Wikipedia:Teahouse

CiaPan, a Teahouse host

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

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

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

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

Help Wikipedia

Assistance for new editors unable to post here

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

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

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

Can somebody help me ?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

overall timeline correlation not sure what that means...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Check the article before the submit the draft

n someone take a look at my article in sandbox & let me know if its good to be submitted as draft - User:RasikaofVR/sandbox. RasikaofVR (talk) 06:54, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

No it isn't, User:RasikaofVR. It's a biography of a living person, and therefore everything it says must be referenced to a reliable source. Currently a lot of it is not referenced. Furthermore, every assertion of what could be described as an achievement must cite a reliable source that's independent of the person that the draft is about. -- Hoary (talk) 10:58, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

I have added the citation whereever required can you please let me know if its good to be submitted for review as draft? Thanks RasikaofVR (talk) 02:47, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

In addition to Hoary's comment, please note there's no need to seek pre-draft review. The purpose of making a draft article is so it can be submitted for review via the Articles for Creation procedure, and then if it passes that review it can be published in mainspace. Athanelar (talk) 11:09, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

I have made changed & submitted the draft & is declined, can you please check if its because I have unintentionally used any peacock terms? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Vasudha_Ravi RasikaofVR (talk) 23:20, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

You can read the decline notice at the top of the draft. It was declined not just for unencyclopedic tone but also for a lack of notability in your sources. You need to find sources that demonstrate this person is notable as per WP:GNG and/or WP:NBLP and/or WP:NSINGER. See WP:42 for guidance on what makes a good source. Otherwise, there's no point trying to clean up the unencyclopedic tone if the subject isn't notable enough for an article anyway.

For more specific feedback the best person to ask would be Aesurias, the person who declined your draft. You could ask them for specific feedback at their talk page. Athanelar (talk) 23:40, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your response RasikaofVR (talk) 23:41, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

@RasikaofVR Claims like "Vasudha’s concerts are noted for their chaste and unhurried, balancing depth and emotion" are not supported by the sources provided. Many of the claims in "musical training & career" are not from independent sources, including some that come directly from site profiles that Ravi has written herself. (her own site, Shaale)

"Citation 7" links to another vocalists website but has no mention of Ravi. aesurias (talk) 23:45, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Also, the example you provided here of another similar article shouldn't be used as an exemplar. It needs a lot of work and uses mostly unreliable sources. aesurias (talk) 23:49, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you will look into them. RasikaofVR (talk) 23:52, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

I have some changes, should i re-submit for you to check or can you please check. Thank you RasikaofVR (talk) 01:41, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Sorry made some changes RasikaofVR (talk) 01:41, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm afraid I am unable to review the draft as I am no longer a reviewer. Someone will be able to look at it soon. No need to rush. aesurias (talk) 21:18, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Can you please let me know what I need to fix, are there peacock terms or the citation are not appropriate? If its the citations kindly please let me know which ones are not accepted ones. Really appreciate your help in this, have been struggling to get this right. Thank you again RasikaofVR (talk) 20:03, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

As a fairly inexperienced editor, perhaps you'd be better off giving up on your draft for now and getting some experience editing the wiki and participating in discussions first. There's no rush to create this article. If the subject is notable enough for an article now they'll still be notable later. Creating an article is one of the most challenging things to do on Wikipedia and requires a very solid understanding of how Wikipedia works. Athanelar (talk) 21:01, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

User conduct issues

I am slightly confused about how to deal with user conduct issues (incivility, persistent personal attacks and accusations, false claims) in the early stages

When I look at the dispute resolution pages, as I have unfortunately had to in recent times thanks to being attacked by a particular individual multiple times on a page we both want to work on, I see most of them are about conduct disputes. It says to go to the Administrator's Noticeboard for conduct issues, but on there it says: "This page is for urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems."

But this is not urgent and the issues in conduct have primarily (though not exclusively) come through two 'tranches' of comments and incorrect reversions, as well as general rude, dismissive, and falsely accusatory conduct in a content dispute resolution process which is less important. So three overall, but two of them were linked. That is to say: what is the lower-end dispute resolution step AFTER the talk page but BEFORE the Admin's Noticeboard.

I have tried asking nicely for them to change their conduct because they were falsely accusing me of not providing sources (which was, and is, demonstrably and objectively false) and being generally rude + attacking me personally using personal insults. They just continued.

I left a message on their talk page but they just deleted it.

What next? I feel like I'm missing a step beforehand because it cannot be solved informally (as I have tried...) yet it feels it has not reached the point of it being "urgent" or "intractable".

Thank you in advance. I wont name and shame here because I don't want to drag the whole silly problem into here. I just want them to leave me alone, stop accusing me of false things (that often show they haven't actually read what I've put but have just deleted anything that I've done or disregarded my words), and stop deleting my stuff. In the most recent case, they accused me of this, that, or the other, then immediately agreed with my position in reply to someone else which...makes me extra confident their conduct is problematic.

LevatorScapulaeSyndrome (talk) 21:43, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

@LevatorScapulaeSyndrome I haven't looked at your specific case but there is general advice at WP:dispute resolution. I'm not clear whether you have read that, as it has lots of suggestions short of WP:ANI. Mike Turnbull (talk) 22:16, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Dear Mike,

To me, it appears there is one step short of ANI which is the talk page.

3Resolving user conduct disputes

• 3.1User talk page
• 3.2Noticeboards
• 3.3Last resort: arbitration

I tried 3.1, and 3.2 is the next one. What am I missing here? I cannot see anything short of ANI, yet the descriptor on it implies there should be? LevatorScapulaeSyndrome (talk) 22:21, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

For content disputes, you can get a third opinion via WP:3O or WP:DRN. For edit warring, you can post a case at WP:AN3, and if these content dispute escalate into personal attacks or long-term behaviour issues, that's where WP:ANI comes in. Athanelar (talk) 22:20, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Dear Athanelar,

Thank you. The issue in question is personal attacks, but not long-term issues, only a few incidents over, like, 4 days. And the attacks are, while personal and I would argue false, based on Wikipedia conduct (false accusations, attacking my contributions, a sort general rudeness that I notice has been called out on their talk page--and promptly deleted--multiple times before, not reading contributions and, in my personal view, not engaging in good-faith discussion, though I have tried my best not to say it). Is that ANI-worthy? I don't know. I can't really see much else when they just inta-revert anything on their talk page and, despite me asking, haven't gone to my talk page to raise the issues they have with me, as I have asked for multiple times to (A) get it off the talk page of the article and (B) to see if there is anything I actually can improve on.

What do you think?

Thank you. LevatorScapulaeSyndrome (talk) 22:25, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

If they're personally attacking you and refusing to productively engage with you on talk pages that's a communication behaviour issue, and yes, both of those are ANI-worthy. Athanelar (talk) 22:29, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

@Athanelar hi.

I'll make myself known here. There's been no "personal attacks" towards them, but during discussions on an article talk page they were informed of our policy that you shouldn't insert content without a reliable source and that you shouldn't insert preferred wording against consensus. They have taken this as a personal attack and instead insulted several editors as being bad faith actors because we civilly disagreed with their viewpoint (just one example[1]).

I've actually gone so far as to point out that if anything it's the people they're accusing of being bad faith who are being very patient here because if it did go to ANI (as they basically keep insinuating) it'd probably be a very quick WP:BOOMERANG so should take the chance to stop assuming bad faith because of disagreement. Rambling Rambler (talk) 22:37, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

I would refer to the comment above for what I am talking about: quite aggressively chasing through multiple topics (including false reversions, most recently on the Penny Mordaunt page, as he should see that The Express, while not a great source by (Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources), is not meant to be removed ipso facto!) and refusing, despite multiple pleas, to engage on my talk page, preferring to clog up things like this. I would encourage him to go through my talk page then to ANI if he feels I am so unscrupulous.

I have at times reacted with too much frustration and I have sought to correct this by strike-throughing when my comments were perhaps too abraisive. I am not perfect.

I will now construct info for ANI as it is clear Mr Rambler does not intend on engaging constructively. Thank for your support Athanelar. I think it is best to close and lock this thread now. LevatorScapulaeSyndrome (talk) 22:40, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

If that's the case, give them enough rope and they'll hang themselves. Let them make their ANI case, have uninvolved editors judge everyone's behaviour, and they'll catch their boomerang if they need to. If there's unresolvable behavioural (not content) dispute here, ANI's the best place for it. Athanelar (talk) 22:43, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

@Athanelar that's pretty much it. Rambling Rambler (talk) 22:50, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

@Rambling Rambler I don't see any remark rising to the level of uncivil by LSS in that talk page comment that you linked. I've also scanned the dispute on the talk page and all I see is a squabble. But your response here does raise to me the specter of following.

@LevatorScapulaeSyndrome I don't think you're going to get far on ANI. ANI doesn't determine content dispute and, to succeed at ANI, it's best to be blameless, which will be difficult if you've been passionate or angry beforehand because that will likely have influenced your actions. Your first edit was sourced but the second source was twitter, which isn't a reliable source. Your second edit wasn't sourced at all (maybe you forgot to reinsert the first source). In any event, you seem to be trying to convince people of something and failing to persuade them or to prove your point. If I understand the dispute, this seems to be about whether the party can be said to have any MPs at the moment or whether those MP still belong to other parties? If it were me, I'd step away. The amount of time you've all spent arguing over a number on a page really doesn't seem worth it and the issue should resolve itself soon. MmeMaigret (talk) 00:23, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

@Mmemaigret it's not exactly "following" when at the same time they were commenting here they were pinging my talk page claiming I was "making false accusations" about them so it was the first thing I saw. Rambling Rambler (talk) 00:46, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Also I'd argue that I think you have approached it in bad faith and have behaved uncivilly, so there is no 'end to the argument', rather, it is simply exhausted by two people poisoning the well by making false accusations based on their unwillingness to read a couple of comments and their links is anything but "civil". Rambling Rambler (talk) 01:06, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Dear MmeMaigret,

Thank you for your contribution.

I definitely understand where you are coming from. To be clear, the original source (Twitter) was the guy himself saying he was stepping down, it wasn't a secondary source, so you couldn't get more reliable, is my impression. Primary sources are allowed on Wikipedia, though I obviously wouldn't have cared if it was superceded by secondary sources in time. I would've welcomed it! With regard to the second edit, I was stupid and left out the source, but I stated where it was from and it would've been trivial to find it as it was even linked in the talk page at almost the same time. Do you not think (I ask this genuinely, not as a rhetorical question) it would be more appropriate to just enter the source rather than delete it all? It was also claimed that Novara is an "unreliable source" which is not something recognised on Wikipedia, especially when they have extensive sources on the British left and are very much among the premier reporters on Your Party.

I am not referring here to the more asinine dispute over the MPs which seems to be coming to a close, but his persistent harassment and uncivil attacks on me and, indeed, his following of my profile. I somehow doubt he happened upon this on his regular daily Teahouse checks, would you not agree? Now, granted, I did make a genuine mistake on the Penny Mordaunt article and I have fixed it since then, but it still indicates he is trawling my profile and 'following me about', though in that case I thanked him for his correction. He promptly deleted my attempted reconciliation on his talk page (which is fine in itself) with the very rude edit note that, for some reason, says it was "infantile passive aggressiveness"(!?) when I was actually just trying to patch things up and move on. He has deleted every attempt to communicate on his talk page with rude edit summaries, as he has with others in the past.

I frankly do not think what I have said in Rambler's highlighted comment is particularly uncivil, albeit it is admittedly a sign of frustration when I had provided multiple sources to which he and one other (whom I think has wisely disengaged from the whole thing now the dispute is resolving largely in a direction I argued for from the start...). I think, at the point where I have provided links and a coherent argument many times over and a user then angrily replies that I have no sources and no argument and makes it all very personal that I don't know what else I am meant to say, to be honest.

Where I have been imperfect in this whole pointless squabble I am unafraid to admit it, though I do not think I have done anything half as wrong as the other user considering they've followed me even to this page!!! If you read this Mx Rambler, I must politely ask to just--with all due respect--either take it to my talk page or just drop it and leave me in peace.

Finally, I would reiterate that I have constantly tried to get Rambler to take this to my talk page and outline in full, with links etc, his (apologies if pronouns are wrong) issues with me. I have asked this multiple times, as I have tried to engage on his talk page, and he has refused to do so. All the while he is following me about and acting rather aggressively. It's making my experience of this site miserable, and, if I am to perhaps stretch slightly, making the whole thing stressful enough to induce silly mistakes like the one w/ Novara. I will adhere to your advice temporarily and not launch an ANI, but what I want to know @Mmemaigret is how can I get him to--in honesty--leave me alone or be willing to sort out his disagreements with me on my talk page maturely (as we are meant to do on Wikipedia) without that? I just want to move on from this. I wish I could block the user but obviously that's not how it works.

Thank you, and I hope you are able to provide an answer. LevatorScapulaeSyndrome (talk) 07:15, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

@LevatorScapulaeSyndrome: Okay there's a lot here.

• I thought your comment on his talk page seemed genuine but, if I read the time stamps correctly, you undid any goodwill with your reply on your talk page, and then he responded with a sarky/rude edit summary.
• You can't force him to discuss on your talk page. Also, you tried that already. I would suggest you both cool it for a week and stay away from each other.
• He can delete your comments from his talk page.
• Try not to let it all get you down - there are problematic people on Wikipedia and, sometimes, you're the problematic person. You're learning what works and what doesn't work for the next time you're in a dispute.

MmeMaigret (talk) 11:37, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I regret my reply there and I have since crossed it out because I acknowledge I was in the wrong, though I will note that at that point I had already asked without any snark many times over and I let my frustration get the better of me. That wasn't the start of the issue but was about 3/4 through it after he had behaved rudely for a few days beforehand (quite relentlessly, and even after the content dispute was effectively resolved as I wanted it). Because of that I will not do the ANI thing for at least a few weeks to see if it can resolve itself and so I can be clear that my own mistakes are not the causal factor in worsening the situation. I recognise he can delete comments but I was under the impression it's a faux pas if you're trying to resolve a dispute. I invited him to talk on my page if he didn't want his one clogged up as idc about my talk page, my profile, etc, as I have no ambitions of ever being a Wikipedia notable or whatever.

I have never initiated any interaction with him and I do not intend to do so. I just--God forbid--wanted to contribute to the Your Party page because it is of interest to me. Am I now excluded from it because it is 'his territory'? This feels fundamentally unfair, no? I will do so for 1 week upon your suggestion (I am very thankful for your honest advice) but I feel I have a right to do so. It feels, to me, that some editors are seeing certain articles as their 'fiefdom', as has been a long-recognised issue with Wikipedia for as long as I can remember. Wikipedia belongs to everyone, doesn't it?

--------

But, yes, I am keen to take your advice and I have made this thread in good faith, I hope it is appreciated. What does "stay away from him" mean in this context given it's a digital space? Do you just mean not contribute to the YP page? I cannot think of anything else. If that's your advice then I will follow it, because I just want to be left alone and to collaborate productively with people. I now feel I cannot do anything because someone is following me ready to pounce if I ever have an opinion, if I diverge from them on subjective Wikipedia policies (e.g., essays which aren't policy--e.g., there is nothing saying Novara is not a reliable source, and it seems eminently reasonable to me to say they are so on matters of Your Party), or if I dare tread on some unspoken 'patch of territory' that I'm not aware of. I feel I cannot even link to my contributions for fear some reason will be concocted to delete them all. I am fine with actual mistakes (as I fully admit I made on the Penny Mordaunt page) being deleted, but I'd still rather he not follow me around as if he's my supervisor!

As per your advice, I will not do the ANI. Despite my one (1) incorrect comment (against many by him...), I understand how it could've worsened things, and I hope that it is reasonable to say that if it continues after non-engagement on any of "his pages" (for that is how we must treat it, apparently...) for a couple of weeks that my one (1) comment, which I have since crossed through, would cease to be a contributory factor. Is that reasonable?

If I see continued engagement despite these proactive attempts to move on from this then I guess things change, but I hope that wont happen because, man, I really can't be bothered with it all, I just want to edit in peace and to work in a spirit of cooperation and friendliness with people. You can see on the article talk pages that he quite instantly begins making it personal, bringing up "my past" (as he interprets it), etc, and I don't want that.

Thank you for your advice and help. I genuinely appreciate it, and I'd always want you or anyone else to be honest even when I am in the wrong. God knows I'm not perfect.

~~ LevatorScapulaeSyndrome (talk) 11:52, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

@LevatorScapulaeSyndrome Regarding your statement "the original source (Twitter) was the guy himself saying he was stepping down, it wasn't a secondary source, so you couldn't get more reliable, is my impression" --- Your impression is actually incorrect.

Twitter is definitely regarded as "not at all reliable". People can, and do, make things up... And sometimes people say they will do something but then they don't. Hence, secondary sources are vastly preferred, and you are extremely limited in what information you can use from primary sources. Not that it matters for sourcing, but did he actually step down? David10244 (talk) 04:49, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused about what you mean to be honest because that's just how he formally announced it. "People make things up" I think it's doubtful that a politician with a national politician is going to be pranking people, right? I'm sorry, I'm unclear as to why a primary sources is not appropriate when it's published by them. From what I gather, primary sources are allowed for BLPs when they're self-published?

I don't understand here because I am of the impression what matters is the provenance of the source as a whole, and excluding a self-published primary sources because of the publishing location seems strange. Is there some sort of formal guidance on this? It makes absolutely zero sense to me, to be quite honest. It's his official account, this isn't just some rando on Twitter.

I'm not asking in bad faith, I am genuinely very confused. LevatorScapulaeSyndrome (talk) 09:48, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

See WP:PSTS for an explanation of why secondary sources are preferred to primary ones. CodeTalker (talk) 17:04, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, I read through it. I get the overarching principle, but based on WP:ABOUTSELF it seems I was completely fine to use it, then. I think deleting it was wrong. I wont get hung up on it now there are secondary sources reporting it, but I'm glad to know for future reference. LevatorScapulaeSyndrome (talk) 10:29, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

This is covered by WP:ABOUTSELF. XAM2175 ^(T) 23:50, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Based on WP:ABOUTSELF it seems I was completely fine to use it, then. I think deleting it was wrong. I wont get hung up on it now there are secondary sources reporting it, but I'm glad to know for future reference. LevatorScapulaeSyndrome (talk) 10:29, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. LevatorScapulaeSyndrome (talk) 22:37, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

The position that Wikipedia takes for a living person is to not include something unless we have sources for it. We are asking readers to trust the cited source rather than the editors working on the article. In the past, folks have put defamatory materials into Wikipedia articles either as pranks or mistakes without a source to back it up. The standard for content on living people is higher standard that what we have for, say, mountains or trains. While the situation describe above may have become frustrating in many ways, the best advice is probably just to move on rather than to further focus on the interpersonal conflict. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 03:24, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Difference between reference list and reference endices?

Can you help me understand what Hoary means by this? I do not know how to add code, which is what this looks like to me. I would like to use a source in more than one place as suggested here. I am not sure what he means by reference indices do not belong under "References". I thought that was the point? Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

• Comment: There are three reference indices -- superscripted numbers, like ^[7] -- in the text of the article. As expected, each points (under "References") to a source. (I'll call these sources A1, A2, and A3.) Immediately under the three listed sources come three more reference indices, each of which points to a source. (I'll call these sources B1, B2, and B3.) A3 and B3 are the same. Was the idea that the web page "A brief history of Cabbagetown, Atlanta" would be cited at two or more places? If so, use <ref name="Cabbagetown">{{Cite web |title=A brief history of Cabbagetown, Atlanta |url=https://cabbagetown.com/history |access-date=2025-11-06 |website=Cabbagetown | publisher=Cabbagetown Neighborhood Improvement Association | language=en-US}}</ref> for any one use, and <ref name="Cabbagetown" /> for any other use(s). Anyway, reference indices don't belong under the heading "References". -- Hoary (talk) 01:06, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Rosemary Kimble (talk) 21:27, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Rosemary Kimble, here's an example. In the first paragraph of the article Tupinambá people, we read that "The name Tupinambá was also applied to other Tupi-speaking groups, such as the Tupiniquim, Potiguara, Tupinambá, Temiminó, Caeté, Tabajara, Tamoio, and Tupinaé, among others.^[1]" The "^[1]" at the end of that is what I call a reference index. (This may not be the best term for it.) It points to "1. Navarro, Eduardo de Almeida (1998). Método moderno de tupi antigo : a língua do Brasil dos primeiros séculos. Petrópolis: Editora Vozes. [...]", which is what I call a reference. The "References" are numbered from 1 to 23, as expected; but they don't include up-in-the-air ("superscripted") indices. -- Hoary (talk) 00:10, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Rosemary Kimble, welcome to the Teahouse! I think I can translate for you.

When you place a reference in an article/draft, you should do so at the end of the sentence or paragraph that it supports. It looks like you've got this bit down! The Wikipedia code automatically collects all of those references and puts them in your "References" section for you if you use {{Reflist}} at the end of the draft, which you have done. So you don't need to manually add any references to the "References" section - if you do, it duplicates them as superscript links with no further information, which is not what you want. Remove your manually added references from that section and Wikipedia will do the work for you.

To cite a source twice (or more), you can give it a name. You add the name to the <ref> part as Hoary has done for you: see <ref name="Cabbagetown"> at the start of the example reference? Then, to call on that ref again, you would write <ref name="Cabbagetown" / >. Note the / after the name but before the closing bracket - this is vital when you are calling a named reference. You don't put it there when you are giving the reference a name (ie Hoary's example), only when you are calling on that reference at a later stage. Does that make a bit more sense? Meadowlark (talk) 00:11, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Meadowlark, yes, all true; but I take "I do not know how to add code, which is what this looks like to me" (above) to mean that RK is using the visual editor. -- Hoary (talk) 00:49, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

I have hopefully started adding more CITs including one that i cited twice. I decided not to do too much in case I am still doing this incorrectly. I sort of have a handle on doing it manually. Let me know if I still am not getting it. Thanks for all of your guidance so far. Rosemary Kimble (talk) 02:40, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Why is this page so overwhelming

I Can't seem to understand what's expected of me!! because of how so overwhelming this page is ~2025-34203-54 (talk) 23:55, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Can you point to the page that's overwhelming you, @~2025-34203-54, and maybe tell us what you were hoping to do? Meadowlark (talk) 00:14, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

If the Teahouse overwhelms you, then only read the bits of it that have titles that promise to help you. -- Hoary (talk) 00:16, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

@~2025-34203-54 As Hoary says, you don't have to understand everything on this page. I started editing by reading articles at random, and I fixed misspellings when I saw them. As @ColinFine and others will tell you, creating a new article can be hard. David10244 (talk) 05:42, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @~2025-34203-54, and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia. Have you looked at Help:Introduction? ColinFine (talk) 11:13, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

@ColinFine, @Hoary Side note: The temporary account's ID is blue in their signature in the original question, but red in the replies. Similarly, clicking on the blue temporary ID takes me to their Ccontributions page, while clicking on the red links gives me (as expected) a "no such page" page. I think I understand temporary accounts, but this is a bit confusing... David10244 (talk) 01:27, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

It's pretty simple, David10244. The temporary account (TA) has no user page; thus a link to the user page is red. The TA has a list of contributions; thus a link to the list of contributions is blue. The TA's signature starts "~2025-34203-54", i.e. [[Special:Contributions/~2025-34203-54|~2025-34203-54]]. -- Hoary (talk) 01:50, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

@Hoary Ah, that makes sense. Both "names" look the same but they link to different places. I should have looked at the page source... Thanks! David10244 (talk) 07:14, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

The entire process is unnecessarily overwhelming as if it was written by programmers without the input of everyday (non programming) users. So you are not alone. There are clearly some very knowledgeable people on here, and then some who just want to attack and berate you, but it is the system that is incredibly dated. Grantwatch, Wix and more, have figured out how to vette people who know what they are doing, and put them within the system for hire, so new people don't have to learn such a convoluted, bizarre system just to get something in. You say "hire" on these threads and all you hear back is how you are a scam, they are a scam, asking that is a scam and on and on. So you are left trying to comprehend a system that is overly complicated, for no obvious reason, that perhaps has never been updated and is incredibly antiquated. It breeds separation of the "insiders" and the "outsiders" unfortunately, when it is totally unnecessary. SmoothLanding (talk) 09:44, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

@SmoothLanding, the problem is that users who want an article written are usually hoping for a positive article about their company or themselves. They do not understand what it takes to qualify for a Wikipedia article, and they want a guarantee that if they pay, an article will appear (and remain on Wikipedia) that matches what they would like to see. No one can make that guarantee: most companies and people are not notable, and if they are notable then anything they do may end up in the article about them - including things they don't want. Notability standards can also change and mean articles are removed.

Experienced editors may, if they choose, offer their services for pay. Experienced editors also know how futile it would be to try to write an article about 99% of the subjects that people are willing to pay for, and no one can ever promise that an article will remain live or that it will always be positive. There are lots of people who do make those promises, but those are inevitably scammers or inexperienced editors who think it must be easy to write a Wikipedia article. And that is why we warn people who want to hire an editor: it won't be an experienced, knowledgable user who offers their services, because those experienced users know they can't deliver what the hiring person wants. You are of course free to ignore this advice and hire someone if you want; we're just trying to help you avoid being scammed. Meadowlark (talk) 12:17, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi Meadowlark, I understand. But that is no different from Grantwatch. Nobody guarantees you will get the grant, and the agreement says that in fact. And if you don't have the criteria to fit the requirements in the beginning, evaluated initially, then an experienced grant writer or in this case, Wikipedia specialists, will reject it. That is just an initial checklist, no? If you can't meet it, then you can't go any further. It takes a shift in thinking. Lots of other kinds of entities do it with no problem. Nobody guarantees results on something that is not appropriate - and the entity, in this case Wikipedia, would better spend time monitoring that system, than his frustrating madness. As stands, legitimate entries are not making it in because of the utter madness of this process. That is worse to me, than spending some time revamping a broken system to work better. It can. SmoothLanding (talk) 18:01, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

I hadn't heard of Grantwatch until now: it seems to be a paid-for service with, as you say, no guarantee there will be a return to its users. I think that there is a reason that Wikipedia is in the top ten of Internet sites, although it does have a steep learning curve for those who wish to regularly add material. Most people just read what is written on the site and never make an edit themselves. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:19, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi Turnbull, You are correct, it is a subscription service, but at the end of the process, the user expects to get money - a grant. And you are correct about using the site, as opposed to being an editor. That is the problem, contributing to it, and still, it could be quite different. SmoothLanding (talk) 19:00, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Updating the history of Wikipedia

Hello, could anyone please update the history of Wikipedia? It seems to be outdated. OverLooked40 (talk) 10:52, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

A few "Wikipedia Articles about Wikipedia" are outdated. I assume they aren't updated because there haven't been any secondary sources on something like this website reaching 7 million articles. Wikipedia:Size of Wikipedia has a page count but is completely unsourced for instance. The article on Wikipedia has far, far too many primary sources than what would be considered allowed, but the majority of sources about Wikipedia are from Wikipedia or Wikimedia. Confusing I know.

Either that or nothing interesting has happened on Wikipedia since October 2023 except for the Statement from Jimbo Wales. GarethBaloney (talk) 11:03, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

The Signpost regularly has "in the media" and other coverage based on secondary cited sources, for example in its current edition. Like everything else here, articles will only get updated when some volunteer is motivated to do so. That could be you User:OverLooked40! Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:07, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Some experienced editors are of the opinion that writing about Wikipedia on Wikipedia is a form of contemporary navel gazing and refrain from it. Cullen328 (talk) 08:23, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

@Cullen328 @GarethBaloney @Michael D. Turnbull I agree with this. But the year sections, 2024 and 2025, are missing in history of Wikipedia. (Please see timeline) OverLooked40 (talk) 12:58, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Well... what's stopping you from adding new sections? GarethBaloney (talk) 16:10, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Can someone copyedit List of World Heritage in Danger?

Im doing some work with this because it’s an FA with several (and serious) warnings. I would normally be WP:BOLD and copyedit myself but my English isn’t the best so Im better requesting to other one. Protoeus (talk) 23:42, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Consider the reward board, maybe. HwyNerd Mike (t | c) 03:12, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Protoeus, this is a list that merits the time and effort of two or three people who are better-informed about matters of conservation (and who are less sleepy) than I am. In late August, Easternsahara wrote (or anyway caused to be written) "This article may require copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone, or spelling"; it would be helpful if Easternsahara explained on the list's talk page which among grammar, style, cohesion, tone, and spelling is/are unsatisfactory. -- Hoary (talk) 09:02, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

The descriptions are not in full sentences but if you look at other Lists of World Heritage Sites which are FLs then you can see that they use complete sentences, this should be expected of a FL. User:Easternsahara_{review this} 15:00, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Protoeus, HwyNerd Mike, Easternsahara, and anyone else: Let's discuss this in Talk:List of World Heritage in Danger. (I've already kicked it off.) -- Hoary (talk) 02:27, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

New Page for CBT News

Hi All, I have been trying to create an article page for CBT News https://www.cbtnews.com

I have been unsuccessful on my last 2 attempts. CBT News is a reputable source for all automotive news. They have har many famous business people in their show. Please someone can either create a page for them or give me feedback on how to create it. ~2025-34387-71 (talk) 00:02, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

A couple of points first;

You have no edit history relating to this article on the account you're currently on. Is there another account you forgot to log into, or a different temporary account you were previously using?

Are you affiliated in some way with CBT News? Athanelar (talk) 00:11, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

I just logged in (scyllatech) can you see anything now? Scyllatech (talk) 00:25, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

I am not associated with them, I normally edit pages on Wiki, but this was my first attempt to create a page. Scyllatech (talk) 00:26, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Okay, just wanted to clear that up so I know whether to give COI advice.

First, your userpage User:Scyllatech seems to be a redirect to CBT News, that's an improper use of userspace, I believe.

Secondly, as is visible there, the CBT news page does currently exist, but is currently being discussed at Articles for Deletion.

If you agree, then I'll draftify the page (i.e., move it to Draft:CBT News). You'll be able to take as long as you like to work on it there, and you can then submit it for review via WP:AFC whenever you're ready to have someone check if it's suitable to become a fully published article. Athanelar (talk) 00:35, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

I am not sure how scyllatech and CBTnews got mixed up in redirecting. I would love if you can help me with this page creation. Scyllatech (talk) 00:42, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and moved the article to Draft:CBT News and added a box to the top of the article with details on how to get the draft ready for submission and how to submit it for review.

Let me know if you have any more specific questions. Athanelar (talk) 00:58, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, so much for your help. I know I am asking too much. Would you please give me some examples of good independent sources that I can use? Should these sources be under reference? For example, Tesla Wikipage used CBTNews website for reference, is that good thing to have? Scyllatech (talk) 01:03, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

You should read Help:Your first article for a general guide to writing an article.

For sources in particular, WP:42 about summarises it. You need to demonstrate significant coverage of the subject in reliable, independent, secondary sources (click the links for definitions of those terms)

Tesla Wikipage used CBTNews website for reference, is that good thing to have? You can't cite other Wikipedia articles in a Wikipedia article. Athanelar (talk) 01:16, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

@Scyllatech You need to find sources that discuss CBT News in depth, then summarize what those sources say to create the article. It doesn't work to draft the article and then look for sources. The sources are there to verify the material that's in the article. You have gone about the process WP:Backwards. Hope this helps. David10244 (talk) 01:49, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you guys for your help and feedback, would anyone tell me which of these links can serve as a reliable source?

• https://impel.ai/resource/impel-nada/
• https://www.reyrey.com/media/cbt-news-interview-simplifying-management-process-car-dealers
• https://ground.news/interest/cbt-automotive-network
• https://dealerknows.com/cbt-news/
• https://haigpartners.com/haig-partners-featured-in-cbt-news-article-astonishing-dealer-profits-drive-dealership-values-up-through-q1-2022/
• https://bowtieautosolutions.com/blog/cbt-news-interview-with-matt-raymond-why-dealers-should-consider-customizing-their-bdcs/

-- Scyllatech (talk) 02:52, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

I doubt any of these would help to establish notability. The only properly reliable one is Ground News, but they give CBT an "Unknown" rating, which may be an indication that they're simply not notable enough at this point in time. aesurias (talk) 03:54, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! I was checking AutomotiveNews Wiki page and I did not find any reliable source on their page, am I just missing it or this was bias? Automotive News ZackOugh (talk) 14:10, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

@ZackOugh It might be true that the Automotive News article also does not have enough reliable sources. That doesn't mean "bias"; maybe that article was created when sourcing standards were not as strictly enforced. David10244 (talk) 05:56, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, David! ~2025-34427-73 (talk) 06:51, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Tentative editing - Sherlock (TV series) - Inclusion of criticism

Hello chat,

I come to you today to ask if editing the page of Sherlock (TV series) is merited to include criticism of the series, which is currently minimal (and even then largely restricted to the near-universally panned fourth season). It has been criticised by many YouTubers in video essays over its plot, storytelling processes, characterisation, and faithfulness to source material, most prominently by hbomberguy here.

An additional question would be on the merit of including arguments from YouTube video essays - and video influencers in general - about a particular topic. I see that hbomberguy's criticism of Tommy Tallarico - and coverage featuring the criticism - is mentioned in his Wiki page. If someone can direct me to the guidelines for that as well? Thanking you in advance. Srambled089 (talk) 09:04, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't think thats the best source used if you want to talk about criticism, it's really not credible and would give undue weight to an unreported viewpoint. The Tallarico situation is different, that 'video essay' was discussing legal issues and misleading claims rather than just "I don't like this show" aesurias (talk) 09:07, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the speedy response. I agree with you that the video essay is a subjective opinion, as most critiques are. That said, to say it is just "I don't like this show" is not valid; having seen the video, it does a point-by-point breakdown on multiple issues such as characterisation, plot, narrative devices employed, fan reception, media coverage, faithfulness to the original, etc. - all aspects typically covered by any critique published by notable publications.

You might agree or disagree with the conclusions drawn in it, but it doesn't skimp on the technicality. Nor is it unreported; the critique's viewpoint has been covered (both in agreement and opposition of the critique's assertion) in Inverse and Paste Magazine, here and here.

Maybe labelling it 'criticism' was an error on my part. I am not petitioning to add a 'Criticism' section to the page but to add a few lines about the opinions mentioned in the video essay in the critical response section already present there.

I also have some follow-up questions, if you (or other experienced contributors) are inclined to answer:

- Paste, in particular, is known to take editorial responsibility for all content published on the platform, including contributor/freelance content, and is generally considered a reliable source for music by Wikipedia editors. Does that mean the reliability can be taken to also extend to the related field of entertainment?

- Are there any policies, guidelines, or discussions about referencing video essays - or the arguments for/against - that you can direct me to, to expand my understanding of this topic? That would be really helpful to me as a newer editor learning how to meaningfully contribute to this rich, large crowd-source project. Srambled089 (talk) 11:02, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Those two sources are much more convincing and should be the focus of a potential 'Reception' (not criticism) section. They also estalish credibility for the points made in the YouTube video. aesurias (talk) 11:26, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Alright, I'll make the tentative edits to the section soonish. When and if you are able, please do take a look and see if the changes are fine and compliant with the broader community. Thanks! Srambled089 (talk) 12:13, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I'm finally making the changes, and I wanted to run something by you.

I had originally planned adding the criticism by Hbomberguy, referenced by Inverse and Paste in the links above, in the current 'critical response' section but, in research, more links have popped up that hint at a lasting legacy of reaction and reference to the show, both positive and negative, as well as some news and developments about the show's future that should be more helpful. I'll link some of the reportage below:

- Co-creator Mark Gatiss has denied the possibility of the shows revival: here and here

- This review of the season 3 finale, His Last Vow: here

- A recent review of the series: here

- One of the show's producers talking about a possible future movie or series as continuation (superseded by the Gatiss interview, but of note nonetheless): here

- As a benchmark/reference for other Sherlock-based adaptations: here,

- Semi-frequent 'rankings' of episodes: here, here

- Benedict Cumberbatch speaking about the show's return: here

My main question is this: do you recommend adding all this to critical reception, or to add the critical response to the reception section and the other details in respective sections while also adding a small section for continued public/media interest in the series?

Also, Collider as a publication has a lot of coverage about the show, and I'm not certain as to its notability and reliability as a source for Wikipedia as it is not mentioned on the Perennial Sources list; it does seem to have editorial control over even contributor pieces, however. Srambled089 (talk) 20:14, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Translation of German Article to English

I would like to publish an English version of a German article. It needs to be published by an experienced user. How can it get it reviewed? Bianca Castafiore 1 (talk) 11:29, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

[2] Bianca Castafiore 1 (talk) 11:30, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Bianca Castafiore 1, and welcome to the Teahouse

I have added a header to your draft User:Bianca Castafiore 1/Gabriela Jolowicz, which will allow you to submit it for review.

However, it will not be accepted at present, because your translation leaves out the most important part of the article: the citations. An article without citations cannot be accepted.

So you need to put them back in. I haven't looked closely enough at de:Gabriela Jolowicz to see whether the sources cited are adequate for an article in English Wikipedia or not: you'll need to do that as you insert them. Sources in German are perfectly acceptable, if there aren't sources available in English; but all the sources need to be reliable, and most of them need to be independent of Jolowicz, and I haven't checked whether or not they meet those criteria. See WP:42 for the checks you should do on every source.

Only if there enough high-quality sources to meet the criteria for notability will the draft be accepted. ColinFine (talk) 12:16, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I have added the references. Bianca Castafiore 1 (talk) 13:29, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Bianca Castafiore 1, a chronological list should be in the order "oldest to newest" (not "newest to oldest"). -- Hoary (talk) 21:49, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

No legitimate source articles

Having noted one reason for an article being disallowed, that being "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.” I have recently had one article brought to my attention that is in danger of breaching such rules. Perhaps one of you lovely people would be so kind as to take a look. There is also a considerable discrepancy between the UK and the German versions. I believe the English version is more factual. English: Florian Bollen - German: de:Florian Bollen. Montrose78 (talk) 11:43, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Montrose78, and welcome to the Teahouse. Thank you for noticing this and pointing it out.

Unfortunately, we have thousands of articles which do not meet our current standards for sourcing. (See other stuff exists for why we will not accept that as an argument for accepting new undersourced articles).

If you find such an article, there are a few things you can do:

• You can decide to improve the article, by looking for sources and adding them (and trimming unsourced material from the article); or if you conclude that sufficient sources to establish notability do not exist, you can nominate the article for deletion. Obviously, this is can be a lot of work, but it is by far the most valuable thing you can do about that article.
• You can tag the article with tags such as {{more sources}} which give notice to readers and to those who are looking for tasks to help with that the article needs work. This is sometimes referred to as "drive-by tagging", and some editors disapprove; but I confess that I often do it myself. (If you're going to be doing this a lot, the twinkle tool is helpful).
• You can mention it on an appropriate WikiProject - some WikiProjects even maintain a list of articles needing work. Depending on how important the members of that WikiProject think this subject is, somebody may take on the task. (If you don't know which WikiProject to choose, look at the article's talk page: it will often have a box linking to one or more WikiProjects at the top).
• You can mention it on a page such as this on, as you have done. The chance of somebody picking it up is probably small, but you've done something.
• You can do nothing and move on. There is no demand that you "do something": all editors are free to work on exactly what they choose.

ColinFine (talk) 10:32, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Most helpful - thank you Colin. Montrose78 (talk) 16:09, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Correction to Higherlife Foundation page

 Courtesy link: Higherlife Foundation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

hearts of iron iv

hello i am jakub bernat and i am an ordinary little boy and today i am writing this question towards wikipedia as i wish to explore further into the history and background surrounding the infamous war game that goes by the name of hearts of iron iv (hoi4 for short) made by the excellent team from paradox interactive. now without much talking lets get into the long awaited and much expected question we have all been waiting for... who is john paradox? ~2025-34392-96 (talk) 12:59, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Jakub, and welcome to the Teahouse.

This is a page for asking for help with using Wikipedia, rather than for general information. We have an article Hearts of Iron IV: does that answer your question?

If not, it is possible that somebody at the Entertainment section of the Reference Desk might be able to help if you ask there.

But if what you're looking for is a fannish discussion about some interesting unsolved questions within the game, then I'm afraid that there is nowhere in Wikipedia that is appropriate for that kind of convesatiopn. ColinFine (talk) 13:22, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

That's kind of a running gag, a community name that popped up for a character in Victoria 3. Since it creates a company called John Paradox and Company with the CEO of Paradox named, it's likely a reference to Johan Andersson, who created Paradox a long time ago. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 16:35, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining that, @CoffeeCrumbs.

@Jakub, everything in Wikipedia should be verifiable from a reliable published source. So unless a reliable source (such as a major newspaper) has written about John Paradox, it should not go into any Wikipedia article. ColinFine (talk) 10:39, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello! This page is for people who need help editing wikipedia. You might have better luck with a search engine like google or duckduckgo. If you still want help from a wikipedian, then the reference desk could prove helpful! mgjertson (talk) (contribs) 20:24, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Burj Khalifa

Controversies/incidents.

I have a conflict of interest in this section. I am Laura Vanessa Nunes mother, the woman who died by suicide from the 148th floor of the Burj Khalifa on 16 November 2014. I would like to change 'On 18 May 2015, Dubai police disputed a report that a Portuguese tourist named Laura Vanessa Nunes fell to her death from the Burj Khalifa the prior 16 November, claiming that she fell from the Jumeirah Lake Towers.' back to 'The Daily Mail reported that on 16 November 2014, a Portuguese national who was in Dubai on a tourist visa, fell to her death from Burj Khalifa's "At the Top" observation deck on the 148th floor. However, on 18 May 2015, Dubai police disputed the report made by the Daily Mail on this incident and said that this incident took place in Jumeirah Lakes Towers."

As it is worded now the date of her death is ambiguous, 'the prior 16 November'.

I also requested that the forensic report be added as it is official confirmation of Laura's death by the Government of Dubai, where it states her body was found on the 3rd floor of the Burj Khalifa. It was issued by the Government of Dubai. Because of my conflict of interest I cannot add this.

This is important as the Government of Dubai denies that she fell from the Burj Khalifa.

Thank you.

Leona Sykes

LeonaLeeSykes (talk) 14:13, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello @LeonaLeeSykes, welcome to the teahouse. The Daily Mail is considered a deprecated source on Wikipedia per WP:DAILYMAIL. It should not be used as it has a "reputation for poor fact checking, sensationalism, and flat-out fabrication." PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 14:21, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you PhoenixCaelestis.

How can the Dubai police dispute a report by the Daily Mail on 18 May 2015, if Wikipedia does not consider the Daily Mail a reliable source? ~2025-34711-18 (talk) 15:25, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

@PhoenixCaelestis: The page you link to says "The Daily Mail may be used in rare cases in an about-self fashion".

If "Dubai police disputed the report made by the Daily Mail", then that would apply. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:27, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you Andy Mabbett.

Don't you think that by using that by saying 'On 18 May 2015, Dubai police disputed a report that a Portuguese tourist named Laura Vanessa Nunes fell to her death from the Burj Khalifa the prior 16 November', the actual date of Laura's death becomes ambiguous, and that in search results her date of death is 18May 2015?

With the first suicide it opens with the date of the poor man's death. 'On 10 May 2011' ~2025-34711-18 (talk) 15:34, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Ah.. my apologies. PhoenixCaelestis (Чат · Мои Вклады) 15:34, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

That's fine PhoenixCaelestis. I understand. ~2025-34711-18 (talk) 15:37, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

In that particular Daily Mail article they did research and viewed the forensic report which I sent to Rob Davies, into my daughter's death, issued by the Government of Dubai, whereby her body was found on the 3rd floor of the Burj Khalifa. ~2025-34711-18 (talk) 15:40, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Nobody trusts Daily Mail's claims about anything, because they have proven themselves untrustworthy many many times. TooManyFingers (talk) 20:58, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

This is immaterial to the issue at hand. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:01, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying about the Daily Mail, even though they viewed the forensic report into Laura's death.

1. As I have a conflict of interest, and I know that wikipedia likes facts and stands for the truth, I would like the truth to be told about my daughter's death. The Government of Dubai denies that Laura fell to her death from the Burj Khalifa. I have in my possession the forensic report stating that her body was found on the 3rd floor of the Burj Khalifa, issued by the Government of Dubai, and sent to me.

I would like to dispute the misinformation which is coming from Dubai, and that her death was officially confirmed by the Government of Dubai, when they issued the forensic report. Who can insert this? I can send you the report so that you can verify it. It is a very important document.

The Portuguese Government confirmed her death from the 148th floor of the Burj Khalifa, in terms of the FOI Act of Portugal with information given to them by the Dubai Police. This is official confirmation from Portugal, but not from Dubai.

2. In an article by Gulf News following the Daily Mail article, the Dubai Police stated that Laura fell to her death from her 14th-floor apartment at Jumeirah Lakes Towers. Laura had not been staying there. She had been staying in Room 309 Abidos Hotel Apartments Dubai. I have the invoices which the hotel sent to me and which the Dubai Police removed when they visited the hotel, again, nearly three months after her death. I can send you the invoices too.

https://www.gdnonline.com/Details/6592/-Dubai-police-No-one-committed-suicide-from-the-Burj-Khalifa

I would like to dispute that Laura was living at Jumeirah Lakes Towers, and dispute that she fell from there. Who can insert the invoices and the information?

All I would like to see on Wikipedia and other sources,is the truth about my daughter's death.

Thank you for your time. ~2025-35262-40 (talk) 06:34, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

I have just logged into my Wikipedia account and am not sure whether you received my latest requests so I'm adding them here again.

I understand what you're saying about the Daily Mail, even though they viewed the forensic report into Laura's death.

1. As I have a conflict of interest, and I know that wikipedia likes facts and stands for the truth, I would like the truth to be told about my daughter's death. The Government of Dubai denies that Laura fell to her death from the Burj Khalifa. I have in my possession the forensic report stating that her body was found on the 3rd floor of the Burj Khalifa, issued by the Government of Dubai, and sent to me.

I would like to dispute the misinformation which is coming from Dubai, and that her death was officially confirmed by the Government of Dubai, when they issued the forensic report. Who can insert this? I can send you the report so that you can verify it. It is a very important document.

The Portuguese Government confirmed her death from the 148th floor of the Burj Khalifa, in terms of the FOI Act of Portugal with information given to them by the Dubai Police. This is official confirmation from Portugal, but not from Dubai.

2. In an article by Gulf News following the Daily Mail article, the Dubai Police stated that Laura fell to her death from her 14th-floor apartment at Jumeirah Lakes Towers. Laura had not been staying there. She had been staying in Room 309 Abidos Hotel Apartments Dubai. I have the invoices which the hotel sent to me and which the Dubai Police removed when they visited the hotel, again, nearly three months after her death. I can send you the invoices too.

https://www.gdnonline.com/Details/6592/-Dubai-police-No-one-committed-suicide-from-the-Burj-Khalifa

I would like to dispute that Laura was living at Jumeirah Lakes Towers, and dispute that she fell from there. Who can insert the invoices and the information?

All I would like to see on Wikipedia and other sources,is the truth about my daughter's death.

Thank you for your time.

LeonaLeeSykes (talk) 07:07, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Draft:Justin Coveney

Draft:Justin Coveney

Hello, is there anyone who could review my draft?

It was rejected yesterday for lacking multiple significant coverage from reliable secondary sources. However, I believe I have enough sources to show otherwise, though I could be mistaken. If anyone is available, could you please check these links and see whether the subject’s references meet the General Notability Guidelines?

The Straight Times, The Manila Times, The Philippine Star, The Chronicle, ABS-CBN

Thank you. Aona1212 (talk) 17:06, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

As Thilio has noted, there is a strong reliance on articles that cover his career in reality TV (which could be less researched) and not as much on his rugby career. Also, avoid using International Business Times as a source, since it is a source of press releases. -- Reconrabbit 18:08, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback. I just realized that IBT is considered a generally unreliable source.

I have a follow-up question: Are you saying that even if the subject is part of a reality show, that doesn’t make them eligible for a Wikipedia page? What if the person wins or makes it to the finals? I’m curious because I want to understand this better, as I’m planning to write more about the other contestants. Thank you. Aona1212 (talk) 19:32, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

It is more than being a prominent cast member on a reality show leads to high quantity, low quality news sources about a person. It is more promising to see sources about a person before or unrelated to their reality TV exploits. Maybe a good comparison is Choi Seung-yeon: she has some coverage because of Physical: Asia, sure, but there are several articles just about her participation in the CrossFit Games. -- Reconrabbit 19:41, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

I understand now. Thank you for explaining. Aona1212 (talk) 20:22, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Vandalism edits!

Hello everyone! Good evening! I wanted to ask this question: what should be written in the edit summary for vandalism edits? Please tell me about this! Thanks in advance! Thanks! (XLs6 (talk) 18:00, 18 November 2025 (UTC))

Then how do I detect vandalism edits? (XLs6 (talk) 18:01, 18 November 2025 (UTC))

Do you mean edits where you are reverting vandalism? "reverting vandalism" will suffice. If you mean edits where you perform vandalism, well, don't do that obviously. CoconutOctopus talk 18:01, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I mean the vandalism edits! (XLs6 (talk) 18:03, 18 November 2025 (UTC))

Anti-vandalism patrollers typically do so by watching Special:Recentchanges. You might want to check out this wikiproject if it is something you are interested in! CoconutOctopus talk 18:06, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I'll watch them for recent changes! Thanks, I'll definitely look into that, but how do you determine what constitutes vandalism (edits that deface articles)? (XLs6 (talk) 18:11, 18 November 2025 (UTC))

WP:VANDALISM describes it as "editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a free encyclopedia, in a variety of languages, presenting the sum of all human knowledge."

It can take different forms, but some of the more common are sudden blanking of whole pages, or inserting swear words and slurs randomly, or gibberish text. CoconutOctopus talk 18:16, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

A good rule of thumb, is if you aren't sure if an edit is meant to be vandalism, then assume good faith and act like it is a genuine attempt to improve an article (even if it does not). CoconutOctopus talk 18:17, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! (XLs6 (talk) 18:24, 18 November 2025 (UTC))

Many editors shorten "reverting vandalism" to "rvv". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:43, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Good! (XLs6 (talk) 02:10, 19 November 2025 (UTC))

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

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

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

Thanks.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And this is Wikipedia's directive(s) -

Wikipedia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References going to the wrong place?!

Hi! So I was editing here and noticed that the references I added went to the 'notes' section instead of the 'references' section. Any idea how to fix it? Thanx so much! ScottyNolan (talk) 21:29, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

The reference list is created by adding the template {{reflist}} to a section under the header 'References.' In this case somebody added that template to the 'Notes' header and then only added a single reference under the 'References' list manually. I've fixed it for you. Athanelar (talk) 22:41, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanx! Appreciate your support! ScottyNolan (talk) 23:20, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

An AfD I opened

I opened an AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Voiceless glottal affricate, but the closure may not be valid. Should I open a deletion review? - BᴏᴅʜıHᴀᴙᴩ (talk, contributions) 21:43, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

@BodhiHarp That was a valid closure; you did not put forth a reason for deletion. To nominate an article for deletion, you need to make an argument for deletion, not ask other people if they would like to. You are free to open a deletion review if you would like, but I don't think the regulars there would do anything but endorse that close. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 21:49, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

But I linked to a section on the talk page. It does indeed have a reason.

Should this be [[Talk:Voiceless glottal affricate#What's the difference between this supposed consonant and an aspirated glottal stop?|deleted]] or something else? - [[User:BodhiHarp|<span style="color: blue;">Bᴏᴅʜı</span><span style="color: red;">Hᴀᴙᴩ</span>]] ([[User talk:BodhiHarp|<span style="color: green;">talk</span>]], [[Special:Contributions/BodhiHarp|<span style="color: purple;">contributions</span>]]) 21:37, 17 November 2025 (UTC) - BᴏᴅʜıHᴀᴙᴩ (talk, contributions) 21:53, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes; the talkpage has a reason. Your AfD nomination did not. If you agree with the other talk page participants that the existence of the affricative doesn't appear to be supported by the sources, then you can re-nominate it for deletion -- but please say that something along those lines on the actual AfD page itself! GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 22:01, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

To put it another way, 'Should this be deleted or something else?' is the entire purpose of the AfD procedure; that question is implied by the nomination being made in the first place.

The appropriate way to do this nomination would've been to say something like 'There is debate over whether this phoneme is distinct enough from another, the aspirated glottal stop, to warrant having its own article. See the relevant discussion on the talk page: [link]

Otherwise what you're essentially asking the reader to do is infer your deletion argument from reading the argument on the talk page, which isn't appropriate; we need to know why you are proposing the page for deletion, not try to figure it out ourselves, because the people voting on the AfD need to assess the merits of the argument you are making for the page's deletion, since you're the nominator. Athanelar (talk) 22:39, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Submission declined

Draft:Scikit-plots

Hello, I am new to Wikipedia.

My draft was declined because it does not have enough reliable and independent sources.

I want to improve my draft, but I am not sure how to find the correct sources or how to show notability. Could someone please help me understand:

• What kind of sources I should add?
• How to format the references correctly?
• What changes I need to make so the draft can meet
• Wikipedia’s notability rules?

Thank you very much for your guidance.

I appreciate any help. Clk-muhammed (talk) 21:47, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Writing an article is actually one of the harder parts of Wikipedia. I would suggest making edits to other articles first. Once you are ready you can read Help:your first article. GarethBaloney (talk) 21:52, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

@GarethBaloney thanks for valuable comment and sources. I truly admit "Writing an article is much more difficult than it looks." that on Wikipedia:Writing Wikipedia articles backward. Another critical problem defined here Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk#21:36, 18 November 2025 review of submission by Clk-muhammed I will try follow rules and improve... Clk-muhammed (talk) 10:34, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi, and welcome to the Teahouse.

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

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

Like the rest of us, you're here because you want to contribute to an encyclopedia. Luckily, there are a lot of ways to contribute other than creating articles. You can copyedit (see gnoming), patrol the Recent Changes page to revert vandalism, get involved with a WikiProject you're interested in (like WP:AICLEANUP for me), read through discussions on boards like WP:ANI to see how disputes are handled here, etc. Athanelar (talk) 22:31, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

@Athanelar thanks for valuable comment and sources. I truly admit. Another critical problem defined here Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk#21:36, 18 November 2025 review of submission by Clk-muhammed I will try follow rules and improve... Clk-muhammed (talk) 10:35, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Please review my pending AfC submissions

Hi, please review my pending AfC submissions:

Draft:Samsung Galaxy Tab S11

Draft:Samsung Galaxy S10 Lite

Draft:Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra

Thank you. Tomkozak61 (talk) 21:51, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Sadly two of these articles already exist within Samsung Galaxy S10 and Samsung Galaxy S22. GarethBaloney (talk) 22:01, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

You forgot to review Draft:Samsung Galaxy Tab S11. Please review this article as well. You only reviewed the articles Draft:Samsung Galaxy S10 Lite and Draft:Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra. Thank you. Tomkozak61 (talk) 22:27, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Tomkozak61, somebody (I'd guess you) has submitted Draft:Samsung Galaxy Tab S11 for review. It says "Review waiting, please be patient." So wait for the review and be patient. -- Hoary (talk) 23:17, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

It might also take a while. There is currently an extremely large backlog at AFC. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 00:50, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

conflict of interest edit request.

I would like to have my wiki page totally rewritten since it is full of inaccuracies and needs to be brought up to date. How can I make that happen? Thank you. LF Leonard Foglia (talk) 21:59, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Courtesy link - Leonard Foglia GarethBaloney (talk) 22:02, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi Leonard,

The best thing to do is first to find a source which contains the information you want to add or change; this is essential. I understand that because you know yourself better than anyone there may be information you want to add or change from your own knowledge, but a Wikipedia article can only summarise information available in reliable, independent secondary sources with a small amount of supporting information from primary sources.

Once you have the source containing the information, make an edit request using the edit request wizard. Athanelar (talk) 22:07, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

@Leonard Foglia there is general advice at WP:ASFAQ. Note also WP:A picture of you. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:35, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Photo of a Video game on the gaming platform "ROBLOX".

Hello, I want to add context first before asking my question, I created a draft on the ROBLOX video game, Jailbreak which is partially finished (needs finishing and possibly more info). For the section on "Gameplay", Is it allowed for me to upload a PNG or other file that is similar to a PNG or JPG/JPEG still image of me playing the video game? I want to make sure that if I upload an image onto Wikimedia Commons or Wikipedia that I don't want to break United States copyright rules. rave (talk) 22:43, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Game screenshots can be uploaded for articles but have to be done so as a non-free file with proper rationale. I recommend seeing how similar photos are uploaded on other game articles (Grow a Garden etc.) to get a good reference as to how they should be uploaded. Non-free images can only be uploaded for existing articles, so one cannot be uploaded until it is no longer a Draft and on the mainspace. B3251_(talk) 22:53, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

In general, I believe questions related to photos are probably better asked at the commons help desk. Best of luck with your article! Wikieditor662 (talk) 22:54, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Courtesy link: Draft:Jailbreak (Roblox video game) --DollarStoreBa'al^ConverseMy life choices 00:31, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, although the original questioner already posted it here, I'm not sure if you saw that Wikieditor662 (talk) 02:15, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Do blocked account change usernames

i wonder why ~2025-33784-35 (talk) 00:29, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

No, they are kept, but are prevented from editing Wikipedia. Sometimes, the blocked person will make a new account to get around their block. --DollarStoreBa'al^ConverseMy life choices 00:32, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

And when that happens, the new account will get blocked when it's discovered. Blocks apply to people rather than accounts, so a new account created by a blocked editor often gets blocked also. David10244 (talk) 05:33, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

can I uses ai

I was wondering if you can uses ai to help you make a page. Very high frequency (talk) 01:06, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Short answer; in most cases, no.

The long answer is here. Athanelar (talk) 01:31, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Sam wallet

I tried to fiddle with some wikidata thing, not something that I often do, and it seems to have totally broken the infobox I was linking to. This is for this page, where I though I was helping by adding an image, something I often do, but then I noticed that no matter what I did, the infobox seemed to want to force in a website which was wrong or does not exist. Does anyone have familiarity with this who could help? Iljhgtn (talk) 02:20, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

The small pencil icon after the URL is an indicator that the URL is being fetched from Wikidata.

If its the wrong URL, then either:

1. The article is attached to the wrong Wikidata item
2. The URL needs to be corrected on Wikidata

-- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:16, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you Andy. Iljhgtn (talk) 12:53, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

How can I check if page has been reviewed?

I submitted a new page on Sept. 24, 2025. How can I check if it's been reviewed, or where it might be in the review queue? LPFasold (talk) 02:29, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

LPFasold, your draft isn't submitted. I have added the template that allows it to be submitted for review. After submitting for review, please be patient. There is currently an extremely long backlog at the AFC process, with some 2,810 drafts waiting for review. Best, 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 03:01, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Also, please use ref tags for your references in order to create inline citations. Instructions can be found at Wikipedia:Inline citation. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 03:03, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

45dogs, I'm confused. I put ref tags in the Sandbox draft originally. Why would they not go through when I push to submit the page? LPFasold (talk) 12:52, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

I think there may be confusion on what ref tags are. Currently, your citations are superscript numbers. They are currently <sup>1</sup>. Inline citations look like <ref>{{cite web |title=Master Government List of Federally Funded R&D Centers |website=NSF |date=January 1, 2007 |url=https://ncses.nsf.gov/resource/master-gov-lists-ffrdc |access-date=November 19, 2025}}</ref>. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 15:14, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

@LPFasold Drafts waiting for review are not in a first-in-first-out queue, but rather in an unordered pile. Reviewers select articles they wish to review, in various ways... by draft age, by topic, at random, etc. So there's not a concept of your draft "moving through the queue" or being at a certain position in a queue. Articles that clearly pass, or clearly fail, are easier to review, and those might get reviewed more quickly. David10244 (talk) 05:30, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks David10244. That's very helpful. Is there a particular place I should look to see if my page submission has been accepted or rejected? I'm new to the submission process and don't want to accidentally miss anything. LPFasold (talk) 12:35, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @LPFasold, and welcome to the Teahouse.

At the moment User:LPFasold/sandbox has a box at the top that says (among other things) "Draft article not currently submitted for review".

Once you believe it is suitable for submission (and I echo 45dogs that you it will not be suitable before you have converted your citations: see WP:REFB) you can pick the button that says "Submit your draft for review!"

Once you have done so, it will show "Draft waiting for review" (I haven't checked the exact wording) for a time - could be minutes, could be weeks - until a reviewer picks it up.

Then one of three things will happen. Either the reviewer will accept it, and move it into mainspace as an article, under a suitable title.

The most common thing (especially for submissions by new editors) is that they will decline it, so it remains as a draft for further work. The third possibility is that they will reject it, meaning that the subject is not appropriate for a Wikipedia article, and you should not spend any more time on it.

Whichever of these is the case, the header will change to show that state; and I believe the reviewer will also always notify you on your user talk page.

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 14:29, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

List of national flags of sovereign states

List of national flags of sovereign states

I could not find Uruguay's flag in the list. Kpension (talk) 02:53, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

There is; it is between the United States and Uzbekistan (It is listed as the National Pavilion). Versions111^{talk to me :)} 04:25, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, it is between the United States and the Artigas flag Versions111^{talk to me :)} 04:27, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

It is labelled only with its 'official name' of "National Pavilion", and the following two flags in the table,"Artigas flag" and "Flag of the Treinta y Tres", are also 'official flags' of Uruguay (see lede of Flag of Uruguay). This seems to me somewhat confusing: I suggest the actual name of the country should additionally appear in this table against all three. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2025-31359-08 (talk) 19:18, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Thakazhi Sivasankara Pillai

Thakazhi Sivasankara Pillai: This is the first time I've seen a cartoon-like drawing to illustrate a biography. I've read WP:IMAGES, but it's not clear if this is acceptable. It appears almost like a caricature. Lexiconaut (talk) 08:59, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Drawings of current figures have been used in their infoboxes, I remember that Gisèle Pelicot has a drawing that was even featured on the main page as her image. It does appear accurate and doesn't seem like a caricature, or done in bad faith. That being said, I'm sure a non-free image can be used as he is deceased, and the drawing is not really comparable to a real photo. I'd prefer that. jolielover♥talk 09:29, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

To learn how to think the main title of Wikipedia page

 Courtesy link: Draft:Bikkina Thammiraju

I have created a Wikipedia new sandbox and published the page I can't access it anywhere in the web except in my account I want it to be seen in the worldwide Wikipedia pages included but for that I need to change the title of the page main title of this Wikipedia page it's not changing I don't know the process how to change but I've created it for an Indian film editor The page looks new and fresh This links to many of his films he worked for correcting the links of the other Wikipedia pages so my only problem is how could I change the easy videos the Wikipedia is access Please if anyone knows tell me the process I would learn it Manvith111 (talk) 09:57, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

@Manvith111 Welcome to the Teahouse! You need to submit your draft to the articles for creation process to be reviewed by an experienced editor. There are instructions on the page I've just linked, feel free to ask any questions. Ultraodan (talk) 10:02, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Manvith111 Hello and welcome. New accounts cannot directly create articles, you need to use the draft submission process. I have placed the draft at Draft:Bikkina Thammiraju so you can submit it.

How did you obtain the picture of this man? It looks like a picture of a picture. 331dot (talk) 10:03, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

@Manvith111 Currently, many of the sources you cite are to IMDb. Unfortunately, Wikipedia does not consider these to be reliable, as explained at that link. It can be used as an external link, however. We have very strict sourcing requirements for biographies of living people and your draft is not likely to be accepted without these. Overall, you need to show how this person is notable in the quirky way we define that here. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:23, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Manvith111, and welcome to the Teahouse.

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 14:31, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Latin alternative to "per" in "* [Conclusion] per @[X]"

I have a faint memory of one page, sometime this year, seeing users use some kind of latin term, w:List_of_Latin_legal_terms, these feel unsatisfying until I can see Wikipedians' usage. Idem/Qua/Vide seem contenders. I tried chatgpt, w:Help:Talk_pages, and can't seem to search actual Talk pages. Lumbering in thought (talk) 10:07, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

I have found the Talk namespace. Also nevermind. I was thinking of "per nom." w:Talk:Taxi Lumbering in thought (talk) 11:02, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

On articles of other languages not properly displaying

I have come to discover a problem of certain articles in which there exists articles of other languages on the exact same topic yet such languages fail to be displayed in the top right 文A column. For instance, for the topic of Brown sugar, it displayed that there are no articles of other languages on this topic, when in fact, when you access it via the Chinese Wikipedia page zh:红糖, you can see that there are 40 languages on this topic, including English, though the English link leads to Sucrose#Caster. There are several other articles I have come across sharing this problem, most of which are biological species related articles. If anyone would know of a way to improve on this systemically it would be greatly appreciated. Pygos (talk) 10:41, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Wikidata is where Wikipedia articles of the same topic in different languages get grouped together. Normally you would edit in that site to edit such groupings. 🐲Jothefiredragon🔥talk🧨contributions✨log🐉 10:47, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

I have fixed this at Wikidata. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:05, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Draft:RentalReady

I recently created Draft:RentalReady, but it was declined with the note that it reads too much like an advertisement and lacks independent, reliable sources. I’d really appreciate any hints or tips on how to improve the draft so that it meets Wikipedia’s standards. Could anyone advise me how I can better structure the article to fit an encyclopedic tone? Thanks Axcont (talk) 12:38, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Note to helpers: user has paid-contribution disclosure on userpage. Commander Keane (talk) 13:43, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Have there been any controversies that are reliably sourced? Have they been accused of shady business practices? If so, include those. If you think you'll be fired, tell me and I can add those in :) --DollarStoreBa'al^ConverseMy life choices 14:10, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

@DollarStoreBaal44, that is not good advice. Adding negative information isn't the magic ingredient. What is needed is for the company to meet the criteria at WP:NCORP, with specific attention to what is not useful in terms of demonstrating notability at WP:CORPTRIV. Please don't try to answer questions when you don't know the answers; it only confuses people and makes it harder for them to succeed. Meadowlark (talk) 20:44, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

..I am such an idiot. Sorry, was truly just trying to help.--DollarStoreBa'al^ConverseMy life choices 14:07, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

It's okay, I get that - it's naturally to want to help. At the moment you're very new and there's a lot of things you won't know, but the good news is that there are lots of other people here who can answer questions too! Spending time here is great for new editors, you'll very soon begin to learn which questions are common and what the answers are - and where the answers are, which is also very useful. Just leave any questions you aren't totally confident you know the answers to, and come back to see what other editors have said. :) Meadowlark (talk) 02:10, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Axcont.

If you write what the company wants people to know, then it will almost certainly come over as an ad. 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.

Very brief summary of how to do it:

1. Find several sources where people wholly unconnected with the company have chosen to write in some depth about the company, and been published in reliable publications. Ignore anything that emanates from the company or its representatives (including anything based on interviews or press releases). Ignore anything that is CORPTRIV. Check each proposed source against all the criteria in golden rule.
2. If you haven't got several such sources, give up and do something else.
3. If you have, set aside everything that you personally know about the company, and write a neutral summary of what those independent sources say. If they leave out something you think is important: tough. If they say something the company does not like: tough.

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. And that applies even where there isn't a conflict of interest. ColinFine (talk) 14:42, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse.

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

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

Warning against COI editing

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

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

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

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

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

Writing a COI article

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

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

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

Athanelar (talk) 19:35, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Event

Event for this November 19 ~2025-34832-92 (talk) 13:18, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Events that happened so far this November 19 can be found at Portal:Current events/2025 November 19. mwwv ^converse∫_edits 13:33, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Requesting help to move draft to mainspace

Hello, I need some assistance with my draft "Draft:Zehra Neşe Kavak."

I have added multiple reliable, independent secondary sources (Hürriyet, Milliyet, Radikal, Yeni Asır, Sabah, DHA, Habertürk) that provide significant, in-depth coverage of the subject’s academic, scientific, and international achievements.

The draft now clearly meets the General Notability Guideline (WP:GNG) and the biography guideline (WP:BIO). I would appreciate help from an experienced editor to review the draft and, if appropriate, move it to the mainspace. Here is the link to the draft: Draft:Zehra Neşe Kavak

Thank you very much for your time and assistance! Neshyys (talk) 13:36, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

This is a well-written article, meaning it complies with Wikipedia guidelines.(XLs6 (talk) 14:06, 19 November 2025 (UTC))

That's the first time I've seen a draft on the teahouse that's actually good without assistance! --DollarStoreBa'al^ConverseMy life choices 14:11, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes. (XLs6 (talk) 14:12, 19 November 2025 (UTC))

Please go ahead and submit your draft for review, using the button I have just added to the top of its page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:55, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

NRHP plagiarism?

I am currently trying to improve an NRHP article and I'm wondering if there are possible plagiarism/copyright issues with the way the article is now. I have started adding new sections, but the majority of the existing sections are copied almost word-for-word from the NRHP nomination form. Should all copied material be deleted, or can this stay? DeishaJ (talk) 14:29, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Either it should be deleted or rewritten in a non-plagiaristic way. This should NOT happen on Wikipedia. Thanks for pointing that out! --DollarStoreBa'al^ConverseMy life choices 14:37, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Either it should be deleted or rewritten in a non-plagiaristic way. if it is copyrighted, it should just be removed, as Wikipedia can't hold copyrighted works. And then it needs to be revision deleted. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 15:32, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Is the material quoted from a federal work, and so free from copyright? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:56, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

The material is taken from a federal work (mostly, there may still be other plagiarism issues I haven't spotted yet) but many parts had no citations and some linked to dead websites. I removed a bulleted list of info after discovering it was just a straight copy of part of the NRHP form that was originally in the article without any citations. DeishaJ (talk) 15:05, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

If such material is from a federal work, it should be cited to that work, but not removed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:05, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia page update

Hi! I'm requesting help to publish a Wikipedia article about M. Sai Deep — an Indian motorcycle racer and EV influencer with significant media coverage in Indian and U.S. outlets. I have a full article draft with citations from major sources like The Hans India, Hybiz TV, and BIF Today. He's the founder of MSD Racing – NorCal and co-founder of the World SBK Mahi Racing Team India.

Would someone be willing to review and help submit the article? I want to ensure it follows all Wikipedia policies. Thank you! ~2025-34883-23 (talk) 15:04, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Would you be willing to provide a link to the article? I can't seem to find it. --DollarStoreBa'al^ConverseMy life choices 15:21, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello,, @~2025-34883-23, and welcome to the Teahouse.

I also can't find such a draft. I wonder if you've been creating it outside Wikipedia?

If so, I strongly recommend that you create a draft using articles for creation, and paste your text in there, and then submit it for review.

Having said that, My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 16:20, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi, and welcome to the Teahouse.

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

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

Like the rest of us, you're here because you want to contribute to an encyclopedia. Luckily, there are a lot of ways to contribute other than creating articles. You can copyedit (see gnoming), patrol the Recent Changes page to revert vandalism, get involved with a WikiProject you're interested in (like WP:AICLEANUP for me), read through discussions on boards like WP:ANI to see how disputes are handled here, etc. Athanelar (talk) 19:33, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Seeking Volunteers to Update Page

Hi,

I started a Talk on my Article but I don't know if anyone will find it there so wanted to share the link to the message here. Would love help from the community to rewrite my Article. Thank you so much Talk:Erica McLain#COI: Seeking Volunteers to Review Changes to and Update Article Eamers24 (talk) 15:36, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

I've offered some comments on the article talk page. 331dot (talk) 15:57, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Draft:Nico Van Staalduinen

Can any reviewer help this article has not not been approved for the past 3 months last time it was decline and i updated all details ca anyone assist me please.

Draft:Nico Van Staalduinen

i have followed all guidelines accurately and no major reason has been given as to why it is not approved Dojo meister (talk) 15:42, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

You submitted the draft for review again on 22 October 2025. The notice currently at the top of the page says "This may take 2 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 2,869 pending submissions waiting for review."

Please be patient. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:09, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

One of the main reasons for this process is that editors who haven't followed the guidelines often believe that they have. The process has to be set up to prevent those cases. TooManyFingers (talk) 01:32, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Question about two images by User:Oklopfer

Shouldn't these two images by User:Oklopfer be on Commons?

• 
• 

- BᴏᴅʜıHᴀᴙᴩ (talk, contributions) 17:28, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

@BodhiHarp I just exported them to Commons ~ oklopfer (💬) 17:36, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Mistake? - BᴏᴅʜıHᴀᴙᴩ (talk, contributions) 17:37, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Not a mistake, just didn't upload directly to Commons before. ~ oklopfer (💬) 17:40, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

What makes an edit constructive vs. unhelpful?

Hello! I'm new, although I've read many of the tutorials.

I made my first edit, to this article. But, it was immediately reverted.

I attempted to clarify which José Avelino is referred to in the first paragraph, as the system suggested I link the name to José Avelino. I believed adding the Bolivian José Avelino Aramayo's matriname ("Orvalle") could add clarity.

But, this was reverted, as it was not constructive.

This feedback confuses me. But, I am willing to learn!

I'm looking for resources detailing what information is considered constructive in a Wikipedia article, and what is unhelpful.

Please point me to any articles, guides, or even insights from your experience. Thanks!

Paper Sunflower (talk) 18:46, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Paper Sunflower, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Don't worry too much about making mistakes. I think the message on your talk page is a standard one, that may not have room for nuance.

The issue is that you added something to an article without giving a source, so it's not obvious that your addition was correct.

It may be you're right, but in that case you should cite a source where it can be verified.

The other thing to note is that editors often disagree, and WP:BRD tells how to proceed. If an editor reverts your change, but you think that it was an improvement it is up to you (unless you choose to drop the matter) to open a discussion with the other editor.

I see that you have replied to @Materialscientist on your user talk page, which is the right thing to do; but because you did not ping them, they may not notice that you have replied. (I have pinged them here, so they should see this discussion.) ColinFine (talk) 19:02, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Oh! Ok, thank you! That totally makes sense. Paper Sunflower (talk) 19:14, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

publishing a draft

Hello,

I just created my first page Draft:Laramie Dennis but I do not know how to get it published out of the draft version. Can someone please help me?

Thanks! Lhoeberi (talk) 19:00, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

I've added a template to the top of the page that will allow you to submit the draft for review. The article will be published if it passes review, but currently I don't think it will. At a cursory glance, I don't think you have enough independent sources to justify notability. Athanelar (talk) 19:26, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Linking an image caption to a wiki page

Hi, how can I create a link to a wiki page in an image caption?

Specifically, I want to create a link to Derek Pratt (watchmaker) in the image caption of this guilloché watch dial: File:An engine-turned (guilloché) watch dial made by Derek Pratt and rejected by him due to imperfections.jpg

I thought I'd done it right, but it's not showing up...

Many thanks! Louisetarp (talk) 19:35, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi Louisetarp. I fixed the Wikimedia Commons description on the file page with [3]. w: is to link the English Wikipdia when the image is at Wikimedia Commons. The caption shown in the article is from the article itself and can be changed by editing the article like I did in [4]. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:29, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

THANK YOU, PrimeHunter! Very kind of you! Louisetarp (talk) 21:40, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Verification

How can every single entry be verified? Surely the millions of entries are too numerous to be accurately monitored? Davidbellpixel (talk) 20:20, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

See WP:Verifiability for an overview of verifiability guidelines.

Other than that there's essentially two ways that these things are verified. First, if an article is submitted as a draft via the Articles for Creation process, then the person reviewing the draft will check the sources and verify that they actually align with the article.

Otherwise, if someone creates a new article directly, then the article is not indexed on search engines until it's been checked by a new page patroller, who [should] check the same thing.

So essentially, every article which is visible on a Google search result should have, at some point, been reviewed by human eyes. Athanelar (talk) 20:33, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

@Athanelar, unfortunately that's only true for articles which have been created since we set up those processes.

@Davidbellpixel, unfortunately there are thousands and thousands of older articles, some of which have never been reviewed, and are in dire need of attention - either adding sources, removing unsourced content, or in some cases deleting the article entirely.

Ideally, they would all get reviewed, but there aren't enough volunteers interested in doing that, so they often languish. ColinFine (talk) 21:43, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Davidbellpixel, unfortunately there are thousands and thousands of newish articles that are about as bad as the dire older ones that ColinFine describes. -- Hoary (talk) 22:57, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Essentially: we're a work in progress. DS (talk) 16:26, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

inability to correct misspelling of my own name in a references list

Although I've made a couple of minor edits in the past, I'm unable to edit the misspelling of my own name in the "references" list at the bottom of Murray Mednick. If you click on the link, you can see that my first name is Don, not Jon DMSCCA (talk) 20:22, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi @DMSCCA, I've fixed the error in this edit. The citation fields are found where the inline citation is, the reflist just populates all those citations at the bottom for full reading. Cheers! Kline • talk • contribs 20:27, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Question about move request

Where can I request for move any page to new title? Although I can use move feature, but I don't want to leave redirect. Upset New Bird (talk) 01:00, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Check if there's a WP:CSD which applies to the redirect left behind and then you can just tag it.

For instance, if you're moving a page from articlespace to draftspace then you can tag the remaining redirect with {{Db-r2}}

If none of those apply, then in any case the leftover redirect will need to be deleted by an admin, which you can ask for by submitting it at WP:RfD

What's the page move you're trying to make? Athanelar (talk) 01:30, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

@Athanelar: Thanks for answering! In my case, WP:CSD applies, because it is my sandbox. Upset New Bird (talk) 01:35, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Yep, in that case {{Db-g7}} likely applies, which states If requested in good faith and provided that the only substantial content of the page was added by its author. For redirects created as a result of a page move, the mover must also have been the only substantive contributor to the pages before the move. Emphasis mine, since it's relevant. Athanelar (talk) 01:39, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

For their own sandbox U1 would also work. Ultraodan (talk) 01:42, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Removing Missing Links

I'm not sure if this discussed in a guide I haven't seen yet, but what is the policy regarding missing internal Wikipedia links? The red ones like this. A lot of them are people (at least in the physics topics I normally help with), and many are distinct topics that just don't have articles for. Is there any reason why I shouldn't remove them? Maybe this is a topic specific thing as well. I don't want to continue removing them if there is a reason why they should exist. Thanks for clarification! Ajheindel (talk) 01:03, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

MOS:REDLINK sort of details when and why you should leave a red link, or when to remove it. If it could reasonably become an standalone article, it's fine to leave it. If it's questionable or very unlikely to become one, I would likely remove it. When making the choice to leave alone or remove—be bold, but don't be reckless. // hekatlys [talk] 01:24, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

I see, thanks for the information Ajheindel (talk) 01:35, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

@Ajheindel The reason to keep those links is that many editors (myself included) use them to find a topic to write an article about. The more redlinks to an article, the more obvious it is that an article is needed for that subject. However if a link will obviously never get an article it's best to remove it. Ultraodan (talk) 01:25, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Interesting, I didn't consider that, I will keep that in mind going forward Ajheindel (talk) 01:36, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

@Ajheindel I don't think we should be asking less experienced editors to try to make a judgement as to whether a link is highly unlikely to ever get an article. Another way to think about this is that removing such a link is probably "not an improvement", which is a good reason to just leave it alone. Fabrickator (talk) 08:24, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

New Wiki Page

Anyone has a reputable websites that Wikipedia recognizes as good references for Wikipedia page approval? I am not talking about PRs. ZackOugh (talk) 04:49, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, ZackOugh. The terminology is reliable source and there are a gigantic number of them. You can find a list of the most commonly debated sources at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources but this list does not claim to be comprehensive. Cullen328 (talk) 07:03, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

At the time of writing, there are 7,093,247 articles on this Wikipedia. All but a handful of them cite reliable sources. So yes, we have "reputable websites that Wikipedia recognizes as good references".

Did you have something more specific in mind? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:18, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

If you're looking for news or research, try NPR, The New York Times (subscription needed), Reuters, or the Pew Research Center. Those are all (mostly) very reliable sources. --DollarStoreBa'al^ConverseMy life choices 14:09, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

The set of acceptable sources ("for news or research") is far broader than the preceding statement seems to suggest. Fabrickator (talk) 21:31, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

File rename

File_talk:Avatar_Fire_and_Ash_first_poster.jpeg I added rename media template here a few days ago but there has been no response. Have I placed this template incorrectly? Optim594 (talk) 08:39, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

@Optim594 You transcluded the template on talk page instead of directly on File_talk:Avatar_Fire_and_Ash_first_poster.jpeg. The error on talk page indicated this. I hope that helps! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 08:49, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. Optim594 (talk) 08:53, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

 Done I have renamed the file. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:13, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. Optim594 (talk) 04:51, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Translate the page from Finnish into English

Dear all,

I know a page in Finnish and wanted an English version of this on Wiki... It says only a senior editor can execute the translation program on Wiki: fi:Pasi Heikkurinen.

Many thanks in advance, FaithInCosmos (talk) 09:27, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

You are not extended, so you can't translate pages Versions111^{talk to me :)} 10:16, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

See what YTRK said in this, On the English wikipedia, the use of the content translation tool is restricted to experienced users called extended confirmed users. Versions111^{talk to me :)} 10:30, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

So sorry, I forgot to pose the question. How does one go about doing this? Shall I reach out to a extended user to do this? FaithInCosmos (talk) 12:04, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

You automatically receive extended-confirmed protection when you reach 500 edits with an account older than 30 days. However, you could create a page without the Translate tool using the article wizard if you have reliable, 3rd-party sources. Fractal-Dreamz ✯ 15:49, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

@FaithInCosmos: Wikipedia articles in different languages do not need be simple translations of each other. The Finnish article isn't really that great. You could use the sources present and write a new article in english instead of translating the old. MKFI (talk) 13:12, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

and link it to Wikidata Versions111^{talk to me :)} 13:22, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

@FaithInCosmos see Wikipedia:Translation for further instructions. Once the articles are published, you can link them via Wikidata, see Help:Interlanguage links how to do that. Eventually you will also get Wikipedia:Extended confirmed after making 500 edits and 30 days of activity. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 13:40, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

@FaithInCosmos: My question is what is your motivation? If you want to be able to include a link to "the article about Pasi Heikkurinen", then you can use an interwiki link preferably using the "interlanguage link" template, e.g. Pasi_Heikkurinen (i.e. {{interlanguage link|Pasi_Heikkurinen|fi}}). The user can view using the "translate" feature in their browser.

Of course, that's going to be a machine translation and you don't have the opportunity to tweak it, but it doesn't force you to take responsibility for the resulting translation (which is implicitly the case if you were to create a new article using the machine translation feature, e.g. having valid citations from reliable sources). When you just link to it, then it's not your problem. Fabrickator (talk) 15:00, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

How to update Images

Hey, i was wondering how i can update an image on a page? i noticed specifically that the page of Tiletamine is using a weird way to show its chemical structure that despite being a Arylcyclohexylamine it is displayed extremely different to every single other Arylcyclohexylamine on the page, it actually lead to my own confusion regarding if it was a arylcyclohexylamine or not before i had to double check, rather than being able to recognize from the image alone

Tiletamine Arylcyclohexylamine

i understand that likely i may just not be able to do such an update due to being knew, but thank you in advance for any help 3Dmeo (talk) 10:58, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

@3Dmeo The image you added here is one way to show the structure of tiletamine. The alternative used currently in the article's chembox is equally valid and recognisable by organic chemists as the same compound. It differs only by having a more 3D perspective in which the cyclohexanone ring is shown in a chair conformation. Choice of what to use is a matter of opinion and you might be best to raise the idea of any proposed change at Talk:Tiletamine. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:37, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

@Michael D. Turnbull yes i agree it isn't inaccurate the issue is its the only one out of all of them to be displayed this way, and im unsure why. if you have a look at Arylcyclohexylamine you will notice out of 114 of them only Tiletamine uses this method, i assume its because the original image was first uploaded in 2008 and possibly back then this choice of visual representation was more common .

i assumed i guess that i could propose the change by having my image set up to be ready for change, and im somewhat asking how to do that as i do understand that i wouldn't be able to just get it fully changed myself with out any review.

are you saying the best way to get this changed to mine would be to message there and post my image there?

thanks 3Dmeo (talk) 11:44, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

We encourage editors (even new ones) to be bold, so it is perfectly acceptable to replace the image now and see if anyone objects by reverting you edit. I doubt they would do so. Look at the source code of the chembox and you'll notice that files are added in a sightly different way to how they are done in the body text of the article but I'm sure you'll be able to figure it out based on the exisiting code. Contact me via my talk page if you run into any problems. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:50, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

yes i noticed they are all SVG files, im working on changing mine to that now, although struggling with optimization. is there any guide on how for how to use it on a page?

Thank you for the help 3Dmeo (talk) 11:53, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

For various reasons, we prefer .svg files for chemistry. See MOS:CSDG for general instructions using various available chemical drawing programs. Again, I can help. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:54, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi @3Dmeo. Per request I merged the file on Commons. Regards, זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 17:19, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

@3Dmeo You might not have easily found it but we already had File:Tiletamine2DCSD.svg which is the 2D representation used on Wikidata. It was created in 2017. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:11, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

ohh @Michael D. Turnbull i didn't realize, ill check for different versions for any others i think need an update before making my own in the future.

and thank you @Ziv !! 3Dmeo (talk) 04:55, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Need help with formatting

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

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

Regarding the Draft for AfC

Can someone explain why the Aravind Srinivas draft was rejected? It seems to satisfy the notability and neutrality criteria.

Reference: Draft:Aravind_Srinivas. KnowMosaic (talk) 11:30, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

@KnowMosaic The pre-existing article was deleted after a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aravind Srinivas. The current draft is poor because it relies too heavily on interviews with its subject. Wikipedia article should be based mainly on published material meeting all of these criteria. In this case, most sources are not independent and hence do not establish his notability as defined here. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:46, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Suggestions for improvements

Hello, I m seeking feedback for the improvement of my draft Draft:Sanjay Kumar Mishra. *B$&6790 (talk) 12:27, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

@*B$&6790 You have submitted it for review and an experienced editor will get to it at some point, although the process is heavily backlogged. I'm not a reviewer but at a brief glance it looks fine, so you may be lucky and get it accepted quickly. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:33, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

ok *B$&6790 (talk) 12:37, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

.... and now accepted. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:34, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Grokpedia

Every editor should support and promote Wikipedia on social media, esp. With current promotion of Grokpedia on Twitter/X

One of the most valuable factors is the community of editors working together on articles and to fill gaps in public knowledge. We must never all that to be replaced by whatever AI BS nonsense Grokpedia is.ProfessorKaiFlai (talk) 13:44, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

You are right!! (XLs6 (talk) 14:55, 20 November 2025 (UTC))

See WP:Wikipedia Signpost/2025-11-10/Community view for a number of comments and comparisons to Wikipedia. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:33, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Another interesting article for what could become an ever-expanding collection:

”Grokipedia Is a Warning” Augnablik (talk) 17:31, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Signatures

I’ve seen this symbol ~2025-35153-64 (talk) 13:56, 20 November 2025 (UTC). what is it

I assume you're referring to this: "~~~~" this symbol automatically inserts your signature and the timestamp of your edit. As you can see by how it did so in the middle of your comment. Athanelar (talk) 14:10, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Purging pages for age diff

Hello, how are you? Sorry, because I asked this on the case of Ben Aldridge some days ago, but I am again asking, mainly due to not understanding how you purge a page. I mean, I didn't have a look (sorry) because I didn't know it was "usual". Now, I see that Omer Yengo turned 71 yesterday, and it remains at 70. How can I learn to purge the birthday age? Thanks. CoryGlee 14:27, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @CoryGlee.

When I go to Omer Yengo, I have a "Tools" menu at the right, which includes "Purge". ColinFine (talk) 14:46, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Need to update your birthday? That is, edit it. (XLs6 (talk) 14:47, 20 November 2025 (UTC))

@ColinFine: hey thanks – no more then of these purge questions from me, LOL. Thanks again. Have a great weekend. CoryGlee 14:58, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Why was I declined?

Hi, my article about Dominic Spadaro was recently declined and I was curious what the reason was. Thanks. Sao917 (talk) 15:38, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Sao917, and welcome to the Teahouse.

I have restored the rejection notice to Draft:Dominic Spadaro. Should you ever go further with it, that rejection notice is an important piece of information for reviewers, and you should not remove it.

I'm afraid that you have done what many new editors here do: plunged straight into trying to do the most difficult task there is. If you wanted to build a house or a car, would you start by trying to build a house or a car, or would you first learn the essential skills and knowledge?

The draft was rejected because it was nothing like a Wikipedia article. Most particularly (though this is not the only problem) it contains no citations to sources.

A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what several people wholly unconnected with the subject have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, and not much else. It follows that writing an article starts with finding sources which meet all the criteria in WP:42. Doing anything else (and writing so much as a single word of a draft) before finding the sources, is likely to be a waste of time and effort.

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 16:04, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse.

You've indicated that you want to write an article about yourself.

First of all, we strongly discourage editors from creating or editing articles relating to subjects they have a connection to. If you still wish to proceed, please thoroughly read everything below.

Warning against COI editing

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

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

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

You should also keep in mind that having an article about yourself, your company etc is not always a good thing. You (or the person or company you're writing on behalf of) do not own the article, and cannot control what is in it.

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

Writing a COI article

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

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

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

Athanelar (talk) 17:52, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia uses language incorrectly when it names the notices like the one you received at the top of the draft. Everybody knows that in a case like this, the words "declined" and "rejected" are functionally equivalent; however, Wikipedia treats the two words as if they have quite different meanings.

Your draft was not "declined", but "rejected". The main difference is that a rejected article has no realistic chance of ever being accepted, and there's no point in trying to improve it. This can happen because the topic itself is unsuitable for Wikipedia. TooManyFingers (talk) 22:34, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Removing and replacing LLM content

I've been working on an article that has been flagged as it may include content from a Large Language Model (artificial intelligence). How can we find which content may be AI-generated? Teknia Blackstallionstudios (talk) 15:55, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

@Blackstallionstudios welcome to Teahouse. A good essay is Wikipedia:Signs of AI writing ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 16:07, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

@Wikishovel, you flagged it, want to comment? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:10, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

zerogpt.com rates it at 98%, as I write this. Wikishovel (talk) 16:18, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Blackstallionstudios, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Thank you for working on this dreadful article.

In answer to your question, GPTzero says "We are highly confident this text was rewritten by AI, an AI paraphraser or AI bypasser"

However my primary concern would be that it has no cited sources. Without citing sources, a Wikipedia article is of very little value, because a reader has no way of verifying whether anything at all in it is correct. ColinFine (talk) 16:12, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

There is a list of sources under the final header, but they're all WP:CORPTRIV, I've PRODed the article. Athanelar (talk) 16:26, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

"@" someone

Hi Hosts and other nice people who help out here,

I have been editing here for a little while and it is a little embarrassing to admit that I have not managed to learn to "@" someone on source editor mode. I always do "User:ABCD" for users whom I want to notify but I do not know if they are "pinged". I'd appreciate it if one of you is able to help me figure this out. Thank you all for your help. Kvinnen (talk) 16:56, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Kvinnen, please read Help:Notifications which explains the various ways to notify or "ping" other editors. Cullen328 (talk) 17:01, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, I will take a look at it now. Kvinnen (talk) 17:07, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

@Kvinnen, see this: Help:Talk_pages#Reply_tool Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:58, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Question Regarding AFC Review for Draft:Sahil Mehta (actor)

Hi, my article Draft:Sahil Mehta (actor) has been waiting in the AfC queue for review for more than 15 days.

Could someone familiar with Indian film/television notability please take a look?

I believe it meets WP:ACTOR based on coverage in Filmfare, OTTplay, Indian Express, Scroll.in, etc.

Here is the draft: Draft:Sahil Mehta (actor)

Thank you Isahilmehta (talk) 17:13, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Isahilmehta I fixed your link, the whole url is not needed. As noted on the draft, the process could take 2 months or more. Please be patient. 331dot (talk) 17:17, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What doesn’t have a wikipedia page yet?

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

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

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

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

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

Can we establish a category for NGO Founders?

What are Non-governmental Organizations (or NGOs)? The WP article NGO says: "they are generally defined as nonprofit entities that are independent of government management or direction".

The English-language Wikipedia includes many biographical articles about people who have founded NGOs. Frequently, the organizations they've started are what are generally termed charities, but in many other cases that term wouldn't be applied.

I'll list a few examples of the numerous and diverse NGOs represented in WP and indicate their founder's biographical article: Habitat for Humanity Millard Fuller; AmeriCares Robert Macauley; American Craft Council Aileen Osborn Webb; Planned Parenthood Margaret Higgins; Ducks Unlimited Joseph Knapp; Human Rights Watch Robert L. Bernstein.

Does establishing the "Category:NGO founder" make sense, as I believe it would?Joel Russ (talk) 18:52, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Correcting my error. To avoid confusion, the article about Planned Parenthood's founder in WP is titled Margaret Sanger. Higgins was her maiden name; she used Sanger as her surname when she founded Planned Parenthood.Joel Russ (talk) 19:29, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Joel Russ, and welcome to the Teahouse. I suggest you start by reading WP:Categorization. ColinFine (talk) 21:14, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

How do I use "Recent changes".

I've been away from Wikipedia after many years of editing, but searching seems to have changed. I've been using "Recent changes" to find new edits on pages of interest. I am having a problem about the difference between AND and OR in these searches. I want to see both edits I make and recent edits to pages on my watch list, but when I list these two options, I get nothing. I suppose this is because I'm not on my own watchlist. And yet, in other cases were I list two subjects to search for, I get all the articles in either subject. What should I do differently. Rick Norwood (talk) 20:47, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

I tried to do what you described, and I don't get it either. I do know for certain that it isn't possible to add your "contributions" page to your watch list.

My suggestion is to just do the three actions separately: [your contributions], [recent changes], and [your watch list], rather than wrestling with a combination that fails. TooManyFingers (talk) 21:45, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Checking two options in the same category, like "changes by you" and "changes by others", combines them as OR. Checking two options in different categories, like "changes by you" and "On Watchlist", combines them as AND. jlwoodwa (talk) 21:50, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Anonymity of Temporary Accounts

How anonymous are these Temporary Accounts, compared to IPs and named accounts on Wikipedia? Are Temporary Accounts more anonymous than registered accounts and why so? ~2025-35160-18 (talk) 20:52, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @~2025-35160-18. Yes, they are more anonymous: only trusted people are given tools to go beneath and see the IP address. See WP:TA. ColinFine (talk) 21:16, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Temporary accounts are more anonymous than IP's but not more than registered accounts unless you have left trails in the edits you made while logged in to the account. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:43, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Simple English vs English Wikipedia

What is the difference between Simple English and English Wikipedia? OverLooked40 (talk) 21:09, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @OverLooked40, and welcome to the Teahouse.

English Wikipedia is one of 357 Wikipedias, all written in different languages, or different versions of languages. Simple English Wikipedia is another one of these, intended to be written in a simpler version of English.

Like each Wikipedia, it has its own policies and procedures, which may be different from English Wikipedia.

As with any pair of different-language Wikipedias, there is not necessarily any correspondence between articles on the same subject in English and Simple English Wikipedias: there might be, if editors have chosen to do it that way, but there need not be. ColinFine (talk) 21:21, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

@OverLooked40, everything ColinFine says above is correct. Just noting that Simple English Wikipedia has simple:Wikipedia:Simple talk where you could ask the Simple English editors there to get their perspective. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 03:32, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Similar pages

I found two similar pages for the same company and I'm not sure what to do. I know there is a process to merge them, but I don't know how it works.

Page 1: Audacy

Page 2: Audacy, Inc. Guz13 (talk) 01:52, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

@Guz13, have you already found Wikipedia:Merging § Step 1: Create a discussion? Merging articles usually starts with a discussion. You might also want to check the article talk pages to see if it has been discussed before. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 03:28, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

This looks complicated. Can someone else do it? Guz13 (talk) 04:12, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Okay, people discussed it beofre. It doesn't make sense but whatever.

Talk:Audacy#c-CascadeUrbanite-20240425061400-Merging Audacy and Audacy, Inc. together Guz13 (talk) 04:14, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Ah, then there's a good chance that a merge would be opposed again for the same reasons. And, yes, I've found that even straightforward merges tend to be complicated. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 04:30, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

I may just copy info from one article to the other if the material is relevant. Guz13 (talk) 04:40, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

For future cases, another discussion could be had and consensus could change. In this case, it likely would not go anywhere though due to the fact that the two are separate entities and based on how recent the discussion is. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 12:36, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

The two pages are about different topics. The service Audacy used to be Radio.com, and the company Audacy, Inc. used to be Entercom. They were completely separate from each other until 2017, when Entercom acquired CBS Radio, the owner of Radio.com. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 04:47, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

What do i do if a draft appears to be largely AI generated?

I have reason to suspect Draft: All Roads Lead To Rome Meme is largely AI generated.

1. Numbers where they shouldn’t be

2. A few parts of it has that border around it when you copy and paste something

3. The references are put under the ref list rather than in the article.

4. I ran it through 3 AI detectors: GPTzero, Quillbot, and Grammarly’s AI detector, all of them saying that over half of it was AI generated. (54-100%)

5. Most of what appears to bold, italic, headings, etc. aren’t formatted correctly. (Most of them double ** on both sides.)

6. They use slashes to separate things other than breaks in thought.

So what do I do if a draft is likely largely AI generated? Henihhi28alt (talk) 02:17, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

I added {{AI-generated}} Versions111^{talk to me :)} 02:22, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Also, I added more tags Versions111^{talk to me :)} 02:57, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

@Henihhi28alt, you don't really need to do anything - you can apply an {{AI-generated}} tag to drafts like this if you want to, but the AI usage in this case is blatantly obvious and reviewers will easily see it.

@Versions111, I've removed all but the AI-gen tag because it's only a draft and the tags you placed are things reviewers automatically look for. Tags are usually best placed on articles, where input from other editors is much more desirable and more urgent (since drafts may never be published and aren't be a mainspace problem - we want people improving mainspace articles rather than drafts as a priority). In order to get through AfC, notability, sourcing, etc, will be assessed. Meadowlark (talk) 07:39, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Advertising a WikiProject

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

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

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

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

Is there a template for marking a section as out of scope?

As the title asks. I can't find Template:Scope or Template:Out of scope or anything similar. guninvalid (talk) 05:04, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Do you mean something like Template:Off topic? aesurias (talk) 05:10, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

Hello, Wikipedians.

At the section, Advertising a WikiProject, I noticed a temporary account saying Yusaya Takei. On this archive, it appears that this individual used multiple temporary accounts and was blocked, with one of them also saying Yusaya Takei. Versions111^{talk to me :)} 05:23, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

@Versions111: When this happens, revert their edits, and report them at WP:AIV or Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Yusaya 4531. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 05:30, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

I reported them in the sockpuppet investigation Versions111^{talk to me :)} 05:41, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

I found 6 of those Versions111^{talk to me :)} 06:12, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Submitting a page removal request

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

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

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

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

Parameter not displaying

On the article Roman Catholic Diocese of Gurué I added the cathedral parameter but it fails to display, anyone knows why?

Please mention me when replying, thanks. João^hola 07:02, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Mysterious. Afaict by Template:Infobox diocese it should, but it doesn't. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:23, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Very strange, @Josedimaria. As GGS says it should - not just in the template documentation but as far as I can tell, in the template code too.

I suggest asking at Template talk:Infobox diocese. ColinFine (talk) 10:05, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

I put a note at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Infoboxes#Slight_mystery. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:19, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

@Josedimaria: fixed: there was a second, empty |cathedral-parameter at the bottom of the template, bunched on the same row with other empty parameters. MKFI (talk) 11:31, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

That'd do it, thanks! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:02, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Follow-up to Notability issues?

Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_1269#Notability issues?

Continuing my thread on Draft:Real Story Group (tl:dr; my original article was deleted because of notability issues; I'm trying to fix that).

So I followed ColinFine's advice, started from scratch, and wrote a short and to the point new version of the article, purely focussed on getting the right references. Now someone added this comment right in the article draft:

Comment: Draft should be completed before submitting. João

What does that mean? The draft was finished when I submitted. The only two edits I've made after submitting were very minor word order changes. Also the page explicitly states "you can continue editing"? Does he mean it's too short now?

Should I reply to this? Thanks, as always your input would be greatly appreciated :) Therealpowerflower (talk) 12:37, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

The best person to ask for clarification on what João means is the user themselves. Ask them at their talk page. Athanelar (talk) 15:18, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

[Edit Conflict] The obvious first step is for you to contact that commenter on his talk page and ask him (politely) to clarify and enlarge on his comment.

Having glanced at your draft myself (though I am not a reviewer), I can see what João probably means. The draft's main text comprises solely a 90-word lede, which gives a few facts about what the subject company does and what its founder says about it. This is not what a Wikipedia article is supposed to do.

To demonstrate the fundamental requirement of the subject's Notability, the article should summarise what independent third parties have published about it and its significance, at some length in Reliable sources. The lede should be a brief overview of this (more extensive) material. As it is, your draft merely documents the existence and area of activities of the company, without showing how it is in any way different from doubtless many other "run-of-the-mill" companies in the same field.

Wikipedia is not a directory, and does not need to have an article about every company that exists – probably 99.9% of companies do not merit an article. It may be that this one does, but the draft does not yet show that. Hope this helps. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2025-31359-08 (talk) 15:26, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Article review

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

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

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

Requesting independent review for declined AfC draft (COI)

Hello everyone, and thank you in advance for your help. My draft Draft:Lino Guerreiro was declined at Articles for Creation with the comment that it appears to be autobiographical and may not demonstrate sufficient notability. I would like to clarify that I have a Conflict of Interest, as I am the subject of the draft, and therefore I should not directly publish or promote the article myself. However, I believe the subject meets Wikipedia’s general notability guidelines (WP:GNG) and possibly the music notability guideline (WP:MUSICBIO), based on multiple independent, reliable secondary sources that provide significant coverage, including: Diário de Notícias – national Portuguese newspaper (coverage of the Prémio Carlos Paredes) Est Républicain – French regional newspaper (jury participation) Levante-EMV – Spanish newspaper (concert programme) XMusic – independent interview with substantial biographical information UNC Charlotte news and performances by international ensembles Additional independent sources and institutional references Because of my COI, I am not seeking to publish the article myself, but I would appreciate if an experienced, neutral editor could: Review the draft for neutrality, sourcing, and suitability; Advise whether the subject meets notability standards; If appropriate, consider moving the draft into mainspace or rewriting it independently. Here is the draft link: Draft:Lino Guerreiro Thank you very much for your time and assistance! Linoguerreiro (talk) 13:40, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello. If you're writing about yourself, just say so instead of referring to yourself as "the subject".

To get a review, you need to click the "resubmit" button on your draft. This is assuming you have addressed the concerns raised by the prior review. 331dot (talk) 13:43, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

A question, you are claiming that the image of you is your personal work and that you hold the copyright. Is that the case? Typically copyright belongs to the photographer, not the subject. 331dot (talk) 13:44, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your messages, 331dot.

1. About the Conflict of Interest:

Yes, I am writing about myself, and I acknowledge the Conflict of Interest.

I will adjust the wording in the draft to state this more directly.

Once that is done, I will use the “resubmit” button so the draft can be formally reviewed again.

2. About the image:

Yes, the portrait was taken by me personally.

I am the original photographer and therefore the copyright holder.

I released the image under a free license (currently CC0) so that it can be freely used on Wikipedia.

Thank you again for your guidance. Linoguerreiro (talk) 14:29, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

FYI, when people say it's a bad idea to write autobiographies on Wikipedia, that includes writing them as drafts. Below is my thorough advice against this sort of thing.

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse.

You've indicated that you want to write an article about yourself.

First of all, we strongly discourage editors from creating or editing articles relating to subjects they have a connection to. If you still wish to proceed, please thoroughly read everything below.

Warning against COI editing

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

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

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

You should also keep in mind that having an article about yourself, your company etc is not always a good thing. You (or the person or company you're writing on behalf of) do not own the article, and cannot control what is in it.

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

Writing a COI article

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

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

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

Athanelar (talk) 15:05, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

related to my article on a personality

 Courtesy link: User:Khidmat1234/sandbox

i have created an article of personality on wikipedia sandbox.there is no option to send it from sandbox to main page as visible to everyone.kindly guide i have created it with many difficulties. Khidmat1234 (talk) 14:26, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

@Khidmat1234 If you check the draft now, you'll see a button you can use to submit it for review. I have no idea whatsoever if your references are WP:GNG-good, and you need inline citations, see WP:TUTORIAL. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:40, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi, and welcome to the Teahouse.

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

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

Like the rest of us, you're here because you want to contribute to an encyclopedia. Luckily, there are a lot of ways to contribute other than creating articles. You can copyedit (see gnoming), patrol the Recent Changes page to revert vandalism, get involved with a WikiProject you're interested in (like WP:AICLEANUP for me), read through discussions on boards like WP:ANI to see how disputes are handled here, etc. Athanelar (talk) 15:01, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: User:Khidmat1234/sandbox. Deor (talk) 14:34, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

@Khidmat1234 Since you took the photo of Kazmi and his grandson, you need to read this guidance. It is not clear to me from your draft whether Kazmi is still alive (you say was a Kashmiri scholar...) but in any case should also read our policy on biographies. You are going to have to add citations to already-published sources to back up all your statements. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:59, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Separate page for podcast steve comisar

steve comisar

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

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

Account

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

It must be deleted(because you deleted it)retry with credentials or do create another account. And ask for global name change if you want to change current name of account.. Spbvj (talk) 17:11, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lets make the WikiProject Bowling active again!

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

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

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

Sandbox for temporary account warnings?

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

Request for review of Draft:Giacomo Billi

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

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

Logos

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Manual of Style question

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

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

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

removed article

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

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

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

Can somebody help me

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

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

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

Irish plumbers?

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

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

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

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

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

Annoying Table on Wikipedia pages.

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

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

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

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

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

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