Wikipedia:Teahouse

Assistance for new editors unable to post here

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,

Marty Watt 22:13, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

Posted by Marty Watt, following Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1307#Article_On_Poetry_Seems_Incorrect_But_Conflict_Of_Interest (of a few days ago). -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 22:32, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

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)

Posted in POETRY TALK

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Poetry#h-Is_It_Possible_To_Have_A_Looser_No_Pressure_Talk_Here_About_An_Article?-20261010003900 Marty Watt (talk) 00:43, 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)

I’ll take a look into this. Johnathan L. Schuster (talk) 05:13, 22 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 Watt Marty 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?"

Marty Watt (talk) 06:53, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

This is a link to the edit that removed mention of you from the article https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Performance_poetry&diff=prev&oldid=1379489322 Packrat3860 (talk) 06:58, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

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)

The discussion is quite long so my apologies if I missed this, but has the discussion covered:

• Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Reliable Sources
• Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Using the subject as a self-published source

Most of all the lead notes:

“Contentious material about living (or, in some cases, recently deceased) persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion” ~2026-48862-70 (talk) 06:23, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

Why would this be mentioned ? Nothing was contentious. Nothing poorly sourced. The mentor I had put it in. The words he used were truly bizarre. He could have just said "Marty Watt was a 'Performance Poet' in the 1970s" with link to the source - a Washington Post article about me. But he wrote something about me being "associated with the term." I guess he meant the term: Performance Poetry. What could it mean? The Editor took it down because the writing was so bad, and added that it was an obvious attempt to namedrop Marty Watt. Had nothing / zero to do with me. Truly strange thing. Oh, and my name was misspelled. No source problem was mentioned. Marty Watt (talk) 07:00, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

here it is: "Revision as of 08:10, 10 October 2026 edit undo thank

Athanelar (talk | contribs)

→20th century: very poorly written paragraph which seems to exist for the sole purpose of namedropping Marty Watt

Here's what was removed:

"The writers of the Beat Generation held performance events that married poetry and jazz. In the late 1960s, other poets outside San Francisco and New York City were experimenting with performance pieces. David Franks, at the time a faculty member at the Maryland Institute College of Art, was not poetry recited to a musical counterpoint but literary pieces in which the performance was a necessary and integral part of the work itself. Marty Watt was connected to the term performance poetry in 1976 through his physical expression of recited poetic works. " Marty Watt (talk) 07:10, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

 Marty Watt (talk) 20:59, 22 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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Best,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My drafts are "stained" by AI-generated text. What now?

Recently, I've used AI-generated text in many of my edits. I didn't understand the proper guidelines and thought it was okay as long as I reviewed the content.

Anyways, I'm not doing that anymore. The AI-based edits have been reverted, and since a few days ago I'm doing it the proper way.

My thing is: I have some drafts which used a considerable amount of AI. I can't say exactly how much, because I really don't remember, but it's enough for them to be deservedly flagged.

I don't know what to do about it, really. It feels like it would be easier to just turn the drafts into blank pages and start over. The idea of fixing the current articles little by little, trying to make them "transition from improper to proper" frankly sounds both stressful and inefficient.

But I don't know if I'm allowed to do that. Maybe someone will think I'm trying to "hide my past actions", and I don't want that.

What should I do?

Thanks in advance.

SIPE ILUMINARI (talk) 02:36, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

The slang name for this on Wikipedia, naming the correct approach in this case, is WP:TNT. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 02:57, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

That's actually funny lol

I'll do it. Thanks

SIPE ILUMINARI (talk) 03:05, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

It feels like it would be easier to just turn the drafts into blank pages and start over.

Not to be pithy but that's probably a good start? It's unfortunate but it's the easiest path forward. Just delete the draft and re-do it. If you know the sources it'll be over before you know it. Packrat3860 (talk) 02:58, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

Oh, I'll do it then.

I just got scared to do that without consulting someone.

Thanks. I'm actually motivated to do it right this time.

SIPE ILUMINARI (talk) 03:04, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

We don’t like TooManyFinger-slop like that. Please actually write the articles yourself. CuteLittleBlobs (talk) 00:16, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, what is "TooManyFinger-slop"? Most of his edits here are quite helpful. In solidarity, DollarStoreBa'al (Converse) 14:03, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

I think this is just an unfortunate overlap in usernames and typing styles. CuteLittleBlobs I'm sure is referring generally to AI "slop" (AI image generation has a tendency to mess up human hands, including adding fingers) and not the user TooManyFingers (who I agree is helpful) Packrat3860 (talk) 14:10, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

Blanking and starting over is the correct approach. I have fixed up LLM articles to acceptable standards 3-4 times and won't be doing it again: it is more work than starting over, and risky too. WP:TNT is the accepted solution and won't be seen as an attempt to hide. All the evidence is preserved in the article history anyway: even for fully deleted articles admins can examine it.

You can save the references and read them to make sure they're okay (sometimes LLMs will cite wildly inappropriate things, including articles that don't even mention the subject) and use them for a human-written article, alongside references found yourself.

Good luck with your new articles! M kuhner (talk) 19:08, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

@SIPE ILUMINARI You can do the same as someone who rescues an LLM draft – stubify it and start again. Mme Maigret (talk) 13:00, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

@SIPE ILUMINARI I believe linking the drafts here would be helpful. GreatWhiteEditor (talk) 20:47, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, but I've already "TNTd" all the drafts I had at the time and started over. It was better that was.

SIPE ILUMINARI (talk) 22:28, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

It helps to realise that the bullshit asymmetry principle applies to anything generated by AI, meaning that using it will be a bigger timesink than not using it. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Thriller Night!} 20:54, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

How do I make a wiki article

So I’m trying to make an article about Planetballs, but I don’t really know how to make an article at all. I’m new to editing Wikipedia so I don’t really know a lot.

I also don’t know how to add images and I kinda wanna do that too. Sevenare (talk) 14:03, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

(Planetballs is countryballs but with planets.) Sevenare (talk) 14:05, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi Sevenare, and welcome to Wikipedia and the Teahouse!

Writing an article, especially for a newcomer, is quite difficult. It requires a firm understanding of our policies, and articles that do not abide by them may be deleted.

A guide to creating an article is available at the page Wikipedia:Your first article. I used it when writing my first article, and it was quite helpful.

Before you write anything, it's critically important that you establish notability (i.e. whether Planetballs is important enough for a Wikipedia article). This is typically done by citing significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources. If Planetballs is not notable, then a Wikipedia article can not be written about it.

The advice I often see given to newcomers looking to write an article is to wait. Spend a few weeks or months finding your way around Wikipedia, editing existing articles and communicating with editors to develop a better understanding of the way it works, then come back to thinking about writing an article. The Wikipedia:Task Center is a good place to start. Don't hesitate to let us (or me!) know if you have any further questions. crtbob@talk:~$ ls contribs 14:32, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

I know that you know this, crtbob - just maybe clarifying one part of what you said: It's not exactly whether Planetballs is important enough, because two people could argue about that and never agree. It does sort of involve being important, but instead of arguing we just see if reporters for reliable publications have used it as the topic of major articles. If they haven't written major things about Planetballs, then we won't write about it either. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:57, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying this. "Important" was probably oversimplification on my part. crtbob@talk:~$ ls contribs 09:31, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

You can just go to Wikipedia:How to create a page and the you'll see a "enter page name" in the lead and then all you do is just enter the page's name that you wanna create and then click the button below ("create page"), though, as a planetballer myself, I don't think it's notable enough yet because there's not much reliable sources, I want that page too, but Wikipedia rules won't allow it, so, sorry Homlos is my planet (message me bro) 04:07, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! Sevenare (talk) 11:28, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Atomesus draft: unrelated earlier submissions, and are the sources enough?

Hello. I'm new to Wikipedia and I work for Atomesus AI Pvt. Ltd.; my paid/COI relationship is disclosed on my user page. I have written a neutral userspace draft at User:Ethos6/sandbox and have not submitted it.

I noticed that several earlier drafts on this topic were declined or deleted, including one created by a sockpuppet of Amansharma111. To our knowledge, nobody at the company created or authorised those accounts, and we don't know who did. This is our only account, and I will make at most one disclosed AfC submission.

I'm aware that the current sources are mostly syndicated press releases, which may not satisfy WP:NCORP. Could an experienced editor tell me whether the draft is worth submitting now, or whether we should wait until independent coverage exists? Thank you. Ethos6 (talk) 18:01, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

@Ethos6 Please take a look at WP:PAIDADVICE. Athanelar (talk) 18:05, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, Athanelar, I've read it. I understand the point: an article has to be built on what independent sources have published, not on what the company says about itself, and that coverage doesn't exist yet. One correction to my post above: after posting here, I did submit the draft at User:Ethos6/sandbox for AfC review. I'll leave it to the reviewer's judgement, and if editors here think it's premature, I'm happy to withdraw it and wait for independent coverage. I won't resubmit or create any other drafts on this topic. Ethos6 (talk) 18:08, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

Update: I've withdrawn the AfC submission. The draft will stay in my sandbox, and I'll only consider submitting it again if independent, in-depth coverage is published. Thanks again for the guidance. Ethos6 (talk) 18:10, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

Unedited drafts are deleted after 6 months; you may wish to make a local copy. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 20:34, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

But personal sandboxes aren't automatically deleted, surely? ColinFine (talk) 18:01, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, ColinFine and Andy. The draft is in my personal sandbox at User:Ethos6/sandbox. Could you clarify whether the six-month deletion criterion applies to this page? Ethos6 (talk) 18:34, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

@Ethos6: From my reading on WP:G13, if you didn't put {{AfC submission}} on your sandbox, it should stay as it is regardless of inactivity. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:17, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for checking WP:G13, Tenryuu. I didn't add {{AfC submission}} to my personal sandbox, so I understand G13 does not apply to it for inactivity. I appreciate the clarification. Ethos6 (talk) 19:57, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello,

I’m the founder and CEO of Atomesus, and I’ve disclosed my connection on my user page. Because I have a conflict of interest, I’m asking for independent help with the article rather than making changes myself.

If you have time, could you review the Atomesus article:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomesus and suggest or make any improvements you consider appropriate for its neutrality, sourcing, and compliance with Wikipedia’s guidelines? I understand that any changes should be based on reliable sources, and I’ll respect the community’s decision about the article.

Thank you for your time. Ethos6 (talk) 16:40, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Article now discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atomesus. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 16:48, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Volunteer to write a Louai Alsaman biography

Hello, I’m Louai Alsaman, an architect based in the Washington, D.C., area and the founder of RENDEREXPO and Don Loul Architects (DLA). My professional work includes architectural design, planning and visualization.

I’m seeking guidance on finding an experienced volunteer willing to independently research and write a complete English Wikipedia biography about me, if the published evidence supports one. I am the proposed subject, so I have a conflict of interest. The editor would exercise independent judgment about eligibility, content and wording.

The material identified so far includes:

1. Advisor AI Solutions Podcast — interview with Jordan Salvador, published 20 December 2025: https://advisoraisolutions.io/podcast/how-to-cut-50-off-architecture-permitting-time-digital-construction-and-ai
2. SHIFT with Elena Agar — episode 259, published 8 September 2026: https://podimo.com/en/shows/shift-with-elena-agar/episode/488eac92-412d-5d73-870a-f6f0f83e59ba
3. Chicago Build — organizer-published speaker biography and listings for October 2025 panels: https://www.chicagobuildexpo.com/speakers/louai-alsaman
4. RENDEREXPO’s About page — my company’s website, provided for background and identification: https://www.renderexpo.com/about

Could you advise where to request an interested volunteer to undertake the full research and writing process, including preparation for Articles for Creation if appropriate? Please also advise whether stronger independent coverage is needed before making that request.

I have an off-Wikipedia, AI-written working biography with citations and verification notes that I can share as background. ChatGPT helped with research and expressing this request.

Thank you for your guidance. Boo-Ga-Loo-86 (talk) 04:46, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

You are welcome. AI is not welcome. Sorry, not answering until you write by yourself. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 04:50, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your response.

So I am Louai, and I am looking for help for a volunteer to write an English biography about me, and I need help in doing so.

Would you be able to help and support

Many thanks in advance. Boo-Ga-Loo-86 (talk) 04:56, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

@Boo-Ga-Loo-86 As a volunteer project, most Wikipedia editors write about whatever takes their fancy in the moment, very few are willing to edit on request.

The first thing you should be mindful of is that now you hsve expressed interest in having an article about yourself, you may be contacted offwiki by official-looking services promising to get your article published in exchange for payment. Every one of these services is a scam and you shouldn't pay them. See WP:SCAM.

Other than that, the best advice anyone can give you is to go about your career as though you had never heard of Wikipedia. Because we forbid promotional writing you have nothing to gain in terms of publicity from having an article here. An article about you would be nothing more than a neutral summary of what reliable sources complwtely unaffiliated with you have written about you, and would contain essentially nothing of what you would actually like people to hear about you. Such an article might eventually exist if someone takes note of your career and finds those kinds of sources and makes the article; but there is really no reason for you to worry about accelerating that process because, again, you have nothing to gain from it. Athanelar (talk) 05:46, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

I am happy to provide the writing myself, from things I have done in my career, and I fully understand what you mentioned, I still believe there would be a value from putting my work / what I have accomplished so far on Wikipeedia

Are you intersted in helping ? Boo-Ga-Loo-86 (talk) 06:05, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

Athanelar's response is far better than mine, but mine is much shorter:Wikipedia will completely ignore what you wrote, just throw it in the trash. We will only show what was written by reporters. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 06:07, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

I still believe there would be a value from putting my work / what I have accomplished so far on Wikipeedia There would absolutely be value in that for you, but that's not what Wikipedia is for. Like I said, we have very little interest in what you would like to say about yourself; only what other people with absolutely no connection to you whatsoever have said about you. 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) 06:30, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

Understood. What is the best way to move forward if i still would like this Wiki page exist? Boo-Ga-Loo-86 (talk) 21:57, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Whether you would like it to exist is entirely immaterial to whether it should exist. Based on what you've told us so far there's no indication you meet our criteria for inclusion. Athanelar (talk) 00:03, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Please also advise whether stronger independent coverage is needed before making that request.

The "golden rule" is that that we need significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject. I think that none of these articles would qualify as independent. 1 and 2 are interviews with you, 3 is a bio from a speaking engagement, and 4 is your company's website. A Wikipedia article about you would be based only on what other people without a particular interest in you have said about you, which is also why having an article about yourself is not always a good thing. Packrat3860 (talk) 05:38, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

There is much more. I listed things that can help. Boo-Ga-Loo-86 (talk) 06:06, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

Unfortunately, none of those things help. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 06:09, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

thought you are helping Boo-Ga-Loo-86 (talk) 06:16, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

Yes. I'm helping by telling you that if major reporters have not written major articles about you, then Wikipedia will refuse to write about you. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 06:20, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

You asked for a biographic article "if the published evidence supports one", and "whether stronger independent coverage is needed".

You are now complaining about being given clear and correct advice on both points. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 12:44, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

No Complaints here, curious how this can move forward! Boo-Ga-Loo-86 (talk) 21:58, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Understood. What is the best way to move forward if i still would like this Wiki page exist? Boo-Ga-Loo-86 (talk) 21:57, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Understood. What is the best way to move forward if i still would like this Wiki page exist? Boo-Ga-Loo-86 (talk) 21:57, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

The best thing you can do is to go about your life as if you had never heard of Wikipedia. An article is not necessarily something to desire. 331dot (talk) 22:01, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

For what you're requesting, there is no such thing as "move forward". You have officially tried, and you have officially found out there is no possible way. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 03:06, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Question about coding I think?

Yesterday when I got to the site just to see if there was any news updates I saw something about being recruited for mandatory contributions to an article about sweets. I was trying to hide it so I could see the news box, but couldn’t find a button to do that. This morning I was reading about coding (I think coding anyway) that could put the news box back at the top, but I can’t find where I’m suppose to put the css script, my attempts to add it to the main page keep failing and I’m not even sure that’s what I’m suppose to be doing with the code or script or whatever it is that the community has to collapse the section. Can someone help me get box back up with css stuff? ~2026-56494-15 (talk) 12:19, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-56494-15 You'll need to register an account if you want to do that, since the code you're talking about needs to be added to a specific page on your account which tells Wikipedia how to render the main page for you.

The "news box" is still on the front page, though. There's no need to hide the articles for improvement box (which is not mandatory at all, by the way) to see it. Athanelar (talk) 12:23, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

So there’s nothing I can do about it as a reader? No way to get rid of it, or minimize it, or relocate it, unless I create an account? <sigh> It seems like the sight just gets more and more unfriendly to casual folks as the years go by: we can’t create articles anymore, we can not edit anonymously anymore without having some new temp account sprout up each time we save, and now we’re stuck with a main page thing I despise because it’s blocking the news box which is the biggest reason I come here. Maybe I need to find someplace else to look for tidbits and news then, because I refuse to conscripted into some paid advertisement related bs for articles I could care less about. Frankly, you’d have done better with a pop up ad for this sort of crap so we who don’t want to bothered with it could scrap it. Maybe next time include readers and causal viewers in a discussion on unwanted changes before decided that this is what we need on an encyclopedia site. ~2026-56461-83 (talk) 20:00, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

You could probably use a browser extension or something local to your device, but that's not something we Internet strangers can help with.

You could also try going to (or bookmarking etc.) Portal:Current events directly.

Tangentially, a screenshot may be helpful, as your CSS, browser, and device settings may differ from mine.

For example, even logged out on an private web browsing session on my mobile device, I don't have to hide anything to see the In the news section. Even before the latest interface update, it's never been at the top—I've had to scroll down past other Main Page items for probably years at this point. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 20:21, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

I do get what you're saying, but obviously it's not blocking anything at all. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 22:09, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

I’m on an iPad, one of the old ones (like early 2010s I think), so when I load I get the main page displayed as though it were on a desktop, hence the question. When I come here I see that articles for creation tab and tfa side-by-side, or at least I didn’t until whoever decide this atrocity would be a good idea for the site decided to plop down the edit this article crap right there at the tippy top of the page. I don.t want to see it, I have zero interest in collaborating, less interest in being told where to go to collaborate, and no interest in candy stores. ~2026-56614-87 (talk) 23:39, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

So how might we help restore your good cheer? -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 01:09, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Again, I feel the need to clarify that nobody is being conscripted into some paid advertisement related bs. What's happening is that an article from WP:Articles for improvement is being featured on the front page as a way to encourage readers to get involved with editing. There's no advertisement, nobody is paying for it, and nobody is being forced to participate in it. Athanelar (talk) 00:12, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

It may not be what the person(s) suggesting it intended for it to be, but everyone in my family who has seen this has had the same thought: it’s a paid advertisement on the site. The theory on my end among my two daughters and one son is that the in exchange for financial assistance the company or companies who have a stake in this are aloud to post up their articles so others can see and edit them exclusively. It doesn’t help that until just last week or so we were getting those pop up ads about sparing change for the site, so we all suspect a correlation between the abrupt departure or the pop up ads asking for donations in exchange for the suddenly present and very visible edit this article on this topic thing. It’d be the family equivalent of raising my kids allowance by 500% and then announcing extreme cutbacks having nothing to do with the increase in allowance. May be that there is no correlation between the two points, but the timing is very suspect. ~2026-56812-58 (talk) 06:00, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

I'm very excited for all the shadow dollars WMF is gonna give me for updating some random page. I hope that the abstract concept of a candy store has deep pockets. Packrat3860 (talk) 06:30, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-56812-58 There is a conspiracy, but only one. The actual conspiracy is to keep you occupied with thoughts of many imaginary conspiracies, so you won't have time or energy to do anything else. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 07:32, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

This week's article was for Confectionery store. I.e., the overall concept of a candy shop; not one specific candy shop. Who are you suggesting is paying money to promote the concept of candy shops? Big Candy? Athanelar (talk) 12:19, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

What a strange conspiracy to think. You are more than welcome to read the long discussion about adding this to the main page at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Adding_this_week's_article_for_improvement_to_the_Main_page where hundreds of editors got involved in planning this change. qcne (talk) 12:24, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

Editors, not readers, and there in lies the problem. I don’t edit, I just read, in point of fact it took my two days to figure out how not to get throttled and shut out of replying (I guess I now need to keep this temp account thing, I just wish it would stop loading all this table and contribution and history crap to the left and right of every page I visit). If you had solicited readers for this, I’d have been happy to tell you not to do it because I don;t want to forced into editing something in exchange for being on site. ~2026-56812-58 (talk) 00:31, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

"I do not contribute to the discussion and so nobody considered my point of view" Packrat3860 (talk) 01:12, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

I did not. Even though there was a discussion to be had, I saw no links for it anywhere nor an invite to non-registered people to participate. If you can prove me wrong so be it, but I maintain we were cut out of the discussion since I recall no notice to readers about the change. ~2026-56812-58 (talk) 03:57, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

Who's forcing you to edit something to be on Wikipedia? Athanelar (talk) 03:46, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

According to some thread at WP:Village pump (idea lab):

You can hide the new TWAFI section by pasting #mp-afi-h2, #mp-afi { display: none; } into your common.css.

Presumably if you have a browser that supports custom CSS you could put that same snippet in there. Packrat3860 (talk) 05:43, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

This still doesn’t help, I can get to the page but it says I need some sort of interface key to do anything with the page. ~2026-56812-58 (talk) 00:34, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

You need a real account to do what they described. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 00:38, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

…and there’s the catch. I suppose I’m just going to have to get use to seeing this stupid solicitation every time I come here then. As an fyi, I certainly doesn’t make me want to register an account. That said, if you must have it then I suppose it’s one less reason for me to be here. ~2026-56812-58 (talk) 00:44, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-56812-58 That "solicitation" is just a suggestion that readers, if they like, are being invited to improve an article (by editing it). The suggested article for improvement will change periodically.

Wikipedia is trying to encourage readers to become editors. Personally, I am not 100% sure that this type of encouragement needs to be on the main page, but that's a place that most readers will see, so that place was chosen.

As mentioned, the current "article for improvement" talks about the concept of candy shops. That article does not exhort readers to go out and buy anything, so it's not an advertisement, and certainly not for any particular store.

You can feel free to ignore this encouragement. No one is forcing you to edit anything. David10244 (talk) 07:06, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

No, if you have a browser that lets you overlay custom CSS you could do it without an account. That's not necessarily user friendly to set up though (you need to be willing and able to debug CSS which is kind of a pain). Packrat3860 (talk) 01:13, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

Accidentally forgot to declare AI use

I have created some articles with the assistance of AI and submitted the drafts but I forgot to declare that I used AI assistance. What should I do? Is there a place where I can declare AI used to assist in writing articles? GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 09:41, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Well, you first ought to know that using AI to write article content isn't allowed, so it's not a matter of declaration as much as it is identifying them so they can be appropriately cleaned up. Maybe you could tag the AI-assisted ones on the list in your userspace which you noted below? Athanelar (talk) 10:02, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

I don't use AI to write article content, I use it to help write article content. For example, expanding abbreviations or identifying people in the original source. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 15:05, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Could you elaborate on what you mean by that? Athanelar (talk) 15:19, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps the topic just below this one, in which "list of created articles is getting too long to manage manually", should be labelled "Exhibit 1". TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 15:40, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

@GoldenBootWizard276 As other editors have noted, it’d be helpful if you could explain what you mean by I don't use AI to write article content, I use it to help write article content. To me the two are functionally synonymous.

CSGinger14 (talk) 15:24, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

I mean that AI doesn't generate my writing, it is still my writing but I use the AI to help read sources. For example here are a few: GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 21:47, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

I can see some problematic things here. You asked ChatGPT "What does KB mean?" and the explanation it provided cites no source. You can't therefore cite that information on Wikipedia, because it's as good as speculation. If you say "X was Knight of the Bath," you don't actually know that to be true beyond what ChatGPT has said, and without a reliable source it fails our standard for verifiability. These are the things you need to be very careful about when using AI for research. Athanelar (talk) 21:52, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

It says here that "KB" in History of Parliament Online means "Knight of the Bath" but yes, I will be more careful in future. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 21:54, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

Great, as long as there's a published, reliable source to cite, you're good. My point is to not take ChatGPT at its word. If it gives you a factual claim that a name in a particular source refers to a specific person, or a certain abbreviation refers to something, make sure you follow up and find a source that confirms that claim. And when it gives you sources to use for an article, don't just take its summary of what the source contains at face value. Make sure you actually find the source and read it and get the information directly from there. ChatGPT's summary of a source cannot be trusted at face value. Athanelar (talk) 22:07, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

@Athanelar: There is nothing that needs to be cleaned up. The articles are my writing and I don't need to tag them on my created articles list. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 21:50, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

@GoldenBootWizard276 they only said that because of your initial message on this topic. GreatWhiteEditor (talk) 20:53, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

Submitting first en-article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This seems a little harsh.

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

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

Use of the word "controlled" apparently a euphemism

I am trying at add a clarification to a the article at Frederick Hamilton-Temple-Blackwood, 1st Marquess of Dufferin and Ava.

I don't know how to do this in a way that works for Wikipedia and its readers.

I found the following information, but I'm not clear how or where to use it. I am limited for time and so I used AI to find the following: Lord Dufferin’s family "controlled the return" for Killyleagh; it means it was a "pocket borough," so his family simply hand-picked whoever they wanted to hold that seat in Parliament, guaranteeing themselves political power. As Google's Gemini (2026) explains, the family was capable of choosing exactly who held the seat. It refers directly to The History of the Irish Parliament 1692–1800 by E.M. Johnston-Liik, which explicitly details how Killyleagh was a closed borough entirely dominated by the Blackwood and Stevenson families, allowing them to nominate ("hand-pick") its MPs until the borough was disenfranchised by the Act of Union in 1800.

Can you offer feedback and/or suggestions on how to procede? Paledin (talk) 15:14, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Highly recommend finding the book yourself and verifying what it says. You may find a volunteer willing to track down the loose ends of your AI research, but I wouldn't hold your breath. We too are limited on time. If you have an improvement to suggest specificity is paramount. Packrat3860 (talk) 15:19, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

AI chatbots are a prediction engine. What they do is essentially educated guesswork. If you can't verify the information yourself from a human source, take it with a mountain of salt. Athanelar (talk) 15:20, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

I am a major and venomous hater of euphemisms, and I think "controlled" is not an inappropriate word here. I also think that if you believe readers might need a small bit of explanation on this idea you could give it. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 15:24, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

It's a suitable word once you understand the concept of pocket boroughs. Edith Johnston was a real historian, and her History of the Irish Parliament is a real book; if you can find a statement in it that supports the idea of "Killyleagh was a pocket borough", then it'd be perfectly reasonable to link "controlled the return" to "pocket borough". DS (talk) 16:23, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

BUT, Paledin, DON'T cite the book unless you have personally read it (or at least the relevant passage in it) and know for certain that it actually says what AI Gemini has told you it says. AI 'hallucinates'. As well as making up imaginary sources, it also sometimes claims that a real source says X when it doesn't, and says that something is in source Y when it's really in source Z. Please read WP:NOAI. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-56420-06 (talk) 01:36, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

I don't see "controlled" as a euphemisn. The barons (the subject's ancestors) controlled who was elected to parliament for the borough. Maproom (talk) 08:06, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Is it fine if you do this to get more edits?

I'm trying my hardest to become an extended-confirmed user (I have 358 edits via this way at the time of writing), but is it fine if I type random things and random things I wrote about elsewhere (not anyone else's work) separately for each word in my user sandbox to try to get more edits? I know that editing my sandbox with random words from things I've written and random words won't help improve my editing experience, but I know I can also use the sandbox to practice editing to improve experience and have a lot of editing experience from my actual edits as I can cite reliable sources well and know which sources are reliable and which ones are not and I know how to use Twinkle and I know how to correct things and I have already created 1 article. I won't start editing contentious topics as soon as I become extended-confirmed by the way. Gaming Fan 23 (talk) 16:52, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

No. That's called gaming permissions and will lead to you being forced to apply and be approved for EC rather than having it automatically granted.

The point of EC status is to act as a benchmark for experience. If you game that benchmark, it doesn't demonstrate you have the required experience for the responsibilities that comes with it. You may think you're ready, but I promise 358 edits is peanuts. Athanelar (talk) 17:01, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

What do I do now that I already did it? Gaming Fan 23 (talk) 17:04, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

See my reply below, which I posted right at the same time as yours. I've reported your gaming and you'll probably need to manually apply for EC in the future. Athanelar (talk) 17:05, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

I see after typing this reply that you've already been doing it. In all likelihood you will likely now be blacklisted from automatically receiving EC and will be required to apply for it after you've made 500 actually productive edits. I'm not sure why you're rushing to get EC so much if you don't intend to edit in CTOPs? Athanelar (talk) 17:05, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

What is the process of applying for it like? Gaming Fan 23 (talk) 17:07, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

You'll need to tally up 500 actually productive edits in mainspace (not total edits, since your gamed edits won't count), then submit an application at WP:RFP/EC, which will essentially mean demonstrating that you understand what EC is for and why you should have it. Athanelar (talk) 17:11, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

So does this mean I need around 800 constructive edits (since I had 300 constructive edits before) to be able to apply? Gaming Fan 23 (talk) 17:13, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Each time you ask the question, you make it less likely that you'll be granted EC. DS (talk) 17:15, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Your question shows that you don't know what a constructive edit is. And when you don't know what a constructive edit is, you will never have a successful application, even if you get ten million edits. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 18:42, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

You are wrong. I do know what a constructive edit is and have made many of them. See all of my contributions Gaming Fan 23 (talk) 18:43, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Gaming Fan 23.

The most important question that is asked when anybody applies for any particular right in editing Wikipedia is "What is the specific task or kind of task that you intend to do for the benefit of Wikipedia, that you can't do or can't easily do without that right?"

Your focus on the number of edits, without apparently considering that question, is why people are predicting that you are unlikely to be given EC.

Please read the essay Hat collecting. ColinFine (talk) 18:47, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

I will never make more of these edits and will move to making more constructive edits like I was before that. Gaming Fan 23 (talk) 18:49, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

And I can also easily answer that question Gaming Fan 23 (talk) 18:50, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, I am also considering that question as well. Does this make it any more likely for people to predict there is a good chance I’ll get it (not trying to promote myself) Gaming Fan 23 (talk) 21:03, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

@Gaming Fan 23, it might help if you described what it is you want to edit WITH EC, that you can't edit without it. An example might help?

If you have been restricted already, because of gaming, there won't be a set amount of edits to make for you to gain EC. It will be a case of keep editing and ask at some point in the future. Some admins might ask for a set amount of edits or set an amount of time before considering EC. Knitsey (talk) 21:12, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

oh, there you go SFR has set an amount for you. Knitsey (talk) 21:13, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Some pages/articles I want to edit with EC include ECP-protected pages that are not contentious topics or related to contentious topics, such as YouTube. Gaming Fan 23 (talk) 01:28, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Duplication I noticed in auto creation of the "Be bold" page.

sometimes, the Be bold page of a learning user is created twice, resulting in the exact same thing twice, I don't believe this is the user, as its the exact same edit reason as the creation and time, is this a bug or not? ~2026-56525-12 (talk) 18:20, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi ~2026-56525-12. Please post a link to an example. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:46, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Qantas Fleet

Qantas fleet. So I noticed that the former fleet list is very weird and I think it needs to be changed to a more suitable table. How do I open a discussion about this without using the talkpage because no one checks it? Is there like a banner I can put over the former fleet section? ~2026-53148-17 (talk) 20:35, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Which source is your better information from? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 21:13, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Or are you saying keep the exact same information but improve the format? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 21:20, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

so it shows "fleet in 1970" and no compensative list that shows its whole history, trying to add and keep info but make the format better ~2026-53148-17 (talk) 22:53, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Where would the added information come from? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 23:01, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Reliable sources, references (adding the retired 747s and 737-400s ie), and past information :). It would be at the top of the fleet history page, and replace the "Fleet in 1970" table that imo is unrelaible ~2026-53148-17 (talk) 11:35, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

I meant "which reliable sources" TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 13:06, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

1. Flightglobal
2. Various sources (including ones that are already used on the page) marking retirements of different planes

~2026-53148-17 (talk) 19:50, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Sorry that I missed this. As long as you have sources that are all known on Wikipedia for being reliable, and you're not adding anything without a source or because you know it yourself, then it should be fine.

I have no opinion about changing the table layout. The old one looks fine to me, but that doesn't mean it couldn't be done better.

But to make your life easier, I have a suggestion. If you plan to change the layout, could you do that as your very first change, and then wait 7 days before doing the other parts? That way, if anyone reverts or complains, you don't waste all the work of adding a lot of new data and getting it reverted too. "Add it and wait" is a super-effective way of "asking everyone's opinion". :) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 15:13, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

good! ill make the table on it, just add in one row and say its incomplete, and if no one complains ill keep going ~2026-53148-17 (talk) 15:36, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

That's not how I imagined it, but I see that what I did imagine was not a very bright idea. Yours is more practical. Thanks. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 15:56, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

ok ~2026-53148-17 (talk) 14:06, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

Accusations of non-constructive editing

Hello. I noticed that a couple of articles weren't in a relevant category (namely Category:Filmed suicides and, inter alia, [[live television suicide]]). I made the edits and one of them was reverted immediately with an accusation of being 'non-constructive', which I don't understand; I asked the editor to please clarify and I was slapped with an accusation about vandalism and a warning about being blocked. Could someone assist me, please, either in explaining why my edits are in fact inappropriate (and, if that's the case, please revert the lot of them, not just the one), or, otherwise, reinstate what I do believe to be a useful addition to the encyclopedia? ~2026-56535-51 (talk) 21:23, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

I also don't see why the category being added is described as "non-constructive", and referring to this as vandalism doesn't seem accurate. MarioWonderExpert, perhaps you could comment here? The post on your talk page seems to have been a legitimate inquiry, rather than vandalism. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 22:05, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Reminds me of the first edit I ever made on this account, was accurate and directly cited, but got reverted as an unconstructive edit (no explanation), after which point the editor's offer to discuss it on their talk page proved to be an empty promise.

I won't say it's the case here, but it seems that some editors operate under the assumption that newbies mess up their first time around as a rule, so they just auto-revert an an excuse to introduce them to site policy without really considering whether or not they actually knew what they were doing in the first place.

CSGinger14 (talk) 23:22, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

My half-wild guess: I think MarioWonderExpert was probably going through a list of potentially-suspicious edits flagged by an automated search, saw that this one (a) got flagged, (b) temporary account, (c) sensitive or controversial topic, (d) categories being changed - and perhaps took the statistical point of view that that's not usually going to be a good edit.

Maybe not the proverbial "perfect storm", but still a "pretty good storm". TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 04:46, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Nevertheless, that’s the sort of thing you build a bot to do so you it doesn’t have institutional weight behind it for newbies to get scared off. If they’re going to be doing it themselves then they have some reasonable responsibility to actually go look at the edit in question.

CSGinger14 (talk) 07:52, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

I always agreed with you, just added an idea. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 13:08, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

@MarioWonderExpert Once again, a response here would be appreciated.

CSGinger14 (talk) 02:03, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

I have a problem with Sinking of the Titanic

Now moved again, to Talk:Sinking of the Titanic#I have a problem with Sinking of the Titanic. -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 01:31, 23 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.

---

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Teahouse § I have a problem with Sinking of the Titanic

I know I made a post earlier, but I genuinely don't understand why Wikipedia says, "...up to 1,635 people" because Titanic carried 2,207 and it's documented 712 passengers and crew were saved, not 572 (that's 2,207-1,635). It makes absolutely no sense why it's even in there when we can do simple math because we've already found out the numbers, 1,317 passengers and 890 crew members. Someone tell me where they even got 1,635 in the first place. ~2026-54055-12 (talk) 21:58, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Oh, yes, I remember I had to post this on Sinking of the Titanic's talk page... sorry. ~2026-54055-12 (talk) 21:59, 22 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.

Source code view cosmetic changes

Source code view editing seems a bit different for a couple weeks now with more to see though no real changes to the process, is it just on my end? ~2026-48821-22 (talk) 23:11, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi @~2026-48821-22. Could you offer a few more details as to what issues you've been experiencing, will be helpful to whoever ultimately answers your question.

Best,

CSGinger14 (talk) 23:13, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

It's more colorful like you'd see viewing some code in Notepad++ over Notepad. ~2026-48821-22 (talk) 23:15, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Maybe you accidentally hit the button that activates the WP:Syntax highlighter. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 23:26, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Hitting the same button turns it off if you ever need to do so. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 23:28, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Where can I see the most recently created articles?

I want to see if I can translate some new articles into Spanish or just edit them John George III (talk) 03:45, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

If you go to Special:Log you can query the "Page creation log". Packrat3860 (talk) 04:26, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

@John George III Are you aware of the Translation page suggestion feature? It might give you ideas for slightly more relevant articles, such as those that other editors have requested be translated to/from a given language.

Best

CSGinger14 (talk) CSGinger14 (talk) 07:44, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

How likely is it that I’ll be granted EC

I have been making constructive edits and am no longer using my sandbox to game the system to become an EC user. I got a reply to a message on my talk page after a question I asked in that message. I do know what a constructive edit is (TooManyFingers said my question shows I do not know what a constructive edit is but he is wrong) and as an answer to that most important question is that I intend to make good edits to ECP protected pages that are not contentious topics or related to CTOPS such as YouTube. Gaming Fan 23 (talk) 05:18, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

By good edits I mean nothing vague I mean constructive or improving edits Gaming Fan 23 (talk) 05:25, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

I think that the more you ask about whether you can get a certain kind of permission the more wary you make people about giving you that permission. If a friend asks to borrow my phone once I'd probably just give it to him. If he asks several times throughout the day about the circumstances under which he's allowed to borrow my phone I'm gonna start to worry about what he plans to do with it.

My advice is to relax. Just keep being a constructive contributor and there's no reason to worry about it. Packrat3860 (talk) 05:32, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

I have to agree with Packrat3860. Just worry about learning Wikipedia and editing different things, and less so about extended-confirmed. If you just add Census data 500 times, you probably wouldn't be granted EC. The whole idea of extended confirmed is the hope that an editor spends that time learning how Wikipedia works. The more your edits show that you've learned what a reliable source is, how to evaluate NPOV, how to cite sources, how to write in an encyclopedic tone of voice, how to weigh what's useful for an article and what isn't, how to navigate disputes with other editors, etc. the more likely you will be to get ECR. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 06:54, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

@Gaming Fan 23 Are there specific edits you’d like to be made to those pages, or are you hoping to interact with them more generally? In the former case, you can always make an edit request on the article talk page.

Best,

CSGinger14 (talk) 07:47, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Part of what others are saying here is that when someone is strongly looking forward to gaining a certain status, it really looks like they don't care about Wikipedia. Obviously that can make Wikipedia people think something is not right. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 11:54, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Help with historical biography – Kalidas Ghosh

Hello,

I am a new Wikipedia contributor researching my great-grandfather, Kalidas Ghosh (also known as Kalicharan Ghosh), a Bengali revolutionary associated with the Khulna Conspiracy Case of 1910.

I have created a draft:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Kalidas_Ghosh

I have original historical records from the National Archives of India and references from published books by Phoolchand Jain and L. P. Mathur.

I have disclosed my family relationship on my Wikipedia user page.

I would appreciate guidance from an experienced editor on assessing the historical sources, improving the draft, and determining whether it meets Wikipedia's notability requirements.

I have also used AI assistance while preparing research notes and drafting material, and would like to ensure that my contributions comply with Wikipedia's policies.

Would anyone be willing to guide me or suggest the appropriate WikiProject?

Thank you. SumanGhosh1975 (talk) 06:18, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

I may not be of the most help, but one thing I notice is that the article only contains one source, which is less than ideal. I would aim for as many good sources as possible, particularly areas with no or few citations. Also, looking at punctuation, I noticed that for some citations, the punctuation is before, and for others it's behind. I am unsure which is correct, if either, but please be consistent throughout the article. Also, there are no wikilinks to related articles. Again, I'm probably not the best for advice, but that's what I noticed. MaxLorax (talk) 06:53, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank You SumanGhosh1975 (talk) 07:00, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

I have edited the text. Can you do the help me in editing? SumanGhosh1975 (talk) 09:27, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I had also done a similar thing a year ago, which was Manindra Gupta, now from my understandings, It entirely depends on how many sourcing do the subject have. BengalMC ^talk 09:39, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

No, not just how many, but also the quality. Three or more sources can be enough if they are the right kind, but if sources are the wrong kind then not even a hundred will help. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 11:26, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

And the one source there isn't very good, due to the fact it's a government report of a government proceeding.

And make sure that LLMs are nowhere near the writing. There are already signs of LLM writing with sentences such as The court proceedings also describe correspondence between Ghosh and other members of the group concerning the procurement of firearms. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 07:01, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Is there a problem with accessing Page statistics and Pageviews?

When I go to an article eg 'Steve McQueen' and select View history I am unable to access Page statistics or Page views. Is anybody else having this problem or is it just my PC? BFP1 (talk) 07:15, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Have been having the same issue. Figure XTools is down at the moment from the whole PHP thing. Not sure though. Would love it if another editor could elucidate that fact. Have raised questions about it on two forums and have been met with total silence, so figure there’s probably something going on behind the scenes.

CSGinger14 (talk) 07:41, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Lots of things including XTools and toolforge have been down due to the ongoing PHP2Shell stuff, yes. Toolforge is back up as of now, but maybe XTools is still updating. Athanelar (talk) 08:44, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

I suspected it might be due to the PHP thing. We will just have to wait and hope it gets sorted. BFP1 (talk) 10:56, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

When I kept waiting on Page statistics the following eventually appeared. I copied and pasted it below.

Wikimedia Cloud Services

Error

This web service cannot be reached. Please contact a maintainer of this project.

Maintainers can find troubleshooting instructions from our documentation on Wikitech.

proxy-5.project-proxy.eqiad1.wikimedia.cloud BFP1 (talk) 11:06, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Maybe the Wikimedia Commons help desk will be the place to find out more.— Preceding unsigned comment added by BFP1 (talk • contribs) 11:12, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with Commons; Athanelar gave the correct answer, above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 20:09, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Guidance on a biography about myself

Hello, I am the subject of a proposed biography and have a conflict of interest. I would like guidance on Wikipedia’s notability requirements and the correct process for reviewing the history of the existing Manish Vatsalya page. I want to follow Wikipedia’s policies and rely on independent, reliable published sources. Thank you. Vatssalyafilms (talk) 08:56, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Don't use AI to talk to us. And don't try to write about yourself, it almost universally ends in failure and the chances are that you want to do it for completely the wrong reasons; see WP:PAIDADVICE, which is not specifically about autobiographies but the same advice applies. Athanelar (talk) 10:01, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Vatssalyafilms, see WP:PERSON for notability. See also WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. If "reviewing the history of the existing Manish Vatsalya page" means "viewing the history of the existing Manish Vatsalya page", then simply click 【here】: a sorry history indeed. But Athanelar's advice is good. Autobiographies are a waste of time for all involved. -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 10:53, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

@Vatssalyafilms: Please review the following::

• Wikipedia:Autobiography - Note: Wikipedia strongly discourages creating an autobiography.
• Wikipedia:Conflict of interest
• Wikipedia:Notability
• Wikipedia:Notability (people)
• Wikipedia:Reliable sources
• Wikipedia:Your first article

— ERcheck (talk) 17:32, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Main page in Android app

This question is about using the Android app rather than editing Wikipedia, so apologies if this is the wrong place to ask.

I have set up the Wikipedia Android app so that it opens in the main page, that is, the one headed "Welcome to Wikipedia" and showing "From today's featured article", "Did you know ...", etc. If I remember right, I customised this some years ago to show just the items ("tiles"?) that I wanted to see. So far so good.

But starting a few days ago, it has started to show a new section, headed "Help us improve this article?". I don't remember asking for this, and I don't particularly want to see it every day. It's not really a problem when viewing the page in a browser on the desktop, but on a mobile screen it is unwanted clutter.

Is there any way of getting rid of this? In particular, is there any way of getting back to the page that I previously used to customise the main page?

Thanks in advance for any help. Mike Marchmont (talk) 11:08, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

You can hide the new "This week's Article for Improvement" section by pasting #mp-afi-h2, #mp-afi { display: none;} into your common.css page. I'm not sure if this will hide it on the app, though, but it's worth a try. Athanelar (talk) 11:13, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

I would hope that the settings or preferences thing that you used still exists. Check at the top of the app screen for a three-lines or three-dots menu that contains Settings or Preferences or some similar item. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 11:18, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Or at the bottom... It could be part of the "More" menu. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 11:59, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

It may also be found at an icon representing your account. I forget and I don't have the app anymore. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 11:22, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Asking here is fine, but for future reference see mw:Wikimedia Apps/FAQ/Android. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 13:48, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you all for your replies. However, I can't see any of the menus or settings that you mentioned. The only settings I can see are under "Customize your home feed". That covers most of the items I see on the home page ("Featured article", etc), but not "Help us improve ... ".

That said, the CSS suggested by @BlackWiki99: works perfectly - but only in the browser /desktop version. I realise now that it won't work in the app because I never logged into the app. I would try that next, but it seems I am being particularly stupid today because I can't for the life of me see how to log into the app. I'll keep trying. Mike Marchmont (talk) 16:00, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Please help me improve my article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question regarding draft editing.

Regarding the time between last editing and deletion of a draft that hasn't been edited in 6 months, does this timer reset every single time you edit a draft? For example, if you create a draft and it says it may be deleted if you do not edit it in the next 6 months, does this mean the timer will reset every single time you edit the draft (for example, say I don't edit a draft for a month and the time remaining until abandoned draft deletion goes back up from 5 to 6 months: is this true?) Gaming Fan 23 (talk) 16:23, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

That is my understanding, @Gaming Fan 23 ColinFine (talk) 17:12, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Request for preliminary feedback on film article draft

Hello Wikipedia editors, I have prepared a draft article about the 2026 animated short film Intersection of Lives and would appreciate editorial feedback before submitting it through Articles for Creation. I am involved in the film's production and have contributed to the draft. I would particularly appreciate guidance on the article's structure, neutrality, references, and presentation of its animation techniques. Thank you for your time and assistance. Gombie1885 Draft:Intersection of Lives (2026 film) - Wikipedia ~2026-56726-83 (talk) 16:23, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

You have zero independent reliable sources and that is what we base articles on. Theroadislong (talk) 16:39, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

	This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hello Theroadislong, Thank you for your comment. I would respectfully disagree with the suggestion that there are no reliable sources supporting the article. IMDb is partially user-generated, but it also employs editorial staff who review submitted information and determine whether it meets the platform's requirements. In the film industry, many details concerning films, filmmakers, credits, and awards can be verified against existing records and documentation. As a member of the film industry for the past 28 years, and based on my extensive experience with IMDb, including numerous submissions and verification procedures, I consider it a valuable and generally reliable source of factual information about films and their creators. I recently received a response from IMDb Support confirming that its staff review submissions and that the company is committed to maintaining accurate and trustworthy records. As the representative explained: "Our aim is to be the most complete and reliable source of movie, TV, and entertainment information on the web." (the email available upon request). The representative also confirmed that IMDb generally does not remove information it considers factual. Furthermore, filmmakers have strong professional reasons not to misrepresent their achievements. Falsely claiming awards, festival selections, or other professional recognition could seriously compromise their credibility and reputation within the film industry. I would also like to point out that Intersection of Lives had its theatrical premiere and qualifying run at Cinelounge Sunset in Los Angeles from September 21–27, 2026. The cinema publicly advertised the film and its daily screening times on its official website. Although Cinelounge does not maintain a publicly accessible archive of past showtimes, I preserved screenshots of those listings and obtained an official confirmation letter from the cinema documenting the theatrical engagement. These materials are available for verification upon request. In addition, the film was listed by the Independent Shorts Awards International Film Festival in its June 2026 archive, providing another publicly accessible record of the production. I believe it would be a mistake to characterize IMDb as little more than a celebrity-oriented, user-generated platform rather than recognizing its established role as a professional film-industry database. IMDb is widely used to document filmographies, production credits, professional achievements, and the history of motion pictures. The film industry operates within a serious professional and legal environment in which false claims concerning credits, awards, ownership, or professional accomplishments can have substantial reputational and, in certain circumstances, legal consequences. Studios, production companies, filmmakers, performers, and their legal representatives have compelling reasons to challenge materially inaccurate information. While no database is immune to errors, the existence of user contributions should not automatically diminish the professional significance or factual value of IMDb's records. Nor should Wikipedia's own editorial standards be interpreted as establishing that other recognized film-industry information resources lack credibility simply because they operate under different verification procedures. I would therefore appreciate clarification as to whether your concern relates specifically to the film's notability under Wikipedia's guidelines or to the reliability of the individual references already included in the draft. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Kind regards, Gombie1885 (talk) 17:14, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

See WP:IMDB, we require significant coverage in reliable sources, not user edited listings or your own website. Theroadislong (talk) 17:18, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

@Gombie1885 It isn't legitimate to say you "respectfully disagree" with a fact. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 18:32, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

It is also promotional and 100% AI generated and has been tagged for speed deletion. Theroadislong (talk) 16:48, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

	This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hello, I respectfully contest the proposed speedy deletion of Draft of Lives (2026 film). I am particularly concerned by the categorical assertion that the article is "100% AI-generated." The draft has been created, personally reviewed, substantially revised, and edited by me. Its descriptions of the film's production, animation techniques, and creative development are grounded in my firsthand knowledge, original artistic work, and production documentation. I hold a Master of Arts degree in the humanities and I write screenplays, articles, poetry, and other original literary works. I have my own intelligence I also respectfully disagree with the characterization of the draft as promotional. Its purpose is to document the film's production, artistic development  and animation techniques, rather than to advertise or solicit commercial interest. in addition, I believe the article documents a potentially significant development in contemporary American animation. Intersection of Lives (2026) is an early example of an American animated dramatic short created with AI tools under the artistic direction and creative control of its filmmaker. Its distinctive approach combines original digital drawings, human-directed character performances, and three interconnected narratives exploring social divisions, economic hardship, personal relationships, and the loss of human connection. Although earlier animated films have employed AI technologies, including Critterz (2023), the particular combination of dramatic storytelling, multiple intersecting character arcs, and human artistic direction in Intersection of Lives deserves consideration and documentation. I would welcome examples of comparable animated short or feature films employing AI tools to achieve a similarly structured, character-driven narrative. I understand that Wikipedia requires neutral language and appropriate independent sourcing. I am willing to revise or remove specific passages that do not meet those requirements. However, I believe concerns about notability, sourcing, or editorial style should be distinguished from the categorical assertion that the article is entirely AI-generated. I respectfully request clarification of the evidence supporting that assertion, the specific speedy-deletion criterion being invoked, and the passages considered promotional. I would appreciate the opportunity to address these concerns through the normal editorial review process rather than having the draft deleted without further consideration. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Kind regards, Gombie1885 (talk) 17:26, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Please read WP:Writing articles with large language models, WP:Do not lie about AI, and WP:Talk page guidelines. Responding with walls of (extremely obvious) LLM generated text is just gonna get you ignored and blocked. Talk with us in your own words please. Packrat3860 (talk) 19:28, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

I guess that having AI write articles about films made by AI and then having another AI justify why Wikipedia shouldn't delete them just reflects where we are: doomed! Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:37, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps the literary symbolism also includes the spine of The Three Musketeers, with the clearest view of the change; the name "Dumas" gets a B added in the middle and an extra S at the end, emblematic of the insertion of BS into everything else as well. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 13:58, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

@Gombie1885 All of the AI stuff aside, saying "Its descriptions of the film's production, animation techniques, and creative development are grounded in my firsthand knowledge, original artistic work, and production documentation" is fatal to the chances of your draft being accepted as an article in Wikipedia.

See WP:42. Then note that none of your "firsthand knowledge, artistic work, and production documentation" are published. Readers can't verify any of that.

You need to click on WP:42 and read what it says. Sources that you use as references need to be published. David10244 (talk) 09:31, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

Collecting named references

So I'm wrting a draft article. I have a few core sources that I expect to be citing throughout. My inclination is to want to define them once somewhere that makes sense and then everywhere else use it as <ref name="named-source" />. I notice by default it seems we would really like to use {{Reflist}} at the bottom to automatically aggregate whatever is found in the body above, and I tend to only see a listed bibliography at the bottom in older articles that I assume have never been updated.

Is creating a "manual" bibliography at the bottom of an article deprecated? Is there a good way to get the benefits of {{Reflist}} (picking up anything that gets added inline) but also have a named pool of references that sits outside of the text? I understand we still want to have inline citations, but I edit the source directly a lot and it clutters my screen a bit to drop them wherever they happen to be first referenced. Packrat3860 (talk) 19:20, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Off the top of my head, one way is list-defined references, which uses normal <references><ref name="named source">Cite source here</ref></references>. Another way is to use the citation templates in a Bibliography section and something like {{harvnb}} or {{sfn}}. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 19:27, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

I have see list defined references but my concern is that then whoever comes along after me will need to use list defined references for everything (or refactor large chunks of the article). Can I combine that with the automatic {{Reflist}} so that editors can do either? Packrat3860 (talk) 19:34, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Do you mean actual sources of material in the article for which you've forgotten the page numbers? Or do you mean things for additional reading, which form no part of the article? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 19:27, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

err, neither? they're CS1 citations for sources (with page numbers where appropriate) that I will be referencing inline. It's just that it's a reference that I'm going to be using in several spots. I could just include the "full" thing as a named a reference where it's first used and then <ref name="same-thing-from-earlier" />, but to me it seems more "clean" to put them in once place and then have all the inline references be of the short form.

Does that make sense? I'm not sure if I'm describing it very well. I could show and example of what I mean if it would help. Packrat3860 (talk) 19:33, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Ohhhh! Just normal defined references, but defined "down there somewhere". That makes complete sense and I've seen it done in a way that seemed OK to me. Unfortunately I forget where.

I'm just not sure that the ongoing effort to maintain that system would be worth the slight benefit, and you already basically said that. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 19:49, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Packrat3860. There is no problem mixing list-defined references with regular references defined outside the template. Some of the references can be there but later references don't have to be added there. They all end up displayed in the same reference list at the bottom of the article. The only complication is that editors using Visual Editor can't edit reference inside {{Reflist}}, a problems for later editors. Use the format <references></references> instead as shown at Help:Footnotes#List-defined references. StarryGrandma (talk) 09:47, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

Customizing wiki page

Hello! In the WikiProject Spoken, we were talking about changing the look of some of the links on our guide page. However, we are not very skilled with formatting, so I'm coming here for help. We want to change the look of the links in the 'Recording process' box to make them look like buttons or tabs (or similar) because it is not very intuitive that it is a menu. Could you point me in the right direction or help me out in any way? Much appreciated! Izzardus (talk) 20:32, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

This is going to be a controversial opinion, but LLMs are generally very good these days at producing complicated Wikitext. As long as the text is human-written I don't see any issue with asking, for example, ChatGPT to generate the correct Wikitext you want. As someone who has very little coding experience and almost no knowedge of Wikitext, I've generated complicated layouts with the help of AI. qcne (talk) 20:38, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

You'd probably want some basic inline CSS code. I can help with that, if you'd like to point me at the page that needs improvement. Giovanni Guasconti (a word with me) 20:47, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi! It's the page I linked to - there's a purple box at the top which has a 'menu' of pages in the guide (It says Prepare -> Record(Read) -> Upload-> Add -> Notify). It's not very clear that you're supposed to click on the links to get to other pages. I'm not sure what the best way of showing it visually is, but anything that makes it clearer is welcome! Izzardus (talk) 20:57, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Izzardus,

I've added a "Previous" and a "Next" button to the box (which is actually a transcluded template for some reason). It should appear now.

All the best :) Giovanni Guasconti (a word with me) 21:24, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Good weekend Izzardus (talk) 21:57, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

No problem Giovanni Guasconti (a word with me) 22:13, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Official YouTube uploads as sources for direct, straightforward claim

Hello, I'd just like to ask some guidance if videos uploaded to official TV programs' (including their respective networks) YouTube channels can be used as sources for specific claims on English Wikipedia.

In the article The Aguinaldos, I previously cited 2 videos uploaded to the official YouTube channels associated with Kapuso Mo, Jessica Soho (GMA Public Affairs) and E.A.T. (TVJ).

I used the E.A.T. video to verify the their guesting on the program. That's it. The KMJS video was used not only to verify their appearance but to support also some straightforward factual information about them which was showed directly in the program's documentary style segment. I couldn't find a web article featuring their story on the program so I used the episode.

An editor using CiteHighlighter, removed both citations, because according to the edit summary, it is unreliable. As we discussed this, the editor said that the website is largely user-generated. The editor suggested removing them to be on the safe side.

I know that YouTube is a hosting platform and that official uploads are not automatically reliable and considered as primary sources rather than independent secondary sources.

I'd just like to clarify if an official upload can be used with appropriate care, to verify a straightforward/direct claim that someone appeared on the program and factual information directly showed in a documentary style segment.Thank you! Eegnetwork (talk) 21:32, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

@Eegnetwork The official consensus is at WP:RSPYT. The cases you mention seem OK to me but discussion on the relevant article talk pages should be started if you have any doubts. Mike Turnbull (talk) 22:01, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

This use seems fine to me. GreatWhiteEditor (talk) 21:30, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

Help with blocks

I have a second account ( Yes, i have read the policies. ), However, it does not allow me to log in on my ip, instead showing the block message. It is a public place and account creation is disabled, however it's only for wikipedia. The account is "JacksonTJ330". I can log into other Wikimedia sites, but not wikipedia. What should i do? MisprintMint (talk) 22:32, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

That user doesn't exist here, did you mistype it? St☆rlet! (Talk to me!) (Library) 22:46, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi MisprintMint. Special:CentralAuth/JacksonTJ330 says there is no global account so the user doesn't exist at any Wikimedia wiki. If you think the name is really JacksonTJ330 then please link a website where the account works. Some people falsely assume that all wikis using the same MediaWiki software as us are Wikimedia wikis. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:52, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

I think i have misspelt it, the "TJ" is actually tj, which would be "Jacksontj330", which on wikibooks would be en.wikibooks.org/wiki/User:Jacksontj330 . MisprintMint (talk) 02:20, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

However, it seems that the block was only IP-Related, as it seems that i'm already logged in here. I thought that you had to log in on the same IP adress as you created the account in. Jacksontj330 (talk) 02:24, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

@Jacksontj330: You can log in from any IP address. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:13, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that with temporary accounts (the numbered kind that has no login) you lose that number if you change IP address. But regular accounts that log in are not affected by that stuff at all. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 20:42, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

Temporary accounts are cookie-based, so changing IP addresses will not change the TA you have. Per Wikipedia:Temporary_accounts#Account_creation, As long as the cookie exists, all edits made from this device and browser will be attributed to this temporary account, even if the IP address changes. OutsideNormality (talk) 03:05, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

Which English?

Hey there 

Which English are we supposed to compose? American or British English? I'm asking about the pages in general. Kwieditor (talk) 23:07, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

See MOS:ENGVAR. Athanelar (talk) 23:31, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Info on infobox

Article link: User:PixelsRCool/sandbox/Olalla, Teruel

Hi, I would like some help with the infobox on my userspace draft. I translated it from the Spanish article, and I thought I did pretty good, it being my first time. However, a lot of the things that go in the infobox come up as preview warnings, so I can't add things like coordinates or altitude. Just wondering if there was another infobox type I needed or something else.

Thanks! PixelsRCool (talk • contribs) 23:10, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Does the documentation at Template:Infobox settlement help?

Ask again if anything is not clear. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 07:55, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

Donations

I give a monthly donation̈. I was taken aback today when a message suggested that I donate two dollar and some odd cents to use the page. There was no place that I was a money donator so I left the page. Are we to donate funds to every article we look up? Do you not have a way to make monthly donations donors able to use this site without contributing again? ~2026-56773-44 (talk) 03:19, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

You are not compelled to donate to Wikipedia; Wikipedia is completely free. Whether you donate or not will not effect your ability to access the site. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 03:25, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

WP:Suppress display of the fundraising banner suggests that if you don't create an account, you should click the Thank You page every time you browser clears cookies. If that fails, please feel free to let us know, so we can update the help page. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 05:35, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia (the website) does not have any way to know, nor does it care (in the sense that access is free to everyone, regardless), whether a reader kindly donates to the Wikipedia Foundation (the organisation that hosts Wikipedia).

If you create an account, and stay logged in while you read, you can turn off the donation appeal banners. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 10:57, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

Nobody, either people who donate nor people who do not donate, needs to pay in order to look up an article. If you think you saw a message that said you needed to pay in order to read an article, there was some misunderstanding. Perhaps you saw a fundraising banner that suggested that you make a donation, but such donations are not required, and choosing to not donate will not prevent you from reading any article. CodeTalker (talk) 22:52, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

Translation

Hello! There is a page in Dutch I was looking to translate into English but I noticed I need to be an "experienced editor" to publish it. I am relatively new to editing but quite motivated to keep it up. What does it take to be an "experienced editor"? What would this entail? Colette (talk) 08:47, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

@Kol3tte12 There is a restriction on the Wikipedia:Content translation tool, explained at that link. Also, we don't want any form of automated translation but if you are fluent in both languages, you can go ahead. The key aspect is to check that the sources in Dutch are sufficient to show that the topic is notable enough for an English article and that you have personally checked them. More at WP:TRANSLATE. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:19, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

Very helpful response Thank you Mike! Colette (talk) 11:23, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

• Michael Colette (talk) 11:24, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

New flags of french departments.

Hello, could you change new flags of french departments more than traditional flags? ~2026-56733-01 (talk) 12:06, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @~2026-56733-01, and welcome to the Teahouse.

General requests like this are unlikely to get much response. If you want some change to an article (or several articles), suggest the specific changes on the talk page(s) of the article(s). ColinFine (talk) 14:21, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

~2026-56733-01, France has 101 départements. If a number of these have changed their flags, or changed the relative importance of what you call "new flags" relative to what you call "traditional flags", then perhaps bring the matter up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject France. I note that the article Eure-et-Loir shows File:Flag_of_Eure-et-Loir.svg whereas fr:Eure-et-Loir shows fr:Fichier:Eure-et-Loir logo 2019.svg (entirely different), and I guess that this is an example of the change that you have in mind: If you post to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject France, then add a little explanation, don't simply assume that readers will immediately know what you're talking about. -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 04:26, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

What's is Wikimedia

I want know more about Wikimedia project Johnagbajiinnocent (talk) 12:38, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

See WP:5 Furbchess (talk) 12:41, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

That page is about Wikipedia, whereas our guest asked about Wikimedia. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:26, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

Sorry my mistake. Furbchess (talk) 16:29, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

There is also an encyclopedia article at Wikimedia Foundation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 14:25, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

Personally I liked this guide to Wikipedia reprinted on WP:Signpost: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2025-05-01/Community view. LkL-70547 (talk) 15:20, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

Can you help me

	This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Jose Avianedo, widely recognized online as Spanky3400, is a 38-year-old community advocate, mobile barber, and public figure based in the Phoenix, Arizona area. He is particularly known for his extensive grassroots outreach and dedication to second-chance support in local neighborhoods like Maryvale. [[https://www.facebook.com/Spanky3400/videos/jose-avianedo-widely-recognized-online-as-spanky3400-is-a-38-year-old-community-/1426314108955848/ 1], [https://www.facebook.com/Spanky3400/videos/jose-avianedo-online-as-spanky3400-is-a-38-year-old-community-advocate-and-mobil/3618166858360966/ 2]] Key Aspects of His Work and Life Grassroots Community Outreach: Operating under a philosophy of "giving back without keeping score," Avianedo provides free resources to people in need, including mobile haircuts, meals, and clothing. He also organizes local community events, such as holiday toy drives for organizations like the Harvest Compassion Center. [1] Second-Chance Advocacy: Having spent time in the Arizona Department of Corrections, he openly shares his personal journey of transformation. He uses his past experiences as a mission to inspire others, championing rehabilitation and helping individuals rebuild their lives. [[https://www.facebook.com/Spanky3400/videos/jose-avianedo-is-a-38-year-old-community-advocate-mobile-barber-and-public-figur/1627377845714954/ 1], [https://www.facebook.com/Spanky3400/videos/jose-avianedo-online-as-spanky3400-is-a-38-year-old-community-advocate-and-mobil/3618166858360966/ 2]] Professional Life: He works as a local and mobile travel barber, utilizing his skills as a tool for his community service and outreach. [1] Personal Life: He is a dedicated single father to his daughter, Sela Guadalupe Ofaloto Avianedo, and centers much of his life, faith, and well-being around his role as a parent. [[https://www.facebook.com/Spanky3400/videos/jose-avianedo-online-as-spanky3400-is-a-38-year-old-community-advocate-and-mobil/3618166858360966/ 1], [https://www.facebook.com/Spanky3400/videos/jose-avianedo-is-a-38-year-old-community-advocate-mobile-barber-and-father-based/1420237480216671/ 2]] You can find updates on his latest community initiatives and video logs on his or via his do this for the kids single mothers single parents globally and locally may you help me narrow down make it fit on Wikipedia please and thank you Selaavi2021 (talk) 16:42, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi. Two points: first, Facebook is user-generated and therefore not considered a reliable source on Wikipedia. Second, editors are strictly prohibited from using AI or large-language models (LLM), such as ChatGPT, on Wikipedia. Please refrain from using AI on Wikipedia in the future.

If you really want to create an article for him, you'll need to find reliable, secondary sources about him, and write the article entirely without AI. Thank you. ^{In solidarity,} 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 ^{(They/them • Not a chatbot • Contribs)} 16:48, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

Can you upload CC BY-ND 2.0 Images to pages.

Hello, I was wondering if you could upload CC BY-ND 2.0 images and not get in trouble. Sadlon161 (talk) 17:00, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

No, because we do not accept any No Derivative Works CC licence. (We also do not accept the Noncommercial prong.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Thriller Night!} 17:04, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

What kind of licenses are acceptable? Sadlon161 (talk) 17:25, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

CC BY-SA 4.0 is the license we prefer. There are some acceptable alternatives (like works produced by the US federal government, as one random example) but CC BY-SA 4.0 is the gold standard. Athanelar (talk) 18:08, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Sadlon161, and welcome to the Teahouse.

See WP:IUPC for the whole answer. ColinFine (talk) 18:22, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

Since OP will most likely be uploading images to Wikimedia Commons, the whole answer is at c:COM:L. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 09:46, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

How do i make so that the entire wikimedia foundation is on dark mode?

Because on other wikimedias like wikibooks are on light which is very annoying for me Se eu fosse um peixinho e soubesse nadar (talk) 18:22, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

Every time I visit a different one, I set it to dark. There might be a better way but I don't know it. If someone else brings a better answer, I'll use it too. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 18:41, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

I haven't tried this, but for most things you can set your preferences on Meta wiki and set them to cascade to all the others. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 09:43, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

I think for some reason (maybe that the dark mode is still being tested?) that this doesn't work for this feature. I had already done as you suggested, but no cascade. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 23:07, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

How can I add "Labels" to my User Page?

Hello!

Y'all, I have wanted to add a "label" (I don't know what they're actually called) to my User Page. I saw a user with the label "This user is a Wiki Gnome" and "This user is an Australian". I want to add one to mine, but I have no idea how to.

Bye! Youm-e-Qiyamah (talk) 19:26, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

I also want to add images to my user page, but I also have no idea how to. Youm-e-Qiyamah (talk) 19:27, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

For your latter point, see WP: Images for beginners. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 09:41, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi! It seems that you're referring to userboxes. That link will tell you more about them and how to use them, and you can browse the userboxes at WP:UBX/Gallery. ^{In solidarity,} 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 ^{(They/them • Not a chatbot • Contribs)} 19:29, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you!

Also, funny coincidence, I was just on your userpage when you replied

Bai! Youm-e-Qiyamah (talk) 19:35, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

Are these sources sufficient to establish notability for a historical company?

I am planning to draft an article for Wikipedia about the American Basic Science Club, a mail-order educational science kit business.  It was based in San Antonio, Texas and operated from 1957 to the early 1980s.  Before I do, I would like to know if the company is considered notable by Wikipedia’s standards.

Conflict of Interest:  My late father, James S. Kerr, was the founder and president of the company.  I would submit the article as a draft through AfC and follow the COI rules.

Do these four independent sources meet Wikipedia’s notability requirements so that an article on the company can be submitted?  I can provide additional sources if necessary.

Thank you for your consideration. Able5127 (talk) 21:06, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

1. Appears to be primarily coverage of Kerr himself, not his business.
2. A review of the product is coverage of the product, not the business.
3. Ditto.
4. Independent doesn't just mean "not published by the subject" it means the information itself is independent of the subject, hence we typically don't consider interviews suitable.

So no, what you've provided so far doesn't seem to be enough coverage for an article about the business.

Please don't use AI to talk to us, either. Athanelar (talk) 21:41, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

OK. Thank you for your quick response. Able5127 (talk) 22:27, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

What if the article was titled, "American Basic Science Club kits". The article would then be about the products and not the company (or James Kerr). Would that pass Wikipedia's notability requirements based on the sources I provided? Able5127 (talk) 00:32, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

Please ignore my last question. Thank you. Able5127 (talk) 02:52, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

Avoiding "Speed Deletion" tag

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How to eliminate space?

In The Royal Game is a space before footnote number 6; i.e. [6]. Previously, [6] was on a separate line from what preceded it. To fix that problem, I inserted &nbsp; -- which is usually preceded by "p." and used to keep "p." and the page number on the same line. That fixed the problem, but it resulted in the space before [6]. Should I not have used &nbsp;? If not, what is the alternative? Maurice Magnus (talk) 23:19, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

There definitely should be no space of any kind. I just fixed it. If the footnote accidentally spills onto the next line, we just live with it. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 00:08, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers Can you cite authority for that? In my opinion, the extra space before [6] was less offensive than having [6] on a separate line. Maybe there is a way to solve both problems. Maurice Magnus (talk) 00:15, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

If we found such a solution, you personally would be delegated to apply it by hand millions and millions of times to repair all of Wikipedia. It's better to leave it alone. Zooming your page a tiny bit is a better solution. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 00:23, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

You are the only person seeing it that way; other people's display sizes are different. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 00:25, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers Thanks for the info. How do I zoom a page? Maurice Magnus (talk) 00:30, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

If on mobile devices, with your fingers. If on a regular computer screen, there could be any one or more of: a menu with an item in it called Zoom; a button to click; or a keyboard combination to press (the Zoom item in the menu should name the key combo). TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 00:50, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers Thanks again. On my desktop, I get to Zoom by clicking the three horizontal dots at the upper right. Maurice Magnus (talk) 01:04, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

I hope it all works nicely. Of course you may use any zoom level you like at any time, but if I ever use mine I find myself later thinking everything is a funny size because I forgot to reset it :) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 01:11, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

Green type

Hi. Could you please point me in the direction of a WP page that explains what green type means and when to use it. I can't find anything about it in MOS or wider searches. Thanks. Dropbear2 (talk) 00:11, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

Everywhere that I've seen it, green type is not a big deal, just a convenience to say "This text, this is the part I mean".

There's a template {{tq}}, plus others. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 00:19, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't link: Template:Talk quote inline. There. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 00:30, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. That clears it up for me. Very helpful. All the best. Dropbear2 (talk) 00:38, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

Link added, using {{tl}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 09:31, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

@Dropbear2: Welcome to The Teahouse. You can always see how people generated formatted text by looking at the source code behind it. {{talk quote inline}} is primarily used to quote other users. Some users may decide to use {{green}} for other reasons or also for quoting. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:50, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

Thanks Tenryuu. I'm getting braver at working with source code, but it still feels like an exotic world where with one mis-step I could break Wikipedia - or at least my little patch of it. I had quite some fun trying to get my user boxes and bling on my home page to look right, but another Teahouser fixed it for me. But I'll take your advice on board and maybe try and "green" something in my talk notes. All the best. Dropbear2 (talk) 02:02, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

... it still feels like an exotic world where with one mis-step I could break Wikipedia ...

If that was true, it would be extra-true about the visual editor, in which you do the exact same things while not being able to see them.

But no matter which of the editors you're using at a given moment, the beautiful, reliable, and soothing presence of everyone's fifth-best friend is about to revolutionize your thinking: The Undo Button. :)

And if by some very weird circumstances you come across a problem that the undo button doesn't fix, you come back here and explain what you're seeing. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 05:38, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

Ahh. Nice to know there's a safety net. Plus many Wikipedians happy to help a newbie out. Thanks TooManyFingers. All the best for your endeavours. Dropbear2 (talk) 06:04, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

To be clear, {{talk quote inline}} is the full name of the template, and {{tq}} is it's much more convenient, and easier to type, short name (using a redirect). They do exactly the same thing. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 09:36, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

Thanks Andy. Dropbear2 (talk) 19:45, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

Notability guidance for proposed biography — Cilmar Bolilawa Bacus

Hello, I am a new Wikipedia editor (Ramlickatz26).

	This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I am Cilmar Bolilawa Bacus, a graphic designer based in Dubai. I have disclosed my conflict of interest on my user page. Before considering a biography, I would appreciate guidance on whether these published sources qualify as reliable, independent, and significant coverage under Wikipedia’s notability guidelines. Sources for assessment: 1. The Next Dubai: https://thenextdubai.com/popular_news/cilmar-bolilawa-bacus-dubai-graphic-designer/ 2. Gulf Magazine: https://gulfmagazine.co/cilmar-bolilawa-bacus-inspiring-creative-journey/ 3. UAE Stories: https://uaestories.com/why-cilmar-bolilawa-bacus-is-shaping/ I understand that interviews, supplied articles, and promotional features may not establish notability. Could experienced editors advise whether these sources are sufficient or whether further independent coverage is necessary? Thank you for your guidance.

Ramlickatz26 (talk) 06:52, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

All of these sources seem promotional AI slop with no real content. So I would say that none of them establish notability. Packrat3860 (talk) 07:07, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

Please don't use AI to talk to us. Why is it that you want an article about yourself? Athanelar (talk) 10:06, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

Jil Tracy

How can Jil Tracy be born in 1973 and have graduated from law school in 1979? Someone needs to correct this information. Unfortunately, I don’t have that information. ~2026-56967-67 (talk) 07:08, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

This seems to have been fixed. Thank you for the report. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 09:23, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

The short description also said born 1973. I removed that part. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 03:26, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

İssue Finding my draft/article.

Recently 2026 Akçamezra tornado article that I made got draftified and merged but Now I can't work at that draft and I think it is accidently deleted. Is there a way to restore my draft so I can work on it? ⚡ StormL00ver ⚡ 09:02, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

What you wrote is still in the article history, here. You should not edit it there but can copy the content into a new draft where you can work on it.

You should be sure to give attribution to all the people who contributed to that version by including the above link on its talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 09:28, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

Nope this is the moved version. It is different from what was in my draft. ⚡ StormL00ver ⚡ 09:34, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

StormL00ver, your version is here in the edit history of the moved version (though it is displayed with the post-move name). Maproom (talk) 09:50, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

@Maproom Thank you so much ⚡ StormL00ver ⚡ 09:58, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

Request for independent notability assessment – Draft:A. Iskandar Zulkarnain.

	This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hello, I would appreciate guidance from experienced editors regarding Draft:A. Iskandar Zulkarnain, which has been declined several times under WP:GNG and WP:NOTRESUME. I am a professional colleague of the subject and would like to seek an independent editorial assessment of the available sources before making further revisions. The draft concerns an Indonesian Islamic-finance practitioner whose work includes Hajj fund management, Islamic banking, and involvement in the transformation of Bank Muamalat Indonesia. Three potentially relevant published sources are: [Rakyat Merdeka – Doctoral research and professional background (2025)](https://rm.id/baca-berita/ekonomi-bisnis/294247/sidang-promosi-doktor-eks-anggota-bpkh-iskandar-zulkarnain-haji-takperlu-tunggu-47-tahun) [IDN Times – Biographical profile (2020)](https://www.idntimes.com/news/indonesia/ims-2020-iskandar-zulkarnain-anggota-bpkh-dan-pegiat-gerakan-ekonomi-00-57g8l-0l4cm9) [Infobank – Bank Muamalat transformation and book coverage (2022)](https://infobanknews.com/di-balik-kembalinya-bank-muamalat-ke-bumi-pertiwi) Could experienced editors advise whether these sources collectively satisfy the requirements for significant coverage, reliability, and independence under WP:GNG and WP:BIO? I would also appreciate guidance on how the draft could be improved to address WP:NOTRESUME without introducing promotional language or unsupported claims. Thank you for your time and guidance.

Soloheritage (talk) 11:26, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

You have received an assessment of the sources. Other than the resume decline, you have been declined twice for failing to demonstrate the notability of your subject.

Please don't use AI to speak to us. Athanelar (talk) 11:45, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

Academic notability assessment — Nenad Blau

Hello,

	This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus. Athanelar (talk) 11:47, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Thank you for the earlier advice concerning conflicts of interest, AI-generated text, and potential scams. I understand these concerns and will not submit the AI-generated biography. I would appreciate guidance on whether my academic record meets Wikipedia's notability criteria for scientists and academics. My career includes professorial appointments at the University of Zurich, research on inherited metabolic diseases, more than 450 scientific publications, and the Horst Bickel, Gowland Hopkins, and Asbjørn Følling awards. Could an experienced editor advise whether these achievements, together with independently published sources, establish sufficient notability for a Wikipedia biography? I am happy to provide references to published research and institutional records. Thank you for your guidance.

Nenadblau (talk) 11:44, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

I understand these concerns and will not submit the AI-generated biography. But you will submit this AI generated question? Athanelar (talk) 11:46, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

I get the impression that a harsh old rant of mine in which I insisted that using AI after being warned for it is positive proof of a bad-faith editor or a CIR issue might be looking at least slightly less unhinged. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 14:11, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

Request to make a redirect page (since only admins can do it)

I request to make the page "SM Cyberzone" with only the following contents:

#REDIRECT [[SM Supermalls#SM Cyberzone]]

I cannot make it as it has been permanently banned from creation, and only admins can make that page. — 🍕 Yivan000 ^view_talk 13:40, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

"Permanently banned" means "No, and forget even trying". TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 14:13, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

No, it doesn't.

In fact, the protection is "indefinite", not "permanent". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 17:13, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

I went by what was actually said. Sorry. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 23:01, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

If you need an admin action, you should ask at WP:AN. An article by that name existed in 2011 and was deleted as promotional advertising. You'll need to make a persuasive case as to why this is necessary. 331dot (talk) 14:42, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

Short articles

I am just kind of baffled when I see short articles like Luco de Jiloca with 0 sources yet they still make their way onto Wikipedia somehow. Is there something that I'm missing? Just wondering. Thanks, PixelsRCool (talk • contribs) 13:47, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi @PixelsRCool. That article was created in 2018 directly, and because Wikipedia has millions of articles no volunteer editor has gotten around to improving it. Settlements are usually notable by themselves so we should have an article on this village. Maybe you could find one or two sources (even primary ones from the Spanish Government?) to add to the article? qcne (talk) 14:00, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

@PixelsRCool That particular article is because the notability criterion of WP:GEOLAND is so lax. There are in fact authority control links at the foot of the article which are (poor) sources. This has been discussed many times and stricter notability guidance suggested but as far as I'm aware, none have replaced the current view. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:02, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

... incidentally, the Spanish article is quite good, if you are competent enough to translate it. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:06, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

The place where I grew up is also on Wikipedia. If you had ever visited it, you would know that by ordinary standards it should not be. Many small places can claim to be where some notable person is from; mine doesn't have that. Some small places were once quite important; mine never was. (There is a stop sign at the north end of the town, but I think it's not a notable stop sign.)

It sounds as if the place you mentioned is much more notable than that.

It's not so bad that non-notable places are allowed on Wikipedia, because the motivation to add them is usually relatively mild, unlike the way that people are so desperate to get themselves or their business included; still, I think there really is such a thing as a non-notable place and that we shouldn't keep them. I also expect that one of the reasons we once decided to give up and just let them all in might have been the difficulty of agreeing on criteria. For example, I would normally exclude "birthplace of Notable Person" from claims of place-notability, and I'd be more likely to include "location of Notable Event", but maybe it depends which notable event? - and others might disagree with all of that. And if criteria are chosen but they fail to settle some common disagreement, that's not easy to deal with. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 15:08, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

Technical difficulties at one of the Introduction pages

It appears the Help:Introduction to editing with VisualEditor/1 page isn't getting transcluded at the single page view like all the others, and I'm not sure what the problem could be? Could somebody help out? Fallbackintoreality (t • c) 14:39, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

I confirm seeing the same thing; there's a heading for it on the target page, but no content. I unfortunately also confirm not knowing why it's like that. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 15:16, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

Fixed by . There are equals signs and one of them probably made a module think it's a named parameter but the code in Help:Introduction to editing with VisualEditor/All looks for unnamed parameters. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:40, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you so much! It looks correct now. Requesting immediate archiving... Fallbackintoreality (t • c) 20:56, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

Copyright of an AI-generated picture from a govt report

Seeking independent editorial guidance on revised academic biography draft

question

why cant we find sources for stuff (e.g there's only one source in the 2019 kuwait emir cup only has one source) or the websites dont even make sources for them Tikitikifunk33333 (talk) 16:30, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

Sometimes sources just don't exist. That's the way the world works.

If you find an article on here that doesn't have enough sources, and you can't find any sources anywhere to add to it, you can nominate it for deletion. DS (talk) 18:45, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

ok Tikitikifunk33333 (talk) 18:47, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

donald sutherland filmography

wikipedia does not include animal house in donald sutherland's filmography ~2026-57057-95 (talk) 20:34, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @~2026-57057-95, and welcome to the Teahouse. If you have a improvement to suggest to an article, the best place to do so is in the article's talk page, in this case Talk:Donald Sutherland filmography, as people with knowledge and interest in the particular subject are more likely to see it there. ColinFine (talk) 20:48, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

It does, actually (see the 1978 row). Were you thinking of a different article? ^{In solidarity,} 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 ^{(They/them • Not a chatbot • Contribs)} 20:50, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

The film is also mentioned in the second paragraph of the main Donald Sutherland article, so it's not missing from there either. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 20:54, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

Articles for improvement

Why am I all of a sudden seeing "Help improve this article!" on the main page? I've been using the site for years and I've only started seeing it last week. Useless Editor 1 (talk) 00:08, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

It's just a new thing, it isn't related to anything you did or didn't do. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 00:19, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

@Useless Editor 1 This was implemented following this RfC as a way to attract new editors to Wikipedia. qcne (talk) 09:43, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

Help

So I created this page 5 minutes ago but I don't want it anymore and I can't seem to put templates on it so I can't nominate it for speedy deletion. Can anybody help? Nibnab43637 (talk) 00:47, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

I also want the talk page deleted. Nibnab43637 (talk) 00:50, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

Nevermind I've figured it out. Nibnab43637 (talk) 00:55, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

Because other people read these questions and may have similar ones: WP:U1 says, (These templates are not displayed on pages such as .css and .js, but their categorization still works.). Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 02:18, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

dit

Citation needed on Gwangyang Re: Steel Works

Hello,

I wasn't sure whether or not my decision to add a 'citation needed' tag to this paragraph: Gwangyang Steel Works was reasonable. I looked at the other source in the paragraph and couldn't find a mention of the statistic that 300,000 people visit each year. I also couldn't find any sources by googling when they have visitation hours or about tourism to the plant. I admit that I don't know Korean and can't examine any sources that are in Korean regarding the Steel Works.

I found this post mentioning that the site gets 'hundreds of thousands of visitors each year' and I suspect that this fact was sourced from Wikipedia.

Thanks, Aperture LENS (talk) 05:18, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

It sounds as though this may be unsourced. If a source in Korean tells how many people go there in a year, that part of the Korean article should be readable enough from an automated translation to at least confirm that the statement is in there. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 05:30, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

I agree, @TooManyFingers.

Taking a look at the sources that are present, it looks like 4/10 of them are referring to the sister city programs the city has. Other facts such as the temperature and precipitation, geographical features, and more statements that are present don't have citations. Also, some of the statements seem to be inaccurate. The article states that the steel works is the largest in the world, but this Reuter's article says that it's "the world's fifth-largest steelmaker ". Aperture LENS (talk) 14:44, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

Remove the "more citations needed" alert

Dear colleagues and friends,

I am new to wikipedia. I just added more information and citations to a page having the initial alert "This article needs more citations. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. "

National Research Council (Italy)

Should I now remove the tag? I checked on the chronology, cannot understand who included the tag. Also in the "talk "page there is no information.

Thanks for your help! Galileoelaluna (talk) 06:52, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Galileoelaluna. If you are sure you have now added enough citations that the article content is now verifiable, you can indeed remove the tag. Happy editing! qcne (talk) 09:42, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

@Galileoelaluna If there are still some parts of the article that are not cited, please keep the tag until those parts are cited from reliable sources too.

One example: The section "Mission" will almost certainly need to be completely removed from this article and never replaced, because that is the CNR talking about itself. Wikipedia writes only what the public already knew from reliable public sources independent of CNR, and says nothing from CNR internal sources.

We do accept internal sources for trivial obvious facts such as who is the current head of the organization and what is the street address, but not for the substance of the article. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:56, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

@Galileoelaluna I deleted the Mission section, and left a note on the article's talk page explaining why. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 19:39, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

Making an article about a novel you wrote yourself.

Soooo suppose I have a novel published (which I do) and a moderate amount of people read it and it's recognizable in passing. I want to make an article about it, and I want to make it as accurate as I can as I wrote the damn thing, after all. Could I? Of course, it won't be advertising, just a neutral, honest, straight from the source piece of info about a novel.

What I'm trying to say is: if you wrote a book, and you the author make a Wiki article about said book, would that count as advertising? TheOutlaw223 (talk) 07:51, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

this would be considered a conflict of interest, meaning you are 'highly discouraged' from doing this. realistically, if you decide to do this, you will face a ton of extra scrutiny to make sure the information you are putting is well sourced, accurate, etc.

you also are very unlikely to have the knowledge of Wikipedia standards to write a page in the style and structure we try to create, so it would be a lot more work than you think. really, the best thing you could do as an author is to just write and promote a book so well that some fan thats an editor decides to do it themself. Jackjd0 (talk) 07:59, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi TheOutlaw223. The book itself would need to meet Wikipedia:Notability (books) for anyone to create an article about it. If the book isn't considered Wikipedia:Notable, any attempt to try and create an article about it would almost certainly not go well. The fact that the author themselves is the one doing the creating makes things much more complicated; they would not only be subject to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (as pointed out above) but also almost certainly Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure. All of these things don't mean that the book's author couldn't try to create such an article, but it does mean it would be best done the Wikipedia:Articles for creation process. In addition, there would likely be Wikipedia:No original research concerns to resolve for any article content that can't be supported by citations to reliable sources; more specifically, reliable sources that are WP:SECONDARY and WP:INDEPENDENT of both the book and its author. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:20, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

So basically, I'd have to wait for someone else to make an article before I even think about doing edits to it? TheOutlaw223 (talk) 05:23, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

That's what you're strongly advised to do, TheOutlaw223. But, to quote Marchjuly, "All of these things don't mean that the book's author couldn't try to create such an article, but it does mean it would be best done the Wikipedia:Articles for creation process." Whoever creates a draft or article, this would only succeed if based on other, sound material. For a novel, such material is likely to be reviews. (Roads to Santiago isn't a novel, and the article Roads to Santiago could doubtless be improved -- for one thing, it's heavy on the quotations -- but it happens to be the article I've most recently worked on and I flatter myself that it's not so bad. If you examine it, you might find that it illustrates what people here are saying.) -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 05:38, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi again TheOutlaw223. You would still be subject to Wikipedia's conflict-of-interest guideline and paid-contribution disclosure policy even if someone other than yourself were to create an article about the book/novel simply because you are its author. This means you would be pretty much expected to refrain from directly editing the article yourself, except under certain conditions (like those mentioned in WP:COIADVICE); you would instead be expected to use the article's talk page to make Wikipedia:Edit requests and propose the changes you think are needed. Someone unconnected to the subject matter would assess the changes in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines and make them if they're seen as being OK. The same would also apply if you yourself were to create a draft that ended up being approved by an WP:AFC reviewer. You would be pretty much left alone to freely work on a draft (you'll only have problems if you start violating some of Wikipedia's major policies (like WP:BLP or WP:COPY)), but you would be expected to take a hands-off approach if the draft eventually gets approved as an article. So, even though you're the author of the book/novel, you'll have absolutely no final editorial control over a Wikipedia article about the book/novel. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:39, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia also doesn't allow promotion, but this does not mean "you can't write in advertisement style". Instead, it means you can't seem to be seeking recognition for an event, a product, a company, or a person.

You can see how difficult it would be, for an author to write an article about their own novel yet still seem to not be seeking recognition for the novel. (or for themselves.) And if by almost miraculous skill that was accomplished, the other problems mentioned above are still problems.

Wikipedia is a history-oriented publication. Novels are not an ephemeral thing in the way that pop songs are. A Wikipedia article on a novel - other than some very rare novel that gains instant worldwide fame in its first week - should probably not be written for quite a long time after the novel is published. "After it's much too late to gain any further sales" might unfortunately not be a bad generalization, because Wikipedia needs "How was this work received?" to already be a history question rather than a news item. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 15:04, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

Suggested edits

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

pls disable the internet blocking tiktok

pls ~2026-57130-25 (talk) 09:30, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi @~2026-57130-25. Do you have a question about Wikipedia? qcne (talk) 09:44, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

I also edit at school, those blocks are very annoying. We can't do anything about that. Please pay attention in class. DollarStoreBa'al _(Converse) 15:00, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

Everyone always pays attention in class.

(Just not always to the same things.) :) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 15:38, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

As stated above, we do not control your school's content filter. GreatWhiteEditor (talk) 21:41, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

COI edit request at Talk:Bonita BPM

Hello. I have a declared conflict of interest: I work for the company the article is about. I am not editing the article myself and I am not trying to bypass the request process.

I filed an edit request at Talk:Bonita BPM on 1 October, reformatted it on 9 October after a reviewer declined the first version on formatting grounds, and left a follow-up on 16 October. There has been no response for twenty-five days.

The request is narrow and sourced: the company was renamed from Bonitasoft to Ofelia in May 2026, covered by Les Echos, Distributique and Yahoo Finance. The sources are in CS1 format with inline ref tags, as the reviewer asked.

I am posting here rather than leaving a third message on the talk page, which would read as badgering. Could someone point me to the right venue, or take a look if the queue is simply long? I am happy to split the request into smaller parts if that makes review easier. Thank you. CG-Ofelia (talk) 09:48, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

Your edit request is not marked as such so it isn't in the queue. You need to place {{edit COI}} at the top of your request. This is facilitated by the edit request wizard for future requests. Please be aware there is a significant backlog of requests right now, so it may take time. 331dot (talk) 09:52, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi @CG-Ofelia. I am going to be honest: most of us volunteer editors would rather not spend the time and energy doing the work a paid employee has asked us to do. The Conflict of Interest backlog is over 1,200 requests. However, you have not actually submitted your request for review, so it has not appeared in the list of CoI edit requests. Please follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Edit_requests#Making_requests. qcne (talk) 10:04, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

Notice about sources help

Hi Teahouse,

I see a notice on a couple different articles and am wondering whether it is standard procedure:

"Notice about sources

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy. For all related material:

• Take extra care to cite high-quality sources when adding or changing information.
• Do not add content cited only to tabloid journalism.
• Do not use self-published sources unless written or published by the subject.
• Immediately remove contentious material that is uncited or cited to low-quality sources.

If inappropriate material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue. If you are connected to a subject of this article, help resources are available."

Is it suggesting specific edits for the notice to be removed?

Sincerely,

@RealRobRossi RealRobRossi (talk) 10:27, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

RealRobRossi, adherence to the biographies of living persons policy is standard procedure. Reminding actual and potential editors of the need to adhere to it is standard procedure. The template is suggesting, indeed, it's prescribing the immediate removal of contentious material that is uncited or cited to low-quality sources. -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 10:50, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

As far as "Is it suggesting specific edits" - not by name or location obviously, but yes it is saying there are edits that need to be made, unless someone already saw the template and already fixed all of them. It means whichever things fit the description given.

Because a biography of a living person can have a direct effect on people's lives, we have a strict policy that anything presented without reliable proof must be ripped right out of the article, not waiting for anyone to say they'll go and look it up. (When it's not involving any living person, we're more lax about it and willing to say "please go look this up in reliable sources so there will be evidence" instead of just deleting it on sight.) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 14:24, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

Are these sources enough for an article about a parent company?

Hi! FYUL is the parent company formed in 2024 by the merger of Printful and Printify. Both Printful and Printify already have Wikipedia articles and still operate as separate brands under FYUL.

Before drafting an article about FYUL, I’d like an honest opinion on whether these sources are enough to meet WP:NCORP:

1. TechCrunch (Nov 2024): https://techcrunch.com/2024/11/05/printful-and-printify-ink-a-merger-deal
2. Value Added Resource (Oct 2026): https://www.valueaddedresource.net/etsy-fyul-pod-test/
3. LSM / Labs of Latvia (Jan 2025): https://eng.lsm.lv/article/economy/business/08.01.2025-merger-of-the-year-as-printful-and-printify-become-fyul.a582814/

Marina Droniceva (talk) 11:57, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Marina Droniceva. In order:

1. This reads to me like churnalism (a press release regurgitated) and it's also reliant on an interview with the CEO. I think it fails the Independent criteria.
2. Again, lots of "the company says X" which is a hallmark of churnalism. It also doesn't really mention FYUL much. Fails both Independent and Significant coverage.
3. I think this is an okay source. It provides some detail, not wholly based off a press release or interview, and seems independent and reliable.

qcne (talk) 12:03, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

@Marina Droniceva I find it very curious that you asked this same question 5 days ago, removed it 2 minutes later, proceeded to remove the paid editing disclosure from your userpage and then now repost this question but notably missing any mention of the fact you work at the company?

I have restored the paid editing disclosure to your userpage. Please be aware that anybody can see your editing history on Wikipedia, and transparency about paid editing is absolutely mandatory. Athanelar (talk) 12:12, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your answer, and thank you for informing me that it is mandatory to keep the paid editing disclosure. One more question about the sources, are 2 sources gonna be enough to to meet WP:NCORP or is it supposed to be 3 or more? Marina Droniceva (talk) 13:33, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

You'd want at least 3 sources meeting all the requirements of WP:42 and which are not WP:CORPTRIV. Athanelar (talk) 13:36, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

To emphasize what Athanelar's answer already says, five hundred sources will not be enough - unless every source covers every detail of WP:42 and is also not WP:CORPTRIV. Only then, three or four should be enough. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 14:09, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Marina Droniceva, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Have you read WP:BOSS? If not, I suggest you read it, and probably show it to your boss or colleagues. ColinFine (talk) 16:05, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

Biography of an Indian scientist

Hello,

I am Dr Kishore M. Paknikar, a microbiologist and former Director of the Agharkar Research Institute, Pune. I currently serve as an ANRF Prime Minister Professor at COEP Technological University.

I am new to Wikipedia and would appreciate guidance on the appropriate process for proposing a biographical article about my scientific career.

I have assembled historical coverage from The Times of India, The Hindu, DNA and Nature News India, along with scientific publications and institutional records. A source verification report is also available.

As the subject of the proposed biography, I recognise my conflict of interest and would prefer that an uninvolved editor independently assess the sources and determine whether an article would satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements.

Could someone please advise me on the appropriate next steps?

Thank you. Kmpaknikar (talk) 12:23, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

I assume based on tbe fact this comment is AI generated that what you've done is have some AI tool like ChatGPT prepare a draft for you and assemble some sources.

Throw that draft out completely. We do not allow AI generated text here, and AI is usually useless at determining whether you are notable.

Read WP:AUTOBIO and WP:NACADEMIC and determine for yourself based on those whether you think you should have an article about yourself, then come back to us. Athanelar (talk) 12:27, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

In addition The Times of India is NOT a reliable source. Theroadislong (talk) 12:54, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

Wait for real? I thought they were a legit newspaper. Packrat3860 (talk) 14:22, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

@Packrat3860 They're reliable for some things, but not others. See WP:TIMESOFINDIA. qcne (talk) 14:27, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

The summary: they are a legit newspaper that takes bribes to publish fake articles. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 19:49, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers: That's not a summary of WP:TIMESOFINDIA. The words "bribe" and "fake" are not used, and such a published accusation can sometimes invite legal action. I suggest you strike your comment (which didn't really add anything to the answer already given). Bazza 7 (talk) 09:53, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Kmpaknikar. This falls under Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and you should read that before proceeding with your draft. GreatWhiteEditor (talk) 22:09, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

Ian David Marsden

	This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hello, For transparency, I am Ian David Marsden. I would appreciate an independent assessment of whether the sources below could support an English Wikipedia biography covering my work as an illustrator, cartoonist, designer and graphic novel author. My early Google Doodle work is probably the most widely documented aspect of my career, but there are also sources covering published books, product design, an international sporting event mascot, exhibitions and Cartooning for Peace. I would welcome advice on assessing this body of work together. Google Doodles** The opening paragraph of the English Wikipedia article on [Google Doodle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Doodle) already identifies me as an outside contractor who designed Doodles before Dennis Hwang took over that role in 2000. I mention this as existing Wikipedia context, rather than as independent evidence. The sources include: [Google’s history of 20 notable Doodles](https://blog.google/company-news/inside-google/doodles/doodle-me-20-notable-doodles-google-history/), written by Ryan Germick and published on 13 September 2018. Under “First Doodle series: Google Aliens, 2000”, it credits me with the five-part series published in May 2000. [Google’s official archive entry for the first Google Aliens Doodle](https://doodles.google/doodle/google-aliens-2000-1/). [Lambiek Comiclopedia’s biography](https://www.lambiek.net/artists/m/marsden_ian-david.htm), which describes me as the first artist to create Google Doodles for Google.com and also covers my cartooning career. [The Week’s published excerpt from Douglas Edwards’s account of Google’s early years](https://theweek.com/articles/483199/inside-secret-world-google), which names me in connection with the May 2000 alien-themed Doodle and links to the original [Wall Street Journal article](https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304911104576444363668512764). Illustration, cartooning and design** The Lambiek biography documents my beginnings in the Swiss satirical magazine *Nebelspalter*, subsequent work for Swiss and international publications, and my creation of the official mascot for the 2003 Alpine World Ski Championships in St. Moritz. My work for the German manufacturer Ritzenhoff is documented in [the company’s official 25-year retrospective](https://www.ritzenhoff.de/media/pdf/f6/ff/4b/The-First-25-Years.pdf), which includes “Ian D. Marsden” in its list of designers. I was also a Wacom Featured Artist, with drawing and illustration tutorials presented through Wacom’s website. My [archive of that feature and video material](https://marsdenillustration.com/wacom-featured-artist/) provides background and leads to the original material. I recognise that this particular link is my own website and should not be treated as independent coverage. Books and reviews** The Jewish Book Council published an independent [review of *Marvin*](https://www.jewishbookcouncil.org/book/marvin), written by Richard C. Kraus and dated 29 September 2020. It identifies me as the adapter and illustrator of the graphic novel, based on Marvin Hamlisch’s autobiography *The Way I Was*. [Schiffer’s publisher record](https://schifferbooks.com/products/marvin) confirms the publication details. My published bibliography also includes the following titles, listed in the existing German biography: *Zürich, my little town* (1988), Nebelspalter Verlag — ISBN 3-85819-124-8. *Football Heroes* (2006) — ISBN 978-3-9523088-0-6. *Willkommen im Kollegenzoo* (2008), Droemer Knaur — ISBN 978-3-426-64568-0. *Footballheroes: See Red!* — ISBN 978-3-9523088-7-5. *The Secret Egg* (2019) — ISBN 978-1-78127-834-5. *Marvin : Based on The Way I Was by Marvin Hamlisch* (2020), Schiffer — ISBN 978-0-7643-5904-0. A [publisher declaration hosted by the Bibliothèque nationale de France](https://nouveautes-editeurs.bnf.fr/accueil?id_declaration=10000001326804&titre_livre=SAMARA) also credits my illustrations for *Samara : de minuit à minuit* (2026), ISBN 979-10-985294-0-5. I include the bibliographic records to document the publications, alongside the independent review. Cartooning for Peace and newspaper coverage** The French newspaper *Midi Libre* published [“Ian Marsden rejoint les rangs des dessinateurs engagés pour la paix”](https://www.midilibre.fr/2025/12/01/ian-marsden-rejoint-les-rangs-des-dessinateurs-engages-pour-la-paix-13083231.php) on 1 December 2025. My membership is also documented by [my profile on the official Cartooning for Peace website](https://www.cartooningforpeace.org/en/dessinateurs/ian-david-marsden/). Exhibitions of Swiss press cartoons** My participation in successive editions of *Gezeichnet*, held at the Museum für Kommunikation in Bern, is documented by: [The museum’s press release for Gezeichnet 2023](https://www.mfk.ch/fileadmin/files/01_Besuchen/03_Ausstellungen/09_Gezeichnet/20231214_Medienmitteilung_Der_humorvollste_Jahresrueckblick_der_Schweiz.pdf), listing “Ian David Marsden | Nebelspalter” on page 3. [The organiser’s participant list for Gezeichnet 2024](https://www.gezeichnet.ch/news/gezeichnet-2024-50-teilnehmerinnen-sind-dabei.html). [The organiser’s participant list for Gezeichnet 2025](https://www.gezeichnet.ch/ausstellung/teilnehmer.html). There is an existing [German Wikipedia biography](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_D._Marsden), with additional references. I understand that its existence does not itself establish eligibility for an English article. I believe an English-language article existed many years ago, but I have been unable to locate its deletion record. If relevant, I would appreciate help identifying it and advice on the appropriate procedure. Would these sources provide a reasonable basis for pursuing a biography through Articles for Creation? Are there particular gaps in the sourcing that should be addressed first? Given my connection to the subject, I would welcome independent editorial assessment rather than making that judgement myself. Thank you very much for your time and guidance. All the best, Ian For additional background and an overview of my work, my official website is https://marsdenillustration.com/. I provide this for context, rather than as independent evidence of notability.

Marsdenillustration (talk) 12:51, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Marsdenillustration. Please re-write this question again in your own words as a reply to this comment, without using an AI Chatbot to communicate with us. We find it disrespectful for editors to communicate to us via AI. qcne (talk) 12:52, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

How would I rewrite the question in my own words? These are my own words. Did you even read what I wrote? Marsdenillustration (talk) 13:04, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

You very clearly used an AI chatbot help to write that question, so please write it without the usage of AI. qcne (talk) 13:07, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

Blogs, passing mentions and listings do not count towards establishing notability, we require in-depth significant coverage of you in reliable sources. Theroadislong (talk) 13:19, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi. I'm not going to jump to if this is AI or not, either way, this is very hard to read and please write it properly. Thanks. 16dvnk (talk) 15:21, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

Your comment surprised me, 16dvnk, as I've found LLM-generated text easy to read. But LLMs are evolving, and, for all I know, moving in the direction of opacity of output. Anyway, my curiosity was piqued, and so I un-collapsed the text above to take a look. But what I saw was easy to read. (Or so it seemed. Could this have been a delusion?) Which part of it, or which aspect of it, is very hard to read (or very easy to misread)? -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 21:19, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

Ancient joke: Q: "How can you know Martha Stewart has visited your back yard?" A: "The dog turds have been sculpted into swans."

The slick surface and the internal conceptual cluelessness of LLM writing might be what 16dvnk meant. It makes me want to bang my head against the wall in an elegant and stylish manner. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 22:11, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

P.S. And the The slick surface and the internal conceptual cluelessness of LLM writing. is also something that bugged me. @Marsdenillustration, please rewrite your question and show more sources per WP:42. Also read WP:LLM for legitimate uses of LLMs. Thank you. 16dvnk (talk) 12:56, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

What I meant was for them not to have an excuse to avoid rewriting the text. It was super obvious though. edited to avoid misunderstanding. 16dvnk (talk) 23:20, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

16dvnk, I've read this (your 23:20 comment) several times, but it still baffles me. Possibly: "I didn't find it hard to read; and I said that it was hard to read simply in order to apply more pressure on Marsdenillustration to rewrite it." I rather hope that I have misunderstood. -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 00:56, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

This is a misunderstanding. I was editing on mobile, and their wall of text and poor LLM-like format made it hard for me to read. I don't want to assign blame or add pressure on anyone, I want to help them. 16dvnk (talk) 12:43, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

Marsdenillustration, when I looked at what you posted here, I thought "this is AI-generated slop. And there's a lot of it. If this guy doesn't even have the courtesy to address us in his own words, he's not getting any help from me." Maproom (talk) 12:30, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

@Hoary I also thought it was AI slop, but I found it hard to read and I wanted them to rewrite them in their own words.

I didn't want to argue with them (per above discussion) if it were AI slop, so I just told them to fix what they wrote.

P.S. The only other good faith explanation for this editor is that they used AI for translation, but even that may be a stretch. (EDIT: Reading their history, this has become increasingly unlikely. They either suddenly changed up their style a lot, or just got lazy.) 16dvnk (talk) 12:41, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

AI & Robots

MESELA BU YAPAY ZEKA İLE NASIL BASA CIKACAGIZ .ÖRNEK SİZ GERCEKMİSİNİZ ;BİR ROBOTLA YAZIŞIYORUM desenize

~2026-57260-69 (talk) 13:14, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

Please communicate in Engish here. 13:20, 26 October 2026 (UTC) Theroadislong (talk) 13:20, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

I tried to use translate and got

"For instance, how are we going to deal with this artificial intelligence? Tell me, for example—are you real? Am I corresponding with a robot?" St☆rlet! (Talk to me!) (Library) 14:29, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

@Starlet147's translation makes me think you're attempting to report AI use in a talk page. If this is the case, please let us know who is doing this and where this is occurring so we can do something about it. DollarStoreBa'al _(Converse) 14:48, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

To me it sounds more like one of those rhetorical philosophical questions that have no real answer and that people sometimes ask here. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 15:21, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

Just a hunch, but this might be happening on Turkish Wikipedia. St☆rlet! (Talk to me!) (Library) 17:53, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

Using 'the' before superlatives

Hi all, I got caught in a back-and-forth at Jigjidiin Mönkhbat in what I had thought was basic English grammar. The article currently says [...] defeating strongest 1964 Olympic wrestler, while I would probably write [...] defeating the strongest 1964 Olympic wrestler. Sorry if this is not the right place to ask about basic English, but I really need a sanity check here. LkL-70547 (talk) 14:08, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

Since this is describing a person (which would be a noun) and that noun comes after the superlative, the word 'the' should be included. I've reverted their edit and let them know on their talk page. DollarStoreBa'al _(Converse) 14:43, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure you're sane :)

But certainly on this point of grammar you were right. For some grammar issues there are options, but on this one there aren't any. (Not in English; I expect that the other person was thinking of the grammar of another language in which it's done the way they showed. Many languages have a lot of grammar in common with each other, but little insignificant differences like this trip people up all the time.) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 15:32, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

You are correct. If Google and Wikipedia are correct (I do not speak Mongolian), Mongolian does not use definite articles. English does. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 18:34, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

Draft:Andrew Bear

Hello. My Wikipedia username is AndrewBearHealing, and I am Andrew Bear.

I have created Draft:Andrew Bear and disclosed my conflict of interest on my user page.

My biography is supported by independent reporting from CBC News, CTV News, paNOW and the Regina Leader-Post.

I received AI assistance in preparing portions of the draft. I would appreciate help from an independent Wikipedia editor to assess the sources, address the AI-generated wording, improve the article's neutrality and prepare it for Articles for Creation review.

Thank you for your assistance. AndrewBearHealing (talk) 19:40, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi @AndrewBearHealing. Please do not use an AI chatbot to communicate with us, it is very obvious the above message was either written or partly-written by AI. We consider it disrespectful and we actually prohibit the usage of AI to write content, please carefully read Wikipedia:Writing articles with large language models.

You have not yet submitted your draft for review, but even if you did it would be either declined for the AI usage or because you have not proven how you meet our criteria for inclusion. qcne (talk) 19:52, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

In addition to that, please fully delete every bit of the draft that even might have a chance that it was touched by AI, and rewrite it by yourself. Do not try fixing up those parts, and do not try to keep any parts that AI was allowed into. I'm saying this because it will be less work for you. It's like if you dumped a whole cup of salt into your soup; you don't try to get the salt back out, you just make new soup. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 20:00, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

@AndrewBearHealing If by "independent reporting" you mean they interviewed you, please be aware that interviews are not considered independent. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 20:47, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @AndrewBearHealing, and welcome to Wikipedia.

What you are trying to do is probably impossible - and if it is possible (i.e. in the unlikely event that you meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability), it is probably impossible for you as an inexperienced Wikipedia editor to write an article about yourself successfully.

When I say "the unlikely event", this is not a reflection on you or your work, but the reality that most people in the world do not meet the criteria, which are not about what they are or have done, but about what people wholly unconnected with them and with no involvement whatever from them or their associates, have chosen to write in-depth about them: most people have not been written about in that way, so there is literally almost nothing which could go into a Wikipedia article about them. All the sources you currently cite are telling what you say about yourself, but Wikipedia has essentially no interest in what you say or want to say.

Please see autobiography.

My advice (and that of several other experienced Teahouse hosts, I believe) is to forget about Wikipedia and continue to do your good work, and promote it in places that permit this: Wikipedia doesn't. ColinFine (talk) 21:19, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

1000th “Hello I'd like to have an article on X that I have a conflict of interest with please” message generated with WP:LLM on WP:teahouse moment. 🔥Jothefiredragon🐲talk🐉contrib(s)✨log🌟mail🎉global🎊 21:57, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

How do I create an essay?

Hi.

How do I create an essay, I can't find that option on wikipedia. ~2026-56182-50 (talk) 23:25, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

What kind of essay? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 23:39, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

You may find WP:ESSAY helpful. Usually, you just create a user subpage. To do that, just go to your user page and add /essaynamehere to the URL, replacing 'essaynamehere' with your title.

Like if I wanted to write an essay about vandalism I could do:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:PixelsRCool/Essay_about_Vandalism

If you have any other questions, feel free to ask. Happy editing! PixelsRCool (talk • contribs) 23:48, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

Help in transcluding

Hello, can someone help me transclude this section and this section to this draft separately? I'm having a hard time not making it a mess. I have already added the templates to them but still find it difficult to use on the target page without repetition. Jô^hola 00:20, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

@Josedimaria: It looks like you are trying to use onlyinclude. That's an old messy system when different parts of a page should be transcluded in different places. I suggest using the newer options {{#section:}} or {{#section-h:}} (alternative names #lst and #lsth) at Help:Labeled section transclusion. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:46, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: I still find it difficult especially as regards to this. Could you kindly help me fix that section while I see how you use the tag? thank you. Jô^hola 18:39, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

Teahouse invite (suggestion)

Old language translation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But everyone will say this.

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

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

Feedback or review request for Draft:Richard North (ethnomusicologist)

Hi everyone!

I recently submitted a draft about Richard North, an American ethnomusicologist based in Santa Barbara who directs an active gamelan ensemble and teaches Cirebon gamelan, alongside his work in preserving endangered traditional performing arts in Cirebon, Indonesia: Draft:Richard North (ethnomusicologist).

I’ve supported the draft with a combination of reliable English-language publications and independent Indonesian news coverage. Whenever someone has a free moment, I’d really appreciate any feedback or a quick look to see if it’s on the right track.

Thanks so much for your time and guidance! Sedayuu (talk) 05:48, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

Which of your sources fit this description:

1. Does not contain any material that appears as if it might have come from Richard North (i.e. no interview, no self-written bio, no CV material, etc)

AND

2. Is a real biography of him, or at least more-or-less like one TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 06:04, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

Antinous

Regarding the use of a quote

Can we use a direct quote from a book which is most likely in some copyright policy, when credits are given to the necessary author.Thanks TeenX808 (talk) 10:06, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

@TeenX808 Yes, quotes are regularly used in WP articles. The advice at WP:QUOTE gives more detail. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:20, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

@Michael D. Turnbull: thank you so much, I read it, in simple words as long as I give credits to the author it’s permissible to use right ? TeenX808 (talk) 10:26, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

Permissible, yes, up to a point depending on the length of the quote. However, sometimes paraphrasing is better, as the linked page explains. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:28, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

@Michael D. Turnbull Thank you TeenX808 (talk) 12:29, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

TeenX808, direct quotations should be used sparingly but they can be very useful in specific circumstances. Especially when the wording of the original author is distinctive and highly creative. For example, I use brief quotations by professional reviewers quite frequently in critical assessments of movies, books, albums, paintings, plays and the like. A series of two or three sentence quotations by reviewers can convey an understanding of the assessment of a creative work much better than a bland, neutral summary that most reviewers liked or disliked the work. Proper attribution is mandatory. Cullen328 (talk) 21:44, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

Requesting help regarding my AFC submission

Last week I submitted the draft, Draft:Metamorphic solar cell, to Articles for creation. It was declined, with the reviewer citing that it doesn't show that it meets WP:GNG. I thought that the sources I provided did prove notability, so I would appreciate any advice or insight other editors could offer. I already made a post on the AFC help desk regarding this, and I know "double dipping" is frowned upon here, but since it was archived with no other editors commenting on it, I figured it would be ok to post here. I also have access to the books I cited, so if excerpts are needed, I can also provide those. ExitTheWarrior (talk) 13:20, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

You need to find three sources that each meet all of the requirements outlined at WP:42. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 13:35, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: Thank you for the prompt response. Looking at what I currently have in my draft, I think I do have three sources that would satisfy the notability guideline:

I haven't resubmitted my draft because I haven't substantially changed it since it was declined (only added a source and a brief section on an efficiency world record). I'm not exactly sure what the proper course of action for me would be here and I would appreciate guidance. If possible, I would also appreciate another pair of eyes on my sources. I thought that they proved notability, but maybe I'm misconstruing some portion of the relevant guidelines. ExitTheWarrior (talk) 14:40, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

I'm not in a position to judge, for something so technical. @Sulfurboy: who reviewed your draft, might have an opinion.

We might need to ask for expert advice from the members of a relevant WikiProject.

Also, did you see Mike Turnbull's practical suggestion, below? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 14:47, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

@ExitTheWarrior Your draft is quite brief and very technical. Why not just incorporate the new material into multi-junction solar cell? Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:13, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

I thought that the subject should have its own article on it, but if that isn't the case then that could definitely be a good course of action. There is actually a section on Metamorphic Multijunction Solar Cells in the Solar cell research article, but it's quite messy and even promotional as it is. My impetus for making this draft was when I made a redirect for discussion post after writing for a different solar cell-related article.

I made the draft so brief just so that I could demonstrate notability before I spend too much time writing about it. It is however a fairly technical subject, so if the community thinks it would be better served with the subject being covered inside a broader article then that's fine too. ExitTheWarrior (talk) 14:48, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

If, as you say, the existing section needs improvement, then it would be a good idea first to to improve that section as far as possible, and then to consider if it could (with minor modifications) stand as an article in its own right. Once an article using that material is accepted, the existing section could then be trimmed down and be given a link to the new article. Many now-existing articles began in such a way. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-56420-06 (talk) 19:07, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

 Done I'll see about further improvements later, but for now I've added the contents of my draft to the Solar cell research page. Like I mentioned, the existing content was a mess (uncited, primary sources, promotional tone), so I actually just replaced the entire thing. ExitTheWarrior (talk) 20:15, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

Short descriptions

User:PixelsRCool/sandbox/Olalla, Teruel

Hi! I am wondering on how short descriptions are decided and if the short description on my draft above is appropriate. It is currently set as "Spanish locality". Thanks! PixelsRCool (talk • contribs) 13:53, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

@PixelsRCool See WP:Short description. The main idea is that short descriptions help readers find the correct page when they see the results of a search and only the article title and its short description will be visible. In your case, most people wouldn't know that Otalia / Teruel is a place in Spain. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:10, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

(... and that means your short description is good, but just "Place in Spain" is simpler and therefore probably better.)

Short descriptions can sometimes be true but bad; that often happens when they focus on something too small (for example, don't change yours to "Place near Villaspesa") or too large ("Place on Earth").

The best short description is very short, and it answers the questions "What kind of thing is this" and "Have I found the right one" for the majority of people. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:44, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

User Page

How to add my impact on my user page?? AsterixSC (talk) 14:32, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

Write about all the helpful contributions you have made to Wikipedia. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 14:50, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

Text colour

Hi! How can I add colour to text, just out of interest??

AsterixSC (talk) 14:36, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

Help:Using colours. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 14:51, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

Draft:Liam Beville

I am Liam Beville, the subject of Draft:Liam Beville (conflict of interest disclosed on my user page). The draft was declined for lacking inline citations. When I try to save a version with citations, an edit filter blocks it. Could an experienced editor tell me why, or add the text for me? I can supply the wikitext. Bevilleliam (talk) 14:41, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

Probably because you are trying to cite one or more blocked sites.

What did the error message say? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 14:53, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. The message was: "Error, edit not published. An automated filter has identified this edit as potentially unconstructive, so it has been disallowed. Disruptive behavior may result in being blocked from editing. If this edit is constructive, please report this error." It did not name any site. The new references are to guinnessworldrecords.com, openpowerlifting.org, limerickleader.ie, limerickpost.ie, ilovelimerick.ie, irishexaminer.com and todayfm.com. Could you tell me which one is blocked, or check the filter log for my edit attempts? Thank you. Bevilleliam (talk) 16:37, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

Are those links literally the only material you tried to add during that edit? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:48, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

yes. I deleted what was there and uploaded my edit and then received the error Bevilleliam (talk) 16:55, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

Maybe this excerpt from Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources is a clue? But I don't know that this alone would be enough to get the error you received.

There is consensus that world records verified by Guinness World Records should not be used to establish notability. Editors have expressed concern that post-2008 records include paid coverage. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:54, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

Thanks but at a loss to why GWR is frowned upon especially in a sport? Bevilleliam (talk) 16:58, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

Apparently because they have allowed people to pay to get themselves in the book. It doesn't mean you did that, but it means GWR can't be trusted. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 18:32, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

Hullo! I have taken a look at the filter logs regarding Bevilleliam's edits to Draft:Liam Beville. They all refer to "zoomer or moomer slang", which didn't make any sense to me when I looked at the edit content... but I have a sneaking suspicion. @Bevilleliam, could you please try editing the page again, with the same exact content if you like, but remove the reference to the "67.5 kg division of the Masters 3 category"? Suðurhafsljósæta (talk) 17:27, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

At least it let me post that here, I wasn't sure it would. Suðurhafsljósæta (talk) 17:27, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

That was it. The edit saved. Thank you both for your help. Bevilleliam (talk) 21:12, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

Great, I'm really pleased that worked! Suðurhafsljósæta (talk) 21:14, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

yes and thanks again. It was all down to mention of 67.5kg weight division which was seen as that 6's and 7's zoomer slang Bevilleliam (talk) 21:19, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

Loficat

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

Hello, @~2026-56491-48.

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

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

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

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

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

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

How come we don't have MyVariables?

I wanted to make a badge system where you have userboxes that show milestones of edits and account length and stuff, but I didn't realize there wasn't a way to get the user who is viewing. The MyVariables extension does solve that, but it isn't installed on the wiki. I would like to inquire as to why not. (I would also like to inquire if what I am doing is okay).

Regards, ZNomad talks 15:35, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @ZNomadYT, and welcome to the Teahouse.

WP:VPT may be a better place to ask this. ColinFine (talk) 15:52, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

@ZNomadYT To my knowledge, we purposefully avoid allowing people to have userboxes that live-update based on userstats because the computational requirements of calling for those stats in realtime for however many users have that userbox would be immense Athanelar (talk) 16:13, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

@ZNomadYT: Wikimedia projects have around 10,000 page views per second. It's expensive to parse wikitext with templates and so on so pages are cached for performance reasons. We don't want extentions which break caching by giving different results for different users. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:20, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

Editor collaborators

Hello editors, can anyone tell me how to find a specialized community editor on Wikipedia? It's difficult to find an editor on Wikipedia with whom we can work together. I had big plans for the Asian country various type of minority community, like a WikiProject. But it was difficult to find editors who specialized in a specific skill. So, any suggestions? 刘宸宁 (Liu Chenning) 16:37, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

I suggest that you stop looking for help, and just start doing the thing you always intended to do. Almost nobody will join when a call goes out "come and join!" - they wait until they see someone is already doing it, and then they think about helping.

The most popular conclusion to "Someone really should ..." is to call out loudly "Someone should! Someone should!". But the right conclusion is usually "... but no one is doing it, so I will." TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:16, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

You could start by looking at "Parent" wikiprojects (say you wanted to work on articles about Bhutan, and there was no WikiProject Bhutan, you'd look for WikiProject South Asia, or failing that, WikiProject Asia).

Also the talk pages of relevant articles (so, in my example, Bhutan and History of Bhutan, etc.)

Lastly you could ask for a WP:Geonotice, if there is an event you wish to promote in that region. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 17:46, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

Speciesboxes

I am currently getting started on an article about Cyrtosia falconeri, but whenever I try to get the speciesbox to work it just shows the error message for an invalid taxon. I tried it with other species, but it only seems to not work for the Cyrtosia genus and its species, I have made other articles on cyrtosias and didn't have an issue with the speciesbox. does anyone have any idea on why this is happening? or am I just doing something wrong? YourLocalUSBport (talk) 17:02, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

In my opinion, the chance that something is wrong with just Cyrtosia is pretty low, and the chance that you might have made some accidental, random, hard-to-find error is probably higher. What happens if you directly copy over one of your known-good speciesboxes and edit it instead of the new one? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:25, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

I also see that in fact you haven't saved even one edit on a Cyrtosia falconeri draft or article at all ... unless you did it while not logged in as yourself. Do remember to log in every time - it helps a lot. If you sometimes want to do something where no one will see, Wikipedia is a bad place to do that, because it will get seen and it will get connected to you. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:43, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

It's easier for us to assist with a problem like this if we can see your work. That can be on a "Draft:" page, or a sub=page of your "User:" space.

That said, it might be because the genus article is at Cyrtosia (plant) and not Cyrtosia - did you account for that? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 17:51, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

Editing House of Romanov Page Family Tree

Hi all,

Long-time enjoyer of wikipedia, first time trying to edit. When on the House of Romanov page earlier, I noticed that the birth year for Catherine Ivanovna of Russia is incorrect in the House of Romanov#Family tree. It is listed as 1629, but she was born in 1691. I tried to directly input an edit, but the tree is an image that I cannot directly edit. Any suggestions? Thank you! Garlicluvr81 (talk) 18:35, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

Good catch. To edit an image like that you need to download and edit its svg file via File:Romanov rulers family tree and timeline.svg and then upload the edited version to that page, which can be quite a hassle if you haven't dealt with it before. I can handle it for you if you give me a moment or so. Will report back. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 18:56, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

Forgot to report back for a bit there. I've filed a request to get the original image fixed and in the meantime I've uploaded a fixed version of the image and added it to the article. If you come across a similar situation in the future the software I would recommend for svg editing is Inkscape. It takes a little while to get a hang of it but it's fantastic for making images to use on Wikipedia. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 19:18, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

Are these sources sufficient for a biography of Mohamed Sabek?

Hello, I am Mohamed Sabek, a University of Alberta researcher, and I am considering an article about myself. I understand that this is a conflict of interest. No article has been submitted.

The sources I have found include:

• Taproot Edmonton's August 2024 wildfire hackathon report, which names me as one of the winning team members.
• Taproot's September 2026 roundup, which briefly names me and VisioConTech among Alberta Capital Connect participants.
• My university profile and Graduate Students' Association profile.
• My conference publication record.

Would these sources support a biography, or is more substantial independent coverage needed? I would appreciate advice before proceeding.

Disclosure: I used ChatGPT to help find the sources and prepare this question. Thank you. ~2026-57320-11 (talk) 21:58, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

None of these appear to have significant coverage of you, passing mentions and university profiles are of little use in establishing any notability. Please don't use AI either. Theroadislong (talk) 22:06, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

One, Fire your LLM. It knows nothing of Wikipedia policies (in particular WP:Biographies of living persons, which must be adhered to strictly). Two, none of those sources would be any good; the Taproot sources are too sparse (read: don't discuss Sabek at length) and the other three are connected to Sabek and thus primary, unusable for WP:N or for claims any reasonable person could challenge. You would need more substantial sources and more relevant sources. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Thriller Night!} 22:11, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

Also, please read the page on conflict of interest. GreatWhiteEditor (talk) 22:20, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

Vandalism?

This edit's wording feels suspicious, but I haven't seen the actual documentary. I'm not sure if it should be reverted, but if it is false I don't want to just leave it. What is the correct action or policy here? The user has also made some other odd-looking edits. IlikecatsSDF (talk) 22:09, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

I haven't seen this documentary either, but the user's 2 other edits are also marked as vandalism, which is definitely a red flag. GreatWhiteEditor (talk) 22:24, 27 October 2026 (UTC)