endeavors. I will not be participating in this topic further. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:04, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As you are not interested in more broadly contributing to Wikipedia, there isn't anything else you can do. If you disagree with how independent reliable sources describe your community, you should take that up with them. 331dot (talk) 12:46, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We have tried that. Very few like CBC apologized. Most silently unpublished. And many never respond. I understand what you are saying, and the fact that you have been extremely patient with my persistent requests. And I am not even contesting that the narration need to contradict that media describes. I am merely telling to consider court verdicts also, consider other media narratives also - like CBC. Why Poonam Joshi (Telegraph) who has an obvious conflict of interest with our community, an article authored by her is considered non-neutral reliable. Anybody can call anybody cult ... how does it simply become reliable. Right now we are in a position that we cannot even update the flag of our KAILASA nation on wikipeida, not even submit a request regarding this. Years ago an investigative journalist named Frank report extensively wrote about our Guru, all those articles and citations have been surgically removed with not even 1 word of explanation just because he independently concluded after 5-6 articles that the allegations made against Swami Nithyananda are false. This cherry picking of sources. All wikipedia rules and editors have logically convinced me that I cannot do anything but my heart my being remains disturbed, perturbed due to the injuries the misinformation inflicts on my life psychologically and my day to day living. 129.222.149.131 (talk) 12:51, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i have made an account for this 129.222.149.131 ip address Kktr2025 (talk) 14:56, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to point out that you seem to have a misunderstanding of what a COI means on Wikipedia. You said you have 'submitted a COI' regarding the journalist who has made the statements you're concerned about, but that's not really how that works.

Wikipedia's conflict of interest policies apply to users editing or creating articles relating to topics they have some personal connection to. It doesn't have anything to do with third-party sources' connections to the subject of an article. In this case you are actually the person with a COI because of your connection to the article subject.

I think this is where the confusion is coming from; because this journalist's 'COI' has no bearing on whether their statement should be included in the Wikipedia article. Wikipedia summarises information provided in secondary sources. In this case, a high-profile publication calling your community a cult is notable enough to be included, whether you like it or not. Athanelar (talk) 15:53, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i still feel perplexed ... how is a journalist's opinion higher than that of a judge. i have mentioned the judge after 5+ years of court proceedings called us a 'spiritual path' that is omitted, this statement is in the written judgements, and also was said orally and reported by the media. why is this not proportionately considered for neutrality. Also CBC's apology is not considered uniformly, it is included in Nithyananda page and omitted in Kailasa page, even upon pointing this out ... it is ignored ... giving me a feeling as if rules are an excuse to maintain status qua. Kktr2025 (talk) 17:40, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about whose opinion is 'higher.' If you think the judge's statement should also be included, then discuss that on the relevant article's talk page. The point is that the journalist's statement about the community being a 'cult' has no reason to be removed. Athanelar (talk) 17:46, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, Kailaasa was in a sorry state when I pulled it up earlier today. I've reworked the lead and added more biographical context relating to Nithyananda. I don't know that my edits necessarily satisfy the concerns of those connected to Nithyananda, but I at least think it's much better now, and while the micronation's non-existence and Nithyananda's controversies are still central to the article, I did rein in some of the more lurid descriptions and UNDUE speculation. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:02, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Athanelar Please note that this user is not extended-confirmed and as such cannot edit about this topic or participate in discussions about it. 331dot (talk) 19:14, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

True. That being the case they arguably shouldn't even be here right now talking about it considering they're essentially circumventing that restriction by just discussing the article's content on a forum not directly connnected to the article. Athanelar (talk) 19:16, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding notability

My draft rejected citing reason as non notable. However I have submitted all the reliable sources links in my draft. Most of links are in hindi language as the officers domain area is Bihar state. Sources at sl no. 4,6,7 & ,18 are from secondary reliable source. How to proceed further O S Prasanth (talk) 15:59, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! The sources you've cited seem to consist of mostly passing mentions and unreliable sources. Please note that the Times of India is considered unreliable. I would recommend leaving the draft alone until you've made more contributions as writing an article is a complicated task. Thanks, Chorchapu (talk | edits) 16:28, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from times of india, other reference were there. Reference were hindi. That was not considered O S Prasanth (talk) 16:54, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did a spot check of them and many appear to be trivial or passing mentions. Like I said, I recommend taking a break on this. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 16:58, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the language doesn't matter. The amount of content about the subject does. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 19:11, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that my references in hindi languages were not considered while rejecting my draft O S Prasanth (talk) 08:55, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping @Timtrent who rejected the draft, however I concur with the rejection as an uninvolved reviewer. @O S Prasanth there is simply no evidence this person meets our criteria for inclusion. qcne (talk) 09:43, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Qcne.

@O S Prasanth I use Google Translate. I did not simply see Hindi references and automatically discount the draft. I also look at WP:BIO and WP:GNG. I cannot see any reason to lift the rejection. We could have had a discussion about that had you contacted me directly. No amount of editing nor discussion can conjure notability where none exists. The subject may be a diligent worker and a fine person, but none of that makes for WP:N, and your references are not useful for WP:V 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 13:39, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We do see the Hindi references. But without sufficient coverage this article cannot be published. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 12:09, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A major part of the problem is sources that only mention the person or announce something they will do soon. For a source to count, it needs to be a long significant discussion of the person's past work. TooManyFingers (talk) 18:25, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I need help with placing cited references

I wrote a new section for a biology article https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Transcriptome&section=11&veaction=editsource with references. But the references come up at the end of my Section, instead of the end of the Article , as they normally do. Can someone more experienced fix this? ApoieRacional (talk) 19:17, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done by removing <references> wherever it appeared in the section. Some cite errors remain. Perception312 (talk) 19:41, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Help pls

How do I add a picture on the article and also how do I change the article name idk how Sufficit (talk) 20:07, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, see Help:Pictures and WP:Requested moves.

If you are referring to the draft article in your sandbox, it is unfortunately not suitable for Wikipedia, as the subject does not meet the criteria in WP:NCORP. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:40, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @Sufficit: Greetings, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Detailed instructions for uploading and including images can be found here.
Changing an article name is done by moving it to the new title.

That said, presuming you are referring to the draft article at User:Sufficit/sandbox which you have been working on, I believe you are asking the wrong questions. This draft appears to me to be nowhere close to being acceptable as a Wikipedia article at this time, as there are not yet any independent references to reliable sources which would indicate that the subject meets our notability standards for inclusion. The presence or absence of images in the article is not relevant to whether the article will be accepted--they can always be added later.

Many new editors want to jump right in and create a new article, but this is actually one of the most difficult tasks one can undertake. If you were new to carpentry and just bought some new tools, would you choose to build a house as your very first project? I hope not. I recommend putting aside the draft and building experience by devoting your efforts to smaller tasks around the encyclopedia and reading up on Wikipedia's policies and procedures such as notability, neutral point of view, verifiability and reliable sources. This will give you a better idea of what we want to see here, then going back to read about how to create your first article.

Hope this helps. Thanks, and happy editing! --Finngall ^talk 20:58, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

help logging on to Wikipedia

My user name on Wikipedia is Rick Norwood. My professional name is Dr. Frederick Norwood. I have been editing Wikipedia for many years. I have made over a thousand edits and contributed a lot of time and money. I know my password.

Now I am not allowed to log on to Wikipedia. When I try, I am told I must reply to an email sent to the email address I had many years ago. I've retired and no longer have access to that email.

I can gladly provide any information anyone wants, including user name and password. Can anyone suggest how I can get back on Wikipedia? 67.147.69.185 (talk) 20:43, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Dr. Norwood, welcome back to Wikipedia. I don't believe this is something we can help you with here at the Teahouse, but you may choose to reach out to the Volunteer Response Team (see here for more details) - however, I'm unsure if your account will be recoverable if you are no longer able to access the email assigned to it. In this case, you could just go ahead and create a new account, too. Someone else may have a more satisfactory answer for you, but definitely don't post your password here. All the best, MediaKyle (talk) 20:51, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

VRT is not the answer.

Rick: please explain the situation to ca@wikimedia.org (again, do not include your password). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:27, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How can I determine what specifically a reviewer has issue with

I have an article that was rejected based on what they say are fake references (or unreliable sources). How can I tell what sources they have issue with? Monkey the Fantasy Sports Guy (talk) 21:58, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Monkey the Fantasy Sports Guy. You can try asking the reviewer for help. Communication is the key to a lot of things! Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 22:27, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maintenance Template

I am the principal author of the recently accepted Robert E. Bourke Jr. entry. It has a Maintenance Template at the beginning which I believe should be removed as the entry is well footnoted by independent, verifiable sources. I have tried to find the area on the "Edit" page which reflects this template but cannot locate it. Can someone tell me more specifically where to find this area? Thank you. Legendt9455 (talk) 22:33, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Legendt9455, the template atop Robert E. Bourke Jr. reads A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject.... Learn how and when to remove this message. Click on the closing sentence and you arrive at Help:Maintenance template removal, which says When not to remove.... (5) You have been paid to edit the article or have some other conflict of interest (some exceptions apply: see individual template documentation). The documentation of the individual template says This tag may be removed by editors who do not have a conflict of interest after the problem is resolved, if the problem is not explained on the article's talk page, and/or if no current attempts to resolve the problem can be found. If you're the principal author, don't remove the template. Theroadislong applied it (slightly over a year ago) and may wish to consider removing it. -- Hoary (talk) 03:01, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The documentation of {{COI}} also says: "Like the other neutrality-related tags, if you place this tag, you should promptly start a discussion on the article's talk page to explain what is non-neutral about the article. If you do not start a discussion, any editor will be justified in removing the tag without warning." Note: "any editor".

No such discussion was started on the talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:12, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, you never did address what your connection is with the subject. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 03:34, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My draft

I there, I worked 2 and 1/2 day on my draft and it has been deleted. Can I get it back in my sandbox please. I already replay to the person who delited it but no answer. Thanks for your help. Guy Bonnier (talk) 22:50, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Bonnier, you replied to the editor who deleted Draft:Helight, but you did so on your user talk page rather than theirs, and you didn't ping them. So you can't expect that they'll have noticed your request. Better ask on their user talk page. Or perhaps somebody reading this will undelete it. (I could, but I prefer not to.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:40, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This draft was mostly AI slop, deleted for being unambiguously promotional. You would likely have avoided deletion by using the AI only to help you find sources, after which you would write the article yourself, in your own words. There is no benefit to Wikipedia in restoring promotional content, especially AI generated content. There is no benefit to you either if that's what you're starting with, because it's unacceptable in the first place. Therefore, it's best if you start over, using the AI as a collaborator or assistant, not the primary author.

Nobody ever said writing an article for Wikipedia would be easy. It is the most difficult task on Wikipedia. It takes a lot of work. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 03:31, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Anachronist that there is no point in restoring the content, as it would need to be completely rewritten from scratch anyway. —Ingenuity (talk) 14:10, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Ingenuity 🐲Jothefiredragon🔥talk🧨contributions✨log🐉 04:03, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Guy Bonnier, and welcome to the Teahouse.

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 11:59, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request to remove G11 tag

Hello, I am the original creator of this draft. I’ve completely rewritten the page to remove all promotional language and kept only verifiable, neutral facts backed by independent sources (Outsource Accelerator, Clutch, BizMideast).

The subject now meets Wikipedia’s neutrality and verifiability requirements. Please reconsider the G11 speedy-deletion tag.

Thank you for your time and guidance. — GlobalWriter2025 GlobalWriter2025 (talk) 23:47, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GlobalWriter2025, the draft Draft:Globex Call Center Solution failed to show the "notability" (as defined for our purposes) of Globex Call Center Solution. -- Hoary (talk) 00:46, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yet it was still deleted as G11, not A7 (which isn't an applicable speedy deletion criterion for drafts). While the most recent version didn't have a promotional tone, it clearly existed for no other reason than publicity purposes. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 03:24, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All very true, Anachronist. -- Hoary (talk) 04:53, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Crisis Liquidity Ratio

Sourcing check for Draft:Crisis Liquidity Ratio (independent Bulgarian sources)

Hello! I’ve resubmitted Draft:Crisis Liquidity Ratio. It cites independent Bulgarian-language sources that discuss the ratio’s formula and crisis use-case: – Ivanova (2021), peer-reviewed journal; – Kostova (2019), textbook (pp.197, 203–204; Appendix №2, with reviewer named); – Kostova (2023), proceedings; – Kulchev (2023), proceedings; – Deltastock AD (2021), regulated issuer’s annual report listing the ratio.

I avoid unpublished data and keep a neutral tone. Would this meet WP’s requirements for a short concept entry? If not, what minimal adjustments would you recommend (e.g., formatting, archive links)? Thank you! Петър П. Петров (talk) 23:50, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend looking at Wikipedia's golden rule. While you do have a lot of sources, which I congratulate for your first article, you need more reliable sources to show that this topic is notable. Thanks, Chorchapu (talk | edits) 01:32, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have asked for input on this draft here, on the Articles for Creation help desk, and at Village pump (policy). Please only open one discussion thread so that responses are not repeated and discussion is kept in one place. @Chorchapu, there are a lot of footnotes, but there are only a few references that have been repeated several times. Also, one of the articles being relied upon is a publication in Knowledge - International Journal, which is proudly indexed in Google Scholar and has very few articles that have been cited more than once. -- Recon rabbit 14:24, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Making a map

G'day guys, I'm here to ask, how does one make a map in wikipedia, as in to draw a boundary of a providence/state on a map in Wikipedia? Thanks, @Welches2012 Welches2012 (talk) 03:02, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Welches2012. I know what I don't know and I have very little experience with maps on Wikipedia although I am fascinated with maps off-Wikipedia. But you can find a lot of resources and possibly collaborators at Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps. Cullen328 (talk) 08:12, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to upload a map image, you can capture a OpenStreetMap depicting the location, and highlight them by a drawing software. Upload it to Wikimedia Commons, and license it by {{Cc-by-2.0}}. Versions111 (talk) 11:11, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not live

Wiki not allowing to make this page live, where all policies has been followed properly

Given below is the content __

Copy of draft

Mahesh Bhagchandka (born 1 August 1958) is an Indian businessman, philanthropist, and social worker. He is the chairman of the M2K Group, a conglomerate involved in real estate, infrastructure, entertainment, and related sectors. Bhagchandka has also been associated with the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) and the Ashok Singhal Foundation, where he has participated in social and cultural initiatives. Education He graduated from the University of Calcutta. Career Bhagchandka is the chairman of M2K Group, an Indian business enterprise with interests in multiple sectors, including real estate, biological sciences, infrastructure, entertainment, and aviation. Under his leadership, the group has undertaken various commercial and residential projects in the National Capital Region of India. He has previously served on the board of a Public Sector Bank (PSU). His business activities have been described as combining commercial objectives with a focus on social responsibility. Association with social and religious organisations Bhagchandka is a long-time volunteer with the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) and has been associated with the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) in various capacities. He has also worked with the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust, which oversees the construction of the Ram Temple in Ayodhya. In 2015, Bhagchandka established the Ashok Singhal Foundation in memory of Ashok Singhal, a senior VHP leader. The foundation undertakes social, educational, and religious projects and has organised events such as the Chaturved Swahakar Mahayagna (2019) and the Vishwashanti Mahayagyam (2021). Philanthropy and community work Through the Ashok Singhal Foundation, Bhagchandka has supported various charitable initiatives, including health and welfare programmes. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the foundation distributed food and essential supplies to communities in Delhi and Gurugram and contributed to the Haryana Chief Minister’s Relief Fund. Publications Bhagchandka is the author of several works, including Bolti Anubhootiyan, a collection of poetry, and Ashok Singhal—Staunch & Perseverant Exponent of Hindutva, a biographical account of Ashok Singhal. https://www.prabhatbooks.com/author/mahesh-bhagchandka.htm (Author) https://www.amazon.in/Books-Mahesh-Bhagchandka/s?rh=n%3A976389031%2Cp_27%3AMahesh%2BBhagchandka (Author) https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=302007174411839 (Ram Mandir) https://www.jagran.com/uttar-pradesh/ayodhya-ram-mandir-in-the-ritual-agnidev-was-revealed-through-arani-manthan-method-mahesh-bhagchandka-became-the-second-host-of-pran-pratistha-23633555.html (Ram Mandir) https://www.aajtak.in/india/news/story/ram-mandir-pran-pratistha-ram-lalla-idol-yajman-mahesh-bhagchandka-ntc-1863058-2024-01-19 (Ram Mandir) https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/ayodhya-ram-mandir-bhoomi-pujan-ramarchan-puja-begins-in-ayodhya-ahead-of-bhoomi-pujan-2273843 (Ram Mandir) https://tennews.in/chaturveda-swahakaar-maha-yagya-to-be-organized-in-new-delhi-amit-shah-rajnath-singh-to-grace-the-yagya-2/ https://www.aninews.in/news/national/general-news/vhp-to-organise-yajna-to-fulfill-late-chief-singhals-wish-rss-bjp-leaders-to-participate20190909132937/

Mahesh Bhagchandka (talk) 07:26, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Userpages are intentionally NOINDEXed specifically to prevent poorly-sourced and promotional userspace pages such as this one from being seen by search engines. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 07:28, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Mahesh Bhagchandka, and welcome ot the Teahouse and to Wikipedia.

Please note that:

Promotion of any sort is forbidden anywhere on Wikipedia.
Autobiography is so difficult in Wikipedia, and so rarely successful, that it is very strongly discouraged.
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) 12:04, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Out of passing interest, has anyone successfully written an autobiography in recent memory? mgjertson (talk) (contribs) 18:59, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Only the autobiographies that no one realized was an autobiography! GGOTCC 16:59, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How to insert template?

I need to insert a template into my article, but I don't know how. Can somebody help? Ws584790 (talk) 14:37, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What template do you want to add? When you go to the template - for example, Template:Infobox person, you can find all its parameters in the documentation - the stuff in the green box. In this particular case, see the "Blank template with basic parameters" subheading for exactly that. Then, you just need to copy this and paste it into your draft article in source editor, and fill the parameters out. Not all need to be filled, so it's fine to remove parameters or leave them blank. Sometimes, some parameters are compulsory, and the documentation will tell you that. Let us know the template so we can see the exact issue you may be facing. jolielover♥talk 14:48, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing, I believe I am looking to insert an infobox, specifically [Infobox sports rivalry] as such used in the Michigan–Ohio State football rivalry article. Ws584790 (talk) 14:54, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's located here: Template:Infobox sports rivalry. No parameters are compulsory, so feel free to use any relevant ones. As said before, just copypaste it into the draft using source editor. jolielover♥talk 14:56, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chillerton new draft

Hello, I am rewriting an article about Chillerton Group Limited as the first one was deleted due to use of LLM. I have now rewritten this myself User:AngeliAssomull/Chillerton new draft. Can you please check if this draft is neutral and if all the references mentioned are suitable? This is the first time I am writing something so any kind of guidance will be appreciated. Many thanks AngeliAssomull (talk) 14:50, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend finding more reliable sources and establishing notability per WP:42. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 15:10, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there.

When trying to write any article, please remember that the purpose of Wikipedia is to summarise verifiable information about notable subjects which is available in reliable, independent sources

It's entirely possible (and very common) to want to write an article about a particular topic even if that topic might not be notable enough to be included in Wikipedia, and then try to find sources to prove notability later. This is called writing an article backwards and is very common with new contributors and especially with COI contributors trying to write articles about something they're connected to.

Please make sure you're familiar with Wikipedia's general notability guidelines and the specific notability guidelines for corporations/organisations and then try to decide objectively whether your company is notable enough to warrant its own article. As the corporate notability page states, most corporations do not need a Wiki article.

If you still think your company is notable enough to warrant an article, look for sources first and then write the article based on the information in those sources rather than trying to find sources to verify the information you want to write in the article.

Good luck with your article! Athanelar (talk) 15:21, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

why isnt my page eccepted

Draft:The Science of Burgers Hell yeahhhh man (talk) 16:31, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Read the note @Wikishovel left for you, the article already exists at Hamburger, so another article about it isn't needed, also your article is just instructions on how to create a burger, which is not the purpose of Wikipedia. --pro-anti-air ––>(talk)<–– 16:34, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Resolution & Detail level of articles

hi, i have some very very detailed information about some missiles and aircraft, however i don't see some of the easier found information implimented. is there a limit to how detailed a page should be before it scares the average viewer and information like radar alphabet band is irellevant? HamezBoi (talk) 18:12, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @HamezBoi, and welcome to the Teahouse.

It is almost impossible to answer that sort of question in the abstract: the answer is almost always going to be "it depends".

The best place to ask is on the talk page of the relevant article(s); or if it really concerns multiple articles, on the talk page of a relevant WikiProject, such as WT:WikiProject Aircraft or WT:WikiProject Military history. I recommend you be much more specific in what you are asking.

Remember that any information you add to an article must be verifiable from a reliable published source: you can't use anything from unpublished papers, from informal sources like social media, or from your own research. ColinFine (talk) 18:46, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, and what wiki project is for missiles? HamezBoi (talk) 19:26, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Military history, linked above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:35, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Grounds for reviving a WikiProject?

WikiProject Spectroscopy is currently listed as defunct, but all the tracked articles definitely need some TLC, as the scopes of Chemistry and Physics don't really seem to cater to this field. I of course could individually contribute to the respective articles in this category, but I am wondering what specifically gives grounds to reviving a WikiProject? Thank you, Leo51db (talk) 18:24, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Leo51db, and welcome to the Teahouse.

There are no "grounds": a WikiProject is defunct when there is nobody willing to put in any time and effort into it.

All it takes is for you to be willing to put in the work, and to recruit other members to make it work.

It says in the notice If you feel this group may be worth reviving, please discuss with related groups first. ColinFine (talk) 18:49, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

مرحبا أنا اسمي شوقي عمري 32 انا من اليمن

أطلب منكم مساعدتي لكي اذهب من اليمن انا حقا مهدد بالقتل وانا فقير لايمكنني المدافعه عن نفسب فا اتمني الذهاب الى بلد آخر اعيش فيه باامان شوقي عبدالله محمد (talk) 20:36, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@شوقي عبدالله محمد للأسف، ويكيبيديا مجرد موسوعة ولا تملك القدرة على المساعدة في طلبات الانتقال أو السلامة الشخصية. يرجى التواصل مع السلطات المحلية أو المنظمات الدولية للحصول على المساعدة في وضعك. أتمنى لك الأفضل، ابق بأمان. – LuniZunie ツ_(talk) 20:40, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@LuniZunie and @ColinFine I remember an similar Arabic-written teahouse topic started by an IP talking about they were being targeted and abused by his family, and that they could be k***ed by his family. This should be the same user... ~Rafael (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 04:04, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Google translation: "I am asking for your help to leave Yemen. I am truly threatened with death, and I am poor and unable to defend myself. I wish to go to another country where I can live in safety."

Replying: عذرًا، هذا قسم المساعدة لويكيبيديا الإنجليزية. لا يمكننا مساعدتك إلا في تحرير ويكيبيديا.

(translated by Google from: "I'm sorry, this is the Help Desk for English Wikipedia. We cannot help with anything except editing Wikipedia.") ColinFine (talk) 20:42, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Images

How do I add images featuring my favorite characters in Wikipedia articles? Everytime I do it, it gets removed. Seussfanlover (talk) 20:42, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Seussfanlover, and welcome to the Teahouse.

I've tried looking through your contributions, and I can't find an example of that, so I don't know exactly what you tried and what happened. As always, it is much more helpful if you point to the specific article you tried to edit.

But I'll do my best to answer.

Most images of characters (whether from films, animations, comics, games, or illustrations) are copyright, and may not be used in Wikipedia, except in very limited circumstances, as explained at WP:NFCC.

Not what you are asking about, but looking through your edit summaries in your contributions, I get a distinct impression that you may be edit warring - apologies if I'm wrong about that. Please have a look at WP:BRD.

Note that you should never insert anything into an article just because you saw it somewhere: everything in an article should be verifiable from a published source. (In certain circumstances you can cite a film etc as the source for something in it, but if there is any controversy over this, it would need a stronger, secondary source). ColinFine (talk) 20:55, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, also, how do I add sources? Seussfanlover (talk) 21:11, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Seussfanlover See WP:TUTORIAL. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:38, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LLM use with verification.

is it appropriate to use LLMS on wikipedia if i fact check and citate it before publishing? Edart6 (talk) 20:52, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Edart6. Sometimes. Please see WP:LLM. ColinFine (talk) 20:56, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:All the President’s Elephants (Film)

My submission Draft:All the President's Elephants (Film) has been declined by Jcgaylor because it is “not supported by reliable sources” (eg Streaming Services not considered appropriate.) I made 4 alterations/additions as a result, and my sincere thanks to those who have already helped so much with an additional 8 fixes/improvements. It was been resubmitted for a second review. If there are any experienced editors who have time and interest to help to try to ensure a positive outcome following this second submission, it would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. WikiAdd01 (talk) 01:06, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing this is a job for its reviewer, so I only gave it a glance. Why "the prestigious International Elephant Film Festival" and "[Blue Ant Media]" and not plain "the International Elephant Film Festival" and "Blue Ant Media"? What does "now" mean? And in my idiolect of English, "renown" is a noun (the adjective being "renowned"); other Englishes may differ. -- Hoary (talk) 03:23, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for responding. Apologies I'm new to Wikipedia.... Is its "reviewer" the person who declined it initially?? (If so, he/she just wrote when declining it, that it was not supported by reliable sources (eg the streaming services I referenced) and advised me to seek feedback from various places, including the Tearoom.) Or is there a different "reviewer"?? - which will only happen when it's officially reviewed a second time? .... I was just wondering if it looks like still more needs to be done, over and above the subsequent 8 changes made since that first rejection, in order to get an approval ... In the animal world, representatives from the the UN and CITES are a big deal as reviewers in an International Elephant Film Festival, hence it is considered a particularly prestigious film festival.... Blue Ant Media isn't a Film Festival, but has the distribution rights for the documentary.... Re the "now", I did previously have in there where it had been screening originally - but they were streaming services (that I also referenced), which the declining reviewer advised aren't reliable sources, and so I deleted those names and references (who happened to have the first viewing rights). So, I can now take "now" out. Free viewing of an award-winning documentary on the Stirr website is quite unusual (most are subscription services) so I thought it important to keep that information in, so that readers can easily access the documentary for free, especially important in Third Word Countries like Africa... I'll google to see if it should be renown or renowned.... Thank you. WikiAdd01 (talk) 06:15, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On Wikipedia, representatives from the UN and CITES are ignored until reliable news sources report how important it was that they showed up. Winning awards doesn't count on Wikipedia unless there's already a Wikipedia article about that award. (Think of the millions of unimportant awards that are given around the world each year. Nearly everyone has an "award-winning" product, because of made-up awards.)

Number of changes you've had to make to the article is only meaningful if they were the right kind of changes - that is, that you found several reliable sources and added them.

Linking to a legitimate free source for a documentary sounds fine to me - if the article is able to go ahead. TooManyFingers (talk) 06:47, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. There was previously an online article on this International Elephant Film Festival, which I remember reading. Unfortunately it's a 2012 documentary (getting increased attention again now given ongoing Zimbabwe elephant problems and the public reading/re-reading the featured person's elephant memoirs. I will remove 'prestigious' if I'm still unable to find a suitable reference. (I mentioned that there have been 12 changes made since the decline of the 1st submission, only to make it easier if anyone was looking at 'history'.) Thanks again. WikiAdd01 (talk) 07:46, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would say definitely remove "prestigious" anyway, because it's only a show-off word without substance. The real problem might be needing to delete that entire paragraph, if it's talking about an award that doesn't already have its own Wikipedia article. TooManyFingers (talk) 19:39, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've removed the word "prestigious", and also have now found a reference confirming the documentary was a finalist in this film festival. WikiAdd01 (talk) 21:30, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Little-covered topic

Hi all, I am a beginner at editing and writing for Wikipedia. I've had a couple of articles published and numerous edits and additions accepted. I just wrote a new article draft about a film star the other day. She doesn't have much coverage in the internet media, and my draft was been rejected. Reasons given were (a) it doesn't have sufficient coverage in "reliable, secondary" publications, and (b) it purportedly reads more like an advertisement. Can someone PLEASE advise me how to go about improving the acceptability of an article about someone who doesn't have much internet coverage? She might not appear to be a "notable" actress, but she has had both major and minor roles in films and TV series, but I don't have a clue where to find "reliable" written sources that can prove this. Quite a lot of her work has been as a voice for video games, and this is far from well represented in any media. Any advice would be much appreciated. Tassh1 (talk) 02:04, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If she is far from well represented in any media, then she shouldn't have an article. "Notability" is the criteria for an article, and if your subject doesn't meet this, she shouldn't have an article. Thanks, Chorchapu (talk | edits) 02:17, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tassh1, I imagine that you're asking about Draft:Katie McGuinness. The lead to this says (after markup-stripping, but otherwise complete): Katie McGuinness (born 29 December 1984) is a British actress. She was born in England, and is 5’ 6” (1.68m) tall. This hardly sounds like an introduction to an article about a person I'd call a "film star"; but that matter aside, it's most unlikely that anyone so young who "doesn't have much coverage in the internet media" would nevertheless have significant coverage in the print media. If indeed she lacks significant coverage in either kind of media, she can't have an article. -- Hoary (talk) 03:08, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Forty is "so young"? She's been appearing on TV for at least 21 years (since she played the minor character Jenny in He Knew He Was Right in 2004 [see IMDb, though not a Reliable source]). I suspect suitable sources may exist (not necessarily online) but Tassh1 hasn't yet found them. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.208.246 (talk) 06:07, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A Wikipedia article about a person is nothing but a summary of how they have already been represented in reliable media. Providing other interesting information about the person is (by design) not an option at all.

It IS possible that good media sources are out there and you haven't found them yet. But in any case, what might be called "slavish adherence to what reliable sources have already said" needs to be your main aim in writing. TooManyFingers (talk) 06:25, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Username glamour

does anyone know how to make your username different colors and/or fonts? would appreciate a tutorial on how to do such, thank you (-: Oath2.joyfulness (talk) 02:20, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oath2.joyfulness, your current signature has a good signal-to-noise ratio. But if you must perpetrate something bulkier, then first digest Wikipedia:Signatures. -- Hoary (talk) 03:12, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What links here

Is there a way to see what links to a page that would exclude templates? I find that a big issue when evaluating AFDs. Thanks. ←Metallurgist (talk) 02:49, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Go to the What links here page for an article, choose Template as the namespace, then check the box that says Invert Selection, and that should work for you. dot.py 06:56, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TIL. I might make use of this myself! Chorchapu (talk | edits) 12:13, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Where's the bug?

A few months ago I visited someone's user page and was amused to find an image of a fly randomly crawling around the page. I could have sworn I copied the code to my own user page or talk page for the amusement of others, but now there is no sign that it was ever there, and I can't remember whose page I visited. I'd rather like to find it again. Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:30, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I believe this is what you're thinking of? If not you can look under [1]. Thanks, Chorchapu (talk | edits) 13:26, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Chorchapu. That looks like it, but that one remains static. The one I saw crawled randomly about the page, so there's some extra code I need to insert. I remember it included the word "random". Shantavira|^{feed me} 15:47, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, in that case I'm not sure. Sorry, Chorchapu (talk | edits) 16:12, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are any of the usernames on this list ones you've clicked on previously – Special:WhatLinksHere/File:Fly.gif? Nil🥝 01:15, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I tried that but oddly, no. Very strange. Shantavira|^{feed me} 17:37, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Different Citation Style

Hello Everyone, I am working on the wikipedia page for biathlon and while articles defining the technical aspects are few and incomplete, videos are not. Where would I go to pitch the idea of a youtube/video platform citation style that allows for adequate citing of time-stamps? Jboy Hanny (talk) 13:37, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jboy Hanny: you are probably looking for {{Cite AV media}}; see Template:Cite_AV_media#In-source_locations. MKFI (talk) 13:56, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Jboy Hanny, and welcome to the Teahouse.

To add to what MKFI says: make sure that the videos you want to cite are reliably published: most videos on YouTube and social media are not, and we shouldn't cite them. See WP:RSPYT. ColinFine (talk) 15:55, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Limerick Cricket Club Wikipedia page

Clue Bot NG recently reverted changes I made to my club's wikipedia page: Limerick Cricket Club. I have made the changes again today and want to ensure Clue Bot NG does not revert them again! How can I ensure this please? The changes made to the page were edits where outdated/old information was edited into new information to reflect the club's current' situation' Shackettlcc (talk) 14:49, 30 October 2025 (UTC) Shackettlcc (talk) 14:50, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For clubs like this, it's fine to list the president or highest office holder, but not every member of the committee. Additionally, you'll need to provide a reliable source that supports any additions.OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:58, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft Superbet page

Hi everyone, I’d really appreciate some community guidance on my updated draft about Superbet.

Over the past few months, I’ve gone through several rounds of review and feedback (including from @DoubleGrazing and others), and I’ve completely rewritten the article to meet all WP:42 and WP:ORG criteria. I’ve also clarified my COI situation transparently on my user page.

The current version is fully neutral, written in an hopefully encyclopedic tone, and supported exclusively by independent, reliable, and hopefully verifiable sources, including Bloomberg, The Guardian, Forbes, Business Review, Profit.ro, EGBA, and SBC News.

I’ve integrated all reviewer suggestions, expanded the “Technology and Innovation” and “Recognition” sections with balanced context, and ensured the article now offers both regional and international coverage. The goal is simply to provide factual, verifiable information about one of the most prominent betting and iGaming companies in Central and Eastern Europe. Here’s the current draft: Draft:Superbet

I understand that for editors outside this region, the topic may not seem particularly notable, but locally it’s a well-established company with international expansion and consistent coverage in reliable media. In Romania, Wikipedia is often the first place people go to check information, so having a neutral, well-sourced article helps prevent misinformation and gives proper context for readers.

I think once published, the page would of course remain open for community editing, allowing other contributors to refine, expand, or balance it further as new independent coverage appears.

Any advice on whether this version now meets notability and sourcing standards would be truly appreciated. Thank you for your time and for helping keep Wikipedia accurate and fair. Contributor Marius (talk) 15:20, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since you pinged me, you get my remarks, whether you wanted them or not. ;)

Notability per WP:NCORP depends on sources: either sources exist which establish notability, or they don't; if they do, they establish it globally. If a subject is 'regionally prominent', by which I assume you mean notable, then it is also globally notable; regional-only notability does not exist.

If readers in Romania wish to look up Superbet, they presumably read Romanian, in which case they can already peruse the existing Romanian Wikipedia article at ro:Superbet. While I do understand why, for marketing reasons, it would be desirable to have a subject covered in the largest version of Wikipedia (namely this one), there is otherwise nothing special about the English-language Wikipedia, it isn't the 'premier' one in any sense. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:01, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Contributor Marius. Basically, you are asking for a pre-review. To get a review, resubmit.

But I will say that at a quick glance, it looks to me as if most of your sources are WP:CORPTRIV, and furthermore are not independent, since most of them are clearly based on a press release and/or interview.

Which of your sources are somebody wholly unconnected with Superbet and not fed information from Superbet, writing about Superbet in depth? Unless you have several such sources, you have not established notability and you are wasting your time. ColinFine (talk) 16:06, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for the insights, @DoubleGrazing and @ColinFine, I really appreciate both of your detailed replies.

I completely understand the point about global notability versus regional prominence, and I also see how WP:CORPTRIV or WP:NCORP might apply when most of the coverage is business reporting or interviews.

My goal here isn’t to promote the subject, I’ve removed any editorial language and kept only verified, factual statements. It’s just that for readers in Central and Eastern Europe (especially Romania and I think in Poland also), Superbet’s operations and acquisitions have become a reference point for the entire betting & tech sector, and local media coverage is both consistent and independent over time.

I’d be open to alternative suggestions, maybe merging the content as a section under Gambling in Romania, or keeping the draft as a base for future expansion once more international coverage accumulates.

Would that approach make sense, or would you suggest waiting until further third-party sources (beyond the current set) appear?

Thanks again for taking the time to review and guide me, I genuinely appreciate the clarity you both brought to this discussion. Contributor Marius (talk) 16:48, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Contributor Marius "Superbet's operations and acquisitions" may be of interest to people in Eastern Europe, but unless they have caught the interest of several independent commentators who have written in depth about the company, they are not of interest to English Wikipedia.

Superbet was founded, the draft says, in 2008. If it hasn't accreted sufficient interest yet, it probably isn't going to, unless it does (or experiences) something remarkable. You're welcome to keep the draft in the hope something happens (it will get deleted after six months of inaction, but you can request undeletion if something new happens).

As for adding something to another article: possibly. If, as you imply, you have an independent source which says that Superbet has had some significant impact on gambling in Romania, then maybe a sentence or two in that article would be justified. But not if it's just Superbet or its associates that think that. ColinFine (talk) 17:40, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much, @ColinFine, that’s very clear and genuinely helpful. I completely understand that notability must be established through multiple independent commentators, and I’ll hold off on further submissions until that coverage exists.

In the meantime, I’ll look into contributing a short, well-sourced paragraph about Superbet’s impact within the Gambling in Romania article, as you suggested. Thanks again for your time and clarity, I really appreciate the constructive guidance! Contributor Marius (talk) 07:34, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How is a contested move request resolved?

I recently submitted an uncontested move request for Ford I4 DOHC engine, which was closed with one unanswered question that had not been dealt with. I then submitted a contested move request on the article's talk page, and have responded to one response so far. How does this move request come to its conclusion? Thanks.16:39, 30 October 2025 (UTC) Kumboloi (talk) 16:39, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, when there has been enough discussion to get a clear enough consensus, a decision gets made.

From the beginnings of the newer discussion, it sounds like the name you proposed might not be accepted because it doesn't tell an ordinary reader (no experience with cars) which engine the article is really about. A title that's only understood by Ford experts seems like a problem to me as well. TooManyFingers (talk) 18:09, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(What I mean is, your title would be great if Ford only ever offered one engine that included a double overhead cam, but that seems pretty unlikely.) TooManyFingers (talk) 19:27, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback TooManyFingers (talk). I agree that my suggested name is not as helpful (i.e.: specific) as I'd like, but the existing name isn't much better, and I feel that the suggested one is more correct. It sounds like I can answer questions if I have additional information, but the final decision is not depending on action from me.20:52, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that good suggestions you make will be taken into account. I agree the old title is not MUCH better, but I do think the old one is a little bit better. Being accurate to the catalogue is not as important as making sure newbies find the right article. TooManyFingers (talk) 21:18, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Full Name vs Shortened

There is a Formula One Driver, Carlos Sainz, who's full name is 18 words long. The article uses a shortened version. Is there a place I can put the full name, in the sidebar or otherwise? Sainz.55 (talk) 16:45, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a reliable source giving the full 18 names, and he was given them at birth, you can edit the first line of the "Early life" section, and include them there, with the citation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:57, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Or, look at Pablo Picasso and its infobox. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:50, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

His full name is already given in note a: Carlos_Sainz_Jr.#cite_note-fullname-1. MKFI (talk) 18:15, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Building code

I.e. I have an idea for an ai agent that might be utilised for doing grunt work that a human might do currently. For example maintaining numerical correctness and up to date information. Or if we don't trust agents or wish to verify their work then a la the new member link suggestion bot an edit suggestion bot. This could also be made for making the first draft expansion of short articles or the first draft of long articles (ran on demand). Or a simple scraper for finding relevant sources (i.e. You might want to start from these: ######)

How might I find someone interested in collaborating with me on this
How might I find someone if not to collaborate to explain how to contribute with best practices and integrations
An agent like that might cost some small amount of money to run if widely adopted but could be very worth it if it is widely adopted. Is there some source of funding for community goods like that to be maintained? Or would I just have to pay out of pocket/make people plug in their own free api keys?

Julius Chandler (talk) 16:56, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Julius Chandler, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Sounds like something you might bring up at WP:Village pump/Idea lab. But a lot of people around Wikipedia have a pretty negative view of LLMs at present, so don't be surprised if you hit strong resistance. ColinFine (talk) 17:43, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sign quote capitalization

i am writing a section on a controversial signage change and I was wondering if I should capatilize the text on the sign correctly or if I should keep it exactly as shown in all caps? Edart6 (talk) 17:16, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I forget where this is in the manual of style, but what it says is to remove the all-caps, even when doing a direct quotation. (This is certainly true when an entire quotation is capitalized; I forget what to do with a single word.) TooManyFingers (talk) 17:44, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the capitalisation is relevant to the controversy, then keep it; making that relevance clear. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:01, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is "Night Owl" the aircraft name for Western Airlines Flight 2605?

I have done some googling and I think it is the aircraft name. A Times Article called the aircraft and a few other articles say it is the nickname. I am only asking because when it was added to the article in the past, it got removed because it apparently isn't visible on the aircraft fuselage before it crashed. I am asking to hopefully resolve this?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Western_Airlines_Flight_2605&diff=prev&oldid=1270727289 Zaptain United (talk) 19:46, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is, who says it's the name? When you do some googling, some of what you find is going to be garbage. Wikipedia only accepts reliable sources. TooManyFingers (talk) 20:50, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ask in Wikipedia:Reference desk. Teahouse is for discussing stuff about Wikipedia. Versions111 (talk) 23:06, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple-image footer inaccurate for mobile

When viewing galleries formed using the multipleimage tag on mobile, perrow attributes are ignored, leading to footers describing images in a clockwise manner being functionally useless. The multipleimade template specifically says to avoid using left and right as descriptors in the footer for this exact reason, so I'm confused why this descriptor passes muster.

For an example, the photos of the elementary schools on Glen Rock Public Schools have an accurate caption for desktop users, but the format changes to make it unhelpful on mobile.

This is definitely an issue I want to fix, I'm just not sure where to start. Thanks in advance! Magicalus (talk) 00:42, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Magicalus, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Generally, the people who hang out here are editors who work on the content of Wikipedia, not the software. WP:VPT is the best place to ask technical questions.

If it is about one of the mobile apps (as opposed to a browser on mobile), then mw:Talk:Wikimedia Apps seems to be the best place. ColinFine (talk) 11:52, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Advanced use of Template?

I have noticed an image which is laterally reversed. I was hoping to use a style template {{mirrorH}} to correct this, but I need to apply that style to the img tag itself – not the whole float. Is this possible using [[file:image.jpeg|thumb|style="css"]] or similar ? Tc 13 17 19 (talk) 02:04, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Karthik Venkataraman is not the current Indian chess champion (2025), nor was he in 2023.

Karthik Venkataraman is not the current Indian chess champion (2025), nor was he in 2023.Karthik Venkataraman no es actual campeón indio de ajedrez (2025) tampoco lo fue en 2023 SergioMiguelPS (talk) 06:48, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then, SergioMiguelPS, it would be helpful if you pointed out the mistake on the talk page of every article that makes the mistake. Say who actually was/is the Indian champion, and be sure to supply a reference to a reliable source for this. -- Hoary (talk) 08:22, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @SergioMiguelPS, and welcome to the Teahouse. I see you have raised this on Talk:Karthik Venkataraman, which is the best place for the discussion.

A couple of hints:

Post in English on English Wikipedia (I know you have posted in English, but the Spanish is distracting for an English reader)
"Look it up on Chessresults" is really unhelpful. If you are recommending a change to an article, provide a proper, specific, citation to a reliable published source. (I don't know whether Chessresults is a reliable source or not: it doesn't seem to have been discussed at WP:RSN. But the citation should be to where the specific information is, not telling the reader to go and look for it).
The claim that Venkataraman won in 2023 is cited to Chess News in the current article. If you are correct, then we have different sources contradicting each other. What grounds have we for believing one over the other? Are there other, clearly reliable sources, that clarify the position? Maybe the article should say that there is disagreement?

ColinFine (talk) 12:10, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have several chess-playing

I have several chess-playing friends; one of them wants his picture added to Wikipedia, but I'm new here and don't know how to do it, and the other doesn't have a page. Both are Grandmasters. SergioMiguelPS (talk) 06:50, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SergioMiguelPS, if the first of these has an article in one or several Wikipedias -- English, Bengali, Swahili, whatever -- and if you have a photograph of him that you took, then do please upload the photograph to Wikimedia Commons. Once the photograph is there, you can add it to the Wikipedia article. For English-language Wikipedia, you might start at Help:Introduction to images with VisualEditor/1. -- Hoary (talk) 08:27, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How do I change the following to remove copyright

The Delhi government has cancelled the tender for renovation of Chief Minister Rekha Gupta's official residence owing to administrative reasons, according to documents.The cancelled tender worth ₹60 lakh was related to proposed installations at her residence, including 14 air conditioners, televisions and electrical fixtures

This is taken verbatim and was removed from an article how do I change to it get into a wiki article Stanjik (talk) 09:40, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stanjik, are you asking the following?

The Delhi government has cancelled the tender [...] including 14 air conditioners, televisions and electrical fixtures is taken verbatim from this page of The Hindu. But simply shoveling it into an article would amount to plagiarism. How might I transform it so that shoveling in the transformed version would not bring a charge of plagiarism?

-- Hoary (talk) 11:17, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yep how do I report factual info in a different way Stanjik (talk) 15:45, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the biography of Rekha Gupta, you could simply say that the government decided that her official residence would not be renovated but then you have to ask yourself the question "what has this small fact to do with Gupta's life story?". Only if you can find sourcing that describes why this is relevant to her personally should you expand on that and explain the details. Note that the policy on living people applies, so you need to be careful about the background. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:24, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dude this not about her this about her governance as covered by RS Stanjik (talk) 15:46, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Her governance doesn't automatically affect the story of her life. Sometimes it does. Reliable sources about a political issue are important for that issue, but they don't always say how the issue affected a politician's personal life. A politician may do great things that bring them no personal benefit, and may do very bad things without facing any consequences. TooManyFingers (talk) 18:02, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Do you think this editor Plasticwonder is assuming bad faith here to a good faith IP contributor? The IP contributor removed content with an explanation. I didn't really wanted to take this to ANI yet because I'm not 100% sure if this is serious enough to take this to ANI. If I'm correct, this editor seems to be biting newcomers as well, for example, this.yes, this newcomer has done something wrong but it wasn't intentional (I don't think) PEPSI697 (💬) (📝) 11:08, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything wrong with PW's conduct. They rv'd an unneeded blanking, and they were very polite in your second diff. AN/I is for chronic, intractable issues, as the large, bolded banner says. Definitely a huge step to take for this. Cheers, Fractal-Dreamz ✯ 14:17, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thank you. I didn't really think their behaviour was super wrong, just wanted to double check. PEPSI697 (💬) (📝) 21:33, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Order for "Electoral record" sections

What is the proper order for "Electoral record" sections in a page for a public office holder? Should we start with the most recent, or oldest at the top? I've seen both and would like to know if there is a Wikipedia style for this. Thanks! Kdorse (talk) 13:13, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kdorse I think it should be chronological. MallardTV ^{Talk to me!} 13:59, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Kdorse (talk) 19:15, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also think chronological (i.e. oldest first, not reversed). My reasoning is that reverse chronological is for when spotting the latest item is important, but we don't need that, we're writing history. TooManyFingers (talk) 17:21, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense. Thank you! Kdorse (talk) 19:15, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How to deal with constant removal Template:Globalize

There are some articles that I believe are biased. The reason is that editors from a pool of 20 million people are pitted against editors from a pool of 2 million. This inherently creates the illusion of consensus, which silences the minority. For that reason, I believe that the Globalize template (Template:Globalize/doc) is appropriate. The issue is that the majority side constantly removes it without addressing the problem. What kind of steps should I take? MacedonLinguist (talk) 14:33, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have already discussed this in the proper venue. As you were told, that's not how things work here. Editors from any country are permitted to contribute to most any article they wish. We don't give editors' views more weight because they claim to be from a country with a small population. You have been notified about the special rules surrounding editing about the Balkans, please review them, as they are enforced more strictly. 331dot (talk) 15:00, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The documentation says that editors are allowed to remove the Template:Globalize only if the issue is addressed. This template is the only mechanism that safeguards minority people from majority. The removal goes against the rules. MacedonLinguist (talk) 15:11, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that your interpretation of the rules is correct. As I said, Wikipedia does not give what you term "minority populations" greater weight than any other group(and you have a faulty assumption in that the entire population of Greece ia not editing that article). I advise you to drop this matter. 331dot (talk) 15:18, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I never made this assumption. I argue that statistically speaking there will be 10x more editors from the majority group. All edits are made from 2 countries that silence one small one. I would appreciate if anyone else also comments. MacedonLinguist (talk) 15:33, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Probably the best way to combat any bias you are concerned about is to find reliable sources to include in the article that will fill it out better from a global perspective. Wikipedia can be biased - or appear to be so - if the sources for an article all have a similar opinion. And of course, this being the English-language Wikipedia, we are more likely to have editors finding English-language sources from English-language countries. If you happen to speak other languages and are able to find reliable sources and present them, then you have a great opportunity to put forth information from other viewpoints. WP:42 may be very helpful here: seek sources that meet all three criteria. It's usually best to provide these sources on the article talk page, along with suggested wording, so discussion and consensus can develop. Most Wikipedia editors are more than happy to discuss new sources and help update articles - it just takes someone who can and will go hunting for those sources. Meadowlark (talk) 16:59, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's more to editing than just pure numbers. The assumption is still faulty, and we don't give North Macedonians more weight because there are fewer of them. 331dot (talk) 17:00, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I never mentioned where I'm from. I would like to challenge you a little. Statistically speaking, approximately the same percentage of people from population A will be interested in a matter that concerns them as from population B, if the matter of interest is the same. If population A is 10 times bigger than population B, it means that 10 times more people from population A will be interested in the same subject than from population B. This gives a huge advantage to population A to silence population B and create bias in articles. The reason for having Template:Globalize is to bring people from other areas to contribute. There is no reason to remove it. It doesn't mean that necessarily the article is biased. There is no reason not to have the template.The policy states that it should only be removed if the issue is addressed, and doesn't mention establishing consensus to have it. MacedonLinguist (talk) 18:02, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that there is no bias, you can search other encyclopedias to see what they are saying about the matter. The differences are huge. MacedonLinguist (talk) 18:05, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If people from [any place] are allowed to be the only ones who explain the history of where they live, then the people from [the next place] must be the only ones allowed to explain theirs too. That kind of system leads to false history; nobody will tell the truth in a system like that, they'll only say what they want to say.

Sometimes when neighbors have a difficult conflict, one neighbor really is right and the other neighbor really is wrong. But if they take their dispute to court, a good judge will not trust either of them. A good judge will ask hard questions, and find ways to discover the real truth.

Other encyclopedias may contain wrong information, and may even contain lies. We shouldn't trust them just because they exist. The English Wikipedia may also be wrong, and if it is, all of us should improve it. We DO have quite good methods for allowing us to get closer to the truth, and fighting against those methods is not going to succeed. TooManyFingers (talk) 19:01, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MacedonLinguist Editors here are not "pitted against" each other. WP:CONSENSUS says Consensus on Wikipedia does not require unanimity (which is ideal but rarely achievable), nor is it the result of a vote. That whole policy page is well worth reading. Mike Turnbull (talk) 23:04, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unable to create Draft — page not saving despite being logged in

Hi, I’ve been trying to create my draft “Draft:Paolo Iannattone” using the AfC process. I’m logged in, but Wikipedia doesn’t save the page — it just reloads saying it doesn’t exist. Could an admin check if an Anti-Abuse Filter or Autoconfirmed restriction is blocking my account from creating drafts? Paoloiannattone (talk) 15:16, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Paoloiannattone, and welcome to the Teahouse.

This is not an answer to your question (I don't know about the technical aspects, but I would suspect it is either something to do with your connection, or a temporary glitch in the software, rather than anything to do with your account. But I may be wrong).

But, have you read about why we very strongly discourage writing about yourself on Wikipedia? If you try, it is likely that you will put a lot of effort into something which will never succeed, and be disappointed and frustrated in trying to.

Please read autobiography carefully. ColinFine (talk) 15:52, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you ColnFine, good to know. I'll read what you suggested :) Paoloiannattone (talk) 16:12, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Paoloiannattone, I can't see anything in the filter log indicating a filter trigger; only thing I could think of is if you tried to create it in article space rather than draft space. Have you tried putting the draft in your sandbox? You can find your sandbox with vector 2010 by clicking the red sandbox button in the top right, and in vector 2022 by clicking the account icon and clicking on sandbox. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 20:01, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When providing the physical dimensions of a state or polity, which side is length and which side is width?

I was looking on some US State articles and noticed that some of them consider “length” to be east-west while others consider it to be north-south. Is there any standardization for this? It’s quite confusing when trying to compare. Dcshedrick (talk) 15:39, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dcshedrick I don't know if this is in the MOS but there's an article at State Plane Coordinate System which might suggest a standard. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:55, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If, for example, our imaginary state exactly covers a river valley, we can't say what N-S or E-W should be called - along that river is certainly the length dimension.

I say this to prove that you can't make a rule. TooManyFingers (talk) 17:29, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(I said you can't make a rule. Instead, I should have said you can't make a simple rule that covers every case. Either you have a fairly complicated rule, or you have a lot of exceptions.) TooManyFingers (talk) 19:09, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Help with references: different page numbers for same book for different points

I am trying to get the references correct on my first article, which was accepted 9 Oct. Reinhard Höhn (in English) Amongst the referenced books there are two where I quote more than once and need to add pages to the separate bits. I tried to follow Help:Footnotes#Footnotes: using a source more than once But I seem to be getting it wrong as the actual article now has bits like this: He became professor of constitutional and administrative law at the Humboldt University of Berlin and chair of public law at the University of Jena from 1935–1945. During this time he was also director of the Institute for State Research. He was one of the architects of National Socialist theory (Nazism) in the Völkisch movement.[4]^: 38–9 This seems to comeout OK on the preview here (why?!)...but if you look at Reinhard Höhn Rather than the ref in suprascript and pages after the bracket...the editing text persists

Evidently I am not being savvy ...but can someone please explain what I am doing wrong Thank you Scarp-bolt (talk) 17:37, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please see if the information at WP:IBID helps. The thing about page numbers is a bit tricky, so if you try advice from that section and you don't like the results, then try the other advice given in the same section. TooManyFingers (talk) 18:08, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Scarp-bolt, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Your calls are syntactically very odd, and surrounded by the sort of thing you would see in a page explaining how to use them.

So the first one (which I have corrected) read

<code><nowiki>{{</nowiki>[[Template:Rp|rp]]<nowiki>|38-9}}</nowiki></code>

which I have now corrected to

{{Rp|38-39}}

However, it is missing the actual citation.

I haven't touched the second one - I've left it for you.

I don't know how you managed that: I think sometimes the visual editor (which I never use) can make that sort of problem. ColinFine (talk) 18:11, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Similar pages (sorry, couldn't think of a better title)

I just edited the page for Joe DeSa, expanding it from a stub. While editing the page, I entered in the name Greg Walker. Nothing came up for similar links, I thought I was good. Then when I previewed the page, I saw there were multiple links to that name, so I removed the brackets. Is there a reason this wasn't caught right away, or am I missing something?

Thanks for any light that can be shed on this. Sportsfan1976 I'm only here because I'm not currently somewhere else. (talk) 19:21, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are other people named Greg Walker, so the baseball player's article had to be called "Greg Walker (baseball)". Please see if I did the right thing to the article - I wasn't completely sure if I understood your question.

And if I did do the right thing, then click on the edit button in the article, to see the way I fixed it. TooManyFingers (talk) 19:41, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Help improving my Draft: wolfTPM for AfC approval

Hi Teahouse,

I'm new to Wikipedia editing and would appreciate some help improving my draft Draft:WolfTPM

It was declined once for not having enough independent sources. I've added more citations (including an article from Embedded Computing Design, a partner listing from STMicroelectronics, and a technical reference from Sanctuary.dev), but I'm unsure if those sources are sufficient, or I need more independent sources to support the article.

Could someone take a look and suggest specidic improvements to help it meet AfC standards?

For transparency, I have a COI since i work for wolfSSL, the company that develops wolfTPM, and I;ve disclosed that on the Talk page. Shy63 (talk) 20:59, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an expert, but I do know that anything from a partner is not independent, and also that being listed somewhere doesn't count as coverage.

I think it helps to look at it this way: look closely at what the independent sources say (and even then, only the ones that Wikipedia classifies as reliable). That is basically going to have to be the entire article. There's very little "filling in the blanks" allowed, even when you know what ought to be said. Sources that are partners, or that aren't considered reliable, have very limited use.

If you go to the References section of the draft, and you ignore every item with the letters TPM or the word Partner, you can see there's not much left. And when you start sorting out the ones that remain, some of them are not reliable sources. TooManyFingers (talk) 21:42, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I read more, I see that the bulk of the article is your own description of what the company does. Unfortunately, most of that is considered promotional material and needs to be cut out. The vast majority of the article needs to come from reliable independent sources, not from the company.

The "fantasy perfect" independent reliable source would be (let's say) a five-page story in Time magazine called "The Incredible Saga of WolfTPM". Very few companies can boast that level of coverage, but at least that's the type of thing to look for. TooManyFingers (talk) 21:55, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TooManyFingers, you surprise me. I'd lump "The Incredible Saga of XYZ" together with "XYZ the Game-Changer", "Why Is EVERYONE Using XYZ?", "XYZ Is Insane", "XYZ Blows Up the Internet" and suchlike -- as mere clickbait for the dimwitted. -- Hoary (talk) 02:12, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of where the article was, not the title. Doesn't everyone use clickbait titles now? TooManyFingers (talk) 02:26, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Possible NPOV issue in MrBeast article

A neutrality tag could be added to MrBeast, as someone has raised a possible NPOV violation on the talk page: Talk:MrBeast#c-Originalcola-20251029192200-Controveries. 2001:861:5C86:3120:3C71:6520:C55E:3316 (talk) 21:43, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Difficulty Writing An Article

My draft article keeps being rejected from being published as an article because a large language model (LLM), such as ChatGPT, has been flagged in my edits. However, I have edited the draft multiple times without using any large language model. Please, what do I do, and how can I write this article properly? Please, what am I missing or doing wrong? Mamman Oyinnoiza (talk) 00:05, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The best way of fixing this is to delete everything and start again, doing everything by yourself with no help. You have probably become quite familiar with the subject after trying to fix the LLM's mistakes. TooManyFingers (talk) 00:58, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Even if (working as a real person with no help) you are not very satisfied with your work, that way is still the best. I am not a good article writer, but I am good at fixing the mistakes that real humans make. If you have good references to reliable sources, but your style is clumsy, people like me can improve the article. TooManyFingers (talk) 01:33, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Illustrating for Wiki

Hello, my question is, how can I upload illustrations for articles? There are plenty of times where visual context/ artist interpretation is needed. Would love to know how I can contribute. Sebasschyun (talk) 01:29, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Commons "upload wizard" -- Hoary (talk) 01:42, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm this is cool but I would still like to know how to upload an image to specific articles. Sorry, I didnt make that clear.

For instance if there was an article about a mythical place and I created a painting imagining that place. How would I be able to edit the article to add my image? Sebasschyun (talk) 01:53, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See Help:Introduction to images with Wiki Markup/All. Now, if there were an article about a mythical place and some Wikipedia editor created a painting imagining that place, then this would of course represent that person's visualization of that place. It's not obvious to me that that person's painting, however well intended, of their own visualization would be of encyclopedic significance. -- Hoary (talk) 02:02, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that art on imaginary topics is mainly not helpful and not wanted. I can imagine that drawings might help with some real things that are hard to explain without a picture. TooManyFingers (talk) 02:50, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What is going on

Hi, at my user page, my {{User:rafaelthegreat/navbox}} template that shows quick links at the very top of my user page is constantly being duplicated, and I am trying to remove it, but it is not working. Can someone remove the duplicated template? ~Rafael (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 03:52, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done not sure what went wrong when you tried Ultraodan (talk) 03:57, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ultraodan thank you so much! That was so weird LOL ~Rafael (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 03:58, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]