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)

Looking for an independent editor: George "Hound Dog" Lorenz (Buffalo disc jockey)

Hello. I'm the grandson of George "Hound Dog" Lorenz (1919 to 1972), a Buffalo, New York disc jockey who played rhythm and blues and early rock and roll on WJJL, WKBW, WINE and WBLK from the late 1940s until his death. He has no Wikipedia article. Because of my family conflict of interest I don't want to write it myself, and I'd appreciate advice on the best way to find an independent editor who might be interested.

Independent sources I'm aware of:

• Encyclopaedia Britannica: https://www.britannica.com/biography/George-Lorenz
• New York State Broadcasters Association Hall of Fame: https://halloffame.nysbroadcasters.org/post/george-hound-dog-lorenz
• People Today magazine, March 1957 (profile calling him the "Granddaddy of Rock 'n' Roll")
• Record World, June 10, 1972: "George Lorenz Dead" (p. 2) and Kal Rudman's "Money Music" column (p. 21): https://www.worldradiohistory.com/Archive-All-Music/Record-World/70s/72/Record-World-1972-06-10.pdf

Our family also keeps an archive of his recordings, clippings and letters at hounddoglorenz.com, and I'm happy to share scans of any of the printed sources with whoever takes this on. The editor would have full independence over the content.

Thank you for any guidance. Jeffsur (talk) 19:44, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

Family archives are very hard to use as sources because they're private property and not available for public access; Wikipedia would be forced to more or less pretend that that material doesn't exist. I don't know the specifics of how it's done or where, but donating that archive to some institution might enable it to be used. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 20:26, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

I failed to mention the other half of the reason: Sources used on Wikipedia must be available for any reader to go and confirm firsthand for themselves; they can't belong to individuals who could deny access or pass away, and it wouldn't be safe to provide the world with your home address anyway. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 22:49, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

There's also a potential larger issue: Near the end of your message, you wrote The editor would have full independence over the content. But in fact nobody could have needed family permission for that independence, since no one can own or control an article on Wikipedia; everything that we publish is already-published material, and article subjects and their families have no say in what does or doesn't get put in.

I say all this because there's a common misconception that a family member might act as a sort of curator or supervisor or caretaker of the article, but in fact caretaking an article - even unofficially - is prohibited, and everyone except family is always allowed to make changes to it, while family members and other associates are required to stay at arm's length and can only submit requests for editing rather than doing it themselves. (This is because family members are always biased in wanting to make the article turn out a certain way.)

Sorry for writing too much. I don't want well-meaning people to get into a situation they never wanted. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 05:53, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, TooManyFingers, that’s really helpful and I appreciate the clarification. Understood on both points: the family archive isn’t a usable source, and the family has no role beyond suggesting edits like anyone else with a conflict of interest.

The good news is that there’s a fair amount of published coverage. Contemporary trade press includes Billboard (Oct. 1, 1949, p. 26; Jan. 19, 1959, p. 14), Radio Mirror (Jan. 1957), Cash Box (June 17, 1972, p. 12), Record World (June 10, 1972, p. 3) and RPM (June 17, 1972), all readable at worldradiohistory.com. There’s also Wes Smith’s book The Pied Pipers of Rock ’n’ Roll (1989), Encyclopaedia Britannica, and the NYS Broadcasters Association Hall of Fame (inducted 2005).

Would that be enough to establish notability? If so, I’ll leave it here in case an independent editor is interested in writing it. ~~~~ Jeffsur (talk) 17:39, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

I found the book in question. It seems decent. I'd like to take a stab at this (never done AfC before). Do you have a copy of the People Today profile that you can share? Packrat3860 (talk) 21:40, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

@Packrat3860, Thank you, I really appreciate you taking this on. Yes, the family has the original magazine pages, and you can see scans of the full article (pages 19 to 21) here: https://hounddoglorenz.com/memorabilia/people-today-magazine-march-1957/

Citation details from the pages:

Gersh, Dick (March 1957). "The Original Houn' Dog". People Today. pp. 19–21.

As I mentioned, I'm his grandson, so I'll stay out of the drafting and just answer questions about sources. Happy to help with anything else you need. ~~~~ ~2026-56454-96 (talk) 14:32, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

This might be of use https://bbabflo.com/inductee/george-hound-dog-lorenz-2/ Theroadislong (talk) 15:04, 22 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)

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)

How to add my Biography in Wikipedia?

I am Jothi Rajendra Cholan, I have been doing Social service since 2015, and being part of Youth Wing in BJP Ruling Govt in India.

you can find further more my profile in my website www.jothirajendracholan.com

I would like to publish my biography on Wikipedia, please advise me. Jothi Rajendra Cholan (talk) 07:58, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place to "publish your biography" in the sense you're probably thinking of. Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. Athanelar (talk) 08:23, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

See also

• WP:BOSS
• Our FAQ for article subjects
• List of political editing incidents on Wikipedia
• Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing
• Wikipedia:Help available for editors with conflicts of interest
• Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide
• Wikipedia:Public relations and marketing 🔥Jothefiredragon🐲talk🐉contrib(s)✨log🌟mail🎉global🎊 08:27, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

See WP:BIODD, WP:BLPDD and Wikipedia:Everything you need to know § Writing articles. Rajdhani Fan Person (talk) 08:27, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Comment: User recreated their CV after being CSD-ed just now. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk / Uploads} 11:27, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

I've been keeping an extraordinarily close eye on Jothi Rajendra Cholan's account. So far they've made only 41 edits on English Wikipedia.🔥Jothefiredragon🐲talk🐉contrib(s)✨log🌟mail🎉global🎊 15:26, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

Disputes Without Active Participation

What should be done when an edit dispute arises over content that raises serious concerns, a discussion is opened to address the issue, but the other editor involved in the dispute does not meaningfully participate in the discussion? Should the problematic content be left in place indefinitely?

Additionally, one of the discussion participants described allegations raised by a particular group as one-sided and vulgar. How should inappropriate remarks of this kind be addressed in Wikipedia discussions? Hybxhh (talk) 10:01, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

@Hybxhh: WP:APPNOTE may be of some help. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:05, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

About your second point, when a participant in a discussion described certain allegations as one-sided and vulgar, that really depends on the context - it's something that nobody could really answer until they see the whole discussion. Sometimes that might be an unfair comment, but other times it could just be true; that part of the discussion could also be quite important, or not important at all. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 14:47, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

But I think one useful thing in responding to the person who says "one-sided" and "vulgar" is to state your response as your own opinion and not say anything bad about the person; for example "I think that's an unfair statement" is better than "That's an unfair statement", and saying "You're being unfair" is worse than both of the others. (And of course saying "You're a lying pig!" would prove them exactly right - not a good plan.) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 14:58, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Also, in general, disputes on Wikipedia are often extremely slow, and there can be very long pauses with no action. We intentionally give people a lot of extra time to respond, and we're intentionally slow to blame anyone for anything unless the whole situation is obvious. And when the situation is not so obvious, we know it's often because there's been a misunderstanding, or because all sides have done wrong. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 15:29, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers: Then how should situations be handled when problematic content is left unaddressed? Also, what would generally be considered a reasonable amount of time to allow for a response? It seems that situations in which content remains uncorrected for months simply because the other party to the dispute has not participated should not be allowed to persist indefinitely. Hybxhh (talk) 15:35, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

You're right, and to some extent it's a systemic problem of Wikipedia with no easy solution. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 15:56, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Oh Hybxhh (talk) 16:41, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

I'm not saying there's no solution, just this might be why no one has given any simple answers. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:15, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Follow the process described at WP:DR. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 07:56, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

@Hybxhh: It's unclear without additional context whether your inquiry is strictly hypothetical or concretely related to some content dispute you've not personally participated in. Searching for specifics, I had a look at your contribs. Just wanted to mention that it's not generally regarded as helpful to perform edits like this one changing casing, whitespace, and punctuation in decades-old comments by other editors. With kindness, ~2026-56402-07 (talk) 19:43, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

Most of that edit is fine; fixing markup bugs or subheadings, and adding missing sigs. See WP:TPFIXFORMAT and adjacent subsections. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 21:11, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

Am I being a bit too bold

I'm a bit more expirienced now, but i want to know if i am being too bold. I am editing contreversial topics, and I want to know the line for boldness, and how to know if I am being too bold. Telovemi97 ^talk 02:40, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

The line can be very hard to tell and subjective to boot. Under WP:BRD, "mistakes" are totally fine, however. If you are "too bold", people will let you know by reverting your edits or messaging on the talk page. If this happens very regularly, you might want to do some introspection, but if it only happens once every few months, you're probably fine. If you're worried about an edit, you can always just start a new section on the talkpage yourself instead and see what people think. If no one replies within a few days, you can make the edit. If it's not reverted, you are probably in the clear. Finally, if you are worried not enough people are checking your work, I recommend posting about it in the relevant Wikiproject talkpage. People working in the same field can have a look at it and give you a more specific answer. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:37, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

There's more than one way to be bold. I think this is the right thing to do, and it fits with Wikipedia policy as far as I can tell, so I'm going to just do it is excellent. But I'm going to just do whatever, without thinking, and call it bold - that's a no. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:22, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

Let me clarify, I need to know if i'm nominating some AfD articles with haste, and nominating them for the wrong reasons. I don't know if I am not looking at the appropriate protocols or smething. Telovemi97 ^talk 21:17, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

Has anyone in the AfD discussions said they thought the nomination was inappropriately handled? Packrat3860 (talk) 01:41, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

yeah Telovemi97 ^talk 13:44, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

In that case I think rather than worrying about whether or not it was "too bold", your time would be more productively spent thinking about what you (hopefully) learned and how you can apply it going forwards. Everyone makes mistakes, even the very cautious. As long as you accept feedback gracefully thoughtfully your boldness will not be a problem. Packrat3860 (talk) 13:56, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

@Telovemi97 If you are going to continue to nominate articles at AfD, you should take careful note of WP:BEFORE and WP:DILIGENCE. This means that the onus is on you to do some research to see whether the article can be improved, usually by finding and including details from reliable sources, even if it is poor in its current state. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:23, 21 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)

User not responding on their talk page

MynameisPlanetearth keeps adding sentences to infoboxes about information that is not present in the article and that does not have a source. I think they mean well because they are trying to add actual information but the way they're currently editing is not helpful. Multiple people have posted messages on their talk page but they have not responded to them. They've kept editing and re-inserted some of their reverted edits.

The current situation is not ideal and I don't think it's good if I just keep reverting their edits. How do I handle a situation like this in which a user does not communicate? Parcynthia (talk) 20:29, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

Unfortunately, if the editor really will not communicate the next step is probably WP:ANI, looking for a short-term block to get their attention. Sometimes editors are not even aware they have a Talk page and never see the warnings, especially if they are editing on mobile. To make a case at ANI you need to show diffs of the ignored warnings and problem edits, and be sure to notify the other editor (there is a template for the purpose on the top of the ANI page). Frustrating situation, I hope communication can be established. M kuhner (talk) 20:43, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

How to add coordinates to an article about a geographic feature?

 Courtesy link: Limington–Harmon Airport

I just created an article that was accepted yesterday about a geographic feature and I am wondering how to add the coordinates (like the coordinates that display at the top right of the page underneath the edit buttons and whatnot. Gaming Fan 23 (talk) 21:49, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

An excellent way to do this: Find an article where they have done it just the way you mean. Click Edit, and make sure you're using Source Editor and not Visual Editor. Find where they put the coordinates, and shamelessly copy the code for doing that, whatever you need. Then click Cancel to quit editing, go to your target article, paste it in, and change to suit. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 22:03, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

It's possible that this information is not even IN the article, but in its Wikidata. If it's that, then you need someone smarter than me to help you. :) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 22:07, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

I did a bit of tinkering but I think I managed to do it.

The template {{Coord}} was required. I (think) it now displays properly. Feel free to mess with it.

I also linked the article to Wikidata. Jacksonvil (talk|contribs) 22:42, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

If you used Coord and it looks OK and didn't complain at you, then safe to say you used it right. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 23:16, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

I created a Wikipedia and I want to publish an article about an artist

Artist information ~2026-56179-36 (talk) 23:31, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

I imagine that you mean you've created the draft of an article for Wikipedia. The page WP:YFA explains how you should have gone about this, or what you should do from now. -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 01:06, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia and Alien Contact.....

....I have done some Googling about this, and found that Wikipedia will have all hell breaking loose on here. Can this be used to generate articles for certain articles on here? One of my queries said that IF aliens appeared, Wikipedia would have one hell of a edit war going on. Could Google's answers be used as a source? ~2026-53849-83 (talk) 23:32, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

No, Google's answers use AI and there's always the possibility of hallucination when AI is involved, so it's not a reliable source. ғѳmɑɭʱɑυե (Any pronouns)ᵀᵃˡᵏ 23:58, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

An AI told you something implausible without providing any evidence, and you believed it. I'm tempted to ask if you'd like to buy a bridge. Maproom (talk) 08:17, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

I can already correctly predict the occurrence of edit wars on any well-known editable site on the internet, using the "days ending in -y" method. It's just as accurate, and less work. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 15:59, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

I laughed out loud at this. ғѳmɑɭʱɑυե (Any pronouns)ᵀᵃˡᵏ 16:01, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

Yes and I imagine if we contacted an alien civilisation, there would be a lot of articles to write (articles on a whole other planet(s) not just this one: the history, geology, civilisation, languages, fauna and flora, politics, etc. of that planet(s)). AI cannot be used as a source, as AI is can be unreliable and isn't a source itself, it generates answers from other sources, it is preferrable to use those sources instead. AI also has the risk of hallucinating which is basically where an AI presents complete falsehoods as fact. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 09:48, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Let me try to illustrate why we don't allow predictions written by LLM in response to random queries as sources. I asked Google AI more random questions about the effect of certain events on Wikipedia. Each point is what it told me:

• If Jell-O Pudding Pops were suddenly proven to cure cancer, Wikipedia would experience one of the most intense, high-traffic editing events in its history.
• If Ronald McDonald were definitively proven to be the creator of the universe, Wikipedia would experience one of the most chaotic, fast-paced, and massive editing events in its history.
• If someone proved you could grow tacos on a tree, Wikipedia's editors would immediately trigger a chaotic, high-intensity cycle of policy enforcement, content creation, and fierce digital warfare.
• If Abraham Lincoln came back from the dead with Jimmy Page's guitar skills, it would trigger a massive, chaotic, and unprecedented editing frenzy across Wikipedia.

I hope four examples is enough to demonstrate why LLM answers are not ever sourcing material for English Wikipedia. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 11:45, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Not to mention the entire "I am a fish and I see a tasty worm" thing. ғѳmɑɭʱɑυե (Any pronouns)ᵀᵃˡᵏ 11:51, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Accidental edit

Recently, I accidentally edited the Environmental Impacts of AI page, and added "67" to the first paragraph, to which someone instantly reverted and tagged as possible vandalism.

I just want to clear up the misunderstanding because it might've looked suspicious since I was on a guest user. If whoever edited this sees this, I'm sorry. I just mashed random keys and I realized too late that I published it. ~2026-56281-39 (talk) 04:00, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-56281-39 Welcome to Wikipedia! Keep trying and keep learning how editing works, and if you like, WP:REGISTER. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:22, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

We all make mistakes. So long as such edits don't become a habit, no further action will be taken. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 09:54, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

unable to update a file

Hello

Long time reader,first time updater on wiki here

I need some help with Katapayadi system

I want to update an image with a corrected version..But i keep getting blocked.

Can someone help upload this for me please..I have the updated image file on my local machine.

Varghese Thisisvarghesewiki (talk) 08:04, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

Thisisvarghesewiki, does Wikipedia prevent you from uploading the file, or does Commons prevent you from uploading it, or are you prevented from doing something other than uploading it? When you're prevented from doing what you want to do, is there an error message; and if there is, then what does the error message say? -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 08:18, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply

Here is the error from my login https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Melakarta.katapayadi.sankhya.72.png&action=edit

Your username or IP address has been blocked.

The block was made by ‪Jmabel‬. The reason given is: Abusing multiple accounts: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=1220694310#Wrong_IP-Block

• Start of block: 02:51, 27 May 2026
• Expiration of block: infinite
• Intended blockee: 147.161.128.0/17

You can contact ‪Jmabel‬ or another administrator to discuss the block.

Your current IP address is 147.161.172.81. Block ID #514092.

Please include all above details in any queries you make. Thisisvarghesewiki (talk) 08:26, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Thisisvarghesewiki, and welcome to the Teahouse.

You had the problem on Commons, which is a separate project from Wikipedia, and you need to ask about it there: try C:COM:HD. Alternatively, you can ask the named Commons administrator, Jmabel, by posting a question at their Commons talk page, C:User talk:Jmabel. ColinFine (talk) 09:26, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

I think the solution may lie in "You can contact ‪Jmabel‬ or another administrator to discuss the block." Did you try that? Do you need help doing so? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 09:51, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

I tried to do that, but i cannot because my id is blocked.

Cant find a way to reach jmabel either.

Varghese Thisisvarghesewiki (talk) 11:02, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

THis is the error i see.

You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reason:

Your username or IP address has been blocked.

The block was made by ‪Jmabel‬. The reason given is: Abusing multiple accounts: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=1220694310#Wrong_IP-Block

• Start of block: 02:51, 27 May 2026
• Expiration of block: infinite
• Intended blockee: 147.161.128.0/17

You can contact ‪Jmabel‬ or another administrator to discuss the block.

Your current IP address is 147.161.172.81. Block ID #514092.

Please include all above details in any queries you make.

Thisisvarghesewiki (talk) 11:04, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

for both C:COM:HD and ‪Jmabel‬ talk pages Thisisvarghesewiki (talk) 11:10, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

You can "ping" ‪Jmabel‬ on your talk page on Commons. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 11:19, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

I cant login to wikimedia at all.

same error

Auto-creation of a local account failed:

Your user name or IP address has been blocked.

Editing and uploading from 147.161.128.0/17 was disabled by ‪Jmabel‬ for the following reason: Abusing multiple accounts: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=1220694310#Wrong_IP-Block This block (ID #514092) is set to expire: infinite.

Information for the blocked user:

To request a review of your block:

• add {{Unblock|your reason for requesting an unblock here}} to your user talk page. Blocked users may edit their own user talk page, unless specifically disallowed from doing so, e.g., for incivility. If you are not logged in as a registered user, use the talk page for your IP address.
• e-mail ‪Jmabel‬ or another administrator (list). This option should work if a valid email address is specified in your account preferences, has been confirmed, and you are permitted to use it while blocked.

If the block reason seems unrelated to you, it is possible you were affected by a software feature known as the

autoblock

. In that case contact info-commonswikimedia.org to remove the autoblock. Your current IP address is 147.161.172.81 and the block ID is #514092. Please include this information in your query. Please note that, for technical reasons, removing the autoblock is not always possible. In such cases, you may need to wait 24 hours for the autoblock to expire.

Thisisvarghesewiki (talk) 11:28, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Thisisvarghesewiki.

I have messaged Jmabel on their Commons User Talk page, asking them to look at this thread and see if they can help you. ColinFine (talk) 11:43, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

@NDG: since the block was made at your request, and I pretty much took it on faith because you have a strong track record, could you possibly comment here before I start any unblocks? Thanks. Please ping me when responding, I don't maintain a watchlist on en-wiki. - Jmabel | Talk 18:27, 21 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)

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)

New Page Draft

How to effectively use LLM model for writing Sandeep M Ganesh (talk) 12:35, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

@Sandu 2406 Using LLMs for writing is not allowed on Wikipedia. Athanelar (talk) 13:18, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

Please see WP:EPAI and WP:LLM. Using LLM models for writing drafts, articles, or new content is not allowed on Wikipedia. Thanks! BlueStaticHorse (talk🌸) 15:32, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

Please do not use LLMs on wikipedia, it introduces inaccuracies, if you decide to do so it will be quickly detected removed and result in your account being banned. Pyrrhic victor (what did I do) 16:13, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

Using an LLM model for writing is very simple: navigate to your LLM of choice, then close the browser window completely. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 02:08, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Review before submitting

Hi! I’ve been working on a draft about Gabi DeMartino (Draft:Gabi DeMartino) and would appreciate feedback from experienced Wikipedia editors before submitting it for review. Based on the sources I’ve included in the draft, do you think Gabi meets Wikipedia’s notability guidelines for a standalone biography? More specifically, are the sources sufficiently reliable, independent, and substantial to establish her notability under the relevant guidelines, or do you think the draft would likely be declined due to insufficient sourcing? I’m particularly interested in whether the sources provide enough significant coverage of Gabi herself, rather than merely mentioning her or covering her jointly with her sister, Niki (Niki and Gabi). Note: the draft had been declined several times since 2021 because "she's not notable enough as a solo musician" although she's more notable as a solo internet celebrity.

Thank you! Gabriella Grande (talk) 12:50, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

Do you have some kind of connection with the subject? If you do, you should read WP:COI and disclose this relationship. Packrat3860 (talk) 13:29, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

I do not. I'm only a fan, as I've been making and editing articles about different artists as well! Gabriella Grande (talk) 13:54, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

Among the sources, which ones fit the description "a major biography of Gabi DeMartino written without doing an interview"? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 13:55, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

I started a new article

Hello, I started an article on the famous Yugoslav album Videosex '84. I’ve started to work on the article based on what I can find and I’ve managed to pull the sources from the Slovenian and the Croatian versions of the page.

I’ve been doing a little bit of work here and there for the past few years and I wanted to get involved in doing some more articles. I believe it is the best article of all the languages on the topic - however is there anything I could do to improve?

Now I should mention that I probably should’ve done a draft initially (which I probably would do in the future) but I think it was a spur of the moment decision to create the article.

Thank you! Neddyfram (talk) 12:56, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

(i) Rather obviously, Neddyfram, something has been chopped off the end of what thereby became <ref>{{Cite web |title=100 najboljih domaćih pesama |url=http://www.b92. ; you should reinstate it (whatever it was). (ii) What commentary on the album as a whole have music critics published during the last 42 years? -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 22:37, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I’ve fixed that part. I’ll start trying to expand that part of the article. Thank you Neddyfram (talk) 02:44, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

I can't sign in on my Wikipedia IPhone App.

Hello! I am new to editing and wanted to get the Wikipedia app on my iphone (IPhone 14, IOS 26.71), but when I click the sign in button it says my sign in form is not the right format. I checked and my username/password was the exact same and correct. Can anyone help? Dender Hello (talk) 16:04, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

I don't know if it's related, but many aspects of Wikipedia are down: Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Preparing for a short-notice security update to our services. 331dot (talk) 16:07, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

BLPs and pictures

I was recently trying to upload a decent picture to Nick Fuentes's infobox. Did not find any suitable images in the commons and I'm aware that I cannot use images off the internet arbitrarily. What are my options here? Thank you very much! _signed, Kvinnen (talk) 19:17, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

Fuentes' infobox is a perennially-discussed issue for precisely this reason. It's complete shit but nobody has found something better.

The problem is that the non-free image criteria say you can only use a non-free image if there is literally no free alternative which would accomplish the same thing. The image we have now is free (licensed CC BY 3.0) so the only option to replace it is with another free image. I have no idea what kind of restrictions apply to screenshots, because it is noteworthy that the existing image seems to be a screenshot from one of Fuentes' streams. Maybe there's a better way to take a screenshot and upload it to commons and have it be compliant, but you'd have to look into that. Other than that the only option would be to contact Fuentes and ask him to release an image of himself under a CC license for us to use; see WP:APOY. Athanelar (talk) 19:35, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

Sometimes, a biographical article just doesn't have a photo. And that's okay. DS (talk) 00:23, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

I'd like to help wherever possible. _signed, Kvinnen (talk) 09:35, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll look into it. _signed, Kvinnen (talk) 09:34, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

You could find a picture of Fuentes online and ask the person who took it to release it under a suitable licence (you can show them WP:IFSM). Experience shows that members of the public are more likely to do so than professional photographers, though even then the odds are against.

Or you can write to Fuentes or his representatives and show them WP:A picture of you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 12:31, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Article Draft (need help/advice)

Draft:New York Chinese School

Hello! I wanted to ask for guidance and advice in order to work to get my draft accepted, but also maintain the general integrity of my writing. I would really appreciate it if anyone could lend some advice on components that need altering!! Mimi0213 (talk) 21:24, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Mimi0213. Unfortunately, quite a lot of your prose is inappropriate for Wikipedia:

• It is currently the largest overseas Chinese school with an auditorium... this is promotional and not required.
• NYCS is documented to have affordable... Wikipedia should not advertising how "affordable" it is. This entire paragraph is really just an advert.
• Recently, NYCS has collaborated... when?
• Continuing with this, it is noted that Columbia... the entire paragraph is promotional, again. This is the text you'd see on a glossy brochure.
• Presently, NYCS works to set up... as above.
• Through NYCS's main website... more promotional fluff.
• ALL THE INFORMATION IN THE... Wikipedia shouldn't have a disclaimer telling the reader where the information comes from. That's the job of the in-line citation.

So, I think you would have to start from scratch.

More fundamentally however, have you proven this school meets our specific criteria for inclusion? I think your Documented NYC is your best source, but the others don't quite meet the bar. qcne (talk) 21:35, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know!! Mimi0213 (talk) 21:52, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Mimi0213, and welcome to the Teahouse.

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.

So writing an article starts with finding independent substantial sources (see WP:42) and then continues with setting aside everything that the writer knows about the subject, and summarising what the independent sources say.

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 22:02, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

A further comment on ALL THE INFORMATION IN THE LINKS ARE DERIVED FROM NEW YORK CHINESE SCHOOL 2025-2026 YEARBOOK: If what you mean by this is "All the information in the sources referred to is derived from New York Chinese School's 2025–2026 yearbook", then you're very close to saying "The sole source for the content of this draft about New York Chinese School is New York Chinese School itself". Such a draft could not be accepted as an article. (Please read and digest Wikipedia:Independent sources.) -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 00:52, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

thank you for the feedback this was all really helpful!! Mimi0213 (talk) 02:24, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Looking for feedback on Draft.

Hi I'm working on Draft:Stan Taylor and went to some get some feedback before I submit it to for Afc.

Could someone take a look and tell me if the souces are enough to show that the subject is notable as an academic? I'd also like to know if there are any big problems with the wording or the ciations I tried to be careful to avoid promotional wording and keep the tone neutral.

I also left a message on the draft's talk page and mentioned an Afc reviewer there but nobody has replied yet.

Ty. ~~~~ CreaterSmith00 (talk) 23:28, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

I've added a template to the top of the draft which will let you submit it for review. The questions that you've asked are exactly what a reviewer will do. Athanelar (talk) 23:34, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

@Athanelar I read the Wikipedia articles on Bernard Amadei and Stephen C. Stearns , and I noticed that both articles contain a lot of information and references, whereas I’m struggling to find enough reliable sources and information for my own subject. I’ve tried my best to research the topic, but I haven’t been able to find much more.

I wanted to ask whether I can use ChatGPT to help me find additional information and potential sources while writing the entire article in my own words. I understand that Wikipedia has guidelines regarding AI use, and I want to make sure I follow them properly. I would appreciate your advice on whether this kind of help is acceptable.

I also have a question about two references in my draft. I’m unable to open them normally, but they work when I connect to a VPN. Should I replace these references with other sources, or is it okay to keep them as they are? I would also like to clarify that I’m not using Wikipedia through a VPN. I only noticed that these two references open when I connect to one.

My main interest is music, but I found it easier to work on an article about an academic professor. I’ve spent around 12 days working on this draft, and I wanted to get feedback before submitting it for review because I don’t want my time and effort to go to waste. This experience has taught me a lot about researching and preparing a Wikipedia article.

I’ll wait for your reply and make any further edits if needed based on your feedback if everything looks fine I will submit the draft for AfC review thank you for your reply and time. CreaterSmith00 (talk) 03:42, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Please don't use AI to talk to other editors.

What you use AI for offwiki is none of our business, including for research. Do be mindful though that if you ask ChatGPT to find you sources for a Wikipedia article it's not necessarily going to find sources that are actually useful for demonstrating notability, even if you specifically tell it to do so. Any sources it gives you, be sure fo check them yourself against WP:NACADEMIC/WP:GNG.

The two sources you can only access via VPN are fine. Athanelar (talk) 03:50, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

@Athanelar Thank you but I didn't use AI here for talk? CreaterSmith00 (talk) 03:58, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

@Athanelar Hello I've now finish the final draft after working on it 6-7 hours and I've submitted it for AFC review.

If you get a chance, could you please have a look at the draft and let me know if you notice any mistakes or anything that still needs fixing? I'm worried about making a mistake that could lead to the draft being declined, since the review notice says it may take seven weeks or more. I thought the review take near 2 or 3 days but I understand now. If there anything that needs and you can't it yourself, please just let me know so I can work on it.

I also wanted to ask one more thing about while this draft is in AFC review, am I allowed to start working on another draft, or is it better to wait until this one complete? thank you again. CreaterSmith00 (talk) 10:42, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Many drafts take a long time to be reviewed and you can do what you like while waiting: including adding to the draft if you realize it can be improved. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:53, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

This is true, but given that you are a newer editor I strongly recommend waiting for your first draft to be reviewed before making any more. It's entirely possible you've made some mistakes in this draft that you may then repeat in your other drafts and then they'll all be declined at once and you'll have a lot of work to do in fixing it in all the drafts. Just stick to this one for now and if it gets declined you can learn from your mistakes for the next times. In the meantime I'd suggest editing existing articles to build your general Wikipedia skills. Athanelar (talk) 11:01, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

@Athanelar Thank you for your guidance I appreciate your help and will focus on improving my Wikipedia editing skills. CreaterSmith00 (talk) 11:45, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Article notability question

Hello! As someone who highly supports the WikiProjectKentucky, I decided I would make an article for a school that is registered in National Register of Historic Places that article being Nancy Elementary School I was just wondering can it be a standalone article or is it notable?

Thanks, 𝓕𝓸𝓾𝓻 𝓣𝔀𝓮𝓷𝓽𝔂 🍃 (talk) 04:43, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

420yeahh, anyone who thinks it can't be a standalone article is free to send it to AFD or wherever. And if that happened and you'd disagree with the deletion/redirection/merge rationale, you'd be free to defend the article's "standalone" status. -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 06:27, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Oh okay thanks! 𝓕𝓸𝓾𝓻 𝓣𝔀𝓮𝓷𝓽𝔂 🍃 (talk) 07:14, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

420yeahh, the school is almost certainly notable but the article ought to explain why the school is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Cullen328 (talk) 08:50, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

@Cullen328 Hi! I described why it was in the History section of the page :)

Cheers, 𝓕𝓸𝓾𝓻 𝓣𝔀𝓮𝓷𝓽𝔂 🍃 (talk) 09:13, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

In my opinion, also adding a very few words to the lead paragraph giving the same idea would be good, if you didn't already. For example, where the lead says "listed", add on "for its X", or whatever similar thing. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 15:47, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Conversion Date => Day of Week

How does on convert a Date (DD-MM-YYYY) to a Day-of-week (22-Oct-2026 is a Thursday)----MountVic127 (talk) 07:16, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi MountVic127. {{#time:l|22-10-2026}} produces Thursday. See more at mw:Help:Extension:ParserFunctions##time. PrimeHunter (talk) 08:37, 22 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)

How do I make my "Created articles" userpage automatically update itself?

User:GoldenBootWizard276/Created articles. It is getting too long to manage manually. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 09:50, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

@GoldenBootWizard276 I don't think you can. On the other hand this search within your contributions shows only new page creations in mainspace. It does include creation of redirects. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:42, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

I use an external bookmark manager (mine is Pinboard; others are available) and mark the link for each article I write with a specific tag. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 12:23, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Rename article?

The temple Krishna Temple, Islamabad was initially planned to construct in 2016, but it's not yet constructed due to political controversy. So should the name of the article be kept same or should it be renamed?, because theres possibility that the temple may never be created. Weichan123 (talk) 11:19, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

In my opinion, FWIW, the article's title is still valid and appropriate: the purpose of a title is only to unambiguously identify the subject, not give additional information about it (like "proposed").

Skimming the text, some of the wording could be adjusted to emphasise that things are not yet "set in stone" (pun intended). Replacing "will be" with "is intended to be "or is planned to have" and similar tweaks might be appropriate: however I will leave such copyediting to someone with more knowledge of the subject. Hope this is useful. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-56420-06 (talk) 13:36, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Submitting a stubby article through AfC

I am trying to write a biography of that DJ someone was asking about above. Having surveyed the sources I think he probably meets WP:NBASIC (I have a solid chunk of a history book documenting his career, a full page profile in Billboard, and a very promising lead on a second book). But while I think he probably warrants a dedicated article there's just not that much to say (I rewrote that sentence about 8 times trying to find a politer way to put it, so pardon my bluntness I guess). I need to review that third source and then write copy so I don't have a specific draft to show atn, but I would estimate a lead paragraph, a couple paragraphs on his career and maybe a closing note on his legacy/influence.

I would prefer to WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE and just write a small article. Is AfC likely to decline a submission on the basis that it's not terribly "deep"? Does it benefit the encyclopedia to have a stubby article that will most likely not ever be significantly expanded? Packrat3860 (talk) 13:54, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Hia @Packrat3860. AfC can absolutely accept stubs, you just need to meet the minimum encyclopaedic standards and prove at least NBASIC through your sources. We generally look for about three sources, so it sounds like you might have enough. If it helps, I've recently re-written WP:Articles for creation which gives some tips. qcne (talk) 14:22, 22 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)

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)

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)

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)

Israeli elections 2026

Why is the sign for voting next to Naftali Bennett's party מחל? This is the sign for Likud. Mistake? or Manipulation? Please fix this asap!! ~2026-56566-87 (talk) 17:42, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

I see רק beside "Together" in 2026 Israeli legislative election. Are you looking at a different article, @~2026-56566-87?

I wondered if there had been some vandalism, but I can't find anything recent in the history. ColinFine (talk) 18:54, 22 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)