The Teahouse is occasionally semi-protected, meaning the Teahouse pages cannot be edited by unregistered users (users with temporary accounts), as well as accounts that are not confirmed or autoconfirmed (accounts that are at least 4 days old with at least 10 edits on English Wikipedia).
However, you can still get direct assistance on your talk page. Use this link to ask for help; a volunteer will reply to you there shortly.
[Teahouse volunteers: If you have helped such a person, please don't forget to deactivate the request template.]
Errors in Sinking of the Titanic
I can't change these sentences because I'm a normal user, but can one of the 'higher ups', I guess you'd call it, change this sentence in Sinking of the Titanic please? In the first paragraph, it says, "resulting in the deaths of up to 1,635 people." I don't know WHERE they got 1,635? We have already narrowed down how many were on board and how many survived, thanks to Encyclopedia Titanica, where we now know 2,208 passengers and crew were on board (not 2,224), 1,496 perished in the disaster, and 712 survived. I just recently changed the numbers on Lifeboats of the Titanic. I would also like if someone changed, "but was travelling at a speed of roughly 22 knots" to 21 knots (because that was Titanic's service speed. I may be missing something though). It also says 710 survivors, but there were, as we know, 712.
In one sentence, it says that Titanic had a crew of 892 and 1,320 passengers, but Encyclopedia Titanica states that there were 891 crew members and 1,317 passengers made up of:
In the section "Iceberg, right ahead!", it says, "Murdoch is generally believed to have given the order "hard a-starboard"..." It is not "believed," it is known, because in Quartermaster Robert Hichens' testimony, he was asked by Sir Rufus Isaacs, "Had you had any instructions before she struck? Had you been told to do anything with your helm before she struck?" Hitchens replied, "Not immediately as she struck; the ship was swinging. We had the order, "Hard-a-starboard," and she just swung about two points when she struck." Issacs asked again, "You got the order, "Hard-a-starboard"?" Hichens replied, "Yes." You can read the rest at https://www.titanicinquiry.org/BOTInq/BOTInq03Hichens01.php
Next, in the section "Preparing to abandon ship," the last sentence in paragraph seven says, "A lifeboat drill had been scheduled for the Sunday morning before the ship sank, but was cancelled by Captain Smith for unknown reasons." But this is simply not true. Smith cancelled due to weather conditions that would make the boats rock and be unsafe. We know this because of testimony from lookout Archie Jewell. It was not "unknown reasons."
In the section, "Last minutes of sinking," the second sentence of paragraph four says, "It was said to have reached an angle of 30–45 degrees...", but modern consensus says she reached an angle of 20 to 25 degrees before splitting according to Titanic: Honor and Glory.
Those are just my things. Would really like it if someone changes them. Thank you! ~2026-50193-88 (talk) 08:43, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
Okay, a lot to unpack here.
1) you did not change anything in the lifeboats article. You first removed information claiming "we don't know" and then I fixed that information. And THEN you added the wrong information as well as misinformation about "6 people dying on Carpathia" (when in fact it was likely one; even that we are not completely sure about). See here for the actual confirmed numbers: https://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/titanic-passengers-and-crew/ (not counting one person whose presense is dubious and seriously in doubt as of now)
2) A lot of these "errors" aren't errors but rather covering the fact that the recollection is not the same as the other. Just one example: Archie Jewell may have said "weather was bad" but another witness disagreed and said something "It was probably church service" - since the man who actually made the decision died, "unknown reasons" is, in fact, right. Cherry-picking sources is not the way to go about this as you seem to be doing here with inquiry testimony AND with the numbers.
3) This should have been taken to Talk:Sinking of the Titanic to get relevant scrutiny, not to the Teahouse. I and others already keep that article updated as best as we could while keeping it as neutral as possible. The information you are disputing is based on multiple books and research and cross-checking.
The only issue I have with that page is the numbers are not matching the modern research of 2,207 with 1,496 deaths and 712 survivors; the admin is not yet convinced. Omnis (talk) 09:53, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
@~2026-50193-88 Encyclopedia Titanica itself likely can't be used as a source, because it appears to consist of user-submitted content. I haven't checked, but maybe if its content has reliable, independent, published references of the kind that would be accepted in Wikipedia, then those souces could be used as references for, as an example, the number of people on board. David10244 (talk) 05:06, 8 October 2026 (UTC)
@David10244, I can reassure you it is a great source of information for Titanic and, in fact, used in most articles related to Titanic. The message board/forum is user-generated. But the website itself contains information on all the people aboard and with citations as well as numerous otherwise inaccessible newspaper articles. Additionally, it has articles written by highly respected historians in the field about, for example, some rather overlooked individuals like the only junior officer to die that night; specifically about his dreadful first voyage as a teenager.
Of course, as with anything, always worth getting multiple sources if possible! Omnis (talk) 08:49, 8 October 2026 (UTC)
And you are right, the site is the best source for number of people aboard (in fact, the website maintainer is working with historians to recreate the list of people aboard Carpathia the day it rescued Titanic's survivors!). That is being updated whenever new information comes to light. Omnis (talk) 08:53, 8 October 2026 (UTC)
@Omnis Scientia Ok, thanks for that. As long as there are citations, and I presume that any Wikipedia article-stuff should use those citations, and not cite Titanica itself. Right? David10244 (talk) 05:35, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
@David10244, both can be and are. The citations in biographies, for example, are rare archival material - crew manifests, death certificates, rare newspaper accounts etc. - so are not otherwise accessible in most cases. So it is usable for biographical information if the citations are not accessible directly.
The articles by historians are also cite-worthy on here. These are by people whose books you will find cited throughout Titanic wiki articles. And this also includes the decades worth of research into the number of people aboard the ship.
The message board is a different thing entirely, I would note. That is for users to discuss findings and debate and whatnot. A user is only able to partake there; they don't influnce the biographies and whatnot. Omnis (talk) 09:10, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
I see no reason why this should be discussed here, rather than within Talk:Sinking of the Titanic, which is likely to be watched by a greater number of people who are familiar with the relevant sources and their relative reliability. -- Hoary (talk)WWU👍︎ 11:11, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
On French Wikipedia, they are discussing what should be done about photos of youngsters. Some people are saying that this is irresponsible and are considering things like blurring out images.
Example:
Oui c'est plus que limite. Perso je floute les visages sur mes photos. FreCha (discuter) 8 octobre 2026 à 11:22 (CEST)
oui ça va pas du tout.Je les ai enlevé, dommage parce qu'elle sont bien. Les remettre une fois floutées sur Commons. Il y a un outil pour ça? Quelqu'un peut s'en charger? Siphonopho (discuter) 8 octobre 2026 à 12:55 (CEST)
And with . They're still discussing. ~2026-54415-75 (talk) 17:03, 9 October 2026 (UTC)
Hello and welcome. We cannot advise you on issues at the French Wikipedia, which is a separate project with its own editors and policies. 331dot (talk) 17:07, 9 October 2026 (UTC)
@~2026-54415-75 As you've already raised this on the relevant talk page, it's not really clear what you want from the Teahouse. Mme Maigret (talk) 18:02, 9 October 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Thank you, but the main reason I brought this up is to discuss matters concerning English Wikipedia, not French Wikipedia nor the specific page.~2026-54415-75 (talk) 21:19, 9 October 2026 (UTC)
@~2026-54415-75 It wasn't really clear what you wanted. Is it to discuss whether photos of children should be blurred? The Teahouse still doesn't seem like the appropriate place. Maybe try the Village Pump. Mme Maigret (talk) 01:14, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
Yes, exactly, but I don't have the tools to move the contents to wp:vp. ~2026-54415-75 (talk) 23:43, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
Request for help with protected MSM redirect Copy Subject
Hello, I need guidance about the Wikipedia page “Mustafavi Students Movement” (MSM). In November 2022, the article was changed into a redirect to Minhaj-ul-Quran and the page was indefinitely protected due to persistent sockpuppetry.
I no longer remember the email or account I used at that time. I want to follow Wikipedia’s rules and understand how to request a review of the redirect and its protection. If the topic meets Wikipedia’s notability requirements and reliable independent sources are available, what is the correct process for proposing an article?
I do not want to bypass page protection. Please guide me to the appropriate process. Thank you. ~2026-54417-69 (talk) 18:54, 9 October 2026 (UTC)
I no longer remember the email or account I used at that time. Was it, by any chance, one of the sockpuppets that caused the article to be protected? Athanelar (talk) 20:20, 9 October 2026 (UTC)
Are you @MJawadMustafa, the editor who made almost all the edits to Mustafavi Students Movement? If you are, then you - not just your account - are blocked, and may not edit Wikipedia under any account or anonymously as long as the block is in force. See WP:Guide to appealing blocks.
The article was converted to a redirect because it was completely unacceptable, having almost no sources which met the criteria in the golden rule, and being promotional. It was then protected after another editor, since blocked, removed the redirect.
The only way this article could be reinstated is if an editor who is not blocked found several sources that met all the the criteria in the golden rule (written with no contribution of any sort from anybody connected with MSM or associated institutions; published in a reliable source; and contained in-depth commentary on the organisation, not just on individuals people or activities), created a new draft using articles for creation, set aside everything they personally knew about the organisation, and wrote a neutral summary of what those independent sources said about it. ColinFine (talk) 20:28, 9 October 2026 (UTC)
Thank you for explaining the situation. I can confirm that MJawadMustafa was my old account, but I no longer have access to it and do not remember the email address associated with it.
I understand that I must not bypass any existing block. Could you please guide me on the appropriate process for addressing my old account's status and, separately, whether a neutral draft about Mustafavi Students Movement could be submitted through Articles for Creation based on independent, reliable sources?
Thank you for your guidance. ~2026-54417-69 (talk) 14:25, 10 October 2026 (UTC)
Hello, @~2026-54417-69. I pointed you, above to Guide to appealing blocks. Basically, you need to make clear that you understand why your were blocked, and give a credible reason why the block should be lifted. ColinFine (talk) 14:18, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
@~2026-54417-69 To be completely clear, you cannot and should not worry about a new article while you are blocked. Getting yourself unblocked is not just incidental-- as mentioned, the block applies to you, not just to any of your particular old accounts.
You cannot edit any articles, or submit any drafts, using any account, while you are blocked. David10244 (talk) 10:01, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
No Pressure Talk
Is It Possible To Have A Looser No Pressure Talk Here About An Article? The article: Performance poetry and the article about ME as a Performance Poet Marty Watt So, I have a conflict of interest. I'm Marty Watt. It has taken me so long to get my name mentioned in the Performance Poetry article but with this bizarre sentence " Marty Watt was connected to the term performance poetry in 1976 through his physical expression of recited poetic works." I was simple a "Performance Poet" who "performed MY memorized poems for live audiences." Thing is that I was most likely the "first" Performance Poet of the Seventies. I have the sources etc mainstream newspapers. Earlier than the one cited in the Performance Poetry article. But that's the kind of thing that Wikipedia figures out - sources etc.
At the top of the Performance Poetry article Wikipedia has posted a caution "This article may lack focus or be about more than one topic. Please help improve this article, possibly by splitting it or creating a disambiguation page. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. (September 2026)" But there has not been anyone on the "Talk Page" for years to work with. The article has SO MANY issues that I have no idea what could be done, If anything. There's setting up some guidelines as to what "Performance Poetry" is and isn't, where other things mentioned - taking up so much space - like Oral Tradition, Performance ART, Spoken word might be given their OWN articles. On & on. How check the sources of some dubious statements.
Many other strange things about the article. So, what with the "Conflict Of interest," I have no idea how to proceed.
I just would appreciate a couple of answers to a couple of questions. Now, I'm an old guy - 74 - not the young character of the history I'm talking about. This whole thing makes me SO nervous. I don't want to break one single rule, or in anyway be the slightest bit inappropriate.
Thanks for ANY help,
In the earlier thread, ColinFine wrote: "It occurs to me that you might get some discussion if you post at WT:WikiProject Poetry." Your response, Marty Watt: "Yea, Thanks, I'll give it a try." Did you give it a try? -- Hoary (talk)WWU👍︎ 22:48, 9 October 2026 (UTC)
Got caught up in other stuff, most firming up and collecting more sources. The talk page there very slow, empty. The nature of poetry. Funny, I became a " Performance Poet" at 19 in 1971, to get AWAY from the " Poetry Scene." They still give me the willies. Marty Watt (talk) 23:07, 9 October 2026 (UTC)
In the earlier thread, ColinFine also wrote: I would advise you use the edit request wizard to create a {{COI edit request}} on the talk page [i.e. Talk:Marty Watt, or Performance poetry, or whichever article you hope will be improved] , which will come to the notice of a wider set of editors than those who watch that page. Be as specific as you can in your request, and cite the sources fully. How about that advice? -- Hoary (talk)WWU👍︎ 00:01, 10 October 2026 (UTC) [Slightly amended -- Hoary (talk)WWU👍︎ 01:22, 10 October 2026 (UTC)]
i don't want to start any trouble. I will post something there AND wait to see if someone answers this question. Basically seems there is nothing that can be done. I was trying to ask politely as possible. Marty Watt (talk) 00:32, 10 October 2026 (UTC)
Marty Watt, you have not been impolite and I hope I have not suggested otherwise. You've posted a message to Talk:Poetry. That's a page for suggestions for, and discussions about, a single article: "Poetry". (It's not the same as WT: WikiProject Poetry, which is a page for suggestions for, and discussions about, articles about poetry [articles about particular poets, trends in poetry, poems, poetry books, meter, whatever].) -- Hoary (talk)WWU👍︎ 01:22, 10 October 2026 (UTC)
Aaaarrrghhhh! Jeez. Marty Watt (talk) 03:08, 10 October 2026 (UTC)
So, I put my plight on the "WT: WikiProject: Poetry" etc. Nothing. No one is ever on these things about Poetry etc, "Performance Poetry." So, is that it? Too many weirdnesses:Conflict Of Interest, No One Ever On The "work areas" Of These Subjects? Me, I have all the dates etc sourced and whatever is needed. Does this ever happen: bizarre article about a subject but no way to change it? A subject that no one is ever on? Do they just stay that way for years and years? Marty Watt (talk) 02:32, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
Marty Watt, you're referring to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poetry#Nedd_Changes_To_PERFORMANCE_Poetry_Article. In it, you write about the one article Performance poetry. You want its content changed. The place to ask for this is Talk:Performance poetry. (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poetry is a good place to post a brief alert to the request you've made at Talk:Performance poetry.) You've already asked in Talk:Performance poetry (in two threads). You've provided references to three sources (and you've mentioned the existence of others). Of the three, the one that both (i) is likely to be easiest to find and (ii) has the most promising title is Alan M. Kriegsman, “Watt’s It All About, Marty?”, The Washington Post, January 23, 1976, pp. C1, C11. Easiest of the three to find ... but for most editors, not particularly easy to find. So what you need is an editor who's at least moderately interested in performance poetry, who knows enough about it not to be tripped up by terminology, competing claims, etc, who's willing (i) to search for the whereabouts of half-century-old issues of the Post, and (ii) to overcome the hurdles needed to view the article via (I'd guess) microfiche in some research library. -- Hoary (talk)WWU👍︎ 03:52, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
This is exactly my point. There are no editors interested in Poetry OR Performance Poetry - no one even on the Talk areas. THAT is the whole point of my question. So, in that case, it just stays the way it is.
The sources don't just have to with me being real. They are there to give dates for how early I was doing this as compared to others mentioned in the article. That being the case, the earliest newspaper review would be best if only one is allowed. 1973. Actually, I started it in 1972, but no source to prove that. Still, so much earlier than others mentioned. By about 10 years or more. Then there's all the stuff maybe for another time: some agreed upon definition of "Performance Poetry." Something to distinguish it from "Performance Art," happening almost at the same time and for some reason always using text, SLAM - the 80's, Spoken Word, the Oral Tradition. The "term of art" in its day was a Seventies thing, still around here and there but supplant ed by SLAM etc Spoken Word. The Beats ( '50s , '60s ) waved their arms around, shouted etc and only very briefly worked with jazz musicians - but continued to READ from a page.
None of it seems to matter. Almost like it's better just not to have an article Performance Poetry if it's going to be so off and no one able to work on it. As it is now, it gives the impression that it's undefinable, been around for thousands of years and mostly has to do with one woman: Hedwig Gorski in the Eighties. I've collected a ton of sources putting the use of the terms "Performance Poetry," and " Performance Poet" long before the Eighties. Marty Watt (talk) 04:32, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
Hi. I have added {{edit COI}} to your requests on Talk:Performance poetry. That way they'll go into the category that has people looking at it. Those requests do take a good bit of time to get answered right now as there's a large backlog, but this way it's at least drawn to the attention of a wider audience. Packrat3860 (talk) 05:14, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
Thank you so so much Marty Watt (talk) 05:39, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
Confused? I was told that ARCHIVED reviews etc sources were fine, perfectly okay, official? I am supplying the sources with where they are kept (some: Philadelphia Free Library) or I can just send the copies of them direct - dates page numbers. Why would my place in the history etc tha dates depend on what is easiest to look up? Marty Watt (talk) 21:48, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
I'm not 100% sure if I'm answering your real question, but I'll try: Archives are fine, libraries are fine, but no matter what kind your sources are, you must give the exact way that any random person will be able to find it. Page numbers and all the other specifics are your job to provide so that no one can go on a wild goose chase. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 03:41, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
Thank you so much. So, why did some write this: "You've provided references to three sources (and you've mentioned the existence of others). Of the three, the one that both (i) is likely to be easiest to find and (ii) has the most promising title is Alan M. Kriegsman, “Watt’s It All About, Marty?”, The Washington Post, January 23, 1976, pp. C1, C11. Easiest of the three to find ... but for most editors, not particularly easy to find. So what you need is an editor who's at least moderately interested in performance poetry, who knows enough about it not to be tripped up by terminology, competing claims, etc, who's willing (i) to search for the whereabouts of half-century-old issues of the Post, and (ii) to overcome the hurdles needed to view the article via (I'd guess) microfiche in some research library. -- " ???? Especially: "to search for the whereabouts of half-century-old issues of the Post" Is there really something wrong older sources? I'd think once the sources are complete with dates, pages etc - everything and anything possible - a source a week old is no easier than a source 100 years old. NONE were any harder because of age for me. Where is this concept coming from? Why is the assumption that a person would not have all the documents necessary - every bit of information? Is that how it always is?
And this is exactly what I've been trying to ask. "So what you need is an editor who's at least moderately interested in performance poetry, who knows enough about it not to be tripped up by terminology, competing claims, etc . . . " My question wound up being: what to do when there is no such thing. "at least moderately interested in performance poetry . . . ." Just about no one is even moderately interested in Performance Poetry - or Poetry. But is that the point? If there's an interest level cut off, just tell me. If so, why does Wikipedia even have a "Performance Poetry" article? The article itself reads like it was together by someone completely clueless about it. But somehow that all worked out whenever the article got put on Wikipedia. Article has some sort of sign on it from Wikipedia saying that it's a mess. Whole thing is so confusing. I can see where people of any interest i "Performance Poetry" can be seen as weirdos - and full of strange delusions. I just need to know if that makes the whole thing not worth bothering about. General idea is that I invented it back in 1972 when I was 20 - see: like I said delusional weirdo, but I retired from it around 1987 - yea, even I got tired of the delusional weirdos that really were a part of it. I'm 74 years old now, have the time to check out what got written about that time, and now there's an internet and Wikipedia. The Performance Poetry article just struck me as so strange. I've had my own article "Marty Watt" on Wikipedia for many years: all about my status etc in the beginning of "Performance Poetry," and films I was in etc, rock bands . . . . Marty WattMarty Watt (talk) 07:45, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
Regarding sources, there is nothing inherently wrong with sources that are difficult to find. You're just being advised as a matter of practicality that it may take some time for a volunteer to find it. For COI edit requests generally the reviewing editor is going to want to see the source themselves. If the source in question is an AP report from this morning that's available online then I can get my hands on it to verify pretty much instantly. If it's a back issue of a newspaper or an out of print book then it will have to wait until I can get to the library (or maybe longer if I have to request it through ILL or something). That doesn't make it a bad source, in fact a lot of the most readily available sources are not the highest quality, but it means it will take someone time.
Regarding one happens if there are not sufficient volunteers to improve the page, the simple if unsatisfying answer is that it simply does not get improved. There are many low quality articles on Wikipedia whether it's for lack of sources or lack of willing volunteers or lack of consensus (among the editors or among the scholarly sources). Some of them will improve, slowly, with time. Many of them will not. If you think that an article is so bad that it makes the encyclopedia worse than not having an article at all, you could open a discussion proposing that the article be deleted entirely. But in for this particular article I can pretty confidently say that such a discussion about this article in particular would be quickly closed in favor of keeping and improving the current article. We have good sources here, and we have good leads on where we can find more, so the preferred strategy is to just keep chipping away at it.
For both of these it may help to consider some classic Wikipedia words of wisdom, which is that there is no deadline. It's a volunteer project that is not perfect now and never will be. It is frustrating I'm sure to feel like you haven't gotten much response from your call to improve this article, but in the grand scheme of things the amount of time this has been waiting is pretty short. You will get some interest and some answers and the wiki will hopefully improve, if slowly.
This frustration is also, unfortunately, why editing topics closely related to ones own personal and professional life is discouraged. It's reasonable that to you your "place in history" is pretty important. But on Wikipedia that doesn't necessarily make things move any quicker. You're dependent on somebody unrelated to the topic and in all likelihood not an expert taking an interest in it. You may decide that your effort will be better spent in a medium that lets you drive improvement on the basis of your personal expertise and connection to the topic, in which case we'll be sorry to see you go but we'll understand. You are also a volunteer, and under no obligation to continue to bang your head against what feels like a wall. Packrat3860 (talk) 14:10, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick reply.
In the case of the one edit I was able to get made, it seems that the easiest to find was chosen not the one with the earliest date. Like I said, seems, I don't really know why one was chosen and the others not. I just wasn't clear on whether there was a strategy I should apply. I just figured that a few sources would help give my request more validity. Could be that the Washington Post was more recognizable than the Philadelphia Evening Bulletin which has been out of business but archived on microfilm. I'm not sure there's any way around the delay of getting the source. I'm not making any decision to send longer to verify ones instead of ones that can be verified faster.
Thing is - I shouldn't be involved anyway: Conflict Of Interest. First thing I asked about earlier on in this. People here told me to continue anyway but in allowed ways. I've always said in postings that I don't want to cause anybody and trouble.
Other thing is - like I said and kind of you too: just not much interest in this subject, sometimes, articles just wallow. Even so: probably best to have things arranged best as possible just in case someone stumbles on the edit request. Might be exactly what I'm trying to get clear here. That way I can just leave it and wait for whatever happens.
Ha ha "It's reasonable that to you your "place in history" is pretty important. " Wasn't all that important to me while I was doing it. I was just doing it. Only thought about once I was old enough to have time and found out there was Wikipedia with stuff involving me. Only important in as much as someone wants to find me for some reason - people write books about this stuff, universities put together events - and it could help me feed all these feral cats here.
"You may decide that your effort will be better spent in a medium that lets you drive improvement on the basis of your personal expertise and connection to the topic. . . . " Do you mean might have been better if I had been in a more reasonable artform? Or that I could switch my attention here on Wikipedia to something with a bit more of a pulse?
"why editing topics closely related to ones own personal and professional life is discouraged." Yea, like I said that was the first thing I asked about awhile ago now. Doesn't seem that if it was somebody with no Conflict Of Interest would be getting any farther. Is it that someone with no COI would be able to just go ahead and edit the article themselves? If that's the case, maybe the answer is for me to locate a person like that?
Ha ha ha ha I like this phrasing: "You are also a volunteer, and under no obligation to continue to bang your head against what feels like a wall."
I think I was just asking what really is reasonable. Took a lot of questions from me to here about this Treehouse here. Just checking if there's a stone left unturned. And like I said what is the best state to leave the edit request in so it seems workable for anyone who stumbles on it over time. Marty Watt (talk) 15:14, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
Do you mean might have been better if I had been in a more reasonable artform? Or that I could switch my attention here on Wikipedia to something with a bit more of a pulse?
I mean that Wikipedia is not the only place to to tell your story, so to speak. If Wikipedia is not working for you, you could write a book or a blog or an entry on a different wiki or some other alternative outlet.
Is it that someone with no COI would be able to just go ahead and edit the article themselves? If that's the case, maybe the answer is for me to locate a person like that?
Someone who doesn't have a COI is welcome to boldly make the change themselves. In essence, the {{edit coi}} template is a way to request that an uninvolved editor do exactly that.
what is the best state to leave the edit request in so it seems workable for anyone who stumbles on it over time.
If you have a proposed specific change (i.e. the sentence that says "X" should be changed to "Y", see WP:CHANGEXY) you can use {{edit coi}} to make an edit request and find an uninvolved editor to review and approve it. If you have sources but don't have a specific change you want to request, you can use {{refideas}} to suggest that another editor use them to expand/update/revise the article. If you just know something is wrong but you don't have the source on hand to back it up, your best bet is probably to open a discussion on the talk page (although since this leaves the other editor with most of the work this may be particularly difficult to get traction on).
I hope that helps clear up your options a bit. Packrat3860 (talk) 05:57, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
Thanks for considerate reply.
"I mean that Wikipedia is not the only place to to tell your story, so to speak. If Wikipedia is not working for you, you could write a book or a blog or an entry on a different wiki or some other . . . ."
Nah, I'm just trying to do the minimum of today's world. There's Wikipedia, everyone uses Wikipedia, even "Ai"s scour Wikipedia. If a person searches the web for "Performance Poets" etc, my name doesn't come up because it's not on Wikipedia. If I or anyone asks "Who is Marty Watt," then the internet / Google says "Marty Watt was the inventor of Performance Poetry in 1972 . . . . etc Marty Watt defined Performance Poetry blah blah blah . . . . " it's just this weird article on Wikipedia that is the difference. I have no burning desire to tell my story. Ha ha ha. I had years on stage to do that. This is just like getting my phone number listed right. I'm not "off" mentally, I don't think that Wikipedia is any place to "tell my story." What a concept! Looked like I was making some progress with a mentor, collecting all my sources etc and finding some in archives, getting their locations etc page numbers. But all I got was my name spelled wrong - since fixed . . . . HA HA HA - just checked, somehow even the weird mention of me has been removed entirely from the article. I can't find ANY history of it being removed? Now going backwards. Last I heard of it - now gone. Quote from recent addition to this article about Marty Watt: "connected to the term performance poetry in 1976 through his physical expression of recited poetic works."
What a bizarre bunch of words, strange phrasing: "connected to the term performance poetry in 1976 through his physical expression of recited poetic works." What could these words possibly mean? Gone now anyway.
I would have thought there would be a record of its removal in some "history?"
WOW! I had nothing to do with it. Some mentor did it. Now, I get a reputation for trying to "namedrop." This is insane. Mentor put it in, never ran it by me, misspelled my name - that got fixed by others ,and this bizarre verbiage. "Marty Watts was associated with the term in 1976 through his physical expression of recited poetic works." Too sadly sadly funny. How would I need my name dropped. And they mistakenly placed me as some kind of "1976" character. I started in '72 - mainstream documented in '73 . . . . '76 just happens to be a huge piece in The Washington Post. Marty Watt (talk) 08:27, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
Vandalism of release dates - why?
I've just started reviewing recent changes for vandalism and I've noticed a fairly regular kind of vandalism is when editors change the release dates of a TV show, song etc.
I'm wondering, what's the possible motivation for this kind of vandalism?
@GreyZoneLife: IP addresses involved in vandalism show be blocked if sufficient reasons are found for violation. It doesn't matter the rationale or motivation. Jôhola 21:47, 10 October 2026 (UTC)
Thank you, I am of course following the guidelines and will do regardless of motivation. I'm just trying to understand why this would occur - it's not the quickest way to vandalise an article (they typically edit various parts of the article) and I can't think of any positive impact for the vandal. GreyZoneLife (talk) 21:53, 10 October 2026 (UTC)
@GreyZoneLife: Well for me, I don't take editors with IP addresses serious.
There are different kinds of people using the internet these days. Jôhola 22:07, 10 October 2026 (UTC)
@Josedimaria There are a few long-standing, good, experienced editors who do not want to create accounts, for various reasons. But I understand your thinking, even if it's not Wikipedia's policy to give these editors less consideration. David10244 (talk) 10:15, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
Vandals want to cause lasting damage. They may hope dates are harder to notice than something else. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 23:48, 10 October 2026 (UTC)
This has been going on for years. I don't know if anyone has ever come up with a good explanation for it. Note that the page WP:KIDSTVDATES was created more than ten years ago. CodeTalker (talk) 06:15, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
Eligibility for a Wikipedia Biography
I am a retired airline captain from Kuwait with 44 years of aviation experience, including Boeing 747 operations, flight training, examining, and civil aviation regulatory work.
I would like to know whether I qualify for a Wikipedia biography and what independent published sources are required.
Could you please advise me on the correct procedure for submitting a biography for review?
Hello, you can check out the Wiki Notability criteria for articles to be created Wikipedia:Notability. Sure you can create a draft of the article (Wikipedia:Drafts), if you think it meets the Notability criteria, but submit it for Article for Creation (Afc) process to be published. Also declare your Conflict of Interest with the article as mentioned in Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Pls also note, you cannot use AI to write articles (see WP:NOLLM) JoyWeaver (talk) 04:43, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
Posting based on other discussions on the Teahouse; please be aware of scammer who might try to contact you; read Wikipedia:SCAMJoyWeaver (talk) 05:11, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
From what you've said above, it sounds as if you are somebody who has been doing their job, like millions of other people. What is there about you that should make an international encyclopaedia take notice? ColinFine (talk) 09:57, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
On Wikipedia, the main factor for writing an article about someone is the major public coverage of their life and career that's already been written. Major commercial pilots, as a very important aspect of their jobs, work quite hard to avoid the two most common ways that someone like them might receive major news coverage: a disaster, or heroic efforts to prevent a disaster. For maybe 99.9% of commercial pilots, the absolute ultimate in career success would be a long boring record of perfect flights, with (hopefully) a long ledger of large paychecks to show for it. That is not the kind of story that usually gets a reporter's attention. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 14:47, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
Not based on anything you’ve disclosed, sorry. Being a pilot with a distinguished career isn’t sufficient. You need to have been written about twice in reputable publications (and not a passing mention but substantially). Or you need to have won an award and, not just any award but, a fairly exclusive one. Hope that helps. Mme Maigret (talk) 21:18, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
Need help to acquire photo for article
Hello, I recently worked on the article Shubhalakshmi Panse. I wish to add a photo of her, to make the article visually better. I read that we need to use license free images on Wiki. So I tried to search on google with the filter for CC license. But couldn't find any image in that category. Can anyone help me acquire a photo of Ms. Panse? JoyWeaver (talk) 04:34, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
@JoyWeaver Not license free, but one with an acceptable license:. Which excludes pretty much any random pic of a living person you find online, unless you're very lucky. The "answer" is that very often there isn't a pic of a living person we can use, so we have to do without. I checked Youtube for "free" videos (you can filter for "Creative commons"), but no luck. If you want, you can try to contact the article subject directly and point them to Wikipedia:A picture of you. Some article subjects like the idea. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:47, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
Thanks for checking on Youtube as well. Sure let me try to ask the subject for a picture. JoyWeaver (talk) 11:04, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
@JoyWeaver It's a real problem to casually ask subjects for a picture, because subjects have not studied the requirements and will most often send something they have no right to be sending. Making them read Wikipedia:A picture of you is the way, not just asking them - and if you know they won't do that, then you're stuck. (I guess the way in that case might be for you to read it, and start a cumbersome conversation about it rather than a direct picture request.) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:10, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
You can also take her photo yourself. Mme Maigret (talk) 21:13, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
Yes I agree, that asking them for a picture is a tough option. I could not find her LinkedIn page, where someone can message. I don't know how to do that without revealing my identify, as I don't have dummy gmail ids. I read something about burner, is that an option? I don't know them personally, so can't click their photo myself. Is there a way I can ask other Wikipedians to contact her? JoyWeaver (talk) 03:23, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
The only licensed image I find is from "getty image: Bloomberg", so should I request them via this link? It seems a little complex for me to go via this route, as I am not aware of licenses etc. I liked the idea of asking the subject itself, so it there a similar forum to contact the subject? JoyWeaver (talk) 05:44, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
Looking again, this doesn't seem to made for "please ask the subject for a pic", so maybe it doesn't help here. If you try to contact her, perhaps Wikipedia:Example requests for permission can give you some inspiration. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:20, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
Hi JoyWeaver. Pretty much anything you find attributed to Getty will typically mean it will be licensed in a way that's too restrictive for either Wikipedia or Commons because Getty is in the business of selling licenses to use its images (i.e., images created by others who have asked Getty to help them make money); moreover, such images are almost never allowed to be uploaded locally for use as non-free content per Wikipedia's non-free content use policy because of non-free content use criterion #2. Whenever Getty is involved, it usually means Getty and the image copyright holder is trying to make money; so, asking them to release their image under a free-enough license would kind of be like asking them to shoot themselves in the foot. Getty, of course, is more than happy to sell individual licenses to people/organizations wanting to use one of their images, but only with some serious restrictions in place.Anyway, given that Shubhalakshmi Panse is alive, a non-free image of her will almost certainly not be allowed per WP:FREER; so, you're going to have to hope someone either creates or has already created something free enough for Wikipedia/Commons purposes. Some people have had luck contacting individuals or their representatives for such an image, but (I guess) there's always risk of a little quid pro quo: they might want you to start editing on their behalf or otherwise be their "Wikipedia representative" in exchange. Most of the time, it's just luck when such an image is found; either someone takes their photo and posts it online under a free enough license or they're at some government function/event where they photo is taken by an official government photographer for a country where such works are considered to be within the public domain. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:33, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
Her Linkedin page is the first thing that comes up in search results when I google her. Mme Maigret (talk) 07:48, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
yes can you message her asking her for her photo along with Wikipedia:A picture of you? I dont have a anonymous linkedin profile to send her a request myself. JoyWeaver (talk) 12:10, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
Crop photo
Hi, I would like to crop the photo of Katherine Heiny to show more of her and less of the background. Can someone point me in the direction of the instructions. Thank you. ~2026-44470-60 (talk) 05:26, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
Alternatively, rather than cropping the image at Commons, you can arrange to display a "detail", a portion, of it in an article. To help others who like me are bad at reading documentation, I've put some examples of this at User:Maproom/cropping. Maproom (talk) 21:17, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
The problem with that method is that while you have made the image better on this, the English-language Wikipedia, the improvement is not available to any other project. If you crop the image on Wikimedia Commons, it will improve it on Wikidata, and on any other Wikipedia that is using it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 09:17, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
There are times (for example when cropping out other people to show just one) when cutting the original would be wrong, and for those the "detail" function is best. But when the problem is just a lot of non-relevant background, Andy's point is right. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:33, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
Even when cutting the original is wrong, a cropped version can be uploaded—including by using the tool I recommended—to Commons, as a derivative image. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 18:20, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
I've cropped it on Commons. Mme Maigret (talk) 07:08, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
Wikipedia article copycat
Hi. I am working on an article Tooth-billed pigeon so it can get to GA status. however I checked the Copyvio detector, and it says the article has a 80% percent of plagiarism. But the website that we apparently copied from copied us exactly. Every word for word. And I don't want someone to quickfail it just because of a misunderstanding. So I want to clarify it Emmanbotan🌹 (talk) 06:33, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
So many sites mirror, overtly or covertly, Wikipedia, that an article of ours which has been online for any amount of time (even just hours, certainly days, and certainly certainly 20 years like this one) will have been replicated elsewhere, therefore running a copyvio check becomes a bit pointless because it will inevitably send you down all sorts of 'who copied whom, and when' rabbit holes. Which, I realise, doesn't help you, but which I'm just saying empathetically. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:41, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
New-ish author here. I'm considering preparing a draft biography of military historian and author Robert L. O'Connell, as I don't think he yet has a page here and, in my opinion, is a good candidate. I'd appreciate some experienced guidance about both notability and process. I am a long-time writer, an attorney (now retired) and looking for an outlet for my time, energy and skills. And to have some fun doing so.
For transparency, Mr. O'Connell and I worked on the same floor of the same government office building more than forty years ago. We were not close colleagues, and since that time our contact has been occasional, sometimes with several years between emails, together with an infrequent lunch. I have no financial or current professional relationship with him, am not acting at his request, have not talked with him in recent years or mentioned the possibility of this project to him. I'd receive no compensation or other benefit from an article.
My interest arises from a long familiarity with his published work and my own interests as a some-time student of military history. My own past reading of his many books, and, now, some preliminary research indicates that he's produced a strong body of books over the last several decades. Multiple works have received independent reviews in publications like The Wall Street Journal, Publishers Weekly, Kirkus Reviews, and other periodicals. My opinion is that this coverage could satisfy Wikipedia's notability standards for authors, but am advised that this judgement is a critical factor, with nuances. So, I would welcome an independent assessment before putting a lot of work into my first major Wikipedia project.
If the sources appear sufficient, I'll work to prepare a neutral, sourced draft. Then submit it through Articles for Creation? Publish it directly? What is best practice here? I'd be grateful for advice about whether my limited prior connection has been properly disclosed AND whether the coverage appears sufficient to justify proceeding. Also, as the project m moves forward, what ate the rules would be about me contacting him and asking for his support, while maintaining neutrality. (I think I could do write this without actual access to him, but am curious about the rules.) Classic Photographers (talk) 12:10, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
Hello and welcome. Articles are typically written without involvement of, or even the knowledge of, the subject. A potential subject cannot grant or deny approval for an article about them here, any more then they could deny permission to The New York Times or CNN to write about them. You are certainly free to inform him you intend to write about him, but you would need to tell him you must summarize what independent reliable sources- good and bad- have chosen on their own to say about him. He couldn't ask that any article display the text he might prefer. If he asked that you not write about him(as he might not see an article as desirable) you are free to respect that, but that's not binding on anyone else.
It is not uncommon to ask a person to upload a selfie of themselves to be used in an article(they could provide an image to you, but that's a tad harder to upload in terms of copyright). They may also have sources you are not aware of that they could provide you with.
Unless you have had drafts accepted in the past, it is best to use the Articles for Creation process so that issues are found beflre.the draft is formally part of the encyclopedia. 331dot (talk) 12:55, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
Very useful. Thanks. Based on this, I will maintain neutrality by avoiding direct contact with the subject during this project. Next issue for me is a preliminary assessment of this subject for notability. Any thoughts out there? Classic Photographers (talk) 13:49, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
Well, done, you seem to be taking a thoughtful approach to this.
I suggest reviewing each of your potential sources against all the criteria in the WP:golden rule.
Common problems are:
sources clearly based on an interview or press release - not independent
sources which discuss something other than the subject in depth - no significant coverage. You say his works have received reviews; but unless those reviews say something non-trivial about the author, they will not contribute to establishing notability for him (though they might for the works in question).
If you have several sources which meet all those requirements, you probably have notability; if not, you probably don't. Some of the non-independent or non-significant sources may still be useful, but only if you have enough solid sources to establish notability in the first place. ColinFine (talk) 14:52, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
Hi and welcome to WP. Assuming your subject is "Notable," which means is (1) substantially covered in (2) multiple, (3) independent, (4) published sources of (5) presumed accuracy, my advice to you would be to have nothing to do with the Drafts/Articles for Creation process, but to publish straight to mainspace. AFC is backlogged, some of the volunteers there are jaded, and it is nothing but a bureaucratic tangle that will suck every bit of joy and goodwill out of your soul... I usually write about dead people but have written about living people. My advice to you in this regard would be to write your piece first and to ask for clarifications and corrections later. Also, plan on having the article unillustrated at the time of launch, since WP's photo rules are strict and the people enforcing them are stringent. If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or if you want to communicate without prying eyes, my email is MutantPop@aol.com. Good luck and happy editing! —tim //// Carrite (talk) 22:17, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
@Classic Photographers Contrary to this advice by @Carrite, new-ish editors are strongly encouraged to use the AFC process. Yes, AFC is backlogged.
But if you publish directly to mainspace, the onus for review just shifts from AFC to NPP (New Pages Patrol).
That's a very harsh critique of AFC there. If a draft is not compliant with Wikipedia's policies when it's submitted to AFC, the cycle of a few declines (that come with reasons), followed by article improvements and resubmission, followed by the article being accepted, is common.
If the subject is not shown to be notable, especially if independent sources aren't added to the draft, which talk about the subject in depth, then the draft may never get accepted (and rightly so).
Carrite, sorry if you had a bad experience. I disagree with your advice. David10244 (talk) 10:35, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
Here's my take-away on the advice to date. It seems that first establishing notability is the key. While there are objective criteria about notability, their application may be difficult, may appear subjective, and, thus, getting buy-in on notability is a crucial gating factor. Once that is established, those particular concern about possible self-aggrandizement or diminishment of the Wiki platform shifts into more easily addressable concerns about good research practices, writing and editing -- less controversial, perhaps more easily addressed by a trained writer. So, assuming I'm right about this, doing convincing research and a good write-up establishing notability is probably my next best first step. Spend tine on it. Don't just assume. Once the Wikipedia community is satisfied about that, the rest becomes much less...fraught. Does that sound right? Any advice on presenting my research findings about notability, in form and placement on the platform? By the way, I am approaching this article creation process as an interesting game or puzzle, to be solved within its own rules. I love challenges like this and my goal is to prove myself as an excellent editor and rule-follower, since that's what it seems to take to play this game. Many thanks to all! Classic Photographers (talk) 13:49, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
Showing notability is not so complicated; it's simply the available sources that are reliable and independent. Search for reliable biographical publications about Einstein and you'll find thousands and thousands of pages' worth of material. Do the same for me, and you'll find absolutely nothing. EPORIBM is a stupid acronym I just made up, for "enough pages of reliable independent biographical material". TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:06, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
My sense is that the nuances of establishing notability -- while obvious to insiders -- is a powerful gating device that keeps new articles within the provenance of those who understand how to interpret and work within those nuances. (Like, just for one for example, the difference between notability of a body of work and the notability -- or lack thereof -- of the author of the body of work.) And most subjects, I suspect, fall somewhere between Einstein and total lack of sources, leading to judgement calls. And by the way I do really appreciate the input from everyone who has responded. I'm still pondering how to best frame my subject and present the results of my research in a way that will allow a solid group judgement of notability, as practiced by the editors here. When/if I can accomplish that, I'll turn my attention to writing a good draft for further review and comment. Classic Photographers (talk) 17:50, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
Conflict of interest: how to request an article on Robert K. Fitts
Full disclosure: I'm a publicist and I represent Robert K. Fitts, an author and historian of Japanese baseball. I understand I shouldn't write an article about him myself, and I'd like advice on the right way to proceed.
Fitts has written eleven books on Japanese baseball, published mainly by university presses (University of Nebraska Press, Southern Illinois University Press and McFarland). He received the Society for American Baseball Research's 2025 Henry Chadwick Award and its 2013 Seymour Medal, and he is a curatorial consultant to the National Baseball Hall of Fame. His most recent book, In the Japanese Ballpark (2025), was mentioned by Adam Gopnik in The New Yorker: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2026/03/30/metropolitans-a-m-gittlitz-book-review
I asked about notability at WikiProject Baseball, and an editor suggested I ask here. Would the best route be Articles for Creation, Requested articles, or something else? And does he appear to meet the notability guidelines for authors? I can provide independent sources. Thank you. John G. Ekizian ~2026-54731-81 (talk) 19:07, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
Hello. The best thing to do would be to use Articles for creation. I would also suggest that you create an account so it is easier to disclose as a paid editor(which you are as his publicist). Please see WP:PAID.
If you have independent reliable sources that provide critical analysis and commentary about his work as a historian, an article may be possible. If the sources discuss his books rather than him personally, his books may merit articles but not him personally. It depends on what is said. 331dot (talk) 19:12, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
Are the books the subject of 3 or more reviews in reputable sources? Mme Maigret (talk) 03:07, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
Manual of Style Exception and Dispute Resolution
Let's say I thought that one specific instance of adhering to one policy of WP:MOS resulted in worse presentation of an article and I disregard it per WP:IAR. Another editor disagrees because they strictly adhere to the specific policy, even though I argue that it goes against the spirit of that specific policy and following it in that specific instance creates a worse result. If no agreement is reached: since a violation of a policy did occur but I felt it was justified in that one instance (again, per WP:IAR), is it still appropriate to pursue dispute resolution despite WP:DISCFAIL stating that the edit being asked for can't be a violation of a policy? Giant Blue Anteater (talk) 19:09, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
@Giant Blue Anteater If you want opinions on your dispute, you're going to need to be specific about what the actual dispute is. Nobody can give you an answer based on this hypothetical, because we don't have enough information to say whether you're correct in assessing that the other person's preference is against the "spirit of that specific policy". Athanelar (talk) 19:32, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
Assuming this is about Metaspriggina – I prefer your layout for the first section of the article to the current version by Hemiauchenia, with its centred image. Maproom (talk) 21:45, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
This is just my personal opinion, but I'm not sure WP:IAR carries as much weight in discussions as it may have once done simply because Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, for the most part, have been tweaked and otherwise improved over the years to make up for some of the shortfalls they might've had early on when the project wasn't as structured. It seems (again just my opinion) that simply arguing IAR tends to be perceived as saying "I'm right because I said so, you pedant", which means it tends to be ignored; I think some see it as the last fallback for those unwilling to adjust their approach and try to find some middle ground. It would probably be better to find some way of reaching common ground within current policies and guidelines with maybe adding a smidge of IAR in some cases where it might help reach a consensus.FWIW, if this is indeed about what's happened (what's happening?) at the Metaspriggina article, then trying to resolve things through WP:REVTALK is simply not going to work. It would be much better to start a discussion about things on the article's talk page and see whether a consensus can be reached. While it's true that Wikipedia wants us to be WP:BOLD, it also wants us to follow WP:DR when others disagree with our boldness. Discussing disputes/disagreements on the article's talk page gives both sides the chance to engage in dialogue on how to improve the article instead of just firing off one off edit summaries. It also makes it easier for others to be notified per WP:APPNOTE and join in. Bold editing only works as long as others are WP:SILENT, and a different tact needs to be taken once somebody speaks up by reverting (unless they're clearly advocating something that's in violation of major Wikipedia policy or guideline). When it comes to the way images are arranged in an article, it's important to remember that not every reader of the article uses the same device or will see things the same way. This is why discussion involving multiple people is often helpful in resolving such issues because it someone else might be able to see something (no pun intended) that the two sides in disagreement might not. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:48, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
Request for independent review of a biography draft
Hello, I am Wang Huiling, a Chinese non-fiction writer. I have disclosed my conflict of interest and created a draft at Draft:Wang Huiling.
There is independent coverage of my work in The Guardian and Chinese publications, including Lifeweek, as well as academic research.
Could an experienced editor advise whether these sources establish notability and whether someone independent might be willing to help develop the draft? I understand that publication cannot be guaranteed.
Since you have cited no sources in your draft, it is impossible to answer your question.
Whether a source contributes to notability does not depend just on whether it is a reliable source. It also depends on whether it is independent (that is, the person who wrote it was completely unconnected with you, and nobody connected with you had any part in creating the source - including interviews and press releases) and it contains significant coverage of the subject - that is, you, not just one of your works. Please see [[WP:golden rule|}].
Please note that writing an article is one of the most challenging tasks there is for a new editor, even without a conflict of interest; and that writing an autobiography on Wikipedia is so insanely hard, that very very few people have ever succeeded. Please see autobiography.
A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what the majority of people who are wholly unconnected with the subject have independently chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, (see Golden rule) and not much else. What you know (or anybody else knows) about the subject is not relevant except where it can be verified from a reliable published source. Thus an article about you will not, in general contain what you want people to know about you, but what independent people have published about you - even if they are critical or unpleasant. ColinFine (talk) 20:29, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
Thank you for your advice. I understand the conflict-of-interest concerns.
I have compiled independent media coverage and academic research about Wang Huiling. Could an experienced editor please assess whether these sources establish notability?
The Guardian (2025): https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/oct/15/xi-directs-quashing-of-chinese-feminists-even-as-he-praises-advances-at-womens-conference
European Journal of Cultural Studies: https://doi.org/10.1177/13675494251388530
Women’s Studies International Forum: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wsif.2026.103302
The draft is at [[Draft:Wang Huiling]].
I would appreciate an independent assessment of these sources and guidance on how to proceed in accordance with Wikipedia’s conflict-of-interest guidelines.
To start wth, please don't use an LLM to write your draft or to communicate - we are taking the time to reply to a human, not a robot. Furthermore, such use is banned by WP:LLM and WP:LLMTALK.
I'm not an expert in the subject area, so I'll leave determining notability to an editor more experienced with Chinese news outlets. Giovanni Guasconti (a word with me) 21:50, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
Linglingdaren, we are all volunteers here. You'll be more likely to get assessments of those sources if you include clickable links to them. Maproom (talk) 21:52, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
@Linglingdaren, you need multiple suitable sources, usually three or more. A suitable source meets all three criteria in WP:42. I've looked at the first two 'media coverage' links and they are interviews, which are not independent, so they are not suitable sources. Once you've found those sources and incorporated them into the draft, go ahead and submit it - otherwise you're asking for someone to review the draft before it gets reviewed, which we don't do because it doubles the workload. Meadowlark (talk) 22:44, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
Thank you all for your help. I’m sorry for using AI to help with translation, but my English isn’t very good, so sometimes I have little choice….I’ll do my best to avoid using it as much as possible.
Below are a few more articles about me, as well as academic studies of my work, that I’ve selected for your reference. I would be grateful if you could take a look.
Thank you again for your time and help.
Five Independent Sources on Wang Huiling (王慧玲)
1. The Guardian (15 October 2025)
“Xi directs quashing of Chinese feminists even as he praises advances at women’s conference”
An international news report discussing censorship of feminist voices in China, including Wang Huiling and the suspension of her social media accounts.
“Talking Back from the ‘Grassroots’: A Subaltern Feminist Counterpublic and the Challenge to the ‘Leftover Women’ Discourse on Bilibili”
By Anqi Peng. An academic study examining Wang Huiling as a case of digital feminist activism, focusing on class, gender, marriage, and online counterpublics in China.
“Digital Sisterhood: Live Streaming Feminism and Network Resilience in China”
By Shu Li and Yue Jiang. An academic study examining Wang Huiling’s livestreaming activities, feminist communities, and resilience under platform censorship.
I think you are notable by our definition, but you really should simply wait for someone independent to write an article about you. Our policies about LLM use are strict and writing an article from scratch on Wikipedia is already a difficult task, and a nearly impossible one for those without experience working on Wikipedia. I fear this would be an incredibly frustrating experience for you. So go, and continue doing the good work you're doing, and I hope you're successful. Your cat is adorable by the way; I'm a sucker for cats, and at the moment have four housepanthers and one housetiger of my own. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:31, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
Thank you so much for your kind reply and encouragement. It would be wonderful if an independent editor could write the article. This is my first experience with Wikipedia, so I’m not really sure how things work.
I just hope more people know about the work I do, the realities of life for some groups of women in China, and what I’m fighting for.
I actually love black cats! But I had already rescued four cats of other colours before I had the chance to adopt one. 😂
Have a lovely day, and thank you again! Linglingdaren (talk) 14:51, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
I had specifically told you that a source based on an interview does not count for notability; but your LLM doesn't understand such things, and the first two sources it cited are interviews. That is just one of the problems of trying to use LLMs to write or to communicate with other editors in Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 16:13, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying. I understand now that interviews are not sufficient to establish notability. I’m new to Wikipedia and still learning its rules. I appreciate your patience and guidance. Linglingdaren (talk) 17:09, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
I want to write a new article about Air Vice Marshal Ian Lawson, primarily about his military career but also about his civil and early life. I note his name is already included in existing wikipedia articles, for example, a list of former commandants of royal air force college Cranwell. I have never written on wikipedia and would like some help with starting. For example, do i create a page linked to the list of Cranwell commandants and work from there, or create a page and then create the link his name on the Cranwell article? I note that most biographic articles about military personnel have a standard format. Where can i pick up the template for this format? Knottyperson (talk) 13:06, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
You can start here for general help with creating the article. To copy the template from another article, just click 'edit source' on (the other article) and copy the relevant template from there. DS (talk) 13:37, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
thanks - I'll develop in a sandbox version first (I assume it is an easy exercise to move from a sandbox to a full article when I've done some practicing) Knottyperson (talk) 13:41, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
Yes. Best to have someone else check it for quality first, though. DS (talk) 14:59, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
Hello, @Knottyperson, and welcome to the Teahouse, and to Wikipedia.
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) 16:19, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
I agree with the sentiment that if you want to write a new article, the first thing to do is spend some time editing existing articles. Things often end badly when people jump into the deep end of the Wikipedia pool without first learning how to swim. Spend a month or two figuring out how things work and how to edit and assembling sources for your project and THEN move to starting a new piece. Happy editing! —tim /// Carrite (talk) 22:06, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
The links get create after the article is published. Mme Maigret (talk) 07:14, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
Asynchronous Procedure Call
Hello, i am a new to editing and would like to improve to Asynchronous procedure call. The page says it relies on a single source, and the implementation section is only two sentences about windows.
From these i have added couple of points that each thread has its own APC queue, that an application queues one with QueueUserAPC, that a regular user-mode APC runs only while the thread is alertable (SleepEx, SignalObjectAndWait, MsgWaitForMultipleObjectsEx, WaitForMultipleObjectsEx, or WaitForSingleObjectEx), and that ReadFileEx, WriteFileEx, SetWaitableTimer, and SetWaitableTimerEx use an APC as the completion callback.
Is implementations the right section for this, under a Microsoft Windows heading?
You may be lucky and get a response from someone here who is knowledgeable about the internals of Microsoft Windows (which is not me). You are more likely to get a response by posting your question on Talk:Asynchronous procedure call and/or one of the relevant projects. Go to Talk:Asynchronous procedure call and post your question there (use the "Add Topic" at the top right), and then look at the projects and do the same for one or more of them, e.g. WT:SOFTWARE. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:37, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
In relation to your question about where to put it the info, my advice would be the same - ie add a topic on the talk page. But in relation to the "single source" template, your edits don't address this issue –Microsoft only counts as 1 source no matter how many different pages you cite. Mme Maigret (talk) 07:21, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
The problem in the first case is that it is using <math/> in a header. In the French article it instead uses the template {{math}} (but requires some extra coding, because "=" has a special meaning in template calls - see Template:math for an explanation.)
I don't know whether the version with the template will work in English Wikipedia or not: it is possible that the underlying Module may be different. Have you tried it?
For the second issue, the problem is that the list (starting with "*") automatically indents, but when you have a linebreak (by starting a new line in the source) you need to begin it with ":" which means "indent".
I have no idea whether you can do this with the Visual editor or not, as I always use the Source editor.
By the way, I notice that most of your examples do not yet have any citations. ColinFine (talk) 21:35, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
Hello,
Thanks to your comments, I managed to resolve the two formatting issues mentioned, thank you!
As for the sources: I haven't found any examples in quality references, but I'll keep looking for. Dédé25lib (talk) 08:13, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
This means that if you write anything at all in a Wikipedia article without first finding a reliable published source, you are writing it WP:BACKWARDS, and risk having to rewrite or remove it if you are unable to find sources for the specific information you have given.
(I suspect that quite a lot of mathematical articles contain rather a lot of original research, which is not permitted, and such articles would not be accepted if they were submitted for review today. They often date from an earlier era, when we were not so strict with our standards) ColinFine (talk) 10:28, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
Ok, I will remove an example then, as I haven’t found any reference Dédé25lib (talk) 15:50, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
Restore page to draft
I created a page that was stable for years and apparently there was a deletion discussion that i never saw.. i was wondering if someone could restore the page WMT Digital to draft so i can work on it? Thank you. Sportsfanlegend (talk) 21:00, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
@Sportsfanlegend Pages which were deleted via AfD can't be undeleted. Since the article was deleted for a lack of notability, you'd need to write a new version which demonstrates that the company now meets the notability requirements whwre it previously did not. Considering it was deleted just a month ago, it's highly unlikely anything significant has changed re: notability.
That said, if you still want to do it, your best bet would be to write a new version of the article as a draft at Draft:WMT Digital and submit it via AfC.
I do have to ask, do you have a particular reason to want this company(?) to have an article so badly? Athanelar (talk) 21:23, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
Oh, and I should note that if you disagree with the actual deletion and want to open a deletion review you can follow WP:DELREVD. Athanelar (talk) 21:24, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
Unless you have direct links right now to completely different sources than the ones used before, containing significant in-depth coverage of WMT Digital, then there is nothing valid you could possibly "work on". TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 21:23, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
Pretty snarky answers here... There should be a number of administrators willing to restore the deleted material for further work, bearing in mind that what is said above about the need to rewrite things with new sources demonstrating notability before another attempt is made to bring a topic to mainspace is true and important. Drop me a message if nobody comes to your aid and I will help you find someone. Stay away from Articles for Creation, it is a backlogged, dysfunctional mess. —tim ///// Carrite (talk) 21:59, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
I believe my answer was the only one that could be called snarky, and I apologize for that. I could have said what I meant without that. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 22:06, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
Also, to clarify "can't be undeleted" - they can, there's no technical reason against it. You'll need to ask on Requests for Undeletion - and have a valid reason.DS (talk) 13:39, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
No, @Sportsfanlegend, do not stay away from AFC. It is backlogged, just like New Pages Patrol, but it is not a "mess". David10244 (talk) 10:48, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
@David10244 You pinged the wrong person. @Carrite I would be genuinely interested in your feedback as to why you think AfC is a dysfunctional mess. I've been embarking on a project to improve both the author-facing and reviewer-facing side in recent months. Do feel free to drop me a msg on my talk page with any feedback you have. qcne(talk) 12:27, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
The body of the article talks about the genocide subject, the main white genocide article on Wikipedia, uses the word "conspiracy" in its lead, but I haven't found a source that says it like how I wrote it "White genocide in south Africa is a conspiracy theory..".
Some of the news articles, I've cited do refer to it as a concipiracy, but in an indirect way, another source [] has a section where it says "concipiracy theories" and beneath mentions the topic in relation to south Africa. But organization like UN and other bodies never use that word.
I wanted to know if it's appropriate to write it's a concipiracy (in south Africa) without a source that fully backs up that claim. Omniking2100 (talk) 21:50, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
yeah okay I appreciate the answer and I'll remove it. Omniking2100 (talk) 22:27, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
Can someone help in draftying these articles?
Hi. I have come across a series of articles where the articles have been moved from the draftspace to the mainspace without much content being added or relevant in such a way that is not yet ready for the mainspace. Is there a way, I can start a discussion on it and get them moved back to the draftspace or can someone help in reviewing it and decide?
Also, this user frequently creates template articles, where an existing article is taken as a base for a new article but the new article is not updated appropriately and is left with pieces of the existing article. I was involved in rescuing multiple such articles with empty and copy pasted information. Can refer to 2023 Andhra Pradesh Legislative Council election and 2025 Andhra Pradesh Legislative Council election. 456legendtalk 04:24, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
I clicked on one of these and read in a template: This article may incorporate text from a large language model, which is prohibited in Wikipedia articles. This surprised me. LLM slop gets many things wrong, but tends towards a soporific kind of syntactic slickness. By contrast, East Godavari Zilla Praja Parishad tells us: Zilla Parishad is one of the 28 district-level tier of local government body in the state of Andhra Pradesh. It has 27 Zilla Parishad Territorial Constituency (ZPTC). -- Hoary (talk)WWU👍︎ 08:42, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
@Hoary Right. Only @Catfurball can answer this, as they were the one who added the LLM template. Nevertheless, I feel these articles need to be moved to the draftspace. What procedure should I follow and where should I initiate a discussion for this? Or is there someone who can assist or guide me on this? 456legendtalk 10:11, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
If you are in doubt about LLM text, the AI noticeboard WP:AINB can help. (Please forgive us the mess, we are transitioning to a new noticeboard structure and are in an awkward inbetween place right now.) You can also look at WP:AISIGNS for points to look for to confirm or deny LLM. M kuhner (talk) 03:42, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
@456legend: You could move them to draft space since they are not ready for main space, but then the creator will undo you and move them back to main space. And if this happens you might have to report this editor, since these articles are poorly created. Catfurball (talk) 15:22, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
Hi 456legend. Unless the draftification is the result of a community consensus (e.g., an AfD outcome), it's non-binding, and anyone can move the page back to the mainspace as explained in WP:DRAFTONCE. In such a case, your options are then to improve the article yourself, tag it with appropriate maintenance templates if you think it can be improved but don't want to or know how to do so yourself, or nominate the article for deletion via WP:AFD. The only reason you should be going to ANI is if you feel there are behavioral issues that need to be addressed. You also might want to read WP:ANIADVICE so that you get a better idea as to what you might be getting yourself into. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:16, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
For the specific case of an article believed to be LLM, AINB might be a simpler route than ANI. M kuhner (talk) 06:24, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
How to make a portfolio for myself?
Hello, I am new to wikipedia. i wanna learn how to make my own article
I recommend that you start with some basic edits first and then gradually move to creating new articles on notable topics. There is a lot of stuff to be done and every small bit counts, and it would be better if you are aware of content policies and guidelines before creating new pages. A lot of learning happens as you edit
One good way to start is to click on your profile icon on the upper right-hand corner, go to preferences, and in the "User profile" tab, enable "Display newcomer homepage" (these options will be at bottom of a page). Once you save the preferences, you will see automated suggestions for articles that need editing. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you face difficulties Ar1201u1 (talk) 04:47, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
Dennmi, by a portfolio for yourself and your own article, perhaps you mean an article about yourself. If you do hope to make an article about yourself, first read Wikipedia:Autobiographies. (Tl;dr? It's very simple: Don't attempt to create an autobiography.) -- Hoary (talk)WWU👍︎ 05:13, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
I think they meant portfolio of article, but yes, they should follow what you said if that was the intention Ar1201u1 (talk) 05:25, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
I read it as a user/profile page or an article with them as the subject. Mme Maigret (talk) 07:28, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
Hello, @Dennmi, and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia.
I would echo what the others have said, and add the following:
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.
Like the others, I'm not sure quite which meaning of "portfolio" you intend. I'm guessing it's "a collection of your work".
Forgive me if this comes across as suspicious, but I wonder whether you are intending to develop a portfolio in order to offer your services as an editor for pay? That's what artists often have in mind when they talk about their portfolio. If that is the case, then I would advise you that you have a long and difficult journey, and I would be surprised if you can make it pay.
Paid editing is permitted, but under some restrictions (see that link for details). Most of the people offering to create Wikipedia articles for pay are, frankly, scammers, who either don't know or don't care about Wikipedia's policies. If you become one of the good ones, great: but you'll need to be very conversant with Wikipedia's policies and procedures, and honest with your customers about the likely results of your efforts. (Since most people, companies, and organisations, in the world do not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, most people cannot "get a page in Wikipedia" however much they pay).
I hope that my warnings do not put you off become a participant and contributor in this (in my view) most wonderful example of a collaborative project for the benefit of all humanity. Happy editing! ColinFine (talk) 10:48, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
Question about disputed Talk-page collapse notice
I have a question about Talk-page procedure.
At Talk:Sam Vaknin#Comprehensive BLP rewrite: self-sourced clinical material and due weight, a long rationale I posted was collapsed with a notice stating that it was LLM-generated text and should be excluded from assessments of consensus. I dispute that characterization, and I am concerned that the hat states a contested authorship claim as fact rather than addressing the policy substance.
This was the result of substantial research and review on my part, and I am concerned that collapsing it may prevent the underlying policy points from being addressed.
Is it appropriate for me to request that the hat be removed or reworded, and if so what is the best process? Should I ask on the article Talk page, at WP:BLPN, or somewhere else? I do not want to edit-war over Talk-page formatting. Dtf1978 (talk) 06:51, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
Hi Dtf1978. Did you use LLM for all or part of what you posted? For reference, the user who collapsed your content, Slp1, is a Wikipedia administrator. That in and of itself, of course, doesn't automatically mean they're right, but it could mean they made a judgement call based on their experience dealing LLM stuff over the years: I believe there are ways of checking. While using LLM might seem fine to some, relevant Wikipedia policies/guidelines strongly oppose its use not only for editing articles but also for talk page discussions (see also WP:LLMCOMM). -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:06, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
No. The rationale was based on my own review and research. My concern is that the collapse notice states a disputed authorship claim as fact and excludes the rationale from consensus assessment without addressing the underlying WP:BLP, sourcing, and WP:MEDRS issues. Dtf1978 (talk) 07:17, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
LLM material is correctly treated by collapsing and ignoring, because it contains nothing legitimate to consider. If it was not LLM material then you'll need to contact the administrator who collapsed it. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 07:49, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
This rejection of LLM is all-encompassing; even if you merely used it to tidy things up, it's unacceptable. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 07:54, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
The exceptions to WP:NOLLM as at now say otherwise and are explained in more detail at WP:LLMRESP. —Tenryuu🐲(💬•📝) 13:57, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
Frankly, I think anybody would have a hard time not thinking that collapsed section wasn't at a minimum heavily written with LLM. There is about two sentences or so worth of actual Wikipedia argument spread out over nearly 2000 vague, slop-speech words. Escalating this was not a good idea; I'm wondering if this is an AI noticeboard or ANI issue that requires a formal restriction of you using LLM in any capacity whatsoever on English Wikipedia. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 09:48, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
My concern is that the collapse notice states a disputed authorship claim as fact
The collapse notice says This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus. Could you point out where in the collapse notice it "states a disputed authorship claim as fact."
From this, your few edits here that involved text, and your attempted AI draft at French Wikipedia , I think you're extensively using LLMs, far past the very limited usage we allow. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 10:00, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
@CoffeeCrumbs Their comments here are AI generated too. Weird equivocating like describing allegations of AI use as a "disputed authorship claim" are 100% glowing neon red flags (and the overall complaint about speculations of AI use is WP:AIUNPROVEN). The "Wikipedia contributions" page on their userpage is also pure WP:Canned user pages slop. Athanelar (talk) 10:53, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
Ah, the disputed authorship claim is so weird to say, that I didn't even realize that was their interpretation of the collapse language. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 13:46, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
Is my draft ready for AfC? I have a COI
Hello. I have a declared conflict of interest: I am the subject of my draft at User:Gheliou/sandbox, and nobody is paying me to write it. I have not submitted it, and I will not move it to mainspace myself.
My concern is notability (WP:BIO). My sources are:
A CBC News article and a PocketGamer.biz article where I am quoted as studio manager
Press releases and trade-press items on a studio opening I led
Two interviews or profiles published by Nova Scotia government business agencies
I have no feature-length, journalist-written profile yet. Two questions:
Would these sources count toward notability, or should I wait for more (or more recent ones)?
Are the government-agency interviews acceptable for the basic facts I used them for (birthplace, one quote about the industry)?
Thank you for any guidance. ~~~~Gheliou (talk) 09:08, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
Please don't use LLMs to communicate with us. Half the URLs don't work in the sources, another sign of LLM use. LLM use is forbidden on English Wikipedia, except for a couple very specific exceptions, neither of which is applicable here.
In any case, the sources do not establish notability. An interview with you is not independent coverage of you. None of the other sources, as far as I can tell, do anything other than mention you in passing; not a single one entails significant coverage about you.
Checking myself, I'm not finding alternate sources that demonstrate your notability, by Wikipedia's definition. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 09:31, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
Thank you. Fair point about notability. On the use of LLM, I was too afraid of breaking formatting rules I'm not familiar with. 2 links were oddly shaped indeed.
Not arguing in either case. Comments appreciated. Gheliou (talk) 09:53, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
You'll find that people are very willing to forgive beginner mistakes in formatting, spelling, and grammar. However, they are much less willing to forgive LLM text. So, be bold and make human mistakes: it will be fine. (Speaking as someone one of whose early edits turned an entire noticeboard purple!) M kuhner (talk) 01:35, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
Without looking at your page, I'd say no. The only source that might count as reliable and independent is the CBS source and you've said it's not in-depth. (Interviews, profile page, and press releases don't count.) Since you need two in-depth sources and you don't have them, you don't meet the requirements for WP:Notability. Mme Maigret (talk) 07:31, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
Hello. My Teahouse inquiry was unfortunately arhived, so I'm following that up here.Headquarter8302 (talk) 10:00, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
You said "I've seen that some pages use a plain table or a simple description list to describe such information". Can you give examples? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 12:27, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
@Headquarter8302 Am I right in thinking that you mean the kind of pictures and diagrams in which the parts under discussion are labelled, there are arrows pointing at where the action happens, and all that type of thing? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:25, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
Sort of. I don't know the exact specifics of what format to use, I'm simply wondering if there's an official template to be used that can replace the wikitable in the aforementioned article section Headquarter8302 (talk) 00:47, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
I need help to write an article ~2026-53778-51 (talk) 10:48, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
I have left the full guidelines on your talk page. You can read Help:Your first article this and start from here. Kartheek1025 (talk) 10:52, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
Hello, welcome to Wikipedia! It is amazing that you want to edit and contribute to the project
I would recommend reading the notability policy to assess whether the subject of the article is notable and will meet the criteria for inclusion. It is best to do some editing first before you start creating new articles, that would allow you to become familiar with policies regarding notability, neutral point of view, verifiability, reliable independent sources, etc. Ar1201u1 (talk) 11:03, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
I recently created this draft on this former Mozambican rebel insurgent group. Despite being the second-largest independence movement during the Mozambican War of Independence, the details about this group is still obscure. Can someone please help me? BuddyHeigh (talk) 11:01, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
I guess that'll do. Although, WP:AFDMERGE adviced against removing the template. Now I'm curious of what's actually happening, why reverting my mistake didn't change back the category. CheckNineEight (talk) 12:36, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
@CheckNineEight: Talk pages are not categorized by class. The categorization displayed on the talk page is for the corresponding non-talk page which was a redirect for five minutes. Pages are cached for performance reasons so the talk page may have continued to display a redirect class some time after the article was no longer a redirect. Any talk page edit would have fixed it by rendering the page again and reading the new status of the article. A purge of the talk page would have updated the talk page display without needing an edit. A null edit might have been needed to also update the category page. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:08, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
I've noticed that the topic of China-Scotland international relations has no coverage on Wikipedia. There is a China-United Kingdom Relations page but there is no mention of Scotland there. China and Scotland have a relationship over and above the relation China and the UK have, as evidenced by the Scottish Government's three China five-year strategies they have pursued. There are several scholarly and newspaper articles about this topic. I was wondering if such an article would be suitable. Gabrielburst (talk) 13:52, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
@Gabrielburst The answer to "should an article exist about X?" is always "are reliable, independent sources discussing X in depth?" I.e., is our requirement for notability met?
You suggest that these kinds of sources do exist. If you have at least three sources that meet all the requirements of WP:42 then chances are good you could succeed in writing an article about the topic. You may want to follow Help:Your first article for some guidance. Athanelar (talk) 13:55, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. I am still unclear what counts as an article about the topic. This article for example https://wnus.usz.edu.pl/ap/en/issue/67/article/349/ is about Scottish relations with Asian countries, but it primarily discusses Scotland's relations with China before any other country. Would such an article count? Gabrielburst (talk) 14:10, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
In a case like that, the amount of material in there that is on your topic does count for something, based on how much of it there is. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 14:24, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
We obviously can't just invent what goes into articles, we need to get everything from the sources; this means that besides the quality of the material we also have to be sure that there's physically more than enough of it to write from. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 14:52, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
(One of the important features of Wikipedia is Wikipedia:No original research; if you know a certain idea to be true but have not found a reliable source that directly supports that idea, then it can't be included.) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 15:05, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
Gabrielburst, as an American, I am far from an expert, but my understanding is that the the Scotland Act 1998 says that foreign affairs and international relations are the responsibility of the UK government. That calls into question the validity of the topic. Cullen328 (talk) 17:45, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
It's not impossible that such an article could exist. For example closer to home, the US federal government is responsible for foreign policy but the state governments still sometimes have relationships with foreign governments (e.g. JB Pritzker in Mexico). I think in the case of the US states there's probably not many cases where there's enough coverage to merit an article (maybe not any), but the statutory limitations don't rule it out entirely. Packrat3860 (talk) 18:04, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
Certainly a good point to raise and partly the cause for my concern. But I think despite not having formal diplomatic relations, Scotland still maintain international engagements itself. They have nine government offices outside of Scotland which aren't technically embassies but undertake some similar functions. ~2026-55025-14 (talk) 18:04, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
Wikipedia update for a business
I have a declared conflict of interest with Tropic Skincare and submitted an edit request on the article’s talk page 20 days ago: Talk:Tropic Skincare#c-LCR5891-20260923131400-Daylon124-2021-04-15T18:06:00.000Z It hasn’t been reviewed yet. Is there a better place to ask for an uninvolved editor to look at it? Thank you. LCR5891 (talk) 14:04, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
@LCR5891: Welcome to The Teahouse. I suggest you use the {{edit COI}} template to get the eye of someone who reviews edit requests. Of course, this may still take some time. —Tenryuu🐲(💬•📝) 14:16, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
You should add {{edit COI}} somewhere near the top of that request so it goes in the COI "queue". That said, there are almost 1000 articles waiting for review of a COI edit request. It will probably be a while before somebody gets to it. Packrat3860 (talk) 14:17, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
The IPA notation of pitch accent in Latvian as is standard in Wikipedia and Wiktionary seems to be outdated, using a macron for the level tone, the grave accent for the falling tone and a circumflex for the broken tone, whereas in contemporary native sources the falling tone in vowels is marked with ː and not marked in diphthongs and mixed diphthongs, the level tone in vowels is marked with ːː in vowels and with ː in diphthongs and mixed diphthongs, and the broken tone is marked with ː and superscript ʔ in vowels and superscript ʔ in diphthongs and mixed diphthongs.
The former notation is only used in Latvian phonetic alphabet transcriptions, with a tilde being used instead of the macron. The use of the macron in IPA transcriptions on Wikipedia is justified with the use of the tilde for nasalisation in IPA, I suspect this to be a remnant of outdated attempts to represent Latvian pitch accent in IPA. Compare [luõks] in LPA with [lu͜oːks] in IPA.
Additionally, many vowel qualities are represented not in accordance with modern literature, especially in diphthongs: the [e̞] element is transcribed as [ɛ] in diphthongs, the [ɔ̝] element –which closes to [o] in the [u͜o]diphthong – is transcribed as [ɔ] in that diphthong and [ɑ̽] is transcribed as [ä].
I assume this all to be a result of the use of older literature, especially in the question of vowel qualities (the sources in the Latvian phonology page are both pre-2000, before modern acoustic studies). However, I am not so sure about this judgement when it comes to pitch accent representation. Is this a Wikipedia only standard and should it overwrite contemporary literature?
Since I have not meaningfully edited Wikipedia before I also ask if it is accepted to use references to non-english literature on the english language page, as the source on this that I am most familiar with (which is also the main source in the field of Latvian linguistics) is also in Latvian: Grigorjevs et al. 2013. "Latviešu valodas gramatika". LU Institute of the Latvian Language. I would like to correct this page using mainly this material if it is acceptable by Wikipedia referencing standards. CentralName (talk) 14:13, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
As you're new to editing, definitely take Andy's advice to be bold. However, be prepared in the case of a revert to discuss the topic on the article's talk page. WP:BRD is a good approach to take to improving articles while keeping everything collaborative and productive. If you run into issues with another editor after this, also check out WP:DR for how to solve disputes. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:34, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
@CentralName, yes, as people have said above, non-English-language reliable sources are just as valid as English-language ones, and the one you've identified seems to be reliable. That said, I'm not seeing the work use the diacritics that you use to write those Latvian vowels, even though they appear when considering the phonetic details of those vowels. That's a useful distinction to keep in mind when evaluating which parts of the article may be out of date. Kisseran (talk) 17:23, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
Need help understanding vandalism
I have come across the page of Samuel Leeds, and there are certain issues with the page. I wonder why it uses a Instagram as a reference. Normally, I would remove it, however, the page history and talk page is giving me a gut feeling that I shouldn't.
Someone, on 9th Oct 2026, added "Con artist" to the page's lead section. The only sources calling it is by a politician during a debate. (Which is added in at the end of the page.) I wanted to know, if it would be considered vandalism? or Would the words of a Member of Parliament be considered as official and it should be left it like that? Idr888 (talk) 15:08, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
While it may not be vandalism (which has a narrow definition in Wikipedia) it is certainly inappropriate for Wikipedia to call him that unless the bulk of the independent sources about Leeds do so (and in my opinion "con artist" is too informal for Wikipedia in any case).
It may be appropriate to note somewhere in the article that said MP did call him that, with an appropriate citation - that will be an editorial decision.
Instagram is not normally acceptable as a reference source.
I suggest you read WP:BRD, and decide whether (in each of these cases) you prefer to be BOLD or to begin with the DISCUSS stage on the talk page. ColinFine (talk) 15:41, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
@ColinFine Thank you for the guidance... I have reverted the "Con Artist" edit. I have read WP:BRD, and after seeing the edit history and talk page, I think, someone senior should engage. I have seen a lack of engagement in discussion from an editor, although, the discussion was opened by an account which was banned due to sockpuppetry, yet not engaging in the discussion seems a bit unethical (my humble opinion). Is it a common practice to not engage in discussion with sockpuppets? Is there any policy for not engaging? Also, how would one identify before hand that an account is a sock or not, to abstain from responding to them? I know its a bit off the topic, but Samuel Leeds page is a good example. Thank you. Idr888 (talk) 16:42, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Dealing with sockpuppets suggests that you just report socks and otherwise avoid interacting with them. If you're familiar with a sock, you could identify it by its behavior, but expecting editors to do so for the multitude of socks out there is not realistic. Sometimes, you do engage with an editor in good faith who ends up being blocked for sockpuppetry. You take any clean up actions suggested by the "Dealing with sockpuppets" and move on. Rotideypoc41352 (talk·contribs) 13:54, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
@Rotideypoc41352 Thank you. I will read it and get back to Teahouse, if I have any more questions. Idr888 (talk) 17:13, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
Requesting Independent Review of Reverted BLP Edits
Hi! I am hoping that someone can provide some feedback about a recent edit I attempted to make on a BLP article. The changes I made were reverted and when I shared a breakdown of my overall changes and asked for clarification about what exactly was and was not acceptable, I was directed to seek independent review to further clarify. The full history of the aforementioned conversation can be found here:
The reverted work was not one singular change: it included legislative additions, reference/correction work, wording changes for accuracy, condensation of the election section, cleanup on the legislator’s effectiveness-ranking, and a much larger ethics-section condensation. These changes were made over several saves, rather than one isolated edit. **I am not asking anyone to come in and approve or restore the entire revision**. The main question that I have is which parts were appropriate, and which parts need modification, as I have not yet really received a clear answer about what the exact concern or issue was with the original changes to begin with.
One additional important note about the ethics section in particular is that it currently carries an excessive-detail maintenance tag and also presently contains outdated information related to the outcome of the ethics investigation and the ethics commission’s findings.
Overall, I would like to fully clarify whether the sourced legislative additions are appropriate in the body, whether or not the ethics condensation preserved enough material for BLP/NPOV and if not, what specific facts need to remain in order to prevent an edit/condensation from going too far. I would also like to clarify whether or not there was something specifically promotional or analytical in the wording.
I would also like to additionally state, I have already elaborated on any concerns about COI on my talk page and I have no personal, professional, financial, employment, or other external relationship to the subject referenced in the article.
I am open to any type of recommendations about revisions and I am happy to leave out anything that does not satisfy policy. Primarily, I am looking for some type of actionable feedback if possible, so that I can continue improving my editing skills and learning more about how to tackle updates on topics that interest me, despite their possible controversial nature.
PorkNBeanz, it look to me highly likely that you used AI to compose your question here and to formulate your edits. This is not acceptable. We want human communication only. Your edits appear to be reputation management. The Neutral point of view is a core content policy. What is your connection to this politician? Cullen328 (talk) 17:25, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
It's pretty clear (despite claims to the contrary) that your goal is not to improve the article, but rather to remove or cover up unfavorable content. You can't do that. I think there's unfortunately not much more to discuss. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:33, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
Hi @Cullen328 @TooManyFingers, thank you both for taking the time to respond and review my request for an independent review. I wanted to address a couple of things that were stated by you both and then make a request regarding clarification, as I have yet to receive any solid information about what part of the content is actually problematic.
To clarify in full, I am not utilizing AI to compose my questions/responses here on Teahouse as was stated. I am unsure if my particular prose or way of stating things happens to be conflated as AI usage, or is there is something else specific resulting in that concern, but I do apologize for any confusion my writing style may have created regardless of if it was intended or not.
As I stated in what I initially posted on my talk page, I have 0 connection to this subject, I just live in the area and have access to ample coverage regarding this subject from local and state news sources, thus making it a personal interest of mine only. I don’t get much time to make edits here, but when I do they are almost entirely dedicated to political/legislation based pages.
I have heard from multiple people that the edits appear to be COI, “reputation management”, or not in line with NPOV, but nobody has actually pointed me to any particular part of the edits that I made that were problematic. I took the approach of splitting the edits apart into sections as to what was actually targeted to hopefully make it easier to isolate what the exact issue was; however, there has been little to no actual feedback that states something like “This portion was an issue because X…” or “This may be overall factual, but doesn’t carry appropriate weight against Y….”. At this point, I think the most helpful thing would be to receive that clarification, especially against the breakdown I submitted previously, so that I can understand moving forward what is and is not acceptable, and also to fully clarify whether or not any of the independently acceptable changes can be separated from the disputed sections.
Again, I thank you both for your time and attention to the concern that I raised and I look forward to hearing back from both or either of you so that I may adjust my process and edits moving forward across all pages I may touch. PorkNBeanz (talk) 18:00, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
PorkNBeanz, two words of advice: be concise. To elaborate a bit, write like a human being instead of a robot. If you are not using AI (and I am unconvinced), then you have developed a style of writing that is off-putting and comes off as an excellent imitation of AI writing. No, I am not going to spend my valuable volunteer time dissecting your edits in detail. Multiple editors have already expressed the opinion that they are inappropriate and so further discussion is unlikely to be productive. Cullen328 (talk) 18:38, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
Article Draft Help!
Hi there, I'm currently editing Draft:Gustafson Porter + Bowman and have disclosed my conflict of interest on my talk page. I've edited a few times based on varying comments and was wondering if anyone has any advice for the article?
As recommended, I've limited the awards to just prestigious (recommended to only note awards from List of architecture awards) wins. selected projects are in a list with a short line about each work (was asked to add a summary of what was done for each work but didn't want to go overboard as they've got their own pages) and kept the History and Intro to just facts about the Practice rather than employees / marketing text.
One of the comments also mentioned there was limited prose but I've seen articles about architecture firms with shorter pieces - unless there is something missing?! I worry adding more will make it more of an ad??
Hoping this is the right place to ask and thanks in advance!
For the articles about other firms, we can't accept a poor-quality new article, regardless of the existence of poor-quality older articles; please see Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.
Facts about the practice are all promotional/marketing material, unless they were published by reliable third parties with no connection to the firm and the firm did not supply them with the information through a press release, interview, or other method. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:20, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
In other words, this is likely not a flaw in your writing skill or style, but likely a problem of having too little legitimate material to work with. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:48, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
I might be wrong, but it seems to me that the vast majority of really good architects are simply not the subject of major coverage. It seems to me from far outside the industry that to get such coverage, an architect generally needs to either win a flashy contract in the multi-billions range or have a disgusting scandal named after them, and too often it's both. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 04:54, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
Flamininus/Flaminius hatnotes
I noticed that Flaminius redirects to Flaminia gens and Flamininus redirects to Titus Quinctius Flamininus without a link to suggest the other possible name. Since these 2 names are so similar, would it be appropriate for these articles (especially the Flaminia gens) to have a hatnote linking to the other to help out people if they get confused or misspell either name? I'm still pretty new and I don't know what is considered best for the project.
And also, I made this exact mistake so… yeah. Thanks in advance! DefNotaHedgehog (talk) 17:39, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
I agree that the re-directs are similar, but the title of the two articles are not similar. However, if it creates confusions, I believe that a headnote is needed. I'll add them. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 21:50, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
Review
Hello,
I have written a draft and plan to submit it for review. If I wish to make some changes after submitting it and before the review begins, is that possible?
Thanks for your answer! Dédé25lib (talk) 17:51, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
In fact we recommend doing so if you can come up with improvements. The review will be conducted on the state of the article at the point the reviewer selects it.
However, don't do something halfway and leave it in a broken state (like putting in a bunch of claims and leaving the sources to add the next day) or you might get a review on the broken version. M kuhner (talk) 01:28, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
My History of Reading Wikipedia
Hello, My iphone keeps a history of what I search on, but my desktop computer does not. Am I missing a setting to allow my desktop to also record my searches?
Welcome! Are you using the Wikipedia app on your phone? I expect that's what makes it so different. On desktop, is there a menu item called History? That would show you everywhere you've been on the internet, including Wikipedia. That "History" may also allow you to type into its search field; in there you could type Wikipedia or some word you remember searching for earlier. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 19:47, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
@The Ars Goetia A move doesn't seem to be necessary here. Per WP:DABNAME: The title of a disambiguation page is the ambiguous term itself, provided there is no primary topic for that term. If there is a primary topic, then the tag "(disambiguation)" is added to the name of the disambiguation page. I.e., (disambiguation) would only be necessary in the title if there were an actual article called "Religious language". See for example Jupiter (disambiguation) which contains a link to Jupiter (which is about the planet)
Since there is no article called "Religious language" which needs to be disambiguated from the disambiguation page itself, the disambiguation page in this case can remain as it is. Athanelar (talk) 21:59, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
I didn’t know that about disambiguation articles, thank you Athanelar Goetia [She/Her] (talk) 22:09, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
Page Move
I made a sandbox page and submitted it but it suggest that i should move it to the draft namespace, but when i do that it says i dont have permission. what do i do? Ltxwn (talk) 23:08, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
The reason you can't move the page is because you are not autoconfirmed. However, as you are new to Wikipedia, I would not recommend moving your draft. Wikipedia has a lot of rules regarding notability, verifiability, and, most relevant to your draft, biographies of living persons. It is easy to create a draft that is unsuitable for Wikipedia if you don't know what you are doing, which could lead to it getting draftifyied or deleted. If you continue to work on your draft and submit it for review when you believe it is ready, Articles for Creation reviewers will check the draft to see if it is suitable for Wikipedia and publish it if the article is ready. Additionally, I declined you draft because it had no citations. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 23:29, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
A question for long time users.
I have a question for long-time users about the history of the WP:MMS. To be clear, I'm not trying to go forum shopping; I am simply interested in how the system has been used in the past. For reference, there is WT:RFC#Mass messaging RFC notifications, that is talking about that.
However, I am hoping someone can point me toward older essays or archived discussions that shed more light on its history. I have only been editing since 2024. Although I have a decent edit count, I am still unfamiliar with some of Wikipedia's technical and historical aspects. I assume that there are older discussions documenting its use, and I would like to read up on them.
For context, I am a member of WikiProject Schools and have started a very large RfC that is still pending at WP:RFCNC(S). One of the WP:WPSCH coordinators mentioned that this sort of notification was common practice. Now, I have participated in my share of RfCs and read through quite a few archives I also keep up todate with our current guidelines. But I never heard of the system being used in the way that it was described to me; that it is customary to involve members of a project, for a potentially far-reaching policy RfCs that directly concerns them.Issac I Navarro (talk) 23:19, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
We have created the profile in the sandbox but we are not able to see the review for submit option. We have published the profile but it is not showing yet on public domain Shailendrasaraf (talk) 04:21, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
If you want to submit it for review, you should submit your draft through Articles for Creation. You should just be able to copy paste the content from your sandbox page to the draft page that is created once you create your draft page. From there, you'll see the option to submit it through the AfC process, and it'll be reviewed from there! 「Norellia.sh」(talk) 04:30, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
@Shailendrasaraf: Just so you are aware, if you are not the subject, Shailendra Saraf, please do not use a username that suggests you are Saraf himself per our username policy. Second of all, please ensure that each account is limited to one person only. —Tenryuu🐲(💬•📝) 05:28, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
Tai Kadai
Suggest to the administration and other editors that they create an organisation for Tai Kadai for the entire Tai/Dai community.
Hello everyone, I would like to propose creating a WikiProject specifically for the Tai-Kadai community.
I am quite new here, so I do not know much about how minority communities can be promoted, but when I explored this platform I found that there are WikiProject groups that help to improve articles.
Tai-Kadai includes several distinct communities, and there is little information about their religion, culture and language. However, they also share many similarities. In my view, we should create a group for this, so that we can improve Tai/Dai community articles together.
Every Tai community is connected, so we should bring together their cultural identity and, for those communities that do not yet have representation, we can create new pages for them.
Here, I can see different regional WikiProjects: WikiProject India, WikiProject China, WikiProject South Asia, and WikiProject Southeast Asia. In some cases, there are conflicts between them over historical debates, and Tai-Kadai does not get a chance to present its religion, language and culture (I think this happens sometimes in historical debates, but I am not blaming anyone). To address this, we need to create a WikiProject for Tai-Kadai.
Write in the comments what you think of my idea. 刘宸宁 (talk) 06:43, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
Everyone can check it on the Tai people page; sorry for not providing this page earlier. They have a very large community, so it is difficult to describe it fully here in a comment. 刘宸宁 (talk) 06:52, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
刘宸宁, please see "Creating a WikiProject" for how you should (and shouldn't) go about attempting to launch a new WikiProject. It also suggests that for many situations, people dreaming of launching a new WikiProject would be well advised not to attempt this but instead to set up a "task force" within an existing WikiProject. -- Hoary (talk)WWU👍︎ 08:16, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
Probably the best place to discuss a new topical WikiProject is in the old WikiProject that includes your topic. In this case, it seems to be the Southeast Asia one. The editors there may think it is a good idea, perhaps because your topic is so much discussed there that the new WikiProject would leave room there for other topics. Another place to discuss it is in the Article Talk Pages most important to the new group, such as relevant linguistic articles. Basically what is required to start a good new WikiProject is a large group of active editors who want a home for coordinating their work on the topic. Some new editors make the mistake of creating a WikiProject because they hope to bring more attention to the topic. This method usually fails. The best time to make a new one is when the topic has so much attention, it overwhelms the existing, related WikiProjects. Jim.henderson (talk) 08:35, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
Oh, I understand, but I'm new here, and it takes time to find an active editor. I will talk to them soon. 刘宸宁 (talk) 13:25, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
Regarding obvious interpretation of literature (Insects)
Hi, I am currently working on the Colobopsis imitans article. In paper A, their species associations are mentioned. Let’s say it is said that they associate with species B and C as an example. A year later, paper D (taxonomic revision) is published and in this paper species B is split into lets says 3 different species. I can, from this information look at with which species C. imitans was associated, and where (the 3 species are geographically in different areas) and point the obvious conclusions that C. imitans is associated with those new three species even if they were considerd as one species at the time of the publication and hence 2 species were not mentioned as associating with them. Hence I am asking if I can add these obvious conclusions into wikipedia without there being any source that makes these obvious conclusions. I’m not sure if this counts as Original Research, since almost all myrmecologists would probably reach the same conclusion. If this counts as original research, can i publish my conclusions of those papers on somewhere else, and then cite that on wikipedia? I am a published myrmecologists with citations and am currently collaborating on a new species description (unrelated) too. See @faddaf on Naturalist for my ORCID and more info. And hence, I believe my small notes publication would be reliable enough to be cited in wikipedia. My interpretation of the literature would be conservative in its assumptions to avoid overconfident conclusions. Thank you for the help.
Another question is that if I am allowed to point out uncertainty of information, justified by the context of literature but not by any paper alone. Faddaff (talk) 06:44, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
I just want to note that if you are a published myrmecologist and you're citing your own paper/publication you realistically have a conflict of interest and are strongly discouraged from making such a change directly per WP:COI.
I don't know enough about biology and classification to have a well formed opinion on whether such a conclusion is below the bar of WP:SYNTH, but I would be careful about using such a justification if I thought there was any significant chance of it being challenged. Packrat3860 (talk) 06:54, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
WP:SELFCITE (part of the COI guideline you cite) says): "Using material you have written or published is allowed within reason..."
Caveats apply, but there is no "strongly discouraged".
I thought the guideline at the top would still apply. COI editors are strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly, and can propose changes on article talk pages instead. So you can cite your own publication but you should propose changes on the talk page rather than editing the article directly. Is that not the case? Packrat3860 (talk) 12:39, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
No; which is why SELFCITE is included as an explicit exception to that summary. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 12:52, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
I see. I think that segment could stand to make the exception a little more obvious then. The other subheadings in that section aren't necessarily exceptions (although now I want to go back and read them more closely). Point 7 under "Advice for expert editors" in WP:EXPERT puts it more clearly with Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline does allow an editor to include information from their own publications in Wikipedia articles and to cite them.
Thank you for clarifying. Packrat3860 (talk) 13:12, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
No you can't, because this is not obvious at all. You may know from your own personal experience that it's true, but we're not allowed to use personal knowledge here. Imagine this situation: There are four different species, A, B, C and D. But species B,C and D are very similar and in 1990 people thought they were all the same, and called it "E". Species A associates with B only, not with C and D. In 1990, someone observes this association and describes it, saying A associates with "E". They may or may not have noticed that there were also individuals of species "E" that didn't seem to be associating with A, but they saw some were, so they said the "two" species associate. Now in 2000, someone notices that E is in fact three different species. Your logic would now mean that we claim an association between A and all of B, C and D because they are all E. But the fatal flaw is that there never was a global association of A with all of E. We just didn't have the classification to see the detail. So we have to wait until someone checks that A really associates with all interpretations of the new "E", i.e. all three subdivisions. This illustration may be way off the mark for the specific example you're thinking of, but it illustrates why SYNTH is dangerous. What you can do is say that A was shown to associate with a species that was subsequently divided into three species, because that's true and reflects the literature. Elemimele (talk) 12:46, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
You seem to have misunderstood my point because I made an oversimplification. The taxonomic revision of the host species concerned Eastern mediterranean Crematogaster scutellaris group ants. These ants are ecologically extremely similar. Only one species is always found in one site never 2:
It is an interesting fact that the species of the Crematogaster scutellaris complex, which are highly aggressive and territorial [17,30], tend to ecologically exclude one another. We have already observed this pattern in the distribution of C. scutellaris and C. schmidti in the Northwest Balkans [30] and do not know any convincing case in which more than one species of the C. scutellaris complex were detected at one locality. No ecological or phenotypic differences between the species of the C. scutellaris complex are known, and the taxa appear to occupy similar thermophilous woodland habitats [10,17]. Based on the more northern distribution of C. schmidti, we suspect a lower thermophily than in C. ariadnae sp. n., C. graeca sp. n., and C. ionia. Concerning the speciation of the latter three, the separation of their ranges by the deep waters of the Aegean Sea over millions of years suggests speciation through geographic isolation: C. ariadnae sp. n. on Crete, C. graeca sp. n. on the southernmost area of the Balkan mainland, and C. ionia in Anatolia. Similarly, the speciation of C. scutellaris and C. schmidti was probably also initiated by separation into a western and an eastern refugium (source)
Since they spatially completely exclude each other, an association recorded in Crete with the old concept of the species only has one possibility, that is whichever species lives in Crete. Moreover, In many scientific papers scientists are aware those species were undescribed and hence note them as for example Crematogaster ionia sp1 or Crematogaster cf. ionia. In these cases, we can be certain that these were placeholders for those non-described cryptic species.
After posting this comment I dived a little into literature and found direct evidence, directly stated for all of suspected species except Crematogaster ionia (the real ionia, after the revision) and Crematogaster graeca. However, Data of association from the Ege region of Türkiye exists for a Crematogaster species there(in the literature), it can only be ionia, since only ionia is found there, as these species are geographically separated. This is very certain information that I plan to write inside a unofficial casual text that Ill publish somewhere.
For C. graeca I for now couldnt find anything. If I cant find anything for the localities of this species (Exact coordinates matching in another paper describing an association), I will state inside of that personal publication that similar associations with local Colobopsis is expected for this species, although not directly recorded giving justification of course. Also Camponotus lateralis is associated with C. graeca with the same manner recorded directly in the literature, C. lateralis is also associated with the same manner with all the species mentioned here so it is likely this species associates with other Camponotine ants in the same manner just like all the other species mentioned here.
I'll write a casual text on this and publish it on somewhere unoffical like inaturalist Journal page, where people can also add their thoughts there. I am not planning to Own any page on wikipedia, and if someone for example in the talk page debates my editing with appropriate literature review, I will go along with the majority consensus reached there, among peers (people involved with myrmecology in any way) no matter what I myself think.
You are free to dispute this in any way, I am open to talking here, and I wouldn't do anything that I think is against wikipedia rules. Faddaff (talk) 13:32, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
Well in the ege region schmidti is also found but schmidti and ionia existed before the revision and can't be easily confused. Faddaff (talk) 13:35, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
The association described was between ionia and Colobopsis not any Crematogaster Faddaff (talk) 13:45, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
@Faddaff This is getting very technical for the Teahouse and is unlikely to be seen by WP insect experts. I suggest you summarise what's here on Talk:Colobopsis imitans and then ask those interested to take a look by posting a link at WT:WikiProject Insects. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:01, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
Mike's right, and I'm sorry I misunderstood the geographical side of it. But basically, if you're having to do a detailed argument of why something is the case, you should probably be aiming to publish that as primary literature rather than draw it as a conclusion here. We're a tertiary source, and we're already stretching a bit of a point on a lot of specialised biological articles when we overly-rely on primary literature. But yes the insect people will give you a more informed response. Elemimele (talk) 16:26, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for everyone's input. I'll follow Mike's advice and focus on writing that text.
I'm not sure if I'm supposed to close the discussion somewhere when it has finished, I don't see an option for it.
Goodbye. Faddaff (talk) 18:26, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
No need, Faddaff. It's possible to put a "Resolved" label at the bottom, but most people don't bother. The thread will be archived in due course, and until it is others will be able to read it and may learn useful things from it. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-41275-62 (talk) 00:35, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
Adding Airlines based in an Airport to that Airport Tag
AeroLogic (Hub only), Condor, Discover Airlines, Lufthansa, Lufthansa Cargo, and Lufthansa City Airlines are all based in (except for AeroLogic) FraPort (Frankfurt Airport). I'm wondering if I should add the Category:Frankfurt Airport to them. Also, I'm thinking of making an overview box for FraPort like there is for "Airports in Germany", although I'm not certain how (I'll find out though.)
And should I also link the Railways that go through/end at Fraport to the Category? Jlittlebigbeard (talk) 10:02, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
I was just double-checking. Thanks for answering. Jlittlebigbeard (talk) 12:49, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
@Jlittlebigbeard I'm not saying it is or isn't a good idea to make an overview box because I have no clue, but the best way to find out how to get that kind of box is also quite an easy way: go to the article with the best kind of overview box for your purpose, click Edit, make sure you're using the source editor not the visual editor, copy ALL of the box (make sure you get the whole box including whatever it takes to begin and end it correctly), and click Cancel to quit editing. Then go to your personal sandbox (which is User:Jlittlebigbeard/sandbox or any other sandbox you may have created under your user), paste it in, and change things around (using only the source editor) until it does what you want.
Visual editor sometimes "tries too hard" to help you by adding things you might already be adding by hand, sometimes accidentally giving wrong code. If you like visual editor you can of course continue to use it on normal things any time you want, but avoid using it for what I will informally call "fancy stuff" like special boxes. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 15:04, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
Is Suggestion Bot working?
About 3 days ago, I used the SuggestBot to give me edit suggestions on my talk page, but they haven't shown up. It said it would pop up within minutes but it has been quite a lot of minutes so I am just wondering whether I did something wrong or it's just down.
Thanks, PixelsRCool (talk) 13:56, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
Per User:SuggestBot#Current status (permalink): SuggestBot will be down for maintenance over the next few days as we have to make updates to its infrastructure...it may or may not post suggestions if you ask for them, and it won't post to our subscribers. Its updates of the Community Portal will not be affected. SuggestBot does not seem to have made suggestions since July 2026, when Nettrom last updated "Current status", as previously noted at User talk:SuggestBot#No suggestions (permalink) a week ago. Rotideypoc41352 (talk·contribs) 14:15, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
Hello, I’m Dave Nassaney, also known as Caregiver Dave. I’m asking about a possible biography of myself, so I want to disclose that conflict of interest.
How can I determine which broadcasts qualify as significant independent coverage under Wikipedia’s notability guidelines? I understand that interviews and independent reporting may be treated differently.
No draft has been submitted. ChatGPT helped organize the source links and phrase this question. I’m seeking guidance on evaluating the original sources before a human editor writes any article. Thank you. DaveNassaney (talk) 15:21, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
Hi @DaveNassaney. Thanks for disclosing your ChatGPT usage. We actually prohibit the usage of chatbots like ChatGPT in the writing of article content, and we highly discourage you using it to research sources. See WP:NOLLM.
As for your query: an article on Wikipedia is only possible if the subject meets our criteria for inclusion, in this case it would be Wikipedia:Notability (people). Interviews do not count towards this criteria. We would instead be looking for (as a rule of thumb) about three independent sources that discuss/analyse/critique your life based very specifically not on press releases, full interviews, or from unreliable sources like social media.
If you can't find three sources that each meet the golden rule, an article would likely not be possible at this time. qcne(talk) 15:26, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
Tangentially related, about we highly discourage you using it [LLMs] to research sources. I don't think that's what WP:NOLLM is about; is there any existing concensus on this? I have been under the impression that it is fair-game and even to some extent encouraged as they can be more effective than Google in the age of SEOs. LkL-70547 (talk) 01:04, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
I wouldn't say it's encouraged, but rather accepted where used by experienced editors whom we trust aren't going to let it creep into copyediting and even writing their article. Giovanni Guasconti (a word with me) 03:04, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
I think some of the grumpiness you may encounter around it comes from seeing people misuse LLMs thinking that it's allowed as long as it's in some way related to the sources.
If you use an LLM for a query like Please search the web for sources covering the founding of $COMPANY, don't include official press releases or the company website and then you read those sources and decide whether or not to include them and write the copy and the edit summary and so on I don't think anybody is going to object (or probably even know). I have done that before on occasion, especially when the "AI Overview" of my search engine is hinting at a source I haven't been able to find yet.
But there's a lot of folks who have clearly written some initial copy, plugged it into an LLM and said "please add sources" and then uncritically dumped the output into Wikipedia (without checking whether those sources exist or if the LLM has decided to "help" by rewriting parts of the copy or what have you). Then when someone asks if this was written by an LLM they say "oh I just used it for sources". In such cases it is simpler to suggest that they rewrite without using an LLM in any way. Packrat3860 (talk) 13:27, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
Definitely so. I use it to find sources too sometimes, especially in more niche topics (like the Holz Hausen firewood stack), but I wouldn’t really recommend it to newer editors since the latter approach you explained often occurs and then their work ends up at AINB. Giovanni Guasconti (a word with me) 14:21, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
Hi, Dave.
qcne has summed it up pretty well. We have a great essay here called WP:Popularity does not guarantee notability which applies quite well to your situation. There are a lot of people who find themselves confused at why we don't consider them notable despite them having had a bajillion media appearances, being featured in this and that publication and so on. The thing which makes you notable here is that some outlet completely independent of you and with no input from yourself has decided to take notice of you and write about you in-depth. In other words, you need to be the kind of person who is so interesting that people start writing biographies about you without your input. That may seem like a rather high bar, and it certainly is. The vast majority of people on the planet don't qualify for an article here. After all, if appearing on TV a lot of times made you notable, we'd need an article for every weather anchor on the planet. Athanelar (talk) 15:55, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
I don't think you just being in a broadcast would count as significant coverage, similarly being on a podcast. If someone makes a TV program, film, or documentary about you that would go towards showing that you're notable because someone considered you worthy of coverage. But for example, actors don't just qualify for a WP article by being prolific. They need need sig cov like everyone else. Mme Maigret (talk) 07:38, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
I did a Google search on Dave Nassaney, also known as Caregiver Dave; he is not notable and if an article would be created it would be nominated for deletion. Catfurball (talk) 17:44, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
Team Fortress 2 and European robin
Would like to suggest mentioning the video game Team Fortress 2 in the European robin article. The game's cosmetic item Chicken Kiev replaces the Heavy's head with a team-colored Red Army Robin head. The Team Fortress Wiki documents this design: https://wiki.teamfortress.com/wiki/Chicken_Kiev
If a suitable reliable source can be found, I think this would be a worthwhile addition to the article. What do you think? MBKuri (talk) 17:00, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
Hi, MBKuri, welcome to the Teahouse! I would say no; even if a reliable source is found, this kind of trivia doesn't really add much to the article. See MOS:POPCULT: Cultural references about the article's subject should not be included merely because they exist. [...] The mere appearance of the subject in a film, song, video game, television show, or the like is insufficient. WritKeeper⚇♔ 17:06, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
Yeah if there is a history of this being referenced across medias (such as the akira slide) then it very well could make the argument to be included in a "in popular culture" section or similar but one game would not be enough Goetia [She/Her] (talk) 17:59, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
Bias in articles of fictional characters
I have been doing the suggested edits that are labeled as "revise tone" for fictional characters. Many of the bias found by the bot is in the category about the abilities of the characters. Should I change the tone of those parts? FlameOutsideOfStaff (talk) 18:20, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
Also see WP:FANCRUFT which is an essay about this kind of issue. Athanelar (talk) 23:22, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
Source advice for a possible biography of Sean Murphy (author)
Hello. I work with Sean Murphy and 1455 Literary Arts on publicity, so I have a conflict of interest.
I’m seeking advice before preparing a possible biography of Sean Murphy, the author and cultural critic who founded 1455 Literary Arts. His work includes the memoir ''Please Talk About Me When I’m Gone'', the story collection ''This Kind of Man'', and the poetry collections ''The Blackened Blues'', ''Rhapsodies in Blue'', ''Kinds of Blue'', and ''Red, White, and Blues''.
I would appreciate guidance on the general notability guideline and the creative-professional criteria, particularly coverage of a writer’s collective body of work.
These are three sources I’d like help assessing first:
An Identity Theory interview with introductory criticism of ''This Kind of Man''.
Northern Virginia Magazine coverage of his literary organizing and 1455’s festival.
Other book reviews, interviews, and podcast appearances.
Commentary on ''Red, White, and Blues'' by Ron Charles and Greg Olear.
Supporting award and publication records.
The notes identify limitations, including Olear’s disclosed friendship and past working relationship with Murphy, interview answers that are primary material, and sources whose editorial reliability needs assessment. Author-supplied listings and the Kirkus Indie review are identified separately.
There is also a separate inventory of Wikipedia articles citing Murphy’s music criticism. Examples include [[Lizard (song)]], [[Village of the Pharoahs]], [[A Passion Play]], and [[2112 (song)]]. These cite his writing about other subjects. I’m unsure whether that source-use context is relevant to the creative-professional criteria.
My questions are:
Does the combined coverage provide a reasonable basis for an Articles for Creation draft, or is stronger independent secondary coverage needed first?
Which sources contribute meaningful evidence, and which have insufficient reliability, independence, or depth?
How should reviews of his works be weighed alongside coverage of him personally, and does the use of his criticism add anything relevant?
Thank you for your guidance. AshtonElo (talk) 19:00, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
Does the combined coverage provide a reasonable basis for an Articles for Creation draft[?] I can't see how it does. [I]s stronger independent secondary coverage needed first? Yes.
Are there any in-depth reviews of his work in reputable sources? Mme Maigret (talk) 07:40, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
Article proposal
We should make an article about controversial YouTubers that got banned Jason1110TS (talk) 21:29, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
Youtube has a vast number of "Youtubers". The huge majority are not "notable". If you can demonstrate that a "Youtuber" (whether or not banned from Youtube) who doesn't have an article is notable, then you can create a draft about that person. (Urging other people to create an article is seldom successful.) -- Hoary (talk)WWU👍︎ 21:48, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
Don't you think a Medium or Substack article might be better? Mme Maigret (talk) 07:41, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
To make a Wikipedia article, the literal topic "Controversial YouTubers that got banned" - in those exact words - has to be already the topic of major coverage in several different sources. We can't make an article by seeing that there are quite a few of those people and putting them together ourselves to create something. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 19:05, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
My Name Removed That My Mentor Put On An Article?
Marty Watt here Marty Watt my name was removed from the Wikipedia article about "Performance Poetry" because of how my mentor put it on there. Not me, conflict of interest. Removal says due to how badly written and obviously just an attempt to " name-drop" Marty Watt.
Yep, My Mentor. Took months for the mentor to do even this little bit - then spelled my name wrong "Watts" instead of Watt, Teahouse here fixed that. And then the most bizarre description of me as a Performance Poet who did Performance Poetry: something like "was associated with the term"???? "due to his histrionic gestures and energy," something like that. My stuff all sourced and cited etc - this mention had some link to The Washington Post's big article on me, 1976, Alan. M. Kriegsman Pulitzer winning critic. Too funny, " name-drop. " Funnier is that all findable documents, dates, sources have always placed me as the originator in 1972 of "Performance Poetry," meaning poetry of THAT term - not ie: "performing poet," or "poets who performed" etc. There was a specific term at that time and ever since. It meant something pretty specific. Marty Watt (talk) 23:31, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
do people need any sources NOW? Would it help anything? Marty Watt (talk) 01:53, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
Start a discussion on the article talk page (and ping the editor). Mme Maigret (talk) 07:45, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
Mmemaigret, the article talk page is Talk:Performance poetry. Marty Watt started two discussions there on 30 September. There's been no response to either. Each (non-) discussion is headed by a template saying The requested edits backlog is very high. Please be extremely patient. There are currently [X] requests waiting for review (wherein X is currently 1025). None of the sources that Marty Watt cites comes with a link. (Of course articles can cite sources that are only available via microfiche or similar, but perhaps rather few editors have the patience needed to visit and search within reference libraries.) See #No Pressure Talk above. -- Hoary (talk)WWU👍︎ 08:26, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
@Hoary I've downloaded a copy of the article. Mme Maigret (talk) 09:33, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
Oh! Is it that there must be a link that goes directly to a source? One click? Is there any place where I can somehow get the sources and store them somewhere for editors to get to them in one click? I have the sources etc, dates and all that. I'm not lazy, not asking for any special treatment, or trying to have an attitude. I think I was told that the sources have to come from some legitimate place not my own privately held collection? Marty Watt (talk) 11:30, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
Plenty of links to articles, not sure all the time where to put them or even if to put them. I think I might not put the whole link thing together if if's just on "talk." Ha ha ha it's not that I'm just saying stuff I think about myself without sources, with no links. Just make it clear what people would need.
I just cannot get clear on this issue. Sources on microfilm etc archives are real, usable or not? Or is it that they are moved to some 2nd level status? Not complaining just want to know. Months now, and no one has answered my questions about editor's patience issues. I wouldn't be bothering anyone if I knew I didn't have sources, I sincerely thought I did, didn't know the archives type editors patience status disqualification. If someone would just make that clear, I'd understand and realize that I never had a point dealing with this anyway. I hate coming off as a clueless bozo who expects things to just be believed without sources. Marty Watt (talk) 11:22, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
They are usable sources, but as a practical matter if you are counting on an unpaid volunteer to go to the library and look at a microfilm to verify an article change it is going to take a much longer time to happen. MrOllie (talk) 11:51, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
"Go TO the library?" Whew. I figured a request online. So, the thing would be to have someone else I find to just edit it. Can't be me, conflict of interest. But what an interesting concept - can't be done, history based on ease of sourcing. Oh well. I have the photo copies etc from the sources. Do the sources RELLY have to at least once be verified? How about a separate Wikipedia verifying department? Verified and then given an official certificate of authenticity? Still loving the image: "Go TO the library." Marty Watt (talk) 12:58, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
"Go TO the library?" Whew. I figured a request online. If there is an online/digitized version, you should be linking to that rather than asking about microfilm archives.
have someone else I find to just edit it. If you find someone and they edit at your direction they would inherit your conflict of interest.
Do the sources RELLY have to at least once be verified? Yes. No one with any sense is going to make an edit based on a source they have never read.
How about a separate Wikipedia verifying department? Verified and then given an official certificate of authenticity? They'd still be volunteers and the same issue would still present itself. Perhaps you are under the assumption that Wikipedia is paying people to run or work on the encyclopedia - that is not how this works. Everybody here (with some very small exceptions that do not apply in this case) is an unpaid volunteer. MrOllie (talk) 13:21, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
If there is an online/digitized version, you should be linking to that rather than asking about microfilm archives.
Nah, I meant access the archives via online, that's how I did it.
If you find someone and they edit at your direction they would inherit your conflict of interest.
That's exactly why I asked.
Yes. No one with any sense is going to make an edit based on a source they have never read.
Again why I asked. Trying to follow ALL rules - never doing anything without checking first.
Perhaps you are under the assumption that Wikipedia is paying people to run or work on the encyclopedia - that is not how this works. Everybody here (with some very small exceptions that do not apply in this case) is an unpaid volunteer.
This is why I'm here, asking questions, checking everything first. "Perhaps you are under the assumption . . . . " What am I missing here? Are questions here in The Teahouse a rude ignorant attitude of mine? I've followed all suggestions given to me over time by the volunteers over months. All it got me was an inserted mention from my mentor with my name misspelled and so strangely written that it was removed by another volunteer. Since then, I've only been here asking questions, making sure nothing next wastes anyone's time. What am I missing here? Best I get is not only are sources in archives not actually worth anything, nor is asking about them like a rude ignorant person - an "RIP," referring to letting the archived sources to rest in peace. Asking here, at least, I've learned that. Didn't know that at first. Like I said, even a dimwit like me knows that there has to be sources. I asked other places and was told that archives were officially fine, but here - trying not to waste people's time - I've learned that common decency - considerateness would keep a person from trying to use them. Truth I just have to learn to live with is that I have no sources. That's okay. I just was ridiculously under the impression that I did. I would never have even started with Wikipedia and that article if someone made that clear to me months ago.
Marty Watt, to MrOllie's comment If there is an online/digitized version [of the source(s) that you're citing] , you should be linking to that rather than asking about microfilm archives, you've responded Nah, I meant access the archives via online, that's how I did it. That sounds promising. But the sources you list for the edit requests you posted at Talk:Performance poetry still don't have links. Adding links is likely to increase the probability that editors will attend to your requests. -- Hoary (talk)WWU👍︎ 22:08, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
No online easy one click access to any source. I really would have used those. Interesting to imagine why someone wouldn't.just a mean troublemaker? I guess you get them. I've been asking and asking in so many variations about the archive issue. I meant "online" as that I didn't go to a library, just sent the archives an eMail request. Usually, next day had the document. I have my own copies of the docs. but only of use to editors as evidence that I'm kind of "real." Maybe worth taking a chance on getting the sources from some archives.
I have no idea what "links" I should put on anything anywhere that would help. I'm certainly not trying to keep anything back. Kind of what the Teahouse was for. Help me to get these things on best format possible for any editor who eventually comes across my request.
I really didn't want or cause my
reviews to be in archives. I really do wish they were online somewhere to be easily accessed. I do have some of the originals with me.
There are I think 3 I list -
The Washington Post is the most spectacular rave article by a Pulitzer winning writer - 1976 - putting me way earlier than anyone else IF the strict definition and words "Performance Poetry" " Performance Poetry" are used. But the Philadelphia Evening Bulletin review is earlier - 1973, putting me even earlier. I started in 1972 but there's no source for that. I also thought that a few would show I wasn't some one off anomaly - I really was a big presence in this new way of doing poetry in clubs and theaters. There are many more reviews, posters, advertisements etc. Marty Watt (talk) 00:25, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
If you know the exact date and page number for those things, that would be great. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 03:06, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
yes, entirely, the exact archives they are located in, page numbers, dates, the sources have the dates on them to validate , confirm. I have the copies from the archives and the originals. Even WAY more sources that validate just the words "Performance Poetry," and " Performance Poetry" on dates much earlier than those mentioned in the article. The first use of the exact words "Performance Poetry" in 1972, by Patti Smith and Victor Bockris at the Chelsea Hotel an interview, months before Patti Smith ran into me actually DOING. "Performance Poetry." Just saying.
Can you tell me where to put all the stuff: link etc if there is one, location of archive, exact date, reviewer's name, name of newspaper, page number.
Earliest Source, 1973, Philadelphia Evening Bulletin
The Bulletin kept changing its mast head
Philadelphia Evening Bulletin, Philadelphia Bulletin
name as printed in the article "WATTS," real name is "WATT"
Philadelphia "The Evening Bulletin"
publication date: Tuesday, March 20, 1973
PAGE 20, G
I don't see any call number
____________________________________
The Washington Post
January 23, 1976
PAGE C1
Reviewer Alan M. Kriegsman
Article about Marty Watt
Findable In: ProQuest Historical Papers
or Newspapers dot com Marty Watt (talk) 22:48, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
All of this is about the article on "Performance Poetry" NOT the article on ME. "Marty Watt."
The TALK area of "Performance Poetry" has all kinds of links, page numbers etc for the sources Talk:Performance poetryMarty Watt (talk) 22:57, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
You don't need to do anything involving commons.js. The page Wikipedia:Wikipediholism test links to an automated version of the test here where you select your answers and it tallies up your score as you go. Athanelar (talk) 04:08, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
The Buffalo Sports Curse
I've already made one wiki article but this one I think is going to be tougher. I would like to know if anybody could help. I'm not sure how but I'm pretty busy most of the time so we can't communicate easily. I'm not sure if I'm doing this correctly because I'm new. Also I'm not keen on waiting the some 7-10 days until my first wiki article is either approved or not so yeah. Bspstheman (talk) 02:53, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
OK, so you're new enough to not know if you're doing it right and busy most of the time and it's a tough article and you don't want to do it alone ... and you don't want to wait either ...
If it's all those things at once, - which you yourself just said that it is - then this is insane and just forget it. If you come back another time when you're not busy and you don't mind waiting - that could work. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 04:04, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
I mean I guess but I feel like I might just do it for pleasure because what I meant by busy is I do this LATE. And I am fine with waiting as long as I know something is going to happen. It's like sending fan mail and 4 years later unprompted the letter comes back. by then you will have forgotten about it. Do you get what I mean? Bspstheman (talk) 04:49, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
Late as in behind schedule, or late as in late at night? If you're in Buffalo, your "late night" is not so late in LA or lots of other places. And 3 AM at your place is 7 AM in London, if I got it right. Besides, there's no need for Wikipedia editors to work at the same time. But: working with others on an article is likely to be pretty slow, anything can happen (and it usually does), and if one of you gets impatient then the other one is going to bail.
Unfortunately, almost all of the "guaranteed success" articles already got written years ago. The closest thing to guaranteed success is having three monster-sized sources where every one of them goes on and on in great detail with their opinions about the Buffalo Sports Curse, and bonus points if their article is literally called "The Buffalo Sports Curse".
I sincerely hope it turns out great. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 06:03, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
Hi Bspstheman. You can create a WP:DRAFT and submit it to Wikipedia:Articles for creation for review when you think its ready. Creating a draft will allow you to do things at your own pace and others will pretty much leave you be as long as you don't start violating any main Wikipedia policies and guidelines. The only other thing you will have to make sure of is that you work on in enough so that it doesn't get tagged for speedy deletion as an abandon draft; so, if you work on improving it at least once every six months, you should be OK. You can invest as much time/energy as you want in the draft, but you might want to first assess whether the subject you want to create an article about is actually Wikipedia:Notable because a lack of Wikipedia notability is something that can't really be WP:OVERCOME. If you're looking for help with the draft, perhaps try asking on the talk page of a relevant Wikipedia:WikiProject: one of its members might even be able to help you assessing the subject's Wikipedia notability. FWIW, creating an article in the WP:MAINSPACE is allowed (unless there are some technical restrictions in place preventing you from doing so), but it immediately places the page under higher scrutiny. Once something has been added to the mainspace, it's there for anyone to edit (for better of worse), and it's also there for someone to tag/propose/nominate for WP:DELETION if they feel it has issues that simple can't be overcome. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:05, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
thanks, I'll do that soon. Bspstheman (talk) 12:56, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
I'm a bit confused about the Original Research policy. Does this policy mean that the observation of objects physically (and subsequently noticing facts about them) is original research?
For example (made up), is saying "there are 150 spaces at this car park" (which came from a car park sign) considered original research?
Another example (also made up), is just saying "there is a car park" also original research?
The policy means that we can't state facts in Wikipedia's voice that aren't attested in reliable sources or readily observable to anybody reading the article.
If there was a photo of the site showing the existence of a car park, you could probably say there's a car park. To say "there's 150 spaces" you'd need a source. If there's a photo in the article of the sign saying that there's 150 spaces, you could say "According to the sign at the car park, there are 150 spaces." You probably couldn't say "There are 150 spaces" and leave it at that.
But the policy's really more for cases like "Well, I know that John Doe was born in 1974 because I went and asked him and he told me himself" or "I know the molecular structure of Unobtanium because I was on the research team that first observed it" or "The phonology of this language is like this and I know because I'm a linguist and I observed this language." The real point of NOR is "we can't take you at your word, no matter how certain you are; this information needs to be published somewhere reliable before we can use it."
There's also a very common form of original research called WP:SYNTH, which is where somebody takes one or more sources and combines or extrapolates them to infer new information which is not explicitly stated in the sources. There's a couple of examples given at that link if you're not sure exactly what that means. Even if the claim that the person creates via their synthesis is logically possible or even factually correct, it's still inappropriate because the claim is the result of the original thinking of the editor rather than being explicitly stated in the sources. Athanelar (talk) 04:25, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
Thank you for that! That was really helpful. Really good explanation. Jacksonvil (talk|contribs) 04:36, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
Further to Athanelar's really good summary - especially regarding the "Unobtainium" paragraph: Wikipedia is not some kind of formal legal process, and the existence of a rule like this does not oblige Wikipedia to pursue every possible case. The rule is there to catch actual bad cases in such a way that those bad cases "don't have a leg to stand on", and is therefore a strict and absolute rule. But its judicious non-application to cases where it isn't actually needed seems to me to be part of how it works. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 04:40, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
When is template 'Personal attack removed' appropriate?
(Non-administrator comment) Hi TAF International. That comment was made in November 2014 by an unregistered account. The original post actually contained some profanity, but another unregistered account removed that word about a week later (could've been the same person). The post probably should've been archived along time ago, but for some reason it wasn't (maybe because it remains unsigned) by the page's archiving setup. Marking it with {{personal attack removed}} at this stage seems (at least to me) pointless and maybe overkill: calling someone in particular illiterate is not good, but this seem to be referring to Wikipedia as a whole. The post should probably just be manually archived (after being Template:Unsigned comment). If an admin wants to go back and revision delete the profanity, then that's up to them. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:34, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
I've cleaned up that talk page and removed the section in question, which was clearly made in bad faith. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 10:47, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
Regarding Approval of Draft
Same question now at the WP:AFCHD which is anyway the better place to ask it. Athanelar (talk) 13:45, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I wrote everything from scratch again and again, then converted it to code and submitted. Still it was rejected. What should I do? Excuzi (talk) 11:04, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
How did you "convert it to code"? Athanelar (talk) 11:06, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
I used Gemini, but I made sure none of the texutal content, even punctuation or citations or anything at all was altered from what I wrote myself. I just gave it content and told it to convert it to code without making any changes at all. Excuzi (talk) 11:10, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I need help to make the Estonian 2026 education strike page, any tips?
Hello, Creator of 2026 Estonian education workers' strike here, I need some help to expand the page about the one-hour strike, any tips on expanding the page?
Oh yeah here is the questions answered:
Q1: Why not use images?
A1: Well. sadly ERR images are copyrighted. including articles image. (from what I searched)
Q2: Why do you want to expand it?
A2: Well to include more information about this information.
If you have any questions please ask me or any tips. If you want you can edit the page to include more information.
Irrespective of how important this event might be for teachers in Estonia, I think it very unlikely that it meets the requirements in WP:EVENTCRITERIA. I'm pretty sure that your current sources are not sufficient to do so. Remember that Wikipedia is not a news organ.
Note that unless you begin by finding several sources that each meet all the criteria in the golden rule, you are probably wasting your time in trying to create an article. ColinFine (talk) 14:36, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
it was metonied on alot on news things. I know wikipedia is not a news organ, it is an Event. which because strikes are techinally notable if it is menoited by least several sources (either news one or trusted ones) there is alot of Estonian (I think) news article about the strike. im still new, but I made sure it is notable by at least sources, that's probably why im editing the page to add more information (or sources) AWorldWithout (talk) 15:14, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
A one-hour strike is an important symbolic act, and may have an important influence on Estonia's policies on education, but a one-hour strike is only a method of communication by the teachers. The message they sent is an important one, but the actual literal event was "for an hour there was no instruction". That is a very boring "event".
I am not Estonian, but I think the real Wikipedia article that Estonian teachers must be hoping for is a future one called "Estonia's education reform of 2027". This strike will belong as a sentence in that article, as part of explaining how it happened. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:19, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
Another way I could have said it: This strike proves that Estonians are arguing about education. Unless there is violence or other very major events connected with the argument, we should not try to write an article until the argument has been settled and the final results can be analyzed. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:30, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
Finding a way to make two separate articles out of one
Hi. I looked at the article on Prathyangira Devi, and noticed that She has been conflated with Narasimhi Devi.
These are two different lion-headed goddesses in the Hindu pantheon, but both have different iconographies and mythological origins.
Is there I way I can recommend making two different articles (which I have the research materials for) or to just go ahead and edit the original, provide references, and just start a second article on Narasimhi.
Most places just copy paste what is on the current page as is, and that is not borne out by archeological research or an analysis of ancient texts. Checkingthefacts11 (talk) 12:33, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
Request for guidance on a biographical article about a Marathi writer and lyricist
Hello,
I am a Marathi screenwriter, lyricist and poet from India. I would like to understand whether my work and career meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for a biographical article.
I have published Marathi ghazal collections and have credits in Marathi films. I have also found some newspaper coverage, literary references and a radio interview relating to my work.
Since I am the subject of the proposed article, I want to follow Wikipedia's conflict-of-interest guidelines and avoid creating a promotional page.
Could an experienced editor please advise me on whether my available independent sources may be sufficient, and how I should proceed?
This editor's advice: go on about your life as if you had never heard of Wikipedia. There is nothing to be gained by having an article here, because A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what the majority of people who are wholly unconnected with the subject have independently chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, (see Golden rule) and not much else. What you know (or anybody else knows) about the subject is not relevant except where it can be verified from a reliable published source. Athanelar (talk) 15:05, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
Editing
Quick question: Can you collaborate on article editing? Sabres Jayce (talk) 14:48, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
Of course! Every article here is a collaborative effort. If you look at the history of any article you'll see multiple editors have contributed to each one. Athanelar (talk) 15:06, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
@Sabres Jayce, did you perhaps mean “can you collaborate on articles by teaming up with another editor and submitting work on the article jointly?” Augnablik (talk) 15:33, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
When you write a Wikipedia article by yourself, it is still never yours - you can't supervise it or own it, and anyone is always able to see it and change it for any reason. Normally when someone is writing by themselves we don't interfere, but that is only to avoid being rude or appearing rude. Being able to collaborate on Wikipedia is built into the system and is totally expected.
BUT it is very strictly forbidden for @Sabres Jayce to be shared. Every person must have their own individual account and must never use anyone else's account even temporarily.
The first step is to ask yourself why you wabt an article about your company. The vast majority of the time, the answer is something like "Because other similar companies have articles" or "to raise awareness about what we do" or "to make sure people can find the info we want them to find." All of these are considered promotional here and if those are your intentions then the answer is that you should not write an article about yourself. Athanelar (talk) 15:53, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
Hello, @Mitchell2526, and welcome to the Teahouse.
Most companies and organisations in the world do not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability: this has nothing to do with how important or worthy they are: it has everything to do with whether several people who have no connection with them and have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the organisation, have chosen to write in some depth about the organisation.
It follows that the only possible way for you to create such an article is to find several sources that each meet all the conditions in golden rule.
If you can find these, then it is possible to proceed. You would next need to effectively forget every single thing you know, think, or believe about your company, and write a summary of what those independent sources said about it. Even if they leave out things that you think are important. Even if they are critical or nasty about it. Even if they bring up matters that you really really really don't want people to be reminded of. (Actually, if there are such matters, it's probably more likely that your company is notable than if there aren't.) Even if they are wrong, according to your personal knowledge.
Is there a way to send a draft to an editor and have it checked before submitting for approval to avoid a self promotion punishment? Mitchell2526 (talk) 16:20, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
Hi @AliMohammedPhoto. That was an easy decline. None of your sources provide independent critique or discussion of this person. They're all very clearly paid-for promotional pieces. qcne(talk) 16:09, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification. I am the subject of the draft and understand the conflict-of-interest guidelines. I am seeking independent advice on the sources and will follow Wikipedia’s guidance. AliMohammedPhoto (talk) 16:14, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
Have you read autobiography, which explains why we very very strongly discourage anybody from writing about themselves in Wikipedia. Your chances of success - especially as an inexperienced editor - are so tiny that it is almost guaranteed that you are entirely wasting your time and effort in trying to create an article about yourself. My advice is to forget that Wikipedia exists, and go on with your work. If you are, or become notable (in Wikipedia's special sense) then sooner or later somebody unconnected with you will create an article about you. ColinFine (talk) 17:50, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
Hello ColinFine,
Thank you for taking the time to share your advice and explain Wikipedia’s guidelines. I appreciate your honesty and understand your concerns about conflict of interest and writing about oneself. I will take your advice into consideration and focus on my professional work while ensuring that any future article about me is supported by independent, reliable sources.
Thank you again for your time and guidance. AliMohammedPhoto (talk) 17:54, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
@AliMohammedPhoto What is your connection to @Sarbastazeez, another Iraqi sports photographer, who also submitted an autobiographical draft today and asked the exact same question you did? qcne(talk) 17:56, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
Hello Qcne,
Thank you for asking. I do not have any personal or professional connection with Sarbastazeez, and I was not aware of their draft or question before you mentioned it. I submitted my draft and asked my question independently.
Hello, could someone advise whether the independent sources in my draft are sufficient to establish notability under Wikipedia's biography guidelines?
Their question:
Could someone advise whether the independent sources in my draft are sufficient to establish notability under Wikipedia’s biography guidelines?
Both of you are Iraqi sports photographers. Both of you submitted autobiographical drafts today. Both of you used mostly the same source publications of which most followed the same structure.
Thank you for reaching out and for clarifying. I want to be transparent: I have no personal, professional, or financial connection with User:Sarbastazeez, other than any interactions that may have taken place on Wikipedia, if applicable.
I am happy to clarify any specific concerns or answer further questions. I want to follow Wikipedia’s policies and contribute constructively.
Hello, @Sarbastazeez. You have submitted your draft for review: that is, for a reviewer to look at the sources and decide whether they are adequate. We do not do pre-reviews.
Have you read autobiography, which explains why it is that almost nobody ever manages to successfully create an article about themselves in Wikipedia.
As I said to AliMohammedPhoto just above, My advice is to forget that Wikipedia exists, and go on with your work. If you are, or become notable (in Wikipedia's special sense) then sooner or later somebody unconnected with you will create an article about you. ColinFine (talk) 17:53, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
Based on your explanation, I understand that the rejection was not due to the quality of the articles. For your information, my sources include internationally recognized and reputable media outlets. You are welcome to verify them yourself.
However, I still do not fully understand the reason for the rejection, and some aspects of the decision remain unclear to me. My sources come from respected media organizations with professional international standards, which is why I find the outcome difficult to understand.
I sincerely hope that the Wikipedia reviewing team will ensure a fair, transparent, and impartial assessment of my draft. I respect Wikipedia’s policies and the work of its volunteers, and I would appreciate a clearer explanation of the specific issues that led to the rejection.
Let me be frank with you: my work has been featured by several reputable, high-quality international channels—not just one. You are welcome to verify this through the sources. Furthermore, I do not use any artificial intelligence tools; I can prove this to you by sharing my screen if you wish. I simply hope to receive the full recognition I deserve. My work has appeared on outlets such as Rudaw (Kurdistan)—which is widely recognized as a professional, international-standard channel—as well as Kurdistan 24, and various Qatari, Jordanian, and Iraqi channels. I trust that your esteemed team will ensure I am given fair credit. Sarbastazeez (talk) 23:24, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
You have already received fair credit here. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 02:13, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
Can you please answer qcne's question?
Your work may well have appeared in all sorts of places, and I congratulate you on that success. What you need, however, are sources completely independent from you who have chosen to write in-depth about your life and/or work and then had this writing accepted by a reputable publisher. Interviews with you are not considered to be independent - anything you have had any input into is not independent. Having your photo featured somewhere without any discussion about your life and work is not significant coverage. Can you point to a source you believe meets all three criteria in WP:42? Three sources like that usually means an article is possible; if those sources do not exist, the article cannot exist either. Meadowlark (talk) 02:28, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
Sarbastazeez, if a publication uses one of your photos in an article, that contributes nothing to your notability. Any such article is neither independent nor significant coverage of you as a person. So, which of your references are reliable, fully independent of you and devote significant coverage to you as a person? Cullen328 (talk) 05:32, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
I was the first photographer from the Kurdistan Region to arrive in Qatar—a fact you can transparently verify by searching for my name, Arabi Sarbast Aziz. My work has been featured by the media outlet Rudaw (an independent Kurdish channel), Kurdistan 24 (a government-affiliated channel), the Qatari newspaper *Al-Watan*, and numerous other websites. Best regards. Sarbastazeez (talk) 11:09, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
@Sarbastazeez you do not meet our criteria for inclusion, and my decline of the draft still stands. qcne(talk) 11:35, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
https://alsabaah.iq/index.php?newsid=137404Sarbastazeez (talk) 11:27, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
You can verify the sources included in my draft; they are credible. I kindly ask for an impartial review—I deserve that much. Please take the time to read them carefully; I have provided eight highly reputable sources. Sarbastazeez (talk) 11:41, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
I have reviewed them. They do not meet our criteria for independence. You still have not explained how you came to submit this draft and ask this question at the same time another Iraqi sports photographer also submitted an autobiographical draft and asked exactly the same question. qcne(talk) 11:47, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
I do not know anyone; I simply submitted my draft and provided my information. I did not include any unverified or unknown details. I respect Wikipedia’s policies, but for context, I should mention that I was ranked as the second-best photographer in Iraq by certain archival/memory-documentation platforms. Sarbastazeez (talk) 11:51, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
Best of luck with your career, you do not meet our criteria for inclusion at this time. qcne(talk) 11:55, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
To be honest, I am a media professional who has been working in the field since 2010. I have won numerous awards and covered many tournaments, yet I do not know why my application to join the best site in the world was not accepted. It is truly, deeply painful. Best regards. Sarbastazeez (talk) 12:01, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
You seem to gravely misunderstand what is done here. Wikipedia is not a platform where people "apply" to join and tell about themselves, like social media platforms are. Wikipedia is not interested in what someone says about themselves, we want to know what others say about them. This is usually very difficult for someone to do about themselves, especially without prior Wikipedia editing experience, and almost no one succeeds at it. By "almost no one" I mean that the number of successful autobiographies in the last 14-15 years can probably be counted on one hand(out of tens of thousands of attempts). Are you the rare person who can succeed where almost everyone else fails? It is possible, but the odds are overwhelmingly against it. Please read our autobiography policy carefully.
If Arabic is your primary language, you may want to consider editing the Arabic Wikipedia instead. Each Wikipedia is separate, with their own policies, and your content may be acceptable there. 331dot (talk) 12:08, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
Qcne's decline was correct. I think there's a language barrier here you're having trouble with. People keep trying to tell you that what is needed for an article about a subject is reliable, independent sources that are about you, not articles by you. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:12, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello Wikipedia friends--
I've long had a professional page and we are longtime supporters. My article needs serious updating and improvement. In the last year or so, I've received emails from persons saying they are Wiki editors, but I've found in researching them that they are scammers. May I ask for your help and any vetted referrals you might offer? I wish to engage someone with professional / or high-level volunteer experience with this.
@Mfmushroom: Welcome to The Teahouse.I wouldn't pay any money at all, as no article is ever going to be locked into a particular revision. You may want to leave an edit request so that a willing volunteer can incorporate changes for you; please make sure to add those to Talk:Marguerite Feitlowitz and be ready to share reliable sources, especially if this is new information that is to be added. —Tenryuu🐲(💬•📝) 19:33, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Barnstars
Hello other editors, I'd like to ask a few simple questions out of curiosity. I was shown that senior editors have different types of rewards and barnstars. I'd like to know how a new editor can earn these barnstars. 刘宸宁 (talk) 19:50, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
There is no such thing as a "senior editor". Some editors have more experience than others, but we are all learning, and there is no ranking. (Not even administrators: they are the janitors of Wikipedia, who have requested and been granted access to certain tools (like the keys to the cleaning cupboard) so that they can perform their janitorial functions, but they have no higher status).
Barnstars are awarded by individual editors to individual editors who think they merit them: that's all. There is no status attached to being awarded a barnstar, and the way to earn one is to edit in a way that attracts another editor's attention in a good way, so that that other editor chooses to give recognition. ColinFine (talk) 20:43, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
But @ColinFine,you are one of the very Wikipedians I’ve long thought of as a perfect example of a senior editor! 😂 Augnablik (talk) 04:41, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
In short, the awards are unofficial and there is no system. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 02:27, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
.I understand clearly 刘宸宁 (talk) 02:35, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
Experienced, unbiased editor needed for Cass Review
Request for editor of cass review
Hi all I made a bit of a mess on the Cass Review, edit warred like a fool, and now the edit war is continuing. Could an experienced editor, preferably without strong convictions on the subject, please hop on and help me fix the mess I made?Editing-dude144 (talk) 21:30, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
How would that be different from just leaving the article alone and letting yourself lose the edit war? Why not just do that? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 02:09, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
its not about winning anything, I felt responsible and the article didn't have many other editors before I posted this.
If retired before but then months or over a year later, returned is that allowed if not creating drama? And not using template saying retired Cwater1 (talk) 02:33, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
If you more or less abandoned Wikipedia for any length of time, and your leaving did not involve any controversy or anger on Wikipedia (i.e. you didn't get banned or anything), and you didn't show any "retired" template, then welcome back, there's nothing special you need to do. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 03:00, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
I guess I have obsession or interest in contributing Wikipedia again. I was gone from June 2025 to August 2026. Many articles are long overdue of improvements and expansion as recently been doing. Cwater1 (talk) 03:10, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
As long as your edits are good and you treat everyone well, come back whenever you feel like it. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 03:25, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
The presence or absence of a "Retired" template is not relevant. Just like classic rock bands, Wikipedia editors can come out of retirement whenever they so choose. Cullen328 (talk) 05:14, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
My only thought about the template was "if you did have one but you're back, you should take it down". TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 07:31, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
I probably won't use the template in future even if take long hiatus again to avoid confusions. Cwater1 (talk) 15:06, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
Is a linkedin profile a relevant citation for a listed job title (CIA Directorate of Operations)?
On the article for the Directorate of Operations (CIA) Aaron Wegert is listed as the Deputy Director of the CIA for Operations, yet it states that a citation is needed. His LinkedIn profile lists "Deputy Director for Operations at Central Intelligence Agency" as his role within the CIA and based on his activity on there, it appears that he interacts regularly and contributes to the comments and posts made by official and known members/former members of the acting intelligence apparatus.
It also states that he "Transitioned from clandestine service to overt status under President Trump in mid-2025” and prior to that, he was a postdoctoral researcher in artificial intelligence and cybersecurity/cyber warfare at the University of Colorado Colorado Springs (UCCS).
It appears that he became the Deputy Director of the CIA for Operations in July 2025, having transitioned to overt status around that time.
Drum.Hell.Her (talk) 03:48, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
LinkedIn is most certainly not a reliable source as it is user generated content. See WP:UGC. Packrat3860 (talk) 04:36, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
Drum.Hell.Her, the very next section of that policy is called Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves. See WP:SELFSOURCE. This explicitly creates an exception that applies here. An independent source would be preferable, though. Cullen328 (talk) 05:08, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
Not disputing that, but I have come across several LinkedIn profiles over the years where someone is claiming to be associated with an organisation, but isn't. The problem is that individuals can add pretty much anything they want to their employment history, and AFAIK LinkedIn doesn't in any way try to verify those. (In fact, quite the opposite: I once spent months and months trying to get LinkedIn to remove someone from our company profile who had nothing to do with us; their stance was basically "prove to us that this person isn't working for you", which I'm not sure is even possible.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:26, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
Thanks! I read the guidelines outlawing social media and self-published sources after I'd asked this question on teahouse :S Drum.Hell.Her (talk) 06:06, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
@Drum.Hell.Her: His LinkedIn profile fails point 1 and 2 at WP:SELFSOURCE. I didn't find other sources so I have removed it.PrimeHunter (talk) 09:45, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
Sorry if that response was brusque. There's nothing wrong with double checking and this is the perfect place to ask questions like that ^-^ Packrat3860 (talk) 14:41, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
Request my draft for review
Hello other editors, my draft is almost complete, and I need to correct some grammatical errors.
I request you to please check my draft once so I can understand if there are any errors.
Yesterday I received a warning for a large language module in my draft. I'm a little confused here because I don't use AI-generated .
But I only used Google translation app to translate the Chinese text into English, and I rewrote their text, sometimes it was misspelled.
So if I'm doing something wrong, please help me with the correct guidance , and I request the editor to please check my draft once and give their statement.
刘宸宁, at the foot of Draft:Three Ancestral Lineages of Yunnan, we read "I will complete this page later." Good. Complete it, submit it, and then read any comments or suggestions that it gets. -- Hoary (talk)WWU👍︎ 05:30, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
Hoary Okay, thanks for the encouragement, but I'm confused about the LLM warning. If the other editor thinks it's LLM based, but I'm not using an AI generator, how can we convince the other editor that this draft isn't LLM-based? If they don't believe it, I'll have to rewrite it again. 刘宸宁 (talk) 05:46, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
That's a very reasonable question, 刘宸宁. It's rather a topical one for me, as just a week ago Rosiestepasked me about the appearance of LLM assistance in what I'd added to the article Bas Aarts. As you'll see there, I denied having had any such assistance. Rosiestep was persuaded by my denial, but I have to say that I find it unimpressive: if I had received LLM assistance, I could have lied and written the same denial. It was Suðurhafsljósæta who wrote about the appearance of your use of an LLM. Normally I'd suggest doing what I did: asking them straight up for evidence of LLM assistance; however, I see that you've posted an invitation to something related but different; I'd give Suðurhafsljósæta time to respond to that before asking questions or making requests. -- Hoary (talk)WWU👍︎ 06:43, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
Hoary Okay I understand, I'll wait for it but I am currently busy with my personal work, I'll fix the error in the draft at night. 刘宸宁 (talk) 06:55, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
Hi all, just noting that I've replied to 刘宸宁 on their talk page.:) Suðurhafsljósæta (talk) 08:40, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
okay i'll look into it 刘宸宁 (talk) 12:05, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
I see you said I only used Google translation app to translate the Chinese text into English. Please note that Google Translate does employ Gemini nowadays, so your texts would indeed be considered AI-generated. We vastly prefer you to simply write with your own words. LkL-70547 (talk) 16:47, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
@LkL-70547 I'm really sorry, I think Google Translate isn't a web AI. I'm using Google Translate for the translation part .
Another editor pointed this out earlier: "You're using Google Translate, so many of your sentences don't sound right, so I'm translating them first, then rewriting the parts that need it most."
But I have to review my article. If any part seems odd, let me know on my talk page.
Another editor told me, saying he's an expert in English, and he'll fix the mistakes in my draft. 刘宸宁 (talk) 17:11, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
It does utilize AI now. It didn't in the past. Unfortunately I don't know which translators (if any) are non-AI these days. Regardless, for English Wikipedia we do require that you be proficient enough to communicate in English yourself - it doesn't need to be perfect. If you don't feel capable of editing without the use of translation tools it's better to edit projects in your native language instead. They often need editors far more than English WP does. ChompyTheGogoat[Bleat|Munched] 20:14, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
@ChompyTheGogoat I'm sorry about that, but I'm not using an AI generator, and I've already mentioned here that I'm only using Google Translate for translation, then I'll rewrite it.
I have not any intension for breaking the Wikipedia policy and thanks for the giving the advice and I'll focus to write english myself .
I received the same comment from another editor, and they suggested using the Wikipedia Chinese platform, but I explained it to them, and they accepted my vision – I want to provide Chinese sources from the Wikipedia English platform, and I received the Barnstar.
You can see our conversation here. istalk刘宸宁 (talk) 20:39, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
I do understand that you aren't generating the content from scratch, but because it utilizes the same technology it can be prone to the same errors, which is the reason it's generally not allowed (and presumably why your draft was flagged). If you do manually review and revise it top to bottom that is permitted, just be sure that everything is properly cited to WP: RELIABLESOURCES. Other language projects may also have different standards, so sometimes articles (or parts of them) that are allowed there may not qualify for inclusion on English WP. Translations can be tricky because of this, regardless of whether they're done manually or automated. Having an experienced editor assist you will certainly help though. ChompyTheGogoat[Bleat|Munched] 20:47, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
Unable to remove templates after non-admin closure
Comment: User edit count is 10 before involving in AfD discussion: 1 to userspace; 9 to WP space; 0 to mainspace. I have undone this user's closure of AfD. 海盐沙冰/ aka irisChronomia / Talk / Uploads 09:09, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
I am not sure how to get a draft undeleted. when trying to contact an administrator requests the draft URL and I am not sure how to retrieve it since it is deleted.
Hi @Susana Manogil Campoy: I assume you mean your deleted sandbox draft, User:Susana Manogil Campoy/sandbox? You don't need the URL, you just need that page title, inside double square brackets, ie. [[User:Susana Manogil Campoy/sandbox]]. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:25, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
Adding friction to AFD process for articles affected by WP:BIAS
Hi! I've been working on rescuing articles that have been AFD'd lately and finding that there is a heavy amount of bias involved in what gets nominated. I look for articles that are non-western in focus, or are about women, and so often these are extremely notable subjects that the nominator has failed to research appropriately. It's so frustrating. Has there ever been a move to add a condition to the AFD process such as "is the article's subject from a category often affected by bias?" I'm currently working on rescuing Mary Mgonja, a Tanzanian plant scientist. I've rescued Leyla Soleymani and Mabathoana High School and I'm upset by how casually these articles are dismissed without the slightest bit of work. I'm not alone in noticing this of course, but I would like to see action to make it less easy to list articles for deletion that fall into underrepresented categories. If anyone is working on this, I would like to help. Thank you for reading. H0n0r (talk) 11:25, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that different notability standards should pertain to subjects "affected by bias", in other words, for Wikipedia to apply a counter-bias of some kind? If an article on, say, a female social media influencer from an African country gets taken to AfD, is that evidence of bias on the part of the nominator? And if the community then agrees to delete the said article, is that the community also being biased? Or could it be simply that there are many articles in Wikipedia on social media influencers of various origins and demographics that do not meet our notability criteria, and some of them almost certainly deserve to be deleted? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:55, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
That is not what I'm suggesting. I am suggesting that AfD nominators have biases that are unchecked. I am pointing out that women and other subjects affected by bias are over-nominated in a casual way. Research backs me up here (see Gender bias on Wikipedia "A 2021 study found that, in April 2017, 41% of biographies nominated for deletion were women despite only 17% of published biographies being women.") and I'm wondering what is being done about it? H0n0r (talk) 15:40, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
Rereading what I wrote, I realize I was answering only the first part of your question. I don't know where you came up with 'female social media influencer from an African country', but yes, I'm saying article nominators are provably biased, and that the community working on AfD appears to be also, and that this seems to just... continue. Wikipedia's multiple deletion of Donna Strickland prior to her Nobel win continues to get press coverage and nothing changes. I'm asking if anyone is working on changes, and if so where, and can I help? H0n0r (talk) 15:49, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
You write "I look for articles that are non-western in focus, or are about women . . .". That in itself means you are not selecting a random sample. How do you know that there is not an equal proportion of (by your criteria) unfairly nominated articles in areas that do not fit into those categories?
You may, of course, be right, but your methodology does not seem to warrant blanket accusations of (presumably anti non-Western and anti-women) bias.
I'm sure most editors are not consciously applying biases, but we are all only human and a volunteer crowdsourced project is never going to operate to perfect standards. How would your proposal actually be effected? Who would decide which categories are underrepresented, and judge whether nominated articles had not been properly assessed, beyond what is already done?
Remember also that proof of Notability requires Reliable sources, and the World is such that Reliable sources themselves have biases, particularly of omission – we can only work with what there is. I myself am particularly interested in science and scientists, and despair over the poor cover that the media devotes to scientists of all sexes and ethnicities. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-41275-62 (talk) 13:45, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
@H0n0r When you say "notable", it seems you might mean it in a way that's not only different, but in fact almost directly contrary to what it means on Wikipedia. I wouldn't call that your fault, because Wikipedia uses the word in a non-standard way.
Here's my ultra-short summary of the difference: Wikipedia rejects the idea of deserving coverage. Only those who already had lots of coverage are notable here. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 15:30, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
Right, this is semantics to what I'm actually bringing up. Leyla Soleymani and Mary Mgonja have had lots of coverage. The nominators simply didn't look for it. H0n0r (talk) 15:37, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
WP:BEFORE and WP:DILIGENCE describe what nominators are expected to do as part of the AfD process. If you have suggestions about how to beef up these requirements, I suggest you make them on its talk page. You are probably correct that many AfD discussions start without adequate checks and I suspect that is not related to any specific type of article. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:09, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
Thank you! This is just the sort of thing I was hoping for. Thank you very much. H0n0r (talk) 17:01, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
I suspect that WP:BEFORE and WP:DILIGENCE are often inadequately applied, and disproportionately so, and that the disproportion is related to the demonstrated bias that @H0n0r has already linked to here.
H0n0r, I am currently working in different areas of Wikipedia from you and don't have any good leads on other Wikipedians who might be trying to correct this bias, but I am interested in any constructive responses you find here. I'm honestly aghast at the pushback you've had so far. Suðurhafsljósæta (talk) 17:02, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
Thank you @Suðurhafsljósæta. I've never nominated an article for deletion. I'm wondering, are there boxes to check as there are when uploading a file to commons, affirming that one has done one's due diligence? Looking at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, it appears to be a very simple (way too simple) process. Surely there should be a way to slow this down and make nominators jump a few 'Before' hurdles? H0n0r (talk) 20:49, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
How to move out of my sandbox
I have been working on an article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BFP1/sandbox) in my sandbox, which will be titled Loach & Clarke. Brass Founders. I have been using templates which are useful, but they make editing difficult for me (eg moving and deleting images) compared with the old text editing. Can this be accessed when needed? However, although it is obvious the article needs tidying up, I would like to move it into Wikipedia 'proper'. The Wikipedia instructions do not seem to relate to my layout. Therefore, I would appreciate help in the move. BFP1 (talk) 11:41, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
That kind of full stop was ordinary in centuries past, but is now probably best described as an affectation. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:47, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
everyone!!!!! plz make more info 4 provinces of tarragona bc i am the only one editing villages in tarragona!!!!1
Advice on sources for a Partridge Homes article disclosed conflict of interest
Hello, I’m new to Wikipedia. I am a director of Partridge Homes, an estate and lettings agency, and have disclosed my connection on my user page.
Before creating a draft through Articles for Creation, I would appreciate advice on whether the following sources provide sufficient coverage under Wikipedia’s company notability guidelines:
Some of these articles cover the same announcements. I’m unsure whether they offer sufficient independent coverage or would be considered routine business news.
Would these sources support a draft, or would more substantial reporting be needed? Thank you for your guidance.
Unfortunately, these are fairly WP:CORPTRIV. Also mostly not independent since the facts are stated mostly in the form of quoting someone from Partridge Homes. And even if they were better sources, the last two have no byline and are written in a manner that looks more like a press release than independent reporting. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 13:59, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
DRV process
Hello, Dare2Leap here.
I am new to the DRV process and after reading WP:BFDI, I thought that I'd create a DRV, since the article was similar in topic and BFDI was undeleted after new sources were presented. But I got messages saying that "DRV is not AfD round 2". I asked for explanation, but didn't receive a response, and I couldn't find the policy for it. It was posted despite the proposal text being similar to BFDI. So can anyone here explain this? I also have a draft named Draft:Hermitcraft under AfC and I wonder if that is the cause. I am sorry in advance for any inconvenience that I caused.
@Dare2Leap I'm looking at your DRV now, and specifically at your "three best sources";
You've championed the La Repubblica source, but it offers literally nothing in the way of SIGCOV about Hermitcraft as an organisation, a server, etc. It's literally just a local interest piece about how they're building an Italian village on the server. Myself and others have explained the kind of sources you need at length, it's disheartening to see that you come back with yet more low quality sources like this.
You should be aware of WP:BIKESHED. Consider all the time you're spending trying to push this draft through, and consider how much you could've contributed to the encyclopedia using that time if you weren't stuck on this one thing. At some point it's more sensible to WP:DROPTHESTICK.
Of the two dotesports articles you gave as your "best" sources, too; the first one is literally just a listicle. You seem to be fixated on the wordcount because of WP:100WORDS but you would first of all do well to heed that that is an essay, and secondly note that it says On examination, the 100 words may be judged to be not significant (e.g. rambling, off topic, not actually secondary source material covering the topic), but if there are less than 100 words, do not offer it as a possible GNG source.. The point of this essay is that anything below 100 words is probably not sigcov, not that everything above 100 words is sigcov.
Just from these two sources alone I'm really concerned that after all this time and debate you still don't seem to be familiar at all with the kinds of sources we need to demonstrate notability. Given that and the number of declines already on the draft, I am going to go ahead and reject your draft. Please take this time and effort to edit something else and become more familiar with our standards for articles. Athanelar (talk) 16:26, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
@Athanelar I am sorry for the discomfort that I caused; I did not mean to. User:Whipmywillows said on the video game wikiproject talk page that the Dot Esports article seem to be contributing a lot here. I have started another draft, Antimatter Dimensions, and it got accepted by User:Sulfurboy. I did my best here considering the limited coverage relative to its cultural impact. I have also done a lot of other things during that time, including getting OWID data visualization onto articles and updating 2026 Ebola epidemic statistics. So don't just judge me by one thing only, that is one of my request. Also, I did not just submit three sources, I also submitted seven more that have the potential to be notable. This has become a headache for me, but I will return if I have the time and nee sources have arrived. Thanks. |)are2|_eap(Talk) 17:02, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
You're not being judged by one thing - not yet anyway. If someone does a lot of small things right, but they also do one big important wrong thing over and over and over - even after many patient explanations - that person is eventually going to get judged for it unless they really change it. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:32, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
@Dare2Leap Causing discomfort is not the real problem. The problem is forcing others to waste their time fixing the mistake you kept repeating after you already knew not to do it. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:41, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
@TooManyFingers I likely (saying likely because I do not want to say "I DO NOT KNOW IT" as if I was the one above all else or the ruling authority) do not know it, but If I did, once again I am sorry. I will return if I have the time, and I will try alternate methods, like getting the Minecraft server to WP:GA status or editing the Hermitcraft/Minecraft wiki. I am also sorry for any uncivil actions that I did if any. Thanks. |)are2|_eap(Talk) 17:50, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
Not knowing about something, after being clearly told many times - you see that this is potentially a big problem for you, right? "I'm not listening" or "I can't read" would not be good things to say about yourself. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 18:15, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
What do I do now? What about taking a break? I don't do well with differences in opinion, and I am obsessed with Wikipedia right now and it's negatively impacting my life after being involved in so many discussions and declines and rejects. I often get the urge to edit other articles because I did not get what I wanted. I want to reduce my involvement here, but I can't (for now), because then I get a notification saying that my draft whatever was declined/rejected or someone left a talk page message. |)are2|_eap(Talk) 18:33, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
If you feel you need to take a break, do so. You can place the {{wikibreak}} template on your userpage to inform other users if you feel the need to do so. Otherwise, editing other articles is exactly what you should be doing. Creating new articles is the hardest thing to do on Wikipedia, and when you're specifically trying to create new articles about things you're very passionate about, it's easy for a lot of enthusiasm and ego to get tied up in that and cause you to do things or behave in ways that you don't necessarily want to do. I encourage you to edit in topic areas that you're less passionate about. Athanelar (talk) 18:37, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
About receiving decline messages: When an article gets declined, you are allowed to give up trying to fix it. If you really do give up, meaning that you will never touch that article again, then you are free to ignore the decline messages and just pretend that article never happened. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 21:51, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
My draft was completed and I want to move on main page
Hello other editors, my draft is now complete and I'd like to submit it to the main page.
If any active editors, please check my draft once and help me move it forward on main page.
This was my first draft, and I was having difficulty finding references. With someone blessing, I've written the article in its basic form, and now other editors can add additional information to this draft.
I hope my article will be on the main page, and if you notice anything strange, please ask me on my talk page so we can discuss what can be done to fix it. Draft:Three Ancestral Lineages of Yunnan. 刘宸宁 (talk) 17:51, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
Your draft has been reviewed and "declined"; that means it needs more work before it can be considered for publication. Please see the feedback left at the top of the draft page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 18:51, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing Yes, I already got the message that my page has been declined.
So I want other editors to tell me which part is wrong, that's why I commented on Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk, let's see what others suggest about my page and One person will help me to correct the English grammar, but he was busy right now, so he will correct it on my page soon. 刘宸宁 (talk) 19:06, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
The decline notice already gives all the information you could possibly be asking for. Their explanation is already very specific, and I don't even see a way to make any of it clearer - something which I tend to complain too much about. So it's better to use that than to ask here, unless there's some very specific part that you didn't understand. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 21:42, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
Just in case: There's a box, and the first words in the box are "This draft reads like ..."
Everything inside that box - that's exactly the stuff you came here to ask about. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 23:47, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
Looking for an independent editor: George "Hound Dog" Lorenz (Buffalo disc jockey)
Hello. I'm the grandson of George "Hound Dog" Lorenz (1919 to 1972), a Buffalo, New York disc jockey who played rhythm and blues and early rock and roll on WJJL, WKBW, WINE and WBLK from the late 1940s until his death. He has no Wikipedia article. Because of my family conflict of interest I don't want to write it myself, and I'd appreciate advice on the best way to find an independent editor who might be interested.
* New York State Broadcasters Association Hall of Fame: https://halloffame.nysbroadcasters.org/post/george-hound-dog-lorenz
* People Today magazine, March 1957 (profile calling him the "Granddaddy of Rock 'n' Roll")
* Record World, June 10, 1972: "George Lorenz Dead" (p. 2) and Kal Rudman's "Money Music" column (p. 21): https://www.worldradiohistory.com/Archive-All-Music/Record-World/70s/72/Record-World-1972-06-10.pdf
Our family also keeps an archive of his recordings, clippings and letters at hounddoglorenz.com, and I'm happy to share scans of any of the printed sources with whoever takes this on. The editor would have full independence over the content.
Thank you for any guidance. ~~~~Jeffsur (talk) 19:44, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
Family archives are very hard to use as sources because they're private property and not available for public access; Wikipedia would be forced to more or less pretend that that material doesn't exist. I don't know the specifics of how it's done or where, but donating that archive to some institution might enable it to be used. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 20:26, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
I failed to mention the other half of the reason: Sources used on Wikipedia must be available for any reader to go and confirm firsthand for themselves; they can't belong to individuals who could deny access or pass away, and it wouldn't be safe to provide the world with your home address anyway. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 22:49, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
Stub in need of more citations
Is it reasonable to put a 'Needs more citations' label on a stub? I am only asking because I notice many stubs with very few citations (some only have one) and I just wasn't sure if this was acceptable. I know it is a stub but my personal opinion is a stub should still be required to meet some sort of citation requirement. Tacotyler (talk) 20:46, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
should we update it? I’m wondering what the intent of the editor is. If it’s to redirect to her portrait in general, then this redirection is out of date (and we should update it). But what if someone uses it INTENDING to link to the old portrait specifically? Then I will mess up their work
i need some advice from someone with more experience Cherry567 (talk) 20:52, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
Is the editor still around, the one whose work you don't want to mess up? If they've edited somewhat recently, then it would be a good idea to just ask them. But if they haven't done anything for years, that's different. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 21:37, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
Courtesy link: User:Shailendrasaraf/sandbox
Courtesy ping: FULBERT 
Comment: User edit count is 10 before involving in AfD discussion: 1 to userspace; 9 to WP space; 0 to mainspace. I have undone this user's closure of AfD. 海盐沙冰 / aka irisChronomia / Talk / Uploads 09:09, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
