Wikipedia:Teahouse

Jéské Couriano, a Teahouse host

Welcome to the Teahouse!

Your go-to place for friendly help with using and editing Wikipedia.

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

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

New to Wikipedia? See our tutorial for new editors or introduction to contributing page.
Messages generated by AI will be collapsed and may not be answered.
Note: Newer questions appear at the bottom of the Teahouse.
Completed questions are archived within 2–3 days.

Help Wikipedia

Assistance for new editors unable to post here

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

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

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

[Teahouse volunteers: If you have helped such a person, please don't forget to deactivate the request template.]

Adding friction to AFD process for articles affected by WP:BIAS

Hi! I've been working on rescuing articles that have been AFD'd lately and finding that there is a heavy amount of bias involved in what gets nominated. I look for articles that are non-western in focus, or are about women, and so often these are extremely notable subjects that the nominator has failed to research appropriately. It's so frustrating. Has there ever been a move to add a condition to the AFD process such as "is the article's subject from a category often affected by bias?" I'm currently working on rescuing Mary Mgonja, a Tanzanian plant scientist. I've rescued Leyla Soleymani and Mabathoana High School and I'm upset by how casually these articles are dismissed without the slightest bit of work. I'm not alone in noticing this of course, but I would like to see action to make it less easy to list articles for deletion that fall into underrepresented categories. If anyone is working on this, I would like to help. Thank you for reading. H0n0r (talk) 11:25, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that different notability standards should pertain to subjects "affected by bias", in other words, for Wikipedia to apply a counter-bias of some kind? If an article on, say, a female social media influencer from an African country gets taken to AfD, is that evidence of bias on the part of the nominator? And if the community then agrees to delete the said article, is that the community also being biased? Or could it be simply that there are many articles in Wikipedia on social media influencers of various origins and demographics that do not meet our notability criteria, and some of them almost certainly deserve to be deleted? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:55, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

That is not what I'm suggesting. I am suggesting that AfD nominators have biases that are unchecked. I am pointing out that women and other subjects affected by bias are over-nominated in a casual way. Research backs me up here (see Gender bias on Wikipedia "A 2021 study found that, in April 2017, 41% of biographies nominated for deletion were women despite only 17% of published biographies being women.") and I'm wondering what is being done about it? H0n0r (talk) 15:40, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

Rereading what I wrote, I realize I was answering only the first part of your question. I don't know where you came up with 'female social media influencer from an African country', but yes, I'm saying article nominators are provably biased, and that the community working on AfD appears to be also, and that this seems to just... continue. Wikipedia's multiple deletion of Donna Strickland prior to her Nobel win continues to get press coverage and nothing changes. I'm asking if anyone is working on changes, and if so where, and can I help? H0n0r (talk) 15:49, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

This is a misrepresentation of what happened. The draft was speedily deleted because the entire draft was a copy-and-past copyright infringement. This is a legal requirement, which would have been done for any draft submitted in such a way. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 08:29, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

@CoffeeCrumbs I think your response was meant for a different question? H0n0r (talk) 11:55, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

@H0n0r read the 2014 PROD on Donna Strickland and tell me what you see in the edit summary Mausfield (talk) 15:46, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

I feel the same about the article on school choice where it’s explained as “non-public education options” … “[that] include scholarship tax credit programs”. The article then proceeds to explain some random school financials, homeschooling, online schooling etc. Finally there’s a list of ‘school choice’ for various countries.

As far as I know, and teacher unions, and the schoolbooks write about, it’s a concept that started as the opposing counter-reaction that formed after school desegregation after Brown vs Board of Education. The ‘bussing’ policies.

IMHO a kitchen sink article like that will only confuse the reader away from what the [US] National Education Association states the "#1 takeaway" that it's "a policy rooted in resistance to school integration." This applies from the founding of the USA itself untill time of writing, february 2026: https://www.nea.org/nea-today/all-news-articles/racist-beginnings-school-vouchers. I wrote my thoughts and references in the talk page there.

Most worryingly, that article revises the history of black emancipation, because it is linked from pro-segregation politicians / famous people… This makes it seem like they proposed other means of finance instead of apartheid.

Note that Google’s AI uses this Wikipedia article instead of, and in complete opposition of, what the US National Education Association wrote, or what the Retro Report classroom material teaches the actual kids, better imho than that Wikipedia article.

Especially with the current state of society, it greatly scares me for folks to forget recent history. ~2026-48862-70 (talk) 06:51, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

NEA is a teacher's union that primarily represents public school teachers. Even if I happen to largely agree with them (and I do fwiw), we can't just cite them as if they're a non-partisan authority. Wikipedia needs to present things from a neutral point of view, giving due weight to the viewpoints that have significant sourcing. This doesn't mean that we have to give equal space to fringe theories but in the case of something like school vouchers we probably do need to represent the viewpoint that school vouchers are a good thing for students to the degree that viewpoint is backed by reliable sources.

That Wikipedia strives for neutrality is one of the reasons why it is a project ill suited to righting great wrongs. Wanting to change the world is commendable but Wikipedia exists to document it as is, warts and all. Packrat3860 (talk) 12:50, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

You write "I look for articles that are non-western in focus, or are about women . . .". That in itself means you are not selecting a random sample. How do you know that there is not an equal proportion of (by your criteria) unfairly nominated articles in areas that do not fit into those categories?

You may, of course, be right, but your methodology does not seem to warrant blanket accusations of (presumably anti non-Western and anti-women) bias.

I'm sure most editors are not consciously applying biases, but we are all only human and a volunteer crowdsourced project is never going to operate to perfect standards. How would your proposal actually be effected? Who would decide which categories are underrepresented, and judge whether nominated articles had not been properly assessed, beyond what is already done?

Remember also that proof of Notability requires Reliable sources, and the World is such that Reliable sources themselves have biases, particularly of omission – we can only work with what there is. I myself am particularly interested in science and scientists, and despair over the poor cover that the media devotes to scientists of all sexes and ethnicities. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-41275-62 (talk) 13:45, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi, you might be new here. Here's Gender bias on Wikipedia and Racial bias on Wikipedia. H0n0r (talk) 15:53, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

Actually, I've been here for over 24 years (from quite soon after Wikipedia was launched), but have always deliberately chosen not to have a User account.

I am well aware that there are general gender and ethnic imbalances (resulting in biases) in both the editorial makeup and the coverage of Wikipedia. I think these stem from biases in very-long-established cultural expectations (leading for example to a deficit in female editorial volunteers) and in the published Reliable sources we are (rightly) constrained to use. I do not think these biases are consciously maintained by any significant number of Wikipedia editors, and while biases may be inherent in sources generally, this ought not to change the way in which Reliable sources are searched for and used, and articles in general edited and assessed.

In particular, I am a little doubtful that the specific issue that you raise, discriminatory lack of care in dealing with AfD candidates, is real, but until someone chooses to perform a statistically valid survey we cannot know either way. That is all I have to say on the matter. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-41275-62 (talk) 14:07, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

It’s already been shown that pages of women get AfD’d quicker and more often. We don’t need a new survey because you’re doibtful. Further, if people are targeting those pages, there’s no reason others can’t target those pages to save. It’s no different than any of us editing subjects we’re interested in. Mme Maigret (talk) 23:29, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

@Mmemaigret It’s already been shown that pages of women get AfD’d quicker and more often.

Was it demonstrated at the same time that the two groups of articles were equal in terms of their adherence to Wikipedia policy? If not, then the claim hasn't been shown. And this is very different from editing subjects we're interested in, because editing according to interest is useful and inspiring, but pushing to save a bad article about anyone just because of their body parts is simply dishonest. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 12:04, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers No one is talking about saving bad articles. The OP was concerned about articles where the nominator hasn't done their due diligence but she thinks sources exist and can be added with a little bit of research. I'm also talking about saving articles where the sources exist to meet notability. If those happen to be articles about women or POC, what do you care? Mme Maigret (talk) 12:44, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers Here's the study I was referring to: https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448211023772, from Gender bias on Wikipedia "A 2021 study found that, in April 2017, 41% of biographies nominated for deletion were women despite only 17% of published biographies being women." H0n0r (talk) 16:28, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Avoid WP:BLUDGEON, especially with that paper (which I presume you did not read entirely), because it is empirically garbage and starts out with a blatant lie.

For it's introductory citation it mentions the speedy deletion of Donna Strickland "six minutes after the article's creation" as clear evidence of gender bias, but somehow the author did not even decide read the PROD, which was for unambiguous plagiarization (ie copied from some external source). The editor who added the PROD created, among many others, the articles Women LEAD and Feminism in Nepal, and contributed to Women's colleges in the United States, Connecticut Women's Hall of Fame, Women in the Maldives, List of women explorers and travelers, etc. Definitely sexism, right? Tripodi says:

Despite clear evidence of Dr. Strickland’s professional endeavors, some did not feel her scholastic contributions were notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia biography.

Which is simply a lie. One person PROD'd it for plagiarism, a user with a history of creating and contributing to feminism-related articles. I am going to avoid any statements about the evidence-basis in modern sociology, you can check Tripodi's methods section and tell me what you think:

First, I conducted an open coding (Charmaz, 2006), consisting of listening to recorded interviews while reviewing my fieldnotes and writing down emergent ideas on a series of notecards. Second, I arranged these cards in clusters, identifying which themes were the most salient. After flagging particularly salient “in vivo codes” (Charmaz, 2006), I conducted a more focused coding of my transcript data, determining the accuracy of the threads identified.

Mausfield (talk) 00:17, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

@Mausfield Yikes, this is an unpleasant, condescending and unhelpful comment. The paper I cited is peer-reviewed, has over 150 citations, and yes I read it. Please find some way to be civil in discussions. H0n0r (talk) 20:15, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

Apologies for assuming you didn't read the entire thing. I just imagined if that blatant lie as the central narrative starting point of the paper stood out to me, it would also stand out to someone with way more experience on wiki than me.

Did you look at the PROD? Mausfield (talk) 20:29, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

@H0n0r When you say "notable", it seems you might mean it in a way that's not only different, but in fact almost directly contrary to what it means on Wikipedia. I wouldn't call that your fault, because Wikipedia uses the word in a non-standard way.

Here's my ultra-short summary of the difference: Wikipedia rejects the idea of deserving coverage. Only those who already had lots of coverage are notable here. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 15:30, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

Right, this is semantics to what I'm actually bringing up. Leyla Soleymani and Mary Mgonja have had lots of coverage. The nominators simply didn't look for it. H0n0r (talk) 15:37, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

WP:BEFORE and WP:DILIGENCE describe what nominators are expected to do as part of the AfD process. If you have suggestions about how to beef up these requirements, I suggest you make them on its talk page. You are probably correct that many AfD discussions start without adequate checks and I suspect that is not related to any specific type of article. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:09, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! This is just the sort of thing I was hoping for. Thank you very much. H0n0r (talk) 17:01, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

I suspect that WP:BEFORE and WP:DILIGENCE are often inadequately applied, and disproportionately so, and that the disproportion is related to the demonstrated bias that @H0n0r has already linked to here.

H0n0r, I am currently working in different areas of Wikipedia from you and don't have any good leads on other Wikipedians who might be trying to correct this bias, but I am interested in any constructive responses you find here. I'm honestly aghast at the pushback you've had so far. Suðurhafsljósæta (talk) 17:02, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you @Suðurhafsljósæta. I've never nominated an article for deletion. I'm wondering, are there boxes to check as there are when uploading a file to commons, affirming that one has done one's due diligence? Looking at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, it appears to be a very simple (way too simple) process. Surely there should be a way to slow this down and make nominators jump a few 'Before' hurdles? H0n0r (talk) 20:49, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

The process is too slow when dealing with bios of non-notable living persons. Such articles should be deleted at once to spare the person the embarrassment and occasionally severe anxiety of being subjected to an often insulting ripe-or-rotten-tomatoe debate. Wikipedia should have a much clearar bias against such treatment in better alignment with our quite strict WP:BLP policies. SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:01, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

@SergeWoodzing I don't disagree with you on this point, but do think that we try to cast a wide net instead of looking at individual cases, which is why I think it would be somewhat prudent to effectively hide an article amidst a BLP-deletion discussion (if, and only if such concerns have been raised), while slowing down the deletion process for other articles more broadly. The latter part I've raised several points about in the recent past, but I'm actually quite interested in whether the community would be on board with the former, if it's plainly obvious that there are character-assassination-esque concerns.

CSGinger14 (talk) 01:18, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

@H0n0r I might suggest that, taking care to consider the concerns and counters raised by others here, you bring this up at WP:Village pump (idea lab), as this isn’t really the appropriate venue for it.

CSGinger14 (talk) 01:45, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

@CSGinger14 That's a good idea. Thank you. H0n0r (talk) 10:09, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

@CSGinger14 I've finally brought this proposal to the idea lab. Thank you for digging into this here, giving me a lot to chew on, and the push to take it further. I'm so appreciative! H0n0r (talk) 10:58, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

@H0n0r If I could give you one piece of advice, save yourself the stress and avoid AfD. I also tried broaching the issue at the Village Pump – I found the discussion to be disappointing. That's when I realised I could have more impact rescuing articles that have been PRODed and expiring drafts. Mme Maigret (talk) 12:58, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

@Mmemaigret this is so nice of you, thank you. Afd is pretty awful. No, it's really awful. There are users there just nominating dozens of under-researched non-western articles and it's so disheartening. I can't understand this issue gets continual, high level, international press and yet goes unaddressed. Thank you for your work and camaraderie. H0n0r (talk) 14:21, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

@Mmemaigret @H0n0r @Suðurhafsljósæta @Mike Turnbull @~2026-41275-62 Given your comments, I suspect you may be interested in this discussion I've started at Village pump. Any input is welcome / encouraged, as I'd like to get the ball rolling on something that might serve to address this problem in the near future. The more we let ourselves get caught up in despondency the worse it's gonna get.

I don't disagree with Packrat3860 that we need to operate with NPOV at front of mind, but I don't think that necessarily clashes with the notion of this site serving as an instrument to right great wrongs. I think we often conflate one with the other because those attempting to right those wrongs are unable to detach themselves from their biases in their editing behavior, which leads many editors to take on an unnecessarily broad view of what constitutes biased content to guard us against off-wiki accusations that we have an irreconcilable liberal/progressive bent. The thing is, just as conservative editors are at times correct that we've failed to include relevant context that supports their worldview (whether intentionally or not), so too is this sort of overactive policing of acclaimedly 'biased' content in fact impeding our site's ability and responsibility to tell the whole story, most often silencing the perspectives of those who've never had a seat at the table in the first place. As others have pointed out, we only have so much time until a great deal of that relevant context is gone, and even less time before those that care enough to tell the story lose interest, or are stopped from ever getting the opportunity to do so again by those who committed the great wrongs in the first place.

This thread, which was one of my first major disagreements here on the website, might help to contextualize the issue I'm describing. I just think we need to be able to separate these concerns in a rational manner which nonetheless acknowledges that relevant facts are rarely biased, and undue weight is typically a reflection in the eye of the beholder.

Best,

CSGinger14 (talk) 18:40, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

Just because I'm referenced here, I want to go on the record that I don't think WP:RGW should be interpreted to mean that Wikipedia does not have systemic bias, or that it is even possible to not have systemic bias. I also don't think it means we should unquestioningly accept systemic bias (and I commend those who try to improve them).

I only meant that we should be cautious about thinking about article content as a convenient vehicle for changing hearts and minds. I think Wikipedia has some duty to consider to consider its role perpetuating certain kinds of bias (as does any sizable organization), and neutrality does not mean uncritically presenting "both sides". But I value the neutrality of the encyclopedia even when my personal views are (at times) trying to chip away at the bedrock of established thought. Packrat3860 (talk) 20:13, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, in theory, undue weight is not in the eye of the beholder at all, but determined by what's in the reliable sources and what isn't. Of course that is always distorted to some extent because it's humans analyzing those sources, but we hopefully want to correct that distortion without swinging the pendulum. This thing gets handled wrong in all kinds of different ways and I don't blame anyone for wanting to improve it.

Wikipedia doesn't just prohibit righting great wrongs because of NPOV; wanting to right great wrongs goes directly against most of Wikipedia's basic principles, not just one. Righting great wrongs is vitally important and must be done, but not here. A scheme to right great wrongs using Wikipedia is just a sabotage plan, not a noble cause or even an intelligent one. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 01:14, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers I think we might be defining 'righting great wrongs' in radically different ways here, based on the way you seem to be characterizing this. Nothing wrong with disagreement if not, but I'd think it somewhat mistaken to suggest that most editors don't come here with some sort of guiding principle as to what kinds of knowledge they want to afford the public access to through their work.

CSGinger14 (talk) 01:54, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

@CSGinger14 this is interesting, but it doesn't seem to be what I'm talking about so much. It's certainly a piece of it, but what I'm really after is that by not going and looking for sources that are reliable and definitely exist, Wikipedia continues to essentially commit great wrongs. AfD routinely nominates and deletes non-western articles, particularly on female subjects, without doing a lick of research. I'm trying to be charitable and assume this is laziness or unconscious bias, but whatever it is, it continues daily, unabated.H0n0r (talk) 16:01, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

@H0n0r I don’t disagree with you, and if you have a strong argument to make I encourage you to make the case. It’s nominally a location for proposals but, as you can tell, many editors have thrown in alternative ideas and reflections on the issue. If we want something to get done about it everybody has to be involved, so please do share.

CSGinger14 (talk) 16:06, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

I don't think you have to get everybody involved to tackle the issue or that you will. In fact, I think trying to get everyone involved is like trying to boil the ocean. Mme Maigret (talk) 23:34, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

@H0n0r Pretending that "Wikipedia" should do "a lick of research" is badly missing the point. Anyone who comes here wanting to publish something must finish the research before they arrive here. Wikipedia is not a person. Wikipedia can't possibly do anything. Wikipedia has no obligation - and no ability - to do even the tiniest lick of research. That's on the person who wants something published. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 05:32, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers WP:BEFORE? WP:DILIGENCE? H0n0r (talk) 08:55, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

@CSGinger14 I think we might be defining 'righting great wrongs' in radically different ways here, [...] I'd think it somewhat mistaken to suggest that most editors don't come here with some sort of guiding principle as to what kinds of knowledge they want to afford the public access to through their work.

"Righting great wrongs" has a more or less accepted meaning, from what's been written about it. To badly oversimplify, it means having a goal bigger than "What's in the reliable sources?". Any guiding principle that isn't subordinate to that one is against Wikipedia. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 06:13, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

@H0n0r "There are users there just nominating dozens of under-researched non-western articles."

If you mean "under-researched by the editors who wrote the articles, making the Wikipedia articles be of poor quality", then we want all under-researched articles to be nominated for deletion.

If some editors are only nominating under-researched non-western articles, that's unfortunate. I suppose the way to balance that out would be for editors to nominate more under-researched "western" articles. We don't need fewer under-researched non-western articles to be taken to ADD if they are really poor quality articles.

But there is really no way to force that to happen. Editors do what they want, and we can't assign "areas of focus" to anyone.

Your original premise might be right, but it's pretty hard to fix.

If by "under-researched" you mean something else, then what I said might not apply. David10244 (talk) 03:45, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

Warning: Long Read

@David10244 @TooManyFingers I think what they mean is that there’s a far lesser degree of what we (meaning the community writ large) would consider to be reliable sourcing on account of the critical lack of informational/reporting infrastructure in many of the nations we consider to be the ‘non-Western world’. This is where I think there’s some disagreement:

1. Because there’s less easily identifiable reliable sources in say, Zimbabwe than the UK, it’s less likely that a typical WP:BEFORE based on notions of Western source reliability will yield qualifiable results (See my point at the Mary Mgonja AfD (or the collapsed portion at the one for Ainamoi) for further elaboration on this point).
2. There’s also the problem of editors who don’t perform an adequate BEFORE ahead of time (which is the primary reason for my having raised the referenced VP discussion in the first place), who would presumably find it easier to disqualify sources that are considered substantive by Zimbabweans (but not by Americans) than sources of similar societal weight in the West. It’s thus easier from the outset to go after pages about non-Western topics, especially if they haven’t received considerable attention from Western scholarship.
3. Many editors seem to disdain IAR because it necessarily clashes with Duty to comply, which complicates efforts to salvage pages that face this sort of bias because such defenses can ostensibly fall under WP:RGW, as was raised by the closer at Ainamoi (who I’ll tag here, as I’m curious (without malice) to hear what their thoughts are on this point). WP:SYO is a really interesting essay confronting this exact issue of editor bias as it pertains to NEWSORGNIGERIA.

My problem with this is, if RGW is itself rooted in that same bias, how do we confront it in the first place, or can we even do so? The sources don’t magically appear, and they won’t in the immediate future, but that doesn’t give us license to erase history outside the West because the West didn’t bother to write about it, or depict it solely from a Western perspective when it did.

There’s a fundamental difference between disqualifying JamiiForums (which is reasonable) and delegitimizing TechCabal or Daily News (Tanzania) out of the context of where they reasonably can be disqualified (similar to BusinessDay, which is one of a handful of reliable Nigerian sources that routinely gets flatly discounted not because the editor has actually considered whether it falls in the use case under the tenets of NEWSORGNIGERIA, but because they read ‘Nigerian sources typically unreliable’ and don’t feel the need to investigate further (a common problem with NEWSORGINDIA as well))). Sometimes there are things they can’t say, or stories they can’t attach a name to, because otherwise that reporter we demanded be present to even consider GNG qualification gets put into the back of a van and is never heard from again.

This is where the confident assertion that RGW is clearly present or applicable when editors put up an IAR defense of non-Western articles (usually construed by editors in opposition as being WP:ADVOCACY) gets iffy in my opinion, because it treats the community’s consensus as necessarily fair and even-handed, as if it wasn’t deliberated and crafted predominantly by middle class white guys aged 16-34 living in the US, UK, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand (where a strong reporting culture and free press conveniently exists).

‘

TLDR: We sort of just assume that the rest of the world should conform to our expectations of source availability and verifiability without considering what it actually means to live in those parts of the world, which is the reason IAR exists in the first place. We’re committing just as big a violation in terms of NPOV if we wipe whatever we can’t see on the public facing internet about these places (e.g. activists, civil society groups, political parties) when the public facing internet is routinely shut down in these countries precisely for the purpose of restricting societal and global access to coverage on activities and organizations these countries’ governments don’t appreciate. That’s never really addressed, cause it’s much easier to say “holy yap if you want to RGW go do it somewhere else.”

CSGinger14 (talk) 08:14, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

I like the vibe, but the directional solution you're proposing doesn't guarantee these suppressed and factual sources get included, it just opens the door to any propagandist adding content without needing to cite it, which we have to now defend them because persecution exists in the world, which is true. I don't see how that helps the persecuted more than it helps their persecuters, who certainly have vastly more resources.

as it pertains to NEWSORGNIGERIA. My only problem with NEWSORGNIGERIA is the lunacy in thinking it isn't widespread everywhere in the world where free press exists. It should just be NEWS. Half of the "SIGCOV" I see for recently created BLPs are very obvious churnalist fluff pieces, because having a Wiki article is now a CV line and SEO gold. There is no way to solve than other than increasing stringency on RS, and yes it means some factual information will be left out.

There’s a fundamental difference between disqualifying JamiiForums (which is reasonable) and delegitimizing TechCabal or Daily News (Tanzania) out of the context of where they reasonably can be disqualified... Sometimes there are things they can’t say, or stories they can’t attach a name to, because otherwise that reporter we demanded be present to even consider GNG qualification gets put into the back of a van and is never heard from again.

The very simple solution to this is simply to include their content as claims by the source, rather than as statements of fact in an article with them as refs. We do this all the time, with mainstream American sources like Fox and Breitbart.

as if it wasn’t deliberated and crafted predominantly by middle class white guys aged 16-34 living in the US, UK, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand (where a strong reporting culture and free press conveniently exists).

You should avoid equating skin color with political worldview. Those nations are some of the only places a widespread cultural movement of equity exists, and those "white guys" are a substantial demographic within that movement. You are also on English wikipedia, so obviously Anglophone cultural norms exist. That's not something you can fairly criticize purely on the basis of it being different, in the same breath as advocating for intercultural tolerance. Mausfield (talk) 03:26, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

Hi @David10244, sorry for being unclear. I meant that nominators don't do the research they are supposed to do given WP:BEFORE. I agree with @CSGinger14 also, but that is what I was trying to say at the outset. H0n0r (talk) 10:33, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

(1) You can call them out in the discussion. I've only seen this have success, however, if others haven't started voting yet.

(2) However, I think it would be more realistic to introduce a pause between an AfD nomination and the discussion. I'd say 7 days just like PROD. This would allow the creator or any other interested user to bring the draft up to scratch (particularly for articles created before GNG) or rework the article to clearly show that it passes. The nominator can then revisit the nomination before it goes live and, if they don't withdraw, they can answer questions at AfD. It would also likely reduce the number of AfDs. Mme Maigret (talk) 23:57, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

@H0n0r Here’s what I think will work.

• If you see an article that’s been PRODed, AfD’d or is expiring in a week that you think is notable, you add a custom category.
• You start a topic on the talk page and add links to the minimum two sig cov sources. This is also where @CSGinger14‘s refideas template could come in.
• You bookmark the category yourself and check it frequently
• Anyone can follow and uplift the articles that have been categorised.

(ps. Btw, I know you can see the PRODs by date, and AfDs that have been categorised as WIR, and the expiring drafts by week but you have to look at each PROD to see if it’s suitable, not every article is tagged WIR, and the expiring drafts list is too unwieldy.)

• We could also start a Wikiproject taskforce but to keep it simple I think we just need the categories. (They can also be hidden categories.)

Mme Maigret (talk) 23:50, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

Submitting first en-article

I’d really appreciate any feedback on the coordinates, sources, or anything else I should improve before the article is accepted. The draft is about Kobebe Dam in Uganda, an important water source for pastoral communities in the Karamoja region. There are several news reports documenting recurring water shortages at the dam and their impact on local communities, so I’d like to help make this information more accessible and properly sourced. I’ve put together a draft and tried to identify the dam’s exact location using geographical data and satellite imagery. Could someone please take a look at the coordinates and let me know if they accurately identify the dam itself? I’ve also added the location to Google Maps to make it easier to find. Please check if I made all right about the coordinates at Draft:Kobebe Dam. Thanks^^lg DarioDS (talk) 14:07, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

You have submitted your draft for review. A volunteer will check all the things you're asking about, as part of that review. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 18:50, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

@DarioDS There appear to be LLM concerns here. Can you speak to the reason for that; as in, did you use AI? If not, a rationale for why AI concerns might have been raised would be helpful.

I’ll say in advance, though, that if you’re upfront about it, you’re not going to get in trouble; there isn’t a presumption of guilt, but we’ve gotten more experienced with this as time goes on, so we’ll figure it out eventually if not, and dishonesty now will only serve to deepen mistrust among other editors later). We really want new editors here of all stripes, but are very strict about our WP:NOLLM policy.

CSGinger14 (talk) 08:01, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

I'm with you that the risk of hallucination from AI must be taken seriously. I'm in the stage of editing. As you can see, I haven't even used AI to help me with the coordinates (what made me unsure if I did it right). Most of the other information consists of quotes from articles that I've cited as quotes (although I may not have cited them correctly), but for all information I checked myself (also crosscheck with videos and historical satellite-data) and stand behind these quoted words. Could you please help me with these two things: checking the coordinates and checking the citations?. Thanks^^lg DarioDS (talk) 12:35, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

First things first, did you use LLMs, and if you did, which model did you use and what did you use it for? It may be useful for us to fact check it if things were generated. If the use was compliant with WP:LLM, I am also happy to help out. Thanks! 16dvnk (talk) 12:42, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

I distinguish between research and my own writing (which doesn't require citations) and text that I've cited, following the principle that "Editors must ensure that any text copyedited in this manner is still supported by the sources cited".

First things first is to start at the top with the introduction (the one that included the coordinates) that has no change to contain AI (my work does not contain AI). Then, we can work our way down and identify any incorrect citations as copied text may contain words or phrases that trigger AI-detection - or how can I check this myself? Thanks^^lg DarioDS (talk) 13:28, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

While what you have described is still vague, I’ll try to take a look at this really soon. Thanks. 16dvnk (talk) 13:33, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, it's my first time having this topic. To make it clear:

<<<Kobebe Dam is a multipurpose water reservoir located in Rupa Sub-county, Moroto District, in the Karamoja sub-region of northeastern Uganda. The coordinates of the dam site are 2°48′31.3″N 34°26′50.2″E (2.808691°N, 34.447269°E). Constructed by Uganda's Ministry of Water and Environment beginning in 2010, the dam was intended to provide water for livestock, support irrigation and fish farming, and serve pastoral communities in Karamoja and neighbouring Turkana County in Kenya with a storage capacity of 1.4 million cubic meters.>>> and the idea of what topic comes into the Wiki (the naming of the chapters) are from myself and can not trigger AI-detection. Text inside a box I tried to paraphrase myself but out of text I copied from (as I only checked for truth). I really appreciate your checks and if you can tell me how to check myself I can contribute even here and exclude such tiggers myself^^lg DarioDS (talk) 14:37, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

@DarioDS I would greatly appreciate if you can answer directly: Did you use AI in any way when producing this draft, or your responses here? A Yes or No would suffice, we can get down into the particulars of it later. Right now it feels somewhat like you’re attempting to avoid the question.

CSGinger14 (talk) 14:42, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Not in my text/work^^lg DarioDS (talk) 19:32, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

So, yes? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 20:24, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, I overlooked these first question and jumped directly into <<<Can you speak to the reason for that; -> If not, a rationale for why AI concerns might have been raised would be helpful.>>> so my answers in the sub-answers were indeed all guesses of what might have triggered AI-dectection. (no hard - "no, I have no idea" as I get asked of that ideas). Unfortunately I can't help with model-number as I don't have a LLM on my side^^lg DarioDS (talk) 22:54, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

@DarioDS "Unfortunately I can't help with model-number as I don't have a LLM on my side". Do you mean that you don't have the model number of the LLM that you used? Your answers are quite confusing. David10244 (talk) 08:58, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

@DarioDS And "I get asked of that ideas" doesn't quite make sense as an English phrase. David10244 (talk) 09:00, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining the next steps to me. Is the review still outstanding, or has it already been done without considering any of my questions?^^lg DarioDS (talk) 19:38, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

The draft was declined on the 22 October. You can re-submit it for review as long as you are sure no AI-generated text is present. qcne (talk) 19:40, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

How can I make sure that <<<A volunteer will check all the things you're asking about, as part of that review.>>> happens BEVORE the review is closed?^^lg DarioDS (talk) 22:22, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

You can't. Checking for these things is part of your job when writing an article. But if they see that you really tried to fix the things that need fixing and they believe that you could succeed if you tried again, they are allowed to give you another chance - it's up to the reviewer. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 14:24, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

Because this time I'm not only left with the unanswered question from first attempt, but also with the question of what triggered the AI-detection^^lg DarioDS (talk) 22:29, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

AI detection is triggered by the use of AI. It sometimes happens that people use AI when they think they are not; for example, most grammar checkers are AI even if they don't tell you. If you used any kind of writing helper, the way to fix it is to completely delete everything and start over with no help.

Earlier when asked about AI, you said Not in my text/work. Thank you for doing your best to avoid telling a lie, but when a person is asked about this they don't give such a strange answer unless they are trying to hide something. But everyone already understands - the hiding has already failed. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 14:10, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

Deleting everything is not a penalty, it's just the easiest way to fix the problem. When you use AI it's like you put a whole cup of salt into your soup; you don't work to get the salt back out, you just make new soup. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 14:42, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

(Note that if you say "I deleted and started over" but you didn't, everyone can see the real truth of what happened.) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 14:14, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

Maybe we can assume good faith and assume that they are just confused...

This seems a little harsh.

Either way, please DO NOT USE AI! (while AI may be helpful in certain areas, creating entire articles is not one of them) 16dvnk (talk) 11:41, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

Dario, if you used AI at all to create your draft or responses, please properly disclose so. GreatWhiteEditor (talk) 21:10, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

Dario has been unwilling to deny using AI. Therefore, Dario did use AI. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 06:17, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Please help me improve my article

Hello! I was wondering if you guys could give me some suggestions or even edit my work in progress article: User:Dender Hello/FreeWater (company). It would help a lot and I would really appreciate it! Dender Hello (talk) 13:36, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Just blatant advertising of a non notable company. Theroadislong (talk) 13:45, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello. It's great that this company does good things, but doing good things is not enough to merit a Wikipedia article- you need a summary of critical analysis and commentary about the company that shows how it is a notable company in a Wikipedia sense. Most companies on Earth actually do not meet that definition, because most coverage of a company is about its normal activities.

If you just want to tell the world about the good things this company does, that's exactly what social media is for. 331dot (talk) 13:51, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks so much for taking the time to read my draft and for giving me such helpful advice.

You make a great point, and I completely agree with you! It makes total sense that a company needs deep, independent news coverage to have a Wikipedia page, and that doing good things isn't quite enough.

I really appreciate you steering me in the right direction. I think I will pivot and look into writing about a topic, object, or company that is already more notable in the Wikipedia sense. I'll stick to social media to share the good work this specific company is doing.

Thanks again for your time and for being so helpful! Dender Hello (talk) 14:04, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello @Dender Hello. Please do not use AI to create or reply to comments on Wikipedia; the practice is prohibited per Wikipedia:AITALK. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 15:50, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

I write all my own replies. I take time to make my replies and be respectful, so it's pretty annoying that you're accusing me of using AI just because my writing is good. .--. .-.. . .- ... . / -.. --- -. - / .- -.-. -.-. ..- ... . / .--. . --- .--. .-.. . / --- ..-. / ... --- -- . - .... .. -. --. / - .... . -.-- / -.. --- -. - / -.. --- .-.-.- Dender Hello (talk) 17:05, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

GPTZero says your comment above is 100% AI generated. Theroadislong (talk) 17:08, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

It’s has to be a false positive. Dender Hello (talk) 17:37, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Here, you wrote "It's has to be a false positive", which is a normal little mistake for a human to make. (I can think of at least two ways it might have happened.) It also shows that you are not necessarily such a careful writer, because a mistake in the first word usually gets noticed and corrected, and it shows that your own writing is direct and makes sense.

In the other message, there are no careless little mistakes, but there are large and embarrassing mistakes that you yourself are quite unlikely to make. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 19:18, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

The morse code reads this “ PLEASE DONT ACCUSE PEOPLE OF SOMETHING THEY DONT DO.”

but why would someone communicate in a language that not many people use? SillG (Hi! Want to talk?) 15:51, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

"PLEASE DONT ACCUSE PEOPLE OF SOMETHINČ THEY DONT DO."

Could you elaborate on why this is there, and why it's in morse, @Dender Hello? GreatWhiteEditor (talk) 21:26, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

No normal person would just randomly use morse code. Wikiwiz910 (talk) 16:42, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

I've tried ten AI detectors and all of them say that his replies are 100% AI. Wikiwiz910 (talk) 16:44, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Avoiding "Speed Deletion" tag

Hi folks, I was recently warned that a Wiki page I was trying to create for a prominent physicist is being marked for "speedy deletion" because an automated Wiki filter thought I was using AI generated text. We all know that LLMs have hijacked the language of scientists (and everyone else), and since there are only a few ways in which text written by a physicist can be used to explain certain technical concepts, it does not mean that the text I am writing was created by AI. I shouldn't have to stoop to using "baby talk", or deliberately use unconvenional inaccurate language, when describing certain concepts in physics to avoid being accused of using AI. Of course I use AI, but not in a blind un-critical, uncomprehending way. I use it as a super-charged Google, to obtain references to papers and articles that I would used Google or some other tool. I would welcome advice on what I should do to avoid having a page, that I created with much time and effort, deleted by an AI tool that accuses me of using AI! Kirkee1952 Kirkee1952 (talk) 22:22, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

Here is the updated and expanded Wikipedia page for Adrianus M. M. Pruisken, ...
— Diff/1381788132 (log) to User:Kirkee1952/sandbox

Could you please take a moment to read the WP:NOLLM guideline that I told you about earlier? ‑‑gurkubondinn 22:33, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

LMAO. Absolutely incredible. Athanelar (talk) 23:19, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

Oh boy, another user using LLM.🔥Jothefiredragon🐲talk🐉contrib(s)✨log🌟mail🎉global🎊 22:40, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

@Kirkee1952 In the section that says "Through instanton calculations, Pruisken demonstrated that the dissipative conductance ... and the Hall conductance ... undergo a **two-parameter renormalization group (RG) flow**. This flow diagram ..."

If this was not generated by AI, why did you write it using Markdown syntax (the asterisks)? David10244 (talk) 09:43, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

Physicists just talk like that. It's part of their language, and they can only explain certain technical concepts in that way. It's terribly uncritical and uncomprehending of you not to understand that! Suðurhafsljósæta (talk) 11:37, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

You accuse others of "uncritical and uncomprehending" in regards to how people here not conforming to how physicists speak. But we're not in a forum for physicists. You're the one who is a guest, in a place where writers of an encyclopedia meet and talk in the language of encyclopedia writers. So for the charge you accuse David10244 of, I would say "physician, heal thyself."

In any case, we have many articles about technical concepts that don't read like they're riddled with LLM use. And, in fact, while there are many technical concepts in physics, a biography of an individual physicist is certainly not a technical concept. It should be a narrative about the physicists life, and touch on works, and how reliable sources have talked about those works. It shouldn't resemble a CV. If someone needs to understand the Lorentz transformation to understand a biography of Hendrik Lorentz, something has gone horribly wrong with that biography. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 13:10, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

I believe the person you're responding to was being sarcastic. Athanelar (talk) 14:01, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I was—sorry for being a little too dry there! Suðurhafsljósæta (talk) 15:25, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

[sneaks off to start writing an essay "Improving the CV: Wet Sarcasm and the Uncomprehending Lorentz Transformation"] TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:08, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

Ok, got it. I am going to rewrite everything so that it's going to be a biography rather than a CV. ~2026-57046-93 (talk) 17:15, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

Sarcasm: I bet the AI will fix that within half a second. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 20:50, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, physicists use asterisks all the time! It's incredibly rude of people to assume that it's AI! will0w! ;3 (talk) 21:47, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

@LunaWillow, yes, but double-asterisks? David10244 (talk) 03:56, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

Suggested edits

Hello! How are you? Good day to you. Welcome to Wikipedia! I have a question: I have been making "suggested edits" on Wikipedia. Previously, 3 links used to be suggested, but now only 1 link is being suggested. Could you tell me why? Thank you very much in advance! 😊😊Wikiflowers2008 (talk) 09:25, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

1) Did you change your recommendations? If so, that would explain it.

2) If you didn't, then it's very possible that other people fixed those. Lots of editors complete these suggested edits. DollarStoreBa'al _(Converse) 15:03, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

One more thing: that program is automated and therefore can have bugs and be inconsistent, such as suggesting tone improvements within quotes or on userspace pages (both of which I have experienced before). It's entirely possible the program just didn't detect the things it previously did. DollarStoreBa'al _(Converse) 15:28, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

@DollarStoreBa'al okey thanks for yourWikiflowers2008 (talk) 18:25, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

I think I might just be expanding on what DollarStoreBa'al said, but I've never used this feature.

It's possible that the suggestions are set by Wikipedia to give a maximum of three, but this time it couldn't even find three of the type of things you've requested, so it gave you what there was. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 15:13, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

As far as I know the number of suggested links shown and what links are shown are determined of a algorithm of some sort, so it's probably related to that if I had to throw a guess. Pyrrhic victor (what did I do) 16:09, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

@Pyrrhic victorParrik, you tell me. Aha, I see—that’s possible; but as Dollar Stone Ba'al mentioned, the program could be automated 😁Wikiflowers2008 (talk) 18:30, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

@DollarStoreBa'al,@Pyrrhic victor,@TooManyFingers – Thank you all for your efforts, and for sharing your information and valuable time ❤️🤝Wikiflowers2008 (talk) 18:31, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

It was changed from 3 links to 1 link due to this edit in the community configuration, which was spawned from the discussion Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 231#We need to get rid of the "suggested links" tool. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 18:36, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

Its also worth noting that the suggestions are machine generated (though part of the infrastructure around them is human controlled via the community configuration page) and that you will no longer be able to do the task once you have 150 edits. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 18:51, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

@45dogs Thank you, you expressed this very clearly. {{Wikiflowers2008 (talk) 18:53, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

@45dogs Are these 3 edits on Wikipedia being consolidated into 1, and is this intended to be the most convenient (i.e., the simplest) way to edit the article? {{Wikiflowers2008 (talk) 15:47, 27 October 2026 (UTC)}}

Newcomer tasks are designed to increase engagement by newcomers and encourage them to edit, rather than necessarily being convenient (though convenience is a good way of encouraging editing). The ultimate goal is to increase editor retention by keeping these newcomers editing and contributing. My understanding of the change from 3 to 1 is that instead of suggesting 3 links on an article and having a maximum of 15 articles per day, it suggests 1 link on an article and has a maximum of 30 articles per day. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 22:17, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

@45dogs Exactly, you’ve thought this through very well; I agree with your point ✅🆗 Thanks for your! {{Wikiflowers2008 (talk) 09:57, 28 October 2026 (UTC)}}

@45dogs I had another question: this morning, when I woke up and tried to access Wikipedia—intending to write to you—I received an "error 707" message. Sorry about that! I’m writing to ask why the system says this—is it just a temporary technical glitch? 😊😁 {{Wikiflowers2008 (talk) 10:02, 28 October 2026 (UTC)}}

@45dogs Thank you in advance for your response. {{Wikiflowers2008 (talk)}} Wikiflowers2008 (talk) 10:06, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

Yes, it should be a temporary glitch. That issue is likely related to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#503 and API errors, which per the phabricator report should be resolved at this point. If you continue encountering the issue I would recommend raising it at the technical village pump. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 16:32, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

@45dogs Aha, thanks, that’s clear—got it. Is Phabricator an editing interface that works in real time? {{Wikiflowers2008 (talk) 03:08, 29 October 2026 (UTC)}}

The Wikimedia Phabricator is just the primary platform to report bugs and file feature requests related to the MediaWiki software. I believe it is real time, but I do not know much about it as I do not commonly interact with it. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 03:18, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

@45dogs Understood, thank you. Does this platform work for Wikipedias in all languages?😊😁 {{Wikiflowers2008 (talk) 03:24, 29 October 2026 (UTC)}}

I do not believe the Wikimedia Phabricator has per language editions. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 20:37, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

@45dogs Did you wake up? 😁😁 Wishing you the best for your day and your work on Wikipedia—take care! {{Wikiflowers2008 (talk) 03:26, 29 October 2026 (UTC)}}

Thank you for the well wishes :) 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 20:37, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

@45dogs Thank you very much, you too. {{Wikiflowers2008 (talk)}} Wikiflowers2008 (talk) 02:59, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Old language translation

Hello Editor, I am working on the history of minority community, while working I got an idea, can we translate the old chronicle extinct language with the help of dictionary and ethnolinguistic language cognates , is it possible? and written on historical page with the secondary refrence . 刘宸宁 (Liu Chenning) 05:35, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

Do modern scholars agree on the correct translation of these texts? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 06:26, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers Many scholars disagreed because, when I read other reference histories, I found that many translations were written for mainland people and were not written with that specific community in mind , they were written under the influence of the mainland's religion. Therefore, many scholars agree that most translations were misleading and too biased toward a particular religion, which is not the native religion of the minority community. 刘宸宁 (Liu Chenning) 06:38, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

If most scholars disagree with you, then what you have is innovative new research, and you should publish it in an academic journal. DS (talk) 13:22, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

We can do this work, but I have heard that we cannot publish our research paper on Wikipedia, is it true? 刘宸宁 (Liu Chenning) 13:38, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

Yes, this is true. Wikipedia does not permit original research. If you get it published in an academic source, and you then try to cite it, that would also be a self-citation, which falls under a conflict of interest. Phoenix ‣ _Talk // ^{Contributions} 14:43, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

What is the solution? When I explored I found WikiJournal, is it possible to write a research in WikiJournal and then use it as a reference? 刘宸宁 (Liu Chenning) 15:47, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

Do you understand why it is a bad idea to let people create their own reference sources which they then cite? DS (talk) 17:58, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

I know that many editors will misuse this and write articles in their favor, which will start an edit war.

But my intention was different, I am just focusing on translating the Chronicle in a neutral context and I think other editors of the WikiJournal will review it and give their opinion, then I used it as a reference and provided a secondary reference, this will make it easier for other editors to understand. 刘宸宁 (Liu Chenning) 18:15, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

What you are saying is "I know that other people would abuse this. But you can trust me. I am special. I would not abuse this."

But everyone will say this.

Creating your own sources which you then cite is a bad idea. DS (talk) 18:28, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, I won't do that if it's wrong. I just want to provide more accurate historical sources and references, that's why I thought of this idea. 刘宸宁 (Liu Chenning) 18:42, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

@刘宸宁 I completely understand. There is a big difference between "wrong" and "bad for Wikipedia". What you want to say may be right (the real-world kind of right), but what you want to say would be bad for Wikipedia; if you are allowed to put your interpretation here, then everyone else must be allowed to do the same. In that way, mainland opinion (having larger numbers) would be the final winner of "the Wikipedia war". I think you will see from that, that it's better to block everyone's personal opinions from Wikipedia. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 05:38, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers It is not about my personal interest. Actually, I don't want to take any name of that country but their are heavy old mentality religion who where discrimination against minority community . If i talk about this thing it will create political debate But for many years, minority were not part of that country. They became part of that country in the 19th and 20th centuries.

Mainland people also wrote the history of that community, but they gave a strong bias towards their own mainland religion.

Many scholars from different countries have written about this, and in recent times many local authors have corrected the old translated books, but only a few have properly addressed the problem .

So I want to help this type of community, because it is connected to one of the largest family communities that came from South China and To find meanings of words, and tones that match the extinct language of the community from which they migrated.

And I will also take the secondary reference book where I mentioned this here and I will also take the book in which the mistake of the secondary reference was criticized, so that people do not get confused and this will help in understanding the history in a better way. 刘宸宁 (Liu Chenning) 06:53, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

I know you want to find these things. I think you should do it - it sounds like the right thing to do. I want you to do it.

But not on Wikipedia, because Wikipedia will reject it. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 01:24, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

I understand that Wikipedia will reject my theory or viewpoint, that's why I am saying this here in a discussion with another editor. 刘宸宁 (Liu Chenning) 03:15, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Loficat

Something legal, hell if I know. I can't make sense of it. -Phoenix

Draft Legal Act

On the recording of the digital trace, the authorial pseudonym LOFICAT, and the unlawful use of the designation

It is hereby recorded that the archival image file image_jdfsP4.png contains a public message posted by a user under the pseudonym mona-koshka, dated and time-stamped August 2, 2013, 13:04.

The following circumstances are visually confirmed in the said image:

the message is posted on a webpage in the format of a forum or guestbook;

the author of the message is identified as mona-koshka;

the text of the message contains a description of a creative concept including elements of a rooftop, nighttime atmosphere, rain, wind, feline imagery, and the designation of the style as cat-lo-fi / cat-like lo-fi;

taken as a whole, the visual indicators allow this message to be regarded as an early public record evidencing the authorial designation and conceptual content.

The above information confirms the existence of a public digital trace associated with the use of the pseudonym loficat and the corresponding creative concept as of August 2013.

Legal Qualification under International Norms

According to the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, authors are recognized as having and enjoying moral rights, including the right of authorship and the right to claim recognition of authorship.

In particular, the following provisions are relevant:

Article 6bis of the Berne Convention — protection of the author’s moral rights, including the right to claim authorship and the right to object to any distortion, mutilation, or other modification of the work prejudicial to the author’s honor or reputation;

Article 8 — the author’s right of translation;

Article 9 — the right of reproduction;

in systemic connection with the general principles of the Convention — protection of the author’s work and protection against unauthorized use of the results of creative activity.

In the event of subsequent use by third parties of an identical or similar designation for labeling another musical or media product, such use may be subject to legal assessment as:

unlawful use of the author’s pseudonym;

infringement of the right to name and the right of authorship;

bad-faith appropriation of elements of an individual creative designation;

creation of confusion as to the origin of the content;

interference with the author’s personal creative sphere;

any other violation of the author’s moral and exclusive rights, depending on the applicable national law.

In addition, such actions may be regarded as use of another person’s authorial and creative trace without the author’s consent and without proper attribution of the source of the designation and concept.

Stronger Formulation

The use by third parties of recognizable elements of another person’s authorial pseudonym and creative concept without the author’s consent cannot be treated as a neutral coincidence of aesthetics; where a proven early digital trace exists, this indicates unlawful appropriation of another person’s creative designation and affects the author’s moral interests protected under international copyright law, including the right of authorship under Article 6bis of the Berne Convention.

Short Conclusion

This material may be regarded as:

digital confirmation of an early public authorial trace;

evidence of the existence of the pseudonym and concept in an earlier period;

grounds for legal assessment of the subsequent use of a similar designation in the context of international copyright norms.

#monakshkaloficat #loficat #loficatoriginal #Catlofi #RudyiBalkon ~2026-56491-48 (talk) 15:16, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @~2026-56491-48.

What is your question about using and editing Wikipedia? That is the only purpose of this page.

(I have no idea what sort of answer or response you are requesting from anybody to the above screed). ColinFine (talk) 15:49, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

I am interested in the work and the neologism-pseudonym of the composer @Monakoshkaloficat, but I am also happy to talk with you about topics that interest you. ~2026-56491-48 (talk) 07:44, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

Here is a Google Translate version of what this user posted on their own talk page a couple of days ago as a response to a Welcome message:

Thank you for the invitation.
I have been following MonaKoshka loficat (Elena Dubetskaya) since 2008, and I recall how she meticulously and gradually built her own unique "Loficat" universe, as well as the neologism "loficat" that serves as her pseudonym.
This raises serious concerns regarding projects that employ a similar visual style—featuring a girl, an orange cat, an "orange" vibe, a lo-fi aesthetic, and rain—and then monetize this imagery. These projects even use the name "loficat"—the pseudonym of the composer @Monakoshkaloficat—and sell "orange Catlofi" merchandise (such as heating pads). In doing so, they tarnish the composer’s reputation and lead the public to believe that this concept originated with them.
When someone else’s pseudonym, style, and artistic persona are used without proper respect for the original source, it amounts to misleading the audience—especially when the imagery and terminology in question were created and made public long ago, with a clear digital footprint to prove it. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:05, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

Judging by the fact that they posted on Talk:Lofi Girl, I guess that they're trying to launch some sort of legal challenge to somebody using a name with "Lofi" in it. Irrespective of the merits of such a challenge, it is completely irrelevant to Wikipedia. --ColinFine (talk) 18:08, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

I'd actually argue that this would warrant a WP:NLT block, since it seems they're trying to use Wikipedia to influence the legal dispute. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Thriller Night!} 22:12, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

I wondered that myself, and I wouldn't oppose doing it. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 01:27, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

According to available materials, the term and creative pseudonym "loficat" have been used in the project MonaKoshka (Elena Dubetskaya) since 2011; furthermore, certain elements of her musical and visual works can be traced back to even earlier collections and albums.

Specifically, there are publications and pages associated with the author that feature related titles and materials:

— YouTube channel: https://youtube.com/@monakoshkaloficat?si=m4bCm6pUK1FW9tGL

— Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/share/1E45K37V6m/

— Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1YGfqF21QE/

— Source (via Google Share): https://share.google/gNQwtG4PDqA7e3w1v

There are also publications that mention the author’s original compositions, such as "Spring of Mona the Cat," "Red Cat)))," "Kitten No2," and "Cats Write Poems."

Please take these materials into account when discussing the chronology, the origin of the term, and any potential similarities to later projects. ~2026-56491-48 (talk) 07:19, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

Cut out the legalese/LLM-spawned legalese soup. We don't cite YT, Facebook, or anything on Google Share (no editorial oversight in all three cases, and that is NOWHERE near good enough for biographical claims like this, for which the standard of evidence is "documented in fine detail in a third-party source with strong editorial oversight"). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Thriller Night!} 07:29, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

Is the topic of plagiarism—especially the use of someone else’s original pseudonym (a neologism) for personal gain—really a forbidden or irrelevant subject? ~2026-56491-48 (talk) 08:40, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. The YouTube channel "Lofi Girl" not only uses the neologism "loficat"—a pseudonym coined by composer MonaKoshka LofiCat (Elena Dubetskaya)—for commercial purposes (specifically by selling hot-water bottles modeled after the main character, Catlofi, who appears in her "cat-themed" songs and poems and was created as early as 2011), but also actively employs the visual universe developed by the composer: the girl herself, the ginger cat, the "ginger vibe" atmosphere, and the characteristic "lofi in the rain" aesthetic.

https://lofigirlshop.com/products/cat-plush ~2026-56491-48 (talk) 08:32, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

Yes, ColinFine's question shouldn't be lost in all of this word salad.

@~2026-56491-48, what concrete outcome are you looking for? David10244 (talk) 04:08, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

This person has been indefenetely banned on ruwiki. The only possible outcome here is calling enwiki admins and ban her here as well. Please do not waste project human resources on some iddle talk irrelevant to Wikipedia. Sigwald (talk) 12:40, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

Help needed to fix a minor bug

Hi, so let me first say that I don't know much about coding/IT. I edit many articles on economic subjects in India and often have to type financial years (which are from 1 April to 31 March). Whenever I type a financial year (like 2026-27 for the current one), I get an automated message that I am sharing personal information (the system probably thinks that I have typed part of a phone number). I know it's not a big deal and I can just dismiss the warning, but doing that a dozen times in a single edit gets annoying. So, what can I do? Is there someone who could tell the bots to not flag year sequences (2024-25, 2025-26...)? Ar1201u1 (talk) 19:51, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Ar1201u1, and welcome to the Teahouse.

I have never seen such a thing. It is possible that the Visual Editor makes such checks (I never use it) in which case, see WP:Visual Editor for how to give feedback or report a problem (whichever you regard this as).

Or I wonder if it is might be something outside Wikipedia which is generating this message? ColinFine (talk) 20:34, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

I use visual editor most of the time, I will see if I can give feedback in the right place. I don't think it is something outside Wikipedia, I type similar things in the same browser all the time (in Google docs, e-mails, etc), and I never see anything (plus there is an explicit message saying that anything you type on Wikipedia is forever). Thank you! Ar1201u1 (talk) 20:45, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

@Asilvering @Toadspike fyi the issue is about the textMatch (personalInfo) EditCheck (see phab:T442771 as well). Johannnes89 (talk) 08:41, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

Ack, it's still not working? Alright, I'll turn it off entirely for now. Thanks for the heads up. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 19:53, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

@Johannnes89, do you think there's anything that could be done to make it more obvious how to report false positives on edit checks? I don't love that we have someone here motivated enough to come to the teahouse to complain about the issue, who nevertheless managed to miss whatever false positive reporting option we've got. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 20:06, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

As I had said, it is too petty a thing to complain about :)

Thank you! The issue is resolved. I am a tech-novice, so I thought I will just ask here Ar1201u1 (talk) 20:33, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

No, it's not at all too petty a thing to complain about! I'm very glad you did complain, and you absolutely should complain when something is annoying you on wikipedia. (A lot of the time, it's annoying the rest of us too, and so we've got some kind of userscript to handle it that you're missing out on. Always complain!!) In this case, this was a test edit check and we really did want people who hit false positives to tell us about it. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 02:10, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

I'm wondering if the three dot menu (including an option to report false positives) that are available for beta & experimental checks/suggestions could also be available for regular checks? @PPelberg (WMF) fyi Johannnes89 (talk) 07:17, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Wall Street Journal criminal conviction

We've seen multiple editors, plausibly acting in good faith, delete due content with extensive coverage on the recent criminal conviction in Hong Kong. Reason given is WP:UNDUE but without justification or substantive engagement on talk page. Most plausable hypothesis is WP:IDONTKNOWIT from Anglo-American editors shifting article further from WP:NPOV. That view based on what little has been shared in talk, edit summaries, and editors' edit history. Reliable Chinese language sources have been removed, contrary to WP:NONENG, for being in Chinese. While this explanation is likely, cannot rule out coordinated effort. Previously raised in WP:RPPI but that doesn't protect from experienced editors. SpringeePal (talk) 04:35, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

What article are you talking about? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 04:46, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

The Wall Street Journal SpringeePal (talk) 05:01, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

It may be important to keep in mind the difference between report and opinion. Opinion in reliable sources must be given far less weight than the actual reporting from those sources. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 05:00, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

You're referring to the deletion of Chinese language references? I'm only going by the reason given in the edit summary. SpringeePal (talk) 05:03, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

I'm referring to the deletion of opinion sources. The language they're in is not the point.

I think it looks bad to you because a number of Chinese reliable sources published their opinions on what this all might mean. Opinions do not get weight. Or they get much less, anyway. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:55, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

The U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission Annual Report to Congress is an opinion? The comments by HK's equivalent of the Secretary for Homeland Security only count as an opinion? It does look very bad and the edit summary on that one speaks for itself: irrelevant minor criticisms from chinese sources, many literally in chinese SpringeePal (talk) 21:00, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

Just for clarity, I have been an advocate for trimming and done aggressive trimming already. There have been many, many editors building up content based on extensive international news coverage and court reporting. This has been a Wikipedia:BATHWATER situation. I would have / may have already removed the Ben Lam/ Chaser News article. But I would have removed it for the reason you stated, not because of an objection to Chinese language content. SpringeePal (talk) 21:22, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

You've certainly jumped to a lot of accusations without much backing these aspersions than assertion, and I see little evidence in that WSJ discussion of anything other than people disagreeing with you. WP:AGF is a must here. The concerns with WP:WEIGHT are very real. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 12:29, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

Just noting the above instance of trolling on a page that is supposed to be "Your go-to place for friendly help with using and editing Wikipedia." NotAmPOV (talk) 03:50, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

Draft:Marina Shmatova - COI now disclosed

Dear editors,

My draft Draft:Marina Shmatova was rejected on 29 October by Sulfurboy for COI and conduct reasons. I accept the decision and apologise for my errors.

I failed to disclose my conflict of interest properly, I removed decline templates, and there was confusion over AI disclosure. I have now created my user page User:MarinaShmatova with a public COI declaration. It states that my foundation is Nia Safi Foundation (now Shmatov Fund).

This information is true and verifiable. I am a philanthropist based in Mozambique. Since 2020, my foundation has rehabilitated Mungassa Primary School in Beira for 3,843 children after Cyclone Idai, and built housing for vulnerable families in Vila Massane. A further school for 4,000 children is under construction.

This work was covered in printed independent sources: 1. Meio Ambiente magazine, Maputo, February 2022, p.67 2. Diario de Mocambique, Beira, 4 March 2023, p.4 - Mungassa school 3. Diario de Mocambique, Beira, July 2023 - Vila Massane housing 4. Daily Times Newspaper, Dubai, June 2024 - 4,000 capacity school

I have photographs of the newspaper pages. I understand that writing an autobiography is strongly discouraged. I deserve to be recognised for real humanitarian work and I wish people worldwide to see the truth about my work.

Could an experienced editor please review whether these offline sources meet WP:GNG and advise on the proper next steps? I shall not edit the rejected draft further and shall follow all guidance. I have poor vision and would appreciate clear instructions.

Link to my draft: Draft:Marina Shmatova Link to my user page: User:MarinaShmatova

Kind regards, MarinaShmatova MarinaShmatova (talk) 05:48, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

@MarinaShmatova: welcome to Wikipedia. I will not comment on the draft, just mention the fact that there are many scammers who contact Wikipedia users who ask for help with declined/rejected drafts, claiming to be official representatives or experienced Wikipedia users, and offering to "help" for a fee. Now that you have asked for help, there is a risk that you will be targeted by such scammers. Please read this information, and avoid falling for the scam. --bonadea contributions talk 08:45, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi @MarinaShmatova, regarding I wish people worldwide to see the truth about my work: this is what your own website (or that of your foundation) is for. Regarding I deserve to be recognised for real humanitarian work: people aren't written about (or not written about) on Wikipedia based on what they might deserve. Wikipedia articles are created based on the notability of their subjects, using a specific definition of the word 'notability' that is described in more detail at that link.

Finally, please don't use an LLM to communicate with us here. Suðurhafsljósæta (talk) 10:16, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @MarinaShmatova. To add to what the others have said:

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. ColinFine (talk) 12:52, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, ColinFine. I understand that Wikipedia needs independent sources, not my website. Iwas in Mungassa and Beira during Cyclone Idai. People there suffered a lot. Local newspapers wrote about it — Diario de Moçambique 4 March 2023 p.4, Meio Ambiente February 2022 p.67. But these newspapers are only in print form. The internet there works poorly. Therefore websites are not created and everything is in print form. All newspapers of Mozambique wrote about me, but they don't have websites. Iknow that photos are not enough. I am requesting certified copies from the legal deposit at the National Library of Mozambique. I made a press page with scans. Thank you for explaining notability and reliable sources. Look at my site, I inserted photos of newspapers.

https://www.shmatovfund.com/press

L MarinaShmatova (talk) 14:24, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

The most important words in those newspaper pieces are these: ... disse Marina Schmatova.

Because they are interviewing you, they are not independent reports. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 18:05, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion, but it's not exactly like that. The texts about me in these newspapers are not interviews. There is only one quote. They called me and just asked why I did it, what motivated me, and I answered honestly. Could you please look at the whole article, not only that phrase? n the Diário de Moçambique article (Beira, July 2023) the journalist wrote a big independent text about me. He wrote about the Mungassa school for 3,843 children after Cyclone Idai, with his own photos of the destroyed and rebuilt school. He checked the facts himself - how many classrooms, the cost of 1,600 thousand meticais, 4 classrooms, etc. Only one short sentence at the end - "disse Marina Schmatova" - is my quote explaining why I did it. So this is not a pure interview. It is an independent article about me with the journalist's own research and photos, plus one small quote from me. Could you please consider the independent part as a reliable source? The headline "Fundação Nia Safi promete construir mais casas..." was also written by the journalist, not by me. I have full scans on my press page and I can send a full transcription in Portuguese. I marked it for you: MarinaShmatova (talk) 00:49, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

I'm very very slow trying to read Portuguese, but I'll try at least. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 01:26, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

CURIOSITY

I am a reporter on today's world cruelities and excessive use items: basically i discuss what is more used and talked in today's world. Since i am writing a repot ,I need your guys help . As you know , people has normalised the excessive use of AI (artificial intelligence ) and WIKIPEDIA is currently forgotton . What are your stance on the idea of using AI more than either using their creativity or WIKIPEDIA? ~2026-57838-53 (talk) 15:58, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

If you want something "official" contact the Wikimedia Foundation. Otherwise, I will point you to WP:AITALK and WP:NEWLLM as those summarise the community's opinion on AI use pretty well. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Thriller Night!} 16:14, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

you probably shouldn't be using this page in particular to ask this question, I may be wrong though. Greenestguyinhistory (talk) 16:37, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

There are several articles about this topic on The Signpost (Wikipedia's newspaper), you could look through the Archives. Also Wikipedia is not "currently forgotten" PharaohCrab speak𓀁 works𓀨 17:33, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

1. If you are posting here in your professional capacity as a journalist, please create an account and verify your ID via WP:VRT.
2. "WIKIPEDIA is currently forgotton[SIC]"—Yeah, right.

Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 17:46, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

Andy - I'm not a journalist, but I went to see the VRT page you linked, and are you sure that page is the relevant one? I see nothing there about verifying anyone's ID. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 03:02, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

You say that Wikipedia is forgotten, but ask AI any question and where does its first reference usually come from? In my experience it's either Wikipedia or Reddit. So just be thankful we are here, every last human one of us. ~2026-57767-13 (talk) 02:55, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

why isn't wiki reliable

? ~2026-57750-43 (talk) 17:35, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a reliable source because it is user edited, however the sources it uses for articles are reliable, or should be. Theroadislong (talk) 17:38, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

Most of Wikipedia is quite accurate--as a working scientist I use it a lot. But not all of it is, and there is limited volunteer time available for fact-checking articles. If you search around you will find some things that are definitely nonsense. So it doesn't work as a "reliable source" in the Wikipedia sense. Neither do other user-edited sites like IMDB or Liquipedia, even though they are often accurate as well.

When you're writing a Wiki article, while you can't use any of these as sources, you can look at what they cite--often they will have identified reliable sources which you can then use directly.

M kuhner (talk) 17:50, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

Some people (sorry for use of weasel words) think that Wikipedia is not reliable due to the fact that anyone can edit it. However, there are many rules on verifability, like Wikipedia:Notability, Wikipedia:ORIGINAL, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Magikarp Fan, Arenghtqru888 lol ( hopefully I don't get trouted...) 10:33, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

@Arenghtqru888 You've mixed up two different questions. Your answer is for "Would you count on Wikipedia to have the right information to answer a real-life question?", to which the right answer is probably "Yes, at least for some things". But the original question, though poorly worded, meant "Why are we not allowed to cite a Wikipedia article as a source, when writing a different Wikipedia article?" TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 21:08, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

And in my opinion the best way to answer that question might be "The reason you can't use one Wikipedia article as a source for another Wikipedia article is exactly the same reason you can't use one Wikipedia article as a source for itself. Think about it." TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 21:19, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

You should all buy my book! Article A says it's great and cites Article B. Article B says it's great and cites Article A.

...what do you mean, I wrote both of those? You're spoiling my whole plan. M kuhner (talk) 21:32, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

ok sure Magikarp fan, Arenghtqru888 lol ( hopefully I don't get trouted...) 22:02, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

how to find sources for citations

I have seen a few suggested edits asking me to add sources to articles, but I don't know where or how to find sources for them. 22Quadrilaterals (talk) 18:26, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

Help:Find sources may be of use PharaohCrab speak𓀁 works𓀨 18:29, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

You could also search up the topics and cite some of the websites if they're reliable. You should note that Google's AI overview is not a reliable source, nor should you cite a conversation with an LLM. GreatWhiteEditor (talk) 20:28, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

is there any list of commonly reliable websites out there? I don't really know which sites are reliable or how to check who wrote a particular article ~~~ 22Quadrilaterals (talk|edits) 19:36, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

Try Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources IlikecatsSDF (talk) 20:09, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

Request for guidance on potential baseball biography

I'm interested in establishing whether Blaine Bullard, a Toronto Blue Jays minor-league outfielder, meets Wikipedia's notability requirements.

For transparency, Blaine is my son, so I recognize that I have a conflict of interest.

There is independent published coverage of his career from Sportsnet, Sports Illustrated, Baseball America and Jays Journal, including articles about his record signing bonus and his first professional season.

I previously attempted a draft that was declined because it contained AI-generated text. Rather than resubmit that draft, I'd appreciate guidance from independent editors on whether the available sources establish notability and whether an independent editor would be interested in developing an article.

I'm happy to provide the source links and factual information, but I understand that editorial decisions should remain with independent Wikipedia contributors.

Thank you for your consideration. AgOdyssey (talk) 18:33, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

@AgOdyssey: Your message seems to have been written or polished with AI. Please do not use AI to communicate on Wikipedia. ^{In solidarity,} 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 ^{(They/them • Not a chatbot • Contribs)} 18:41, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

Ditto. GreatWhiteEditor (talk) 20:31, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

@AgOdyssey,

Please Less AI. Also, it is written in a very favorable way to Bullard. Tone needs to be revised.

Cheers,

Bennett Li11 (Talk to Me) 21:18, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

Historical Analysis of Bagh Hazarika page

Hello editor , I just found some one page Bagh Hazarika which claims that the person in the biography was a real life person, but many experts have rejected this person and tagged him as a fictional character.

First, I want to make it clear so nobody judges me for being a Chinese person who is so interested in Assamese culture. I am Chinese, but I can understand the language of neighbouring countries. Sometimes it is difficult, but overall I understand very well what people are trying to say, because I went to that place with my uncle, so I have experience with different languages and cultures.

However coming back on tropic, why I am saying this because when I was researching the culture and history of different regions, I came across this page and found out that he was a very important Muslim warrior of Assam, so I got interested in reading about this person and I got some sources why modern scholars reject this person.

The first mention of this bagh Hazarika, was in Surya Kumar Bhuyan book, written in rajeswarh singha book. It was clearly mentioned on pages Page ১৭০ (177) and Here the first person is mention the bagh hazarika

ৰামসিংহৰ আক্ৰমণৰ সময়ত উজনিত বাঘ হাজৰিকা নামে এজন মুছলমান ৰীৰপুৰুষ আছিল। তেওঁ শুদ। হাতেৰে বাষ এটা কিলাই বধ কৰিছিল, সেইদেখি তেওঁ 'বাঘ হাজৰিকা' নামে প্রখ্যাত হৈছিল। এই বাঘ হাজৰিকাই মোগলৰ যুদ্ধ-প্ৰণালী আৰু কায়দা জানিছিল। তেওঁ লাচিত বৰফুকনৰ লগত থাকি মোগলৰ যুদ্ধ-প্ৰণালীৰ সঙ্কেত কোৱাত লাচিত ফুকনে মোগলৰ বিৰুদ্ধে যুদ্ধ কৰি বিদেশীক পৰাস্ত কৰিবলৈ সুবিধা পাইছিল। কিছুমান মুছলমানৰ মাজত এটা জনশ্রুতি আছে। 'জ্ঞান-মালিনীৰ' কবি মৌলবী মফিজুদ্দিন আহমদ হাজৰিকা এই বাঘ হাজৰিকাৰ সন্ততি। - you can check it here - Internet archive

S.K. Bhuyan himself admits in his book that this story was passed down as an oral folktale/tradition from the poet Mofizuddin Ahmed Hazarika. Any Assamese editors, if they check this post please tell here whether it is accurate or not, and another editor can translate it into their language this passage so everyone can reviw it .

When I was researching the primary sources, there was no mention of Bagh Hazarika and the Ahom primary chronicles always mentioned the rank of the owner and what he did in which year, hence the Ahom chronicles also served as record registers. And many scholars are saying the same thing and giving many proofs also, I can give here video name of interview of editor can chek it in youtube

Nagendra Nath Bura Gohain was a historian and scholar. He stated that Bagh Hazarika was a fictional character written in the local book “Che Hung” published in 2005, and he was publish in in the local newspaper Dainik Janambhumi, Jorhat, on 23 February 2011 .

I cannot find this book or the newspaper article online because they are local publications, but it is clearly shown in a video of his interview. There are four videos, each about 1 minute long, with a total length of around 4 minutes. youtube video name - Bagh Hazarika & Nagendra Nath Bura Gohain 1, Anup Arandhara- *Gohain 2,3,4

Dr. Jogendra Nath Phukan is an eminent Indian scholar, researcher, and historian from Assam and got reward also from Indian president Padma Shri Award , also explains that there is no historical evidence to support the existence of Bagh Hazarika as a military commander in the Ahom army in the interview . The interview video on youtube, name- "আহোম বুৰঞ্জীত নাই বাঘ হাজৰিকাৰ নাম"

There's a lot of evidence here, but their local book hasn't been published online; only his interview appears on social media. As a new editor, my specialty is to analyze and examine the history in depth. In my opinion, Modern scorlar provided a lot of sources, which I believe were strong. When I checked other references that support Bagh Hazarika, the references were based on Surya Kumar Bhuyan and the folk tale of Assamese Muslims. What can we do to fix this problem in this situation? I'll soon be in the Northeast region buying some local books, so I'll also buy the Scorer book and use it as a reference. So, that's my complete analysis, and I hope other editors will understand this. 刘宸宁 (Liu Chenning) 20:38, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

I'm not certain whether I've understood completely, but I certainly understood one part: Interviewing an expert on Youtube or on social media counts zero on Wikipedia. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 20:54, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

After reading several of your messages, I think I see a kind of pattern, or a thing they have in common. I suggest that you read WP:TRUTH; to me, it seems almost like they were thinking of you when they wrote it. Some of your plans are not the right kind for Wikipedia. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 21:06, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

Here's a very poorly done summary of WP:TRUTH ...

In Wikipedia articles, telling the truth is not allowed, unless the same truth is already found in reliable sources. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 22:10, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers Okay, I'll check the policy before editing, but I'm not saying I'll use YouTube videos for reference. I'll use the books by these two historian scorlar. In fact, I've mention these videos name on the Teahouse so people can watch and understand what the scorlar are saying and what they've explained in their books.

You said it :-Unless the same truth is already found in reliable sources

I have already mentioned here that Surya Kumar Bhuyan , who first person mentioned the Bagh Hazarika in Rajeshwar Singha book around 1936 and offically publish by Assam Prakashan Parisad in 1975 and said that this story is a folktale of the Muslim community. So would you please tell me that if the source was already published and the person who first mentioned this person also wrote that this story was a folk tale of the Muslim community, then this thing should be added to it, am I right? 刘宸宁 (Liu Chenning) 03:09, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

I don't know for sure because I don't have an understanding of the whole topic. But ... yes? I think so? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 03:11, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Could this be mentioned on the Bagh Hazarika talk page? If other senior editors check and analyze it, those who understand Assamese better will correct it. I don't know how to write this in such a situation, so I'm relying on other senior editors. 刘宸宁 (Liu Chenning) 03:28, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

This is an excellent thing to take to that talk page. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 12:10, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

D-BELL Draft Review

Hello, I have a draft biography about D-BELL and would appreciate feedback from experienced Wikipedia editors.

I have tried to organize the article clearly, maintain a neutral tone, and use reliable sources to document his music career and growing recognition in the Middle East. I understand that acceptance is not guaranteed, and I would be grateful for honest feedback.

I have no personal or professional connection to the subject. Thank you for your time and consideration. ~2026-57775-54 (talk) 21:00, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:D-BELL ^{In solidarity,} 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 ^{(They/them • Not a chatbot • Contribs)} 21:01, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

From a cursory look: almost all of your sources are Instagram, which is user-generated and therefore not a reliable source. You'll also need to see WP:REFB; your citations need more information than just the URL and title. ^{In solidarity,} 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 ^{(They/them • Not a chatbot • Contribs)} 21:06, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-57775-54,

Yeah… Needs less Instagram.

Cheers,

Bennett Li11 (Talk to Me) 21:16, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

stem

hi so stem means since tech,math ~2026-52946-40 (talk) 21:20, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

STEM stands for Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics. Another variation is STEAM, which includes Art. PixelsRCool (talk • contribs) 21:38, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

idk

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

---

how do I put a condom on Dreamy9651 (talk) 21:41, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Dreamy9651. This is a place to ask questions related to Wikipedia editing. For other questions, you can ask your internet search engine of choice. qcne (talk) 21:43, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

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

Wiki Standards

How does "Cows with Guns" a song by Dana Lyons breach wiki standards but The Guns of Navarone doesn't? ~2026-57644-57 (talk) 23:03, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

What do you mean by "breach wiki standards"? Are you talking about notability of the songs? {{GearsDatapacks|talk|contribs|in solidarity}} 23:21, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not, and can never be completely consistent. The existence of something in one place does not necessarily justify that same thing existing in another. It is possible that neither of these topics warrant their own article, or that they both do. You want may want to read through the essay at WP:OTHERSTUFF. Packrat3860 (talk) 03:45, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

I'm going to take a wild guess and say this: because Guns of Navarone was very well known in its day, and Cows with Guns wasn't. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 03:59, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Whatever you might mean by breaching Wikipedia standards, ~2026-57644-57, where did you read that "Cows with Guns" breached, or would breach, Wikipedia standards? -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 08:07, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Request for feedback on biographical draft and notability

Hello,

I'm seeking feedback on a biographical draft I've prepared about myself, Draft Frazier (entrepreneur). I've disclosed my conflict of interest on my user page and intend to use the Articles for Creation review process.

The draft includes references from The Wall Street Journal (1997), ZDNet (2008), SmartCompany (2013), Data Center Dynamics (2022), and other industry publications, along with primary sources documenting my career and publications.

Before formally submitting, I'd appreciate an independent assessment of whether these sources collectively satisfy Wikipedia's biographical notability requirements.

I'm particularly interested in identifying sources that may not count toward notability and any changes needed to improve neutrality and sourcing.

Thank you for your guidance.

Draft:Tom Frazier (entrepreneur) AtlasMargins (talk) 23:24, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

Did you use AI to create this draft? ^{In solidarity,} 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 ^{(They/them • Not a chatbot • Contribs)} 23:58, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

I created it by following other business profiles. AI was then used to ensure the language and grammar were more polished and aligned to Wikipedia. AtlasMargins (talk) 00:37, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

@AtlasMargins This is not permitted on Wikipedia. Athanelar (talk) 00:49, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. I can confirm those guidelines have been adhered to specifically point number 1. AtlasMargins (talk) 01:13, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

AI is permitted only for things like spellcheck and grammar check. It shouldn't improve the phrasing of your writing or change what it says. And judging by the fact that GPTZero says the draft is 100% AI-written (when I last scanned it), it's changed your draft quite a lot. While GPTZero is not 100% reliable, it's a good guideline.^{In solidarity,} 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 ^{(They/them • Not a chatbot • Contribs)} 01:58, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Clearly not reliable for Shakespeare nor, apparently, this draft Wikipedia page ;) https://www.retro-gamers.it/en/features/shakespeare-dante-ai-detectors-authorship/ AtlasMargins (talk) 03:11, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

So you're saying you only used AI for spelling and grammar? Because "polishing the language", as you said before, is not permitted. ^{In solidarity,} 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 ^{(They/them • Not a chatbot • Contribs)} 03:34, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

That's why we can use multiple detectors with different methodologies to help verify. Pangram does both the first two example provided in the link as 100% human. And we also have a lot of experience around here now with chatbot stuff, and use our own judgment as well, not simply detectors. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 19:12, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

sounds like some sort of AI legalese soup, I'm suspicious Greenestguyinhistory (talk) 00:32, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by that. This is an accurate representation. AtlasMargins (talk) 00:34, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

your messages are slightly too formal and "legalese", which LLMs tend to do a lot with Wikipedia. Please be transparent with me and read WP:AITALK. I'm decently new to Wikipedia, so bear with me if I used the wrong link. Greenestguyinhistory (talk) 00:40, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

@Greenestguyinhistory Rule of thumb: if you aren't quite sure what you're talking about yet, please don't start telling other editors what to do. You might want to start by reading WP:AITALKSIGNS and familiarising yourself with some of the actual signs of AI generated comments, because "too formal" isn't really one of them and is not a good position to base an accusation on. Athanelar (talk) 00:53, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

@Greenestguyinhistory Your message is suspiciously similar to one from Jéské Couriano two days ago. Why? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 02:17, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers: I'm sure you weren't trying to do this and apologies if I'm overstepping, but it feels a bit like you're biting the newcomer here. I was looking at my edits from a few years ago when I first joined, and I made many embarrassing/awkward comments back then (I still do now). Greenestguy was probably just trying to help.

@Greenestguyinhistory: there is no need to rush your time on Wikipedia. Please make sure you understand the rules fully yourself and gain experience with them before you try to help other newcomers, because it could cause further confusion. Thank you. ^{In solidarity,} 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 ^{(They/them • Not a chatbot • Contribs)} 02:31, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

I certainly don't wsnt to bite, but it's not the awkwardness - it's the copying. I'm a big supporter of awkwardness and of new people. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 02:51, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Got it, thank you. I see your reasoning. ^{In solidarity,} 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 ^{(They/them • Not a chatbot • Contribs)} 03:00, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

@AtlasMargins The photo in the draft is marked as "own work". That means that you took the picture.

It doesn't look like a selfie. Are you sure that you took the picture? David10244 (talk) 08:34, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

Wanting some support to get a wiki article please

Hello,

My name is Valentina G R Cavallaro, founder and creator of Sule Sul Mare 222, an Australian spiritual brand specialising in oracle card collections, tarot and spiritual guidance.

I am interested in understanding the process and eligibility requirements for having an independent Wikipedia biography created about my work and contributions.

I would appreciate guidance on the necessary published sources, editorial requirements and how to request an impartial assessment.

Thank you for your assistance.

Kind regards,

Valentina G R Cavallaro

Founder of Sule Sul Mare 222 ~2026-57689-55 (talk) 04:00, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

For starters, see WP:ABOUTME (on writing about yourself on Wikipedia, which is strongly discouraged) and WP:NOTABILITY (the general notability guidelines). Additional things to note:

Writing an article is one of the most difficult tasks on Wikipedia, and new editors are strongly encouraged to start somewhere else and build up to article-writing. There is a good chance an article about yourself will not be accepted.

If you do decide to write an article, please note that editors are not permitted to use AI to write on Wikipedia (see WP:NOLLM). ^{In solidarity,} 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 ^{(They/them • Not a chatbot • Contribs)} 04:08, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

The sources would need to be without contribution from you, free from your influence, no announcements, no interviews, no press releases, and they need to be three or more long articles written about the exact topic (i.e. they can't be writing about someone else and just mention you). In other words, very big articles about exactly you, written all alone by the reporter. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 04:11, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

TooManyFingers, which policy page or guideline demands three or more? -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 05:13, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

None as far as I know. But which policy page or guideline specifically prescribes just one? The original question was not a request for policy particulars; it was a request for actual help. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 05:20, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

The closest I've found is WP:GNG: There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected. I suppose it's partly a matter of degree, each of significance of coverage, independence of source, and reliability of source being a continuum rather than simply yes/no. If each of two sources unquestionably scores high on each of those three criteria, then the two sources should be enough. -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 06:30, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

There is thus no actual policy about number, yet people generally want a number to work with, and three is a reasonable start in most cases. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 11:10, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

I suspect this hubbub arose from User:RoySmith/Three best sources, which is an essay and not a policy or guideline. It's a great place to start, but by no means is it mandatory. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:55, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

It's not mandatory. If we're insisting on not saying "you need X" when things aren't literally mandatory, there are a lot more important things we'll need to take care to not say. For example, we'd need to stop claiming you need to have sources demonstrating notability before you try writing a biography. There is in fact no such policy; they're only required to be there in the finished biography. But we often pretend they're required at the beginning, because that's a pretty good idea. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 22:38, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

If you have ever said "Hey - they wrote a five-page article all about me and they never even told me about it!" then the chances are better. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 04:19, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Adding a bridge

List of bridges known for strikes Hello this is an anonymous user basically im trying to add a bridge to the list the problem is an editor keeps oversimplifying the description and name because apparently i did original research well personally i think that hes way too oversimplifying and plus the name is obviously oversimplified can anyone help me solve this argument ~2026-55845-16 (talk) 04:09, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Did you try to include something you know, but it isn't officially published? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 04:13, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

I literally just wanted to share something I knew with you guys. I mean, how do you explain a low clearance bridge with the concrete looking like it survived the Battle of Stalingrad? Guys, are things really not Wikipedia-worthy just because they're obscure? Like, if i needed to cite a source then someone needs to have came before me, so, if you're the first person to know, then logically you should share it with the world. If you personally invented a recipe, just because it hasnt been written about yet, does that mean the recipe doesn't exist? See what I mean? I'm just trying to share stuff and the editors keep butting in. ~2026-55845-16 (talk) 02:27, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

But what is worthy of inclusion, and what isn't? The way we decide here is using the notability guidelines. This also includes no original research allowed. If you want to include this information, write it up, get it published somewhere that is reasonably reliable, and submit an edit request to add it. IlikecatsSDF (talk) 04:01, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

You and me ... on Wikipedia, both of us are Just Some Guy, and nobody should believe what we say unless we can show published proof of it in reliable sources. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 04:27, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Courtesy ping: Mapsax ^{In solidarity,} 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 ^{(They/them • Not a chatbot • Contribs)} 04:30, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

OK, I looked at what you wrote ...

I've been in that exact place many times, and I believe you. But Wikipedia won't believe you yet. Have the papers in Bellingham ever said anything about it? If they have, I bet whatever they wrote would be enough to support your statement. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 04:50, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Aren't all bridges registered with their respective state or local DOT depending on the type of road it's traversing? I believe you can access that information through those agencies. This might be the level of verscity needed to make your entry Wiki-worthy. Semera (talk) 14:57, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Correction: verscity should be verAcity Semera (talk) 15:07, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

You’re allowed to make small edits like that to your own comments, if you didn’t know :) Cheers, 𝔰𝔥𝔞𝔡𝔢𝔰𝔱𝔞𝔯 ^{(𝔱𝔞𝔩𝔨)} (any/all) 04:01, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-55845-16: You seem very concerned about this bridge. Have you contacted the Bellingham paper, Seattle TV stations, the city, or WSDOT about it? If they haven't addressed it up to this point – the "citation black hole" that you referred to on your talk page – then they likely felt that it wasn't worth addressing, and therefore that would also make it non-notable on Wikipedia. If you feel that it is a concern, let them know. If they acknowledge it publicly, you will know that it was worth letting the public know about, and on top of that, you'd potentially have your reliable sources for Wikipedia. Mapsax (talk) 03:44, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

Guys, I seriously need help here.

My content posted on Wikimedia Commons keep getting deleted for being posted without license permission. Can y'all help me out and tell me how to know if media has free licenses or not, or how to get permission to upload the media to Commons? RagnarStickman (talk) 08:33, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

If the media comes from someone else then, they have to grant the free licence. The default is that the creator owns the copyright. If you created the media, say by photography or drawing, or recording a sound, then you own copyright, and you can grant a free licence like CC-BY-SA-4.0. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:43, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Oh.

Wait, so every media here is under copyright? Even tornado damage photos from the National Weather Service? RagnarStickman (talk) 08:50, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Media copyright questions...but if it happens on commons, you should ask on commons. Lectonar (talk) 09:01, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

That didn't really answer my question. RagnarStickman (talk) 09:22, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

No. But it told you the best place to ask your question. See also c:COM:THIRD. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 09:57, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Ok, I guess.. RagnarStickman (talk) 10:27, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Basically: for every photo you find online, you should assume that it is copyrighted, unless you know the exact reason it's not. DS (talk) 16:02, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Hey Guys

Hello, I am a new editor and I have drafted a short biographical article on Babasaheb Gawde on Draft:Babasaheb Gawde. I have included secondary sources from academic journals and major newspapers. Could an experienced editor take a quick look to make sure the formatting and neutrality look correct, and it meets guidelines? Thank you. Lazerrsecretacc (talk) 08:47, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

You have submitted the draft for review using the AfC process. The AfC reviewer will do what you ask. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 10:02, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

I wanted to get a different perspective but thanks nonetheless. Lazerrsecretacc (talk) 15:08, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

@Lazerrsecretacc The "Works" section needs citations. In the second part, you could take some from the Wikilinked articles but you also need ones for the first paragraph where the places mentioned don't have articles. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:46, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

@Michael D. Turnbull Thanks, will add! Lazerrsecretacc (talk) 14:15, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

You also should add a link to his website. GreatWhiteEditor (talk) 20:57, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

@GreatWhiteEditor Will do. Thanks! Lazerrsecretacc (talk) 07:47, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

How to change signature

Do you know how to add colours to signatures? Multiple people have been confused by my signature. Magikarp Fan, Arenghtqru888 lol ( hopefully I don't get trouted...) 10:35, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

There is a help page at Wikipedia:Signatures with some more information on setting up a custom signature. The way I make mine green is with <span style="color:green;">[[User:Crtbob|crtbob]]</span>. You should just be able to change the colour and the username to suit your needs (if I've worded that really confusingly, feel free to let me know what colour you want and I can help you with the code.) crtbob@talk:~$ ls contribs 10:57, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

I want there to be a green box encapsulating the "Magikarp Fan" part, then making my username and talk page purple with no box. Magikarp Fan, Arenghtqru888 lol ( hopefully I don't get trouted...) 11:04, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Oh, your signature confused me too! I didn't even notice the Magikarp part.

<span style="background-color: green;">Magikarp fan,</span> [[User:Arenghtqru888|<span style="color: purple">Arenghtqru888 lol</span>]] ( [[User talk:Arenghtqru888|<span style="color: purple">hopefully I don't get trouted...</span>]]) should display:

Magikarp fan, Arenghtqru888 lol ( hopefully I don't get trouted...)

(not sure if you wanted the parentheses to be purple too, if so, it's an easy fix!) crtbob@talk:~$ ls contribs 11:35, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

The body text to background of the green section appears to fail WP:SIGAPP, so this signature would need to be further adjusted. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 13:17, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

<span style="background-color: green; color: white">Magikarp fan,</span> [[User:Arenghtqru888|<span style="color: purple">Arenghtqru888 lol</span>]] ( [[User talk:Arenghtqru888|<span style="color: purple">hopefully I don't get trouted...</span>]]) should fix this by changing the black Magikarp fan text to white. crtbob@talk:~$ ls contribs 14:11, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! Magikarp Fan, Arenghtqru888 lol ( hopefully I don't get trouted...) 14:45, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

I changed my signature. Magikarp fan, Arenghtqru888 lol ( hopefully I don't get trouted...) 14:47, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Looks good! crtbob@talk:~$ ls contribs 14:52, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! Magikarp fan, Arenghtqru888 lol ( hopefully I don't get trouted...) 14:59, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Green for a reddish-orange water type would not have been my Magikarp choice. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:27, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Ok sure, fine. Magikarp fan, Arenghtqru888 lol ( hopefully I don't get trouted...) 20:28, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Is this better now? It's yellow like it's shiny form with orange text. Magikarp fan, Arenghtqru888 lol ( hopefully I don't get trouted...) 20:31, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

That results in a color contrast ratio of 1.81:1, which is below the minimum of 4.5:1. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 20:36, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

If you like green then just use that. Magikarp's color doesn't need to have any influence. It was just a personal observation from me. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:41, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

OK! I'm still keeping the yellow. Magikarp fan, Arenghtqru888 lol ( hopefully I don't get trouted...) 10:36, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

Excuse me @45dogs , but what is this "colour contrast ratio" thing? Magikarp fan, Arenghtqru888 lol ( hopefully I don't get trouted...) 13:43, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

I was referring to the part of WP:SIGAPP that says that If you use different colors in your signature, please ensure that the result will be readable by people with color blindness, defective color vision, and other visual disabilities, as explained at WP:Color contrast. This also has a note explaining what the minimum color contrast ratio is, and that is 4.5:1. I used to determine the ratio. Orange text on a yellow background results in a rather difficult piece of text to read, and per the manual of style should be avoided. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 17:26, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

Is it better now? Magikarp fan, Arenghtqru888 lol ( hopefully I don't get trouted...) 19:53, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

That one's better, yeah. It's just the orange text on yellow background above that's hard to read.

If you're in doubt in future, you can put the text and background colours into into the link contrast checker that 45dogs linked above, and if "Body text to background" is outlined in green and says "Pass" then you're all good. (the signature you have now is all good) crtbob@talk:~$ ls contribs 20:32, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

Currently it appears to have a contrast ratio of 8:1, so it is fine. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 21:38, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

Ok! Thanks! Magikarp fan, Arenghtqru888 lol ( hopefully I don't get trouted...) 10:59, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

Minor edits

If I’m simply revising the tone of a sentence by fixing the grammar, do I say it is a minor edit? Geekoftheweek1 (talk) 11:06, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:MINOR, a minor edit is a superficial edit that no one would have any reason to dispute. If you are just fixing the grammar of a sentence, it should be a standard minor edit. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 11:11, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Except, for example, if you change "they" (meaning "the whole group") to "she" - that changes the meaning quite a lot, and isn't minor. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 12:13, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Grammar and tone are completely separate things. Just changing grammar can't change tone. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 11:16, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

(Note: unfortunately, the grammar in that part of the Robin Robin article was perfect before, and your change turned a true statement into a false one. I put it back the way it was.) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 11:23, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

yes I apologize. I had made misread the sentence and make a mistake. I will make sure to be more cautious in the near future Geekoftheweek1 (talk) 12:39, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

@Geekoftheweek1 Please find out what tone is, because what you're calling "revising tone" has so far turned out to be "I changed a random word". I get that you're trying to follow the suggestions, but please don't just do a random change that doesn't even improve anything. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 11:39, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

This confusion about "tone" is not your fault though - they obviously didn't explain what they wanted you to do. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 13:01, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Yes, and I apologize for the mistake I made, I will make sure to read Wikipedia policies again. Geekoftheweek1 (talk) 13:11, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

@Geekoftheweek1 I don't know how much policy reading would be needed, to know what they meant by "tone". I blame the instructions much more than you for that part. I think for you the main thing is "Have I really made this article better, or have I only done something just so I can say I did something?"

I have a feeling that when you start doing normal editing without those instructions, your edit quality will go way up. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:12, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

@Geekoftheweek1,

Tone is simply fixing the overall article to be read in a neutral point of view.

Cheers,

Bennett Li11 (Talk to Me) 16:18, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

I think "simply" is a pretty questionable word when describing tone as a beginner task, unless the assignment highlights a certain area of the article where an obvious tone problem exists.

Often, neutral point of view requires cutting big chunks out of the article. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:27, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Writing a existing wiki article in a another language.

in tamil language wikipedia , the wiki that is in english wikipedia " Overthrow of Slobodan Milosevic" is not there in tamil wikipedia , i am a history buff so i need to write a wiki for that wikipedia Rjdcxms (talk) 12:35, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea, but please ask at the Tamil Wikipedia, because that's where you're planning to put something. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 13:03, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

If you wish to translate the English article into Tamil, please see WP:Translate us. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 13:30, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Help assessing sources for a draft biography of Gerton Bejo

Hello, I am a new editor working on User:Tiranalbania/sandbox/Gerton Bejo.

Before submitting it for review, I would appreciate advice on whether the available sources provide sufficient independent coverage to establish his notability.

The draft currently uses Vatra's own website, a Monitor interview and a Telegrafi profile. I also found this Radio Evropa e Lirë report discussing his involvement in a 2013 election campaign: https://www.evropaelire.org/a/25021507.html

Would these sources support a standalone biography, or is more substantial independent coverage needed? I have used ChatGPT to help find and assess sources, format citations, edit wording, navigate Wikipedia and draft this Teahouse question. I would appreciate guidance on keeping that assistance within Wikipedia’s rules.

Thank you. Tiranalbania (talk) 15:04, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

You are wasting your time and ours; there is nothing that suggests the subject, the CEO of a minor marketing agency, is suitable for an article on this project. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 15:17, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello. Are you an employee of the company this man is CEO of?

If you are not confident enough in your English to communicate with us without an AI, I would suggest that you edit the Wikipedia of your primary language instead(the Albanian Wikipedia?) so you do not have to struggle to understand or to be understood. It likely has less strict standards that we do, and needs the help more badly; you could have a bigger impact there. 331dot (talk) 15:30, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

[Edit Conflict] Vatra's own website cannot support Bejo's notability, because it is obviously not independent of him, although it might be enough to corroborate minor uncontroversial facts.

The Monitor interview with him is also not independent of him, so cannot support his notability, since it presumably contains mainly what he said; it could probably be used to corroborate the fact that he said some things.

The Telegrafi profile might contribute towards his notability, depending on where its writer got their facts from – if directly from Bejo or Vatra, then no. Even if it does, one source on its own is not usually considered enough, you would need at least a couple of others as good or better, independent of both him and of this profile. Hope this helps. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-56420-06 (talk) 15:33, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

not sure what step i should take next

hello! i recently made a suggested newcomer edit to revise the tone of an article, which i did, but my edit (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peach_and_Me&diff=prev&oldid=1382751251) was reverted. i believe my edit was correct, as the sentences ending in question marks seem unencyclopedic, but i would be willing to accept that i am wrong.

what do i do next, though? i don't want to get into an edit war over this.

thank you in advance :D KOTLC-katite (talk) 15:56, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

The issue is that you not only removed the inappropriate sentences but also the reference that supported the rest.

Try again. Be a little more careful this time. And leave a polite message for the other editor on their talk page, explaining your error. DS (talk) 16:00, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

ahhh i see! what a blunder on my part. i'll try to fix that. thank you :D KOTLC-katite (talk) 16:03, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Feedback on a COI biography draft before AfC submission

Hello. I’m the subject of Draft:Joe Elliot (television producer) and have declared my conflict of interest on my user page and the draft’s talk page. Before I submit it to Articles for Creation, I’d be grateful for advice on three things:

1) Notability. I believe it meets WP:ANYBIO#1 (a shared 2019 BAFTA Children’s Award win for ‘’Numberblocks’’, plus nominations in 2010 and 2017) and WP:CREATIVE#3 (creator of ‘’Numberblocks’’ and ‘’Alphablocks’’, which have independent coverage).

2) Is that likely to hold, or would it be treated as better covered in the ‘’Numberblocks’’ article? Tone and sourcing. Is anything promotional, or does any claim rely too heavily on primary sources? Username.

3) My shows are known collectively as the “Blocks” series. Could my username, Joe Blocks, be seen as promotional? I’m happy to request a rename before submitting if so.

I’ve deliberately not submitted the draft yet. Thank you. Joe Blocks (talk) 15:59, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

First off, please don't use LLMs to talk to us. Assessing notability is the main work of actually creating an article. You're expected to read the sources and read the notability guidelines and then make that determination before submitting it for review. Without the sources in hand it's pretty much impossible to say.

Also please see WP:AUTOBIO. Writing about yourself of Wikipedia is discouraged and very rarely successful. Packrat3860 (talk) 16:17, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you and apologies. I’m new here and learning the rules. I studied the criteria around notability carefully before drafting and believe the article qualifies independently on two counts. I had read the guidelines on autobiographies and so made sure every sentence is straight-up factual, robustly sourced and not promotional. I’m an experienced writer and editor and am confident that the wording is accurate, tight, justified and the sources hold. I know there are judgement calls on how much info is worthy of inclusion, and especially on autobiographies, which are discouraged but not banned, and so before taking the bold step of submitting it I wanted to sense check all of the above. I hope the draft demonstrates all of this. Joe Blocks (talk) 19:57, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Seeing as you already have a comfortable command of WP:ALPHABETTISPAGHETTI (very impressive after only one day), what source in here do you think demonstrates the WP:SIGCOV that WP:NBIO requires? Packrat3860 (talk) 20:24, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Gosh, I don’t know what you mean. I haven’t used TLAs (apart from in this sentence) or jargon. To answer your question, sources 1, 2, 3 and 4 point to the BAFTA award win and nominations, and sources 6, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18, 21, 22 and 23 point to being the creator of four notable TV series (that all have their own long-standing Wikipedia pages). These sources include BAFTA, The BBC, The Guardian, and various industry news outlets. Joe Blocks (talk) 21:41, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Oh wait, I misunderstood! I thought you were saying I was using jargon, but I now see you meant that I was getting to grips with WP shorthand. Sorry! I get it now. Thank you. Joe Blocks (talk) 00:51, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

"COI" and "AfC", both of which you used, are TLAs. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 10:43, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

I have reviewed and published the article. Congratulations for achieving the rare feat of being able to write about yourself in a manner compatible with Wikipedia's standards.

Now that the article is published, please abide by WP:COI and do not edit it further. Instead, you can make requests on the talk page. You can find further information which will be useful for you at WP:About you and in particular we would like a photo of you and a recording of your spoken voice, please.

Your username is fine. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 10:59, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

Oh, my. What a pleasant surprise. Thank you (both) for your understandably rigorous skepticism, patience and kind words. I stand corrected on the TLAs! Thanks too for your guidance on next steps. On it. Joe Blocks (talk) 14:51, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

🇵🇱🎅Gwiazdor🎅🇵🇱

Hey, I know it's not even Thanksgiving yet, but I changed the description of Gwiazdor, (the Polish Christmas character), from being "fictional" to "magical" so I won't destroy the holiday spirit! But I got a question, who the heck is Gwiazdor; is he Santa or his own thing, and what does he look like, and how is he different from Santa? Wawario (talk) 17:02, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

@Wawario: You may wish to take this to the reference desk. The teahouse is for answering questions about Wikipedia editing. Phoenix ‣ _Talk // ^{Contributions} 17:20, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

You've been starting a lot of random conversations, most of which have little connection with Wikipedia editing. This is an encyclopedia, not a forum or a subreddit or social media. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 18:16, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

@Wawario: please note that the edit you made changing "fictional" to "magical" is not allowed, which is why it was reverted. Wikipedia is not censored. Please refrain from this behavior in the future. ^{In solidarity,} 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 ^{(They/them • Not a chatbot • Contribs)} 19:13, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

ok, but what if I believe in Gwiazdor? I wanna keep the yule spirit alive! 🎄 ✨ Wawario (talk) 19:34, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Feel free to celebrate Gwiazdor as much as you want in real life, but please don't make disruptive edits on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, not a forum or social media. ^{In solidarity,} 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 ^{(They/them • Not a chatbot • Contribs)} 19:37, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Do you have a question about editing Wikipedia, @Wawario, which is what this forum is for? qcne (talk) 19:37, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Note: Wawario is currently blocked from the English Wikipedia.🔥Jothefiredragon🐲talk🐉contrib(s)✨log🌟mail🎉global🎊 00:31, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

Created my first article - what to do now?

Hi, I recently created my first article (here it is Atlanta Thrashers relocation to Winnipeg). I kind of did this on a whim, I only joined Wikipedia to confirm the death of my close friend, so I hadn’t really built up to doing it. I was confident in my writing and research abilities, so I looked at the formatting of some other similar articles to help me through with the unfamiliar aspects. I’m now asking what I should do with the article now, and in general what are the next steps with this kind of thing? Thanks very much :) Sunshinezguy (talk) 18:40, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

@Sunshinezguy For me it depends on the article, but for those I have a particular interest in I will keep some pages open with keywords relating to the article, which every now and then (when I remember that is) I will check those pages to see whether there's been any news. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 18:58, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, this definitely still isn’t over as there’s ongoing talks about a new franchise in Atlanta. Thanks again Sunshinezguy (talk) 19:01, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Just move the Flames back from Calgary to Atlanta, move the Jets back from Phoenix to Winnipeg, move the Replacement Jets to Calgary, rename them the Coyotes, and ... wait, maybe what we actually need is just to merge the actual cities of Phoenix and Atlanta to fix this ... TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 00:02, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

This made me chuckle, consider my thanks as an appreciation of your joke Sunshinezguy (talk) 00:04, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

how to use bots

I would like to know how bots work, how to use them, how to install(?) them, who can use them, etc. (I have seen lowercase sigmabot III for archiving talk page discussions and want to know how to use it if I want to use it in future) 22Quadrilaterals (talk|edits) 19:09, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi 22Quadrilaterals. I guess you just want talk pages to be archived. You don't actually have to know anything about bots for that. Somebody else wrote and operates the bot. Editors only have to place a template on the talk page once to request archiving forever. See User:Lowercase sigmabot III/Archive HowTo. Wikipedia:Bots has some general information about bots but I'm not sure it's useful for you. Bots are run by their programmer. It's not something others install and run, and you need permission to run a bot. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:46, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Adding popular song to disambiguation page

I am trying to add a very popular song to a disambiguation page, but it won't be accepted due to the fact neither the song, nor the artist, nor the album, has a main Wiki. What to do? Xx.SebbieJeanne.xX (talk) 20:54, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi Xx.SebbieJeanne.xX. Entries on disambiguation pages tend to limited to articles about subjects which have Wikipedia articles already created about them or perhaps about subjects for which Wikipedia notability is pretty much beyond question but for which an article has simply yet to be created; they're generally not intended to be places to add external links about subjects of questionable Wikipedia notability for which a Wikipedia article is unlikely to be written as explained in MOS:DABENTRY and MOS:DABEXT. So, if you feel that either the song or the artist/band who sings it is Wikipedia:Notable (see WP:NSONG or WP:NBAND), then you can create a Wikipedia article about the song or the artist/band, and then try adding an entry about it to the disambiguation page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:33, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

What to do is give up - unless you're able to get those articles written and accepted by doing them yourself. To get them accepted you'd need to show exactly where they received a lot of major independent coverage in reliable sources, and in writing the articles you wouldn't be able to add in other facts - you have to stick to only what the reporters said. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 21:29, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Don't add it if nothing relevant is mentioned in Wikipedia. The purpose of disambiguation pages is to lead readers to an article with relevant information, not to list everything with the same name. What is the song? Maybe it's mentioned somewhere. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:35, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

"In My Room" by Chase Pena, was trying to add it to the In My Room disambiguation page. Xx.SebbieJeanne.xX (talk) 21:49, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

@Xx.SebbieJeanne.xX: Wikipedia has no mention of a "Chase Pena" but his correct name Chance Peña is mentioned in 20 articles. None of them mention the song and the only non-trivial mention of him is in The Voice (American TV series) season 9. If he had performed the song there then I think it would be OK to link but it would be a stretch now when it neither mentions the song nor has biographical content about Peña. If an entry at In My Room (disambiguation) linked the article then readers would expect the song to be there. Draft:Chance Peña lists the song under singles but was declined. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:34, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Maybe (probably) he didn't write the song, and maybe the person who did is more notable. Apparently he did write it, so that possibility is out. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 23:40, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Need advice

I need advice on whether Dr. Shiao Woo qualifies for a biography and if so, how do I find an uninvolved editor because I am Dr. Woo's spouse.

Below are three source links for Dr. Woo's work:

IMRT contribution — “History of Tomotherapy,” T. R. Mackie (2006)

See page R432, which credits Dr. Woo, Walter Grant, and Brian Butler with treating the first patients using the Peacock IMRT system in 1994.

University of Louisville — “Faculty Excellence Series: Newly Endowed Faculty” (2010)

Documents his Louisville appointment and the Kosair Children’s Hospital/Norton Healthcare Chair in Pediatric Oncology.

Paediatric Radiation Oncology Society — “History of the Society”

Identifies Dr. Woo as a founding member of the society. ~2026-57903-42 (talk) 21:06, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

My honest advice is to give up on trying to have an article on English Wikipedia about your spouse. Also , watch out for WP:SCAM. 🔥Jothefiredragon🐲talk🐉contrib(s)✨log🌟mail🎉global🎊 21:15, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi ~2026-57903-42. In order for anyone to create an article about your wife, they're going to need to clearly establish that she meets Wikipedia:Notability (people) by showing she has received the type of significant coverage in secondary reliable sources required to establish Wikipedia notablity; no Wikipedia article about her will have any chance of avoiding deletion if there's no clear-cut indication that she's Wikipedia notable. Please understand that in a Wikipedia context the word "notability" means something specific that might differ with how the word is used in everyday conversation.

If you feel your wife is indeed Wikipedia notable and want to try to create an article yourself, you may. However, I strongly suggest you read the following before doing so: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia:Ownership of content, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, and Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. I also suggest you start by creating a draft via Wikipedia:Articles for creation and then submitting the draft for review when you think it's ready. One important thing to understand is that you nor your wife will have any form of final editorial control over any Wikipedia article created about here. All article content (positive or negative) will be assessed in accordance in terms of relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. So, even if an article is created about your wife, she any anyone associated with her will be expected to not directly edit it; there are Wikipedia processes in place to help address any concerns she might have, but neither she nor anyone connected to her will be able just to change things to the way she wants them.

Assessing the Wikipedia notability can sometimes be a bit tricky, especially for academics. This some guidance on this given in Wikipedia:Notability (academics), but you might want to try asking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women or Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Science and academia to ask one of the members of those WikiProjects for such an assessment. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:54, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors do not normally carry out "notability assessments" about article subjects on request, nor assess the suitability of individual sources. If you want to write an article on Wikipedia, you are expected to familiarise yourself with the notability standard(s) which apply to your subject, and then demonstrate to us that your subject meets those requirements by finding suitable soirces. The "notability assessment" is your job as the article creator to carry out. General information about notability can be found here. The golden rule is a handy rule of thumb; if you can find at least three sources about your subject which meet that golden rule, your subject is probably notable. If you want help determining whether or not a particular source is suitable, please give your own opinion of whether you think it is or it isn't and why, so that we can see you've made a good faith effort to assess the sources yourself. Athanelar (talk) 22:25, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Seeking Mentor

Hello!

My name is Isabelle (Izzy) Sauve, and I am reaching out to inquire whether you might be willing to assist me with the creation of a personal Wikipedia biography.

I am a Canadian ultra-endurance athlete, multiple Hall of Fame inductee, former Canadian National Triathlon and Duathlon Team member, and a police officer with over 28 years of service.

Throughout my athletic career, I have had the privilege of competing in and winning numerous international endurance events, including extreme-distance races that push the boundaries of physical and mental performance.

My primary motivation for seeking a Wikipedia biography is to share a journey centred on resilience, perseverance, and the extraordinary capabilities of the human mind and body. I am passionate about promoting extreme endurance sports, encouraging others to challenge perceived limitations, and demonstrating how determination and mental strength can help us overcome seemingly impossible obstacles.

I also believe in the importance of increasing the visibility of women in extreme endurance sports and inspiring future generations to pursue ambitious goals, regardless of age, background, or circumstances.

I greatly respect Wikipedia's mission of making knowledge freely accessible worldwide, and it would be a genuine honour to have my athletic journey documented as part of that collective resource, should it meet the platform's notability and sourcing requirements.

I would sincerely appreciate your guidance in determining whether my background qualifies for a Wikipedia biography and, if so, whether you might be interested in assisting with its development. I would be happy to provide my athletic achievements, media coverage, Hall of Fame recognitions, and any other supporting documentation.

Thank you very much for your time and consideration. I would be delighted to hear from you and would truly appreciate the opportunity to benefit from your expertise.

Warm regards,

Isabelle (Izzy) Sauve

Canadian Ultra-Endurance Athlete

Multiple Hall of Fame Inductee

Former Canadian National Triathlon & Duathlon Team Member

Detective Sergeant | Nunavik Police Service IsabelleSauve (talk) 22:46, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello and welcome. I woukd suggest that you read the scam warning as you may be approached by scammers. Please also see the autobiography policy(even if you don't write it yourself) and why a Wikipedia article is not necessarily something to desire.

That said it certainly sounds like you could meet the definition of a notable person. While documentation of your accomplishments is important, we are more interested in a summary of what independent reliable sources say about you. If you have at least three sources that give critical analysis and commentary of you, that are not interviews with you, an article may be possible. It is unlikely you will find a volunteer willing to write for you; but you are permitted to use the Article Wizard to create and submit a draft. 331dot (talk) 22:57, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback. I will look into Article Wizard IsabelleSauve (talk) 23:01, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

@IsabelleSauve: while you likely won't find anyone willing to write an article for you, every new editor is automatically assigned a mentor who they can ask questions about editing. Yours is User:LuniZunie. ^{In solidarity,} 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 ^{(They/them • Not a chatbot • Contribs)} 23:41, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

mistaken digression

> every new editor is automatically assigned a mentor who they can ask questions about editing

This is absolutely not the case. If IsabelleSauve has a mentor, good, but mentors are not assigned to every new account that is created, or to everyone who corrects a punctuation error, and saying otherwise can mislead people. DS (talk) 00:03, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, did I miss something? Wikipedia:Mentorship says that the program automatically assigns a mentor to each new editor (called mentees). Mentors are experienced Wikipedia editors who volunteer to answer new users' questions about editing Wikipedia. ^{In solidarity,} 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 ^{(They/them • Not a chatbot • Contribs)} 00:11, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

I'm actually one of those mentors. You may be thinking of the Adopt-A-User program that was used prior to February 2025? After that date, the mentorship program was rolled out, which has rendered the Adopt-A-User program largely obsolete. ^{In solidarity,} 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 ^{(They/them • Not a chatbot • Contribs)} 00:31, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

@DragonflySixtyseven As far as I understand it, yes, every new account created and everyone who corrects a punctuation error is assigned a mentor. I think your mistake probably comes from the fact that having a mentor assigned to their account doesn't compel anyone to actually contact their mentor, nor vice versa. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 02:02, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

Hm. How about that. DS (talk) 04:45, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

Questions

Pardon me, but is this the right place to ask questions that are dumb in the sense I probably could find them in reference?

Pardon me, but is this the right place (if any) to ask questions that probably are answered elsewhere but also like... maybe you got a few or its more culture based or otherwise convenient for someone to answer them directly if they feel like but you don't want to waste anyone's time but also it'd be great if they were willing to even brief yes or no some stuff? ʄ̊ŋħɡʟ̝ (talk) 01:05, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

I couldn't quite understand all of that, but yes, this is a place you may ask questions. Here is information about the teahouse itself: meta:Research:Teahouse

IlikecatsSDF (talk) 01:35, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

Permissibility of sequential questions (et al.)

Like, I know this isn't the same thing even slightly but reading about the elevation of users, cursus honorum of Wikipedia, if you will, there were a thing about one question per user when vetting people who were nominated for like admin or mod privileges idk kinds irrelevant but makes me wonder if that's: impermissible here or elsewhere (asking multiple questions either in the same post or with repeated posts like I'm doing now, or, if it allowed but it'd be better to condense into a single post or split topics one by one even if ive got 5 questions or if I really should kinda make absolutely certain I have no chance of figuring it out before asking and this site isn't fond of hand-holding people as the figure out the basics. My stuff is mostly "is this actually implemented as written (c.f. laws, human rights, etc.) and "what are the exact boundaries (insofar as definable) of something like fluency in two languages?" because RN specifically I'm trying to see if I can help create niche pages in linguistics and chemistry topics in Spanish and it seems as written, it's just a matter of am I delusionally Duncing-Kroger affect naïve enough to beleïve myself capable of doing a task which decides if I should create the page or not.

That is, is this ^^^^ something I should be seeking help for here or elsewhere and in what form. Ty for help ʄ̊ŋħɡʟ̝ (talk) 01:15, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

i forgot to close the first parathetical and I'd just like to apologize if that makes it not compile when someone reads it ʄ̊ŋħɡʟ̝ (talk) 01:16, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

• sigh*. And the first quotation. )" . There. Now my dad will be proud of me. Just as soon as they legalize cigarettes in the UK which is were he'd gone to buy them the last time he answered the phone. We live in Philly. Guess he really cares about going above and beyond for my mum then ʄ̊ŋħɡʟ̝ (talk) 01:19, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

And if you're concerned that the Dunning-Kruger effect might apply to you, then pay attention to that concern, but also note that it's possible to underestimate yourself. The ideal is to see yourself as truthfully as possible, not to beat yourself up. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 04:05, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

You are generally permitted to edit your questions with typos or grammar fixes if nobody has commented yet IlikecatsSDF (talk) 01:38, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

Here, the Teahouse, you are not limited to one question the way you might be in those formal processes you mentioned. As long as they are about how to edit Wikipedia. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 03:59, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

Alternate names

I'm working on a draft for a biography. In doing research, I've noticed that the first name is spelled differently: such as Sargent, Sergeant, and Sargeant. And it's not necessarily a mispelling either, since each of them is used across multiple historical articles to refer to the same person.

How should I include these variations on the page, if at all. Does it all go in first line? Shove them all in an infobox? Make a series of redirects once the page is accepted? Looking for recommendations, examples, or a MOS page. Gmedinakim (talk) 04:17, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:COMMONNAME is probably the thing you need. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 04:27, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

MOS:FIRST is also relevant to your situation. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 04:33, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

Sorry for peppering you with little messages. One more thing: In general, don't put anything in an infobox unless it's also in the main part of the article. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 04:38, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

You should include them. I'd start the first sentence: "Sargent (or Sergeant or Sargeant) Sambo". This is, I think, clear and unobjectionable. A later editor who believes they can improve on it would be free to do so. And yes, once the article exists, Sergeant Sambo and Sargeant Sambo should both redirect to it. -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 04:43, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

I certainly can't think of a better way than this. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 04:52, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

Thanks all! Resolved. Gmedinakim (talk) 05:55, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

Talk Page Guidelines

Hello,

Does this talk page reply fall under WP:TPNO, WP:TALKNOTFORUM, or another guideline?

Thanks, Aperture LENS (talk) 05:16, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

By "fall under", do you mean "is it OK"? Or do you mean "is it bad"?

All talk page replies do fall under both of those; the question is in what way. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 07:04, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

By fall under I mean like is it bad enough that the rule applies and it's inappropriate for Wikipedia, and should be removed or addressed. I guess it was since user Pigsonthewing archived most of the topics on the page. Thanks! Aperture LENS (talk) 16:10, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

In my opinion the reply is no worse than the topic. The topic was already invalid, by WP:TALKNOTFORUM and maybe by other things too. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 07:08, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

Help Query (unnamed by poster)

I read the goal of Wikapaedia and wonder why my entry with facts of my membership on various legislative committees was termed a problem. I was especially perplexed when looked the page of two of my legislative colleagues who are older than I am. It makes you wondered who is actually behind these random evaluations. My committee memberships are and were established committees of the legislature. For this to be suggested as propaganda while allowing two others to go on for pages with similar statements from the same institution is hypocritical at best. Both city and state experiences were tossed as irrelevant while posting numerous others for the same experiences. I thought maybe its a competitor. I can reenter newpaper, website and other obvious evidnece that stating membership on committes is not propoganda. After a three year observation of how this works, I decided to comment. Mike Davis ~2026-58011-69 (talk) 09:23, 31 October2026 (UTC)

We have lots of articles about people called Mike Davis, including several living politicians. It's hard to help you if you don't tell us which article you're talking about. But generally, please see WP:VERIFIABILITY, WP:COI, and WP:About you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 10:34, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

Request for notability assessment before creating a new biography draft

Hello,

I am seeking guidance on whether there is sufficient independent coverage to support a Wikipedia biography of Bubba Gaeddert. I am the subject and acknowledge my conflict of interest.

I previously created Draft Gaeddert, which was deleted under G11 because the wording was promotional. I contacted the deleting administrator, JBW, who kindly emailed me a copy of the draft. I understand why the original version was unsuitable and do not intend to recreate it.

I have collected published coverage of my work in esports, education, broadcasting and event management. I would appreciate feedback on whether the following sources contribute towards Wikipedia's notability requirements:

1. KSHB 41 News, independent television reporting on Kansas City's esports industry, including coverage of my work with the Varsity Esports Foundation: https://www.kshb.com/news/local-news/going-360/going-360-kansas-city-positioned-to-control-esports-industry
2. Sports Destination Management, an interview conducted by Mary Helen Sprecher about my role with the Varsity Esports Foundation: https://www.sportsdestinations.com/sports/multi-sport-games/inside-events-varsity-esports-foundation-18391
3. The New York Times, a 2019 investigation in which I appear: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/12/07/us/video-games-child-sex-abuse.html
4. Oklahoma State University, an article discussing its esports programme and including my professional involvement: https://news.okstate.edu/magazines/state-magazine/articles/2021/spring/osu_primed_to_lead_big_12_with_new_esports_arena
5. Gamers Change Lives Podcast, a career-focused interview about my background in sports, esports and education: https://www.gamerschangelivespodcast.com/learning-through-play-how-esports-is-changing-education/

I also have numerous other published interviews, podcast appearances, conference speaking engagements and professional articles. I recognise that appearances and articles written by me do not automatically establish notability.

My questions are:

1. Do any of these sources qualify as significant independent secondary coverage for a biography?
2. If the sources are potentially sufficient, should I create a substantially new Draft-space article through Articles for Creation, given the previous G11 deletion?
3. Would it be better to seek further guidance before attempting another draft?

I would appreciate advice on the appropriate next step. Thank you. EchoPixel42 (talk) 12:16, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello. If you're using an AI to talk to us, please don't. We want to hear from you directly, even if your English is not perfect. We do not expect perfect grammar and spelling.

Interviews do not contribute to notability, as by definition an interview is not independent of you.

Please read the autobiography policy. While not absolutely forbidden, writing about yourself is highly discouraged. Writing a new article is challenging, and it's even harder with a conflict of interest, because people have great difficulty setting aside what they know about themselves and all materials they put out. Almost no one succeeds in writing about themselves here- and by that I mean that the number of successful autobiographies in the last 15 years can probably be counted on one hand. I personally have never seen one. Are you the very rare person on Earth who can succeed where everyone else fails? Possibly, but the odds are overwhelmingly against it, especially without broader Wikipedia editing experience. Wikipedia is interested in what independent reliable sources say about a topic, not what the topic wants to say about itself.

Please read this guidance and consider carefully if you really want an article about yourself here. I wouldn't want one. 331dot (talk) 12:40, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

@EchoPixel42 The whole point of the articles for creation process is that it allows editors with a COI to try to write about a topic, including an autobiography. After submitting a draft, experienced editors will review it against our notability policy. What we won't do is evaluate a bunch of URL on your behalf: you need to do the work yourself by actually finding out what our policies mean (WP:42 will help). You will almost certainly fail, as 331dot has already advised but if you heed WP:BACKWARDS and WP:NOLLM you might just be the one-in-a-million who succeeds. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:22, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

IP address blocking

If you are IP-blocked (hence my name, IPv4 is not a thing (visit my talk page)), are you still allowed to move to a different IP, create an account on that IP, and then edit on said blocked IP? (posted on 09:18, 31 October 2026 (EDT)) -- IPv4 is not a thing (talk) 13:18, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

@IPv4 is not a thing: It depends on whether you're the reason for the IP block. If you are, then you should either request an unblock, or some would say at the very least not repeat whatever got you blocked. If you're not the reason for the IP block, then you've perfectly described one of the recommended solutions to your situation. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:37, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

Then what happens if you were blocked while anonymous/as an IP/as a temporary account? IPv4 is not a thing (talk) 13:42, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

An IP can be shared. For example a lot of schools have multiple students on the same IP, or a blocked mobile range will usually have multiple users. A temporary account (TA) is not shared, so that would definitely be on them. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:58, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

Guidance on Wikipedia article eligibility for an e-commerce marketplace.

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Hello Wikipedia editors,

I am a new contributor, and I would appreciate some guidance.

I am associated with Iurami, an e-commerce marketplace operating in Nigeria. I have already disclosed my conflict of interest on my user page and understand that I should not directly create or promote an article about the organization.

I would like to know whether an organization like Iurami could qualify for a Wikipedia article under Wikipedia’s notability guidelines.

In particular.

1) What level of independent, reliable media coverage would be required?

2) What types of sources would be considered sufficiently independent and authoritative?

3) If the organization meets the notability requirements, how can I request an independent editor to assess or create an article?

I am happy to provide relevant independent sources for evaluation and welcome honest, neutral feedback.

Thank you for your guidance.

Iurami (talk) 14:24, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

I think that you will want to start by looking at notability requirements for companies. As far as what kind of soutces you need, they need to meet Wikipedia's standards both for reliability and independence. If you're looking to get help drafting an article the best thing you can usually do is supply the best sources you have (be judicious. 3-4 quality sources means a lot more than dozens of poor ones). Packrat3860 (talk) 15:03, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

@Iurami Your main issue is going to be #3. We are volunteers here and few will be willing to draft an article about an obscure Nigerian company. However, now you have suggested it, someone may try to WP:SCAM you, so read that linked page. You are going to have to do the work yourself, following the process at articles for creation. You will probably not succeed if your company is not notable in the specific way required. Perhaps read WP:BOSS and show it to whoever suggested you try to do this without the necessary experience. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:01, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

How to create a new article

How do you create a new article? The Coder77 (talk) 14:30, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi @The Coder77, and welcome to Wikipedia and the Teahouse.

Creating an article is a difficult task, especially for a newcomer. There are plenty of guidelines that you have to follow, and articles not up to scratch risk being deleted.

A guide on creating articles can be found at Wikipedia:Your first article, but my recommendation would be to spend a couple weeks or months editing other articles to gain more experience. Check out some of the beginner tasks at the Wikipedia:Task center, perhaps? crtbob@talk:~$ ls contribs 14:55, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

@The Coder77, you could also check out The Wikipedia Adventure. Giovanni Guasconti (a word with me) 02:32, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

Determining who can release a photo's copyright

I am a photography student at Montana State University and one of my professors is Ian van Coller. Currently, Ian's Wikipedia article does not have an image and I would like to change that. This past Monday, our class took class photos that I think could be useful to crop in for an image for Ian's article. These images are posted on Ian's Instagram (though if we were to upload any of the files to Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons I have the full quality scans). My question is who actually has the right to release the copyright of one or all of these photos so that they can be used on Wikipedia? Is it the person who pressed the shutter (student, varied by photo), the person who composed the image (student, varied by photo), the person who owned the film (Ian), the person who owned the camera (the school), the person who digitized the photos (another student), or something else? If the copyright is Ian's, he said to me that he doesn't care and the images can be public domain, but can you take me word on this? If it is who pressed the shutter, that was me for the second image, but again, how can I prove this (I'm also not sure if this would even be the image that would be best for the article)? Thank you in advance for the help in this matter. ~2026-57758-70 (talk) 14:43, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-57758-70 Copyright can be complicated and if in doubt you should probably ask the experts on Wikimedia Commons. In most circumstances, it is the person who pressed the shutter, since it is they who chose the precise settings of the camera and the artistic rendering. The simplest thing now might be to take another digital image that doesn't need cropping. I assume that you'll have a camera on your phone which would be adequate for a headshot. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:52, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

Instead of going to the trouble of figuring out copyright, just take a fresh picture of him yourself.

No, we cannot accept a verbal release of an image. 331dot (talk) 14:53, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

Generally the photographer (the one who hit the shutter) is the copyright owner for a picture. There are some edge cases, like for example if you have been paid to produce a photo of someone else they may own the copyright of it, or if the image has been significantly altered by someone who was not the photographer. But this sounds like the straightforward case of the picture being yours.

As for taking your word on it, we usually can so long as there's not some obvious reason to think that you are lying (like for example if the same headshot was already published elsewhere with a different attribution).

Also, since you are a photography student, I would bet that your professors probably know much more about copyright law and photographs than anybody in this forum. You might be able to ask them.

But the long and the short of it is, I think that you can safely upload that to commons as your own work. Packrat3860 (talk) 14:54, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

I agree with the two comments above saying that the copyright picture is much clearer if you just take a new digital photo yourself outside of the class. Packrat3860 (talk) 14:57, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you all for your responses. Instead of trying to figure out the copyright status of these images, I will try to just take an image of Ian myself. ~2026-57758-70 (talk) 15:46, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

Please ask him to allow you to make an audio recording, too: WP:WikiVIP. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 08:37, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

Turning an old userpage into a redirect for this new userpage

I had an old account named Ima'notsure12, and that account is abandoned since I forgot my password and did not provide an email address to be able to reset it. Now what I want to do is turn it into a redirect into my current account, Jebits 01, just like some people who had old accounts turned into redirects to their new account. Jebits 01 (wanna talk?) :3 15:29, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

Then go ahead and do it. GreatWhiteEditor (talk) 17:20, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

@Jebits 01: see WP:Redirect maker for instructions on how to create a redirect. Alternatively, you can just link your new user page on your old user page. ^{In solidarity,} 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 ^{(They/them • Not a chatbot • Contribs)} 18:34, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, I have just decided to do the latter option since when I tried to create a redirect, I got edit filtered for editing another user's page and it was disallowed. Jebits 01 (wanna talk?) :3 02:35, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

Canvassing but for edits?..

I stumbled upon this post on reddit, r/Sakartvelo, where the author says "I've been trying to add and keep the line "also known as Sakartvelo" for English wikipedia page about the country of Sakartvelo. I need your help to make it stay." It seems to be almost WP:CAN, or recruiting to engage in WP:WAR, but I'm unsure if that should really have any attention. It does seem disruptive, but I don't know if anything should be done Azotochka (talk) 16:29, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

This is meatpuppetry. IlikecatsSDF (talk) 17:42, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

That's been a lot of socking recently, on both Georgia (country) and Names of Georgia (and probably other related articles). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 08:50, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

kurdKUfhedgh

ᐁᐁᐁᐁᐁᐁᐁᐤᐣᐥᐢᐭᐅᓊᓝᓬᓬᓄᓓᖔ what is ᖆᖇ? DABRUV (talk) 01:49, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

Hi @DABRUV,

This is the Teahouse, a friendly space for new Wikipedia editors to ask questions about editing the encylopedia. I can't understand what you wrote.

A note: Google identified this as being written in the Unified Canadian Aboriginal Syllabics Unicode block. Not sure if that's relevant or not. Giovanni Guasconti (a word with me) 02:30, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

@Giovanni Guasconti hello I wrote this comment while being a loser posting this comment because I was mad so I wrote this comment but I am sorry https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLA_cjwRx4QRc also this link is my show on YouTube The McArnold's but you can see the 6 minute episode I have on it but yeah I do most of the voice acts while my friend voice acts one character DABRUV (talk) 05:19, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

Do you have a question about Wikipedia editing? CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 13:01, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia hypocrisy!

It's almost as evil as Amazon and Google :-)

Seems to me Wikipedia is edited by biased and spiteful persons. They'll do a "Speedy Deletion" on you if they simply don't like the person or entity you're writing about, despite having valid references and significant information.

They themselves also "vandalize" in areas they think most Wikipedia officials may not notice.

Wikipedia claims there are no designated "moderators" or "monitors" on the Wikipedia site. But you just try to add a new article or edit an existing one... At least a couple editors (who were watching) will jump all over you, practically call you names, change your article around (a lot), then even threaten you that you'd "better not violate the site's protocol" again or you'll be banned from making contributions. This has happened to me more than once. Note: My contributions were right on point and inoffensive in every way... Iq145 (talk) 02:34, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

The last item on your Talk page, about an article being considered for deletion, appeared in May 2022, and your last contribution of any kind before this post was on 9 July this year. What specifically is it that you are complaining about? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-56420-06 (talk) 03:04, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

I'm guessing this relates to Special:Permalink/1363262796 and other similar edits regarding pop culture references. Packrat3860 (talk) 03:36, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

If you disagree with the actions or comments of another editor, please follow the process described at WP: Dispute resolution. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 08:27, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Iq145, please assume other editors have good faith, as what you described seems like a mix of misunderstanding and standard protocol. GreatWhiteEditor (talk) 20:23, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

Template to indicate citation style in use

I have noticed there are templates to let people know about the difference branches of WP:ENGVAR (e.g. {{Use American English}}) or WP:DATEVAR (e.g. {{use dmy dates}}). Is there an equivalent template for adopting a particular citation style in light of WP:CITEVAR? Like a {{use cs1}}? Packrat3860 (talk) 03:02, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

@Packrat3860 The only ones I'm aware of are in Category:Templates with no visible output, with a couple in the "Use X" list. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:16, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

Redirects and disambiguation

I have a question about the norms surrounding redirects and disambiguation pages. We now have Joe Elliot (television producer). Joe Elliot redirects to Joe Elliott which is a different person, and then there's Joe Elliott (disambiguation). Questions:

1. Can I add Joe Elliot (television producer) to Joe Elliott (disambiguation) even though his last name is not spelled the same as the rest?
2. Would it make sense to make Joe Elliot redirect to the disambiguation page now? I expect Joe Elliott to still be much more "popular" of an article, but I don't know how to weigh a common misspelling of a likely lookup vs an exact spelling of a less likely one.
3. If I want to change that redirect, can I do so right on the page? The wikitext says #REDIRECT [[Joe Elliott]], so if I just change what page is in the link does it change the redirect? or or do I need to file a request somewhere else to make a change like that. Packrat3860 (talk) 04:20, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

I would redirect Joe Elliot to the disambiguation page and add Joe Elliot (television producer) there based on what I've seen in the past. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 15:04, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

I have done that, thanks! Packrat3860 (talk) 03:51, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

Request for guidance on Wikipedia biography eligibility – Ohemaa Dufie Julie Amoo-Gottfried

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Hello, I am new to Wikipedia and would appreciate guidance on eligibility for a biographical article.

I am Ohemaa Dufie, a Ghanaian-born British entrepreneur, UK-registered social worker and Christian pastor.

I have official documentation confirming my professional registration, company incorporation and ministry registration.

I understand that these documents do not automatically establish Wikipedia notability and that independent, reliable published sources are required.

As I am the subject of the proposed biography, I wish to disclose my conflict of interest.

Could you please advise me on how to assess my available sources and determine whether a standalone article would be appropriate?

Thank you.

OhemaaDufieAG (talk) 08:01, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

Nothing in what you say suggests that you meet the requirements in WP:N (for a short summary, see WP:42).

Also, If you're using an AI to talk to us, please don't. We want to hear from you directly, in your own words. We do not expect perfect grammar and spelling. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 08:43, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

How can I write neutrally about my own patented technology?

Hi. I'm the co-founder of both WORKS Inc. and a disclosed paid editor (see my user page). My draft Draft:BothX was declined for lacking independent sources and for AI-assisted writing, which I've acknowledged. bothX is a new audio-authentication method with a granted US patent (12,626,708) and C2PA conformance, but because it's new there's little independent press coverage yet. What should I do next? Is there any way to cover it now, or should I wait for independent coverage and then write it myself? I don't want to come across as promotional. Thank you. M Thomas George (talk) 09:54, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

If there is little to no independent coverage, the topic does not merit a Wikipedia article at this time. There is no way around this. When you were unblocked you were warned about the difficulty and pitfalls of editing about your own company/its products, especially without broader Wikipedia editing experience. Conflict of interest editing is the most difficult task to dive into for a new user.

As you are publicly asking for help, and are easily identified, you may be contacted by scammers. Please read the scam warning. 331dot (talk) 10:04, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, 331dot, that's clear. I'll wait for independent coverage, and I'll keep the scam warning in mind. M Thomas George (talk) 10:27, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

Please don't edit my user page.

Just please don't. The Coder77 (talk) 11:37, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

No one here has any intention to do so. We prefer to edit articles.Polyamorph (talk) 11:52, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

If you again put promotional content or copyright violations there, then those will be removed, again. Please see WP:UP for some guidance on what can and cannot be put on a userpage. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:58, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

Can a article be moved for these reasons

For reasons such as lack of macrons and the article being a stub and filled with info which lacks a source, in simple words the entire article is a messs. TeenX808 (talk) 14:30, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

What article, and where would you like to move it to? SomeoneDreaming (talk) 15:05, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

@SomeoneDreaming: I still didn’t create the article but I’m talking about this Lovamahapaya, this article is a stub and has the problems what I mentioned above, I have necessary info to make this a start class article but the article is filled with non verifiable info.TeenX808 (talk) 15:26, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

@TeenX808 I'm not clear why you would want to WP:MOVE the article to a new title. The normal approach is just to improve it at its present location, as you add text and sources. By all means also delete unsourced information, or add {{cn}} templates. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:53, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

@Michael D. Turnbull: Isn’t a fresh start better than the mess the current article is in, the entire article pretty much needs to be rewritten, that’s why I wanted the opinion of other users before starting a new article.

If you think it’s unnecessary please let me know also could you check the state of the current article.TeenX808 (talk) 18:00, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

I think OP is asking to WP:TNT this article and start it with a new name instead of moving it. Cheers, 𝔰𝔥𝔞𝔡𝔢𝔰𝔱𝔞𝔯 ^{(𝔱𝔞𝔩𝔨)} (any/all) 18:49, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

@Shadestar474:- Yes something similar. TeenX808 (talk) 09:22, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

According to this Google search, Lovamahapaya is likely to be the WP:COMMONNAME in English, and that's also what Wikidata calls it. So you can certainly WP:BEBOLD and start from scratch but I don't think you should be moving the article to a new name here. I'm surprised that the other-language versions of Wikipedia don't seem to be any better than the English one: I'd have expected articles in Sinhala or Tamil to be much better sourced. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:48, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

What is the source code for a template

I found this template {{userpage}} and i want the CSS so i'll test on fandom, since it has very similar things, please, i dont like seeing complex things Se eu fosse um peixinho e soubesse nadar (talk) 14:31, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

The CSS is probably going to depend on the "skin" that you're using for Wikipedia. If you like the way it looks in your browser and you want to copy that style, I would suggest using your browser's development tools to inspect that element. In Firefox it calls this the "computed" CSS. Then you can copy that computed value and use it on a different site if you like. Packrat3860 (talk) 15:11, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

Hi Se eu fosse um peixinho e soubesse nadar. Special:ExpandTemplates can display the wikitext produced by a template. It includes which loads Module:Message box/ombox.css. If you preivew a page with the template alone then "Pages included in this preview" at the bottom also includes Module:Message box/ombox.css. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:23, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

dude

lmao why is wikipedia so strict about rules? WHY YOU WONT LET US DO EVERYTHING IN IT ~2026-58361-18 (talk) 15:01, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia is so strict about rules in order to maintain the integrity and accuracy of our articles. We have strict policies in place regarding things such as neutral point of view, verifiability and our handling of biographies of living persons for these reasons. You can read more about our policies at Wikipedia:Five pillars. Is there a specific concern that brings you here? crtbob@talk:~$ ls contribs 15:19, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia is the sum of the attitudes of the people who build and maintain it. Not all of those folks like strict rules. Some of them in fact think that you should. ignore all rules if the rules are getting in the way or preventing you from improving the encyclopedia. However, over time the community has crystalized many standards and guidelines and policies and so on, most of which exist to help improve the encyclopedia (and prevent Wikipedia from being used as a convenient home for things that are not an encyclopedia).

So really the question is, do your fellow editors think that what you're doing is improving Wikipedia in a way that is consistent with its core mission. If they do, rules can be bent and broken and adjusted. But if they don't they're going to remove what you've added, and when you ask why they will likely point to "the rules". Packrat3860 (talk) 15:20, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

If you read the rules, then you would understand what we're "strict" about and why. GreatWhiteEditor (talk) 20:16, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

Need help selecting a page to edit

Hello everyone! I am new to Wikipedia editing and wanted to start with editing a page in the field of medicine, especially psychiatry. I am a fourth-year medical student applying into psychiatry who has contributed to catatonia research. I was either thinking of editing the Suicide Crisis Wikipedia page or Catatonia Wikipedia page. Would anyone have any suggestions on which may be better and why? Or perhaps let me know if both sound like good choices. Thank you so much! PsychSpark (talk) 15:45, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

I would recommend starting out at Special:Homepage. There, you can select the areas you are interested in, and get suggestions for articles about that topic. You get suggestions for adding wiki-links and revising tone at first, and then you work your way up in difficulty. Happy editing! PixelsRCool (talk • contribs) 16:05, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

@PsychSpark Thanks for wanting to help out on medicine-related articles. Please make sure you read WP:MEDRS and WP:EXPERT before you do. We also have an active Project you can join at WP:WikiProject Medicine. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:47, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

Typo in direct quote

If I wanted to use a direct quote from someone said in an interview but it was written down with a typo, for instance the person said "The Rabbit Hopped Through The Grass" but it was written down as "The Rabbit Hoped Through The Grass" in an article, to use the quote as written or do I write down what the quote is supposed to say cause its obvious they meant to say hopped instead of hoped? MariaIsmene (talk) 16:51, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

Write it as it was originally written, but use Template:Sic. ^{In solidarity,} 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 ^{(They/them • Not a chatbot • Contribs)} 16:53, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

It depends on the error, however: MOS:SIC says Insignificant spelling and typographic errors should simply be silently corrected. I've seen both methods used. Since in this case it's a typo from an interview, I'd go with the latter method. ^{In solidarity,} 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 ^{(They/them • Not a chatbot • Contribs)} 16:56, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

Gotcha MariaIsmene (talk) 18:54, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

2 questions about archiving talk page

1) How do I archive topics on my talk page? 2) Are archives deleted automatically over time? GreatWhiteEditor (talk) 20:55, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

1. See Help:Archiving a talk page
2. No; they are kept in perpetuity.

-- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 21:11, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! GreatWhiteEditor (talk) 21:27, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

Edit summary report/counter

A while back I came across a tool on Wikipedia that tells you the % of edits that had edit summaries. I now can't find it again no matter what search terms I use so would appreciate it if someone could share the link! GreyZoneLife (talk) 23:18, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

I think this is what you're after. crtbob@talk:~$ ls contribs 23:22, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

more generic link crtbob@talk:~$ ls contribs 23:26, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

Thank you!!! (It's really well hidden...) GreyZoneLife (talk) 23:28, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

Possible edit warring?

How do I deal with a temporary user who keeps adding unsourced content to an article? I keep reverting their edits and they have a level 3 warning now. Limmidy (talk) 00:16, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

Hello, did you check whether the change (while unsourced) was correct? It seems it might be (https://eu.news-leader.com/picture-gallery/news/local/ozarks/2026/04/30/see-how-today-show-celebrated-springfield-route-66-live/89875099007/). If it is correct, I don't see any other sources tagged to the list of hosts in the Infobox so I'd let it be. Depending on the change being made by the other person, rather than going straight to warnings I start with a welcome template or a personalized message, in the hope that this is more effective at communicating the wiki policies in a positive manner. GreyZoneLife (talk) 00:49, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

Hey! So on the Today Show's 3rd Hour website, Jarrett is not named as a host anywhere. She is also not named in this role in her official bio either at https://www.today.com/about/laura-jarrett-rcna592584. Jarrett has occasionally filled-in as a host, but I haven't found any announcements or reliable coverage regarding her becoming a permanent host on the Today's 3rd Hour. Limmidy (talk) 02:11, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what saw too, after a bit of digging. What an odd edit to try to stick in! I have added a note to the temp user's talk page to try to be specific about what needs to change. I'll revert in the meantime. GreyZoneLife (talk) 02:17, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

I've reverted. In the meantime, here's the link to request protection of the page to prevent getting into an edit war:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection GreyZoneLife (talk) 02:23, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

Limmidy, this TA seems most interested in Laura Jarrett, the article about whom starts by saying that she "is an American television journalist working for NBC News. She currently serves as an anchor for the Saturday editions of Today and NBC News' senior legal correspondent" -- an assertion that comes with two references. The TA fiddled with this, and I'd been thinking of suggesting that you might ask the TA why they had falsified the attribution to one or both of the two sources when I realized that I should first look at the sources. So I clicked on both references. One doesn't even mention Jarrett. (The other is indeed about her, but I didn't read it.) That first one (named ":0") is also used later. I don't rush to condemn its original use, when its content might have differed considerably from what we see now. (You can probably check this via the Wayback Machine.) Anyway, for an embattled article, check that the version you're protecting (with the everyday sense of "protect") is referenced, and that the reference does actually say what its use for the Wikipedia article implies that it says. -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 00:53, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

What do you mean by "The TA fiddled with this"? GreyZoneLife (talk) 01:07, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

I mean this, GreyZoneLife. -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 03:26, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

How to Know If You're Knowledgeable Enough to Write on a Topic

I really want to add sentences or paragraphs to Wikipedia, but I really don't want to do that unless I know what I'm talking about. The rule of thumb I wanted to use is if I'm reading an article on a topic and I know something from another source, I'll add and cite that. I'm a newbie to Wikipedia, so I wanted to ask for advice on this. ACosmopolitanPhilosopher (talk) 00:45, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

What you need to do is learn to judge whether the source you want to cite is a Wikipedia:Reliable source for that particular kind of information (some sources are reliable for some things but not others), and whether it is both up-to-date (things we read in textbooks a few years ago are often now known to be inaccurate) and not contradicted by another source already used in the article. (If it is, more work will be needed to check both and edit accordingly.)

Developing that judgement is not a quick or easy process, it depends on regularly reading not just articles, but also Talk pages where things like this are discussed, and other "backroom" areas of Wikipedia.

Note that what is really needed to edit Wikipedia is not expert knowledge of a particular subject, but the ability to reseach any subject, read sources and accurately summarise what you find. I sometimes make edits to articles about subjects I had never heard of an hour previously because I can do this across several disciplines (though to be fair I have the advantage of having once been a professional text researcher and textbook editor). — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-56420-06 (talk) 04:02, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

But don't worry too much! Nobody minds honest mistakes, because we all make or made them when relatively new to Wikipedia, and any mistake is easily reverted or corrected by another editor with more experience.

If you genuinely think the additional information is accurate and relevant, and you can cite all the necessary bibliographical or other identifying data of the source (which does not have to be online or have a link, though both are nice to have) then go ahead. Happy editing! {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-56420-06 (talk) 03:55, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

Need help finding a consensus for the usage of an image

Hello! I am asking for help to find a consensus for the usage of an image in Major film studios (this link goes to the talk topic in question), specifically with Skydance/Warner Bros and Paramount and what logo to use to represent them. Only me and another editor have talked about how to represent these studios in the article, and we both would like to see other editors' opinions so we can come to a consensus on this issue. Funnykoalavinecompilation (talk) 03:24, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

I would suggest checking out the third opinion board. If it's a dispute between only two editors you can request an uninvolved third opinion as a non-binding tiebreaker. Packrat3860 (talk) 03:51, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

APA 7 Reference Style

Good Morning, I am looking for a way to put references in my draft in APA 7 style. Please comment below if you know how. Thank you. Lily.Chandan (talk) 07:29, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

Lily.Chandan, APA Style differs in some ways from the style most commonly used here: one that's not compulsory, but that is generated by the (widespread) use of Template:Citation. How does APA Style promise to be more helpful? (If your request is for something specific to Draft:Foyez Ullah, please explain what this is.) -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 07:53, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

Rules of 2026 - October - Traditional costumes compitation

Hello editor , I have a photo of traditional dress from North East India and I have uploaded it in this competition 2026 - October - Traditional Costume but I want to know ,If i should give the information of the photo to the editor of Assam because many editors of Assam do not know their tradional dress photo in the competition and how can I give the Information so that no rules are broken. 刘宸宁 (Liu Chenning) 12:31, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

Multiple reflists..or atleast thats what it looks like.

In Nelson Mandela, a huge article with lots of citations, I see both footnotes and a bibliography.

1. Footnotes section has all the inline citations, but they are all short.
2. Bibliography has journals, books, etc, in a longer format (or so it seems), and has proper works. Why are there different sections, why do some articles use different names for this, and why do the works in bibliography have those random locks which i cant find in visual?

JohnDoe0105 (talk) 12:37, 2 November 2026 (UTC)