New to Wikipedia? See our tutorial for new editors or introduction to contributing page. Messages generated by AI will be collapsed and may not be answered. Note: Newer questions appear at the bottom of the Teahouse. Completed questions are archived within 2–3 days.
The Teahouse is occasionally semi-protected, meaning the Teahouse pages cannot be edited by unregistered users (users with temporary accounts), as well as accounts that are not confirmed or autoconfirmed (accounts that are at least 4 days old with at least 10 edits on English Wikipedia).
However, you can still get direct assistance on your talk page. Use this link to ask for help; a volunteer will reply to you there shortly.
[Teahouse volunteers: If you have helped such a person, please don't forget to deactivate the request template.]
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)
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.
@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 That's a good idea. Thank you. H0n0r (talk) 10:09, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
@H0n0r If I could give you one piece of advice, save yourself the stress and avoid AfD. I also tried broaching the issue at the Village Pump – I found the discussion to be disappointing. That's when I realised I could have more impact rescuing articles that have been PRODed and expiring drafts. Mme Maigret (talk) 12:58, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
@Mmemaigret this is so nice of you, thank you. Afd is pretty awful. No, it's really awful. There are users there just nominating dozens of under-researched non-western articles and it's so disheartening. I can't understand this issue gets continual, high level, international press and yet goes unaddressed. Thank you for your work and camaraderie. H0n0r (talk) 14:21, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
@Mmemaigret @H0n0r @Suðurhafsljósæta @Mike Turnbull @~2026-41275-62 Given your comments, I suspect you may be interested in this discussion I've started at Village pump. Any input is welcome / encouraged, as I'd like to get the ball rolling on something that might serve to address this problem in the near future. The more we let ourselves get caught up in despondency the worse it's gonna get.
This thread, which was one of my first major disagreements here on the website, might help to contextualize the issue I'm describing. I just think we need to be able to separate these concerns in a rational manner which nonetheless acknowledges that relevant facts are rarely biased, and undue weight is typically a reflection in the eye of the beholder.
Just because I'm referenced here, I want to go on the record that I don't think WP:RGW should be interpreted to mean that Wikipedia does not have systemic bias, or that it is even possible to not have systemic bias. I also don't think it means we should unquestioningly accept systemic bias (and I commend those who try to improve them).
I only meant that we should be cautious about thinking about article content as a convenient vehicle for changing hearts and minds. I think Wikipedia has some duty to consider to consider its role perpetuating certain kinds of bias (as does any sizable organization), and neutrality does not mean uncritically presenting "both sides". But I value the neutrality of the encyclopedia even when my personal views are (at times) trying to chip away at the bedrock of established thought. Packrat3860 (talk) 20:13, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
On Wikipedia, in theory, undue weight is not in the eye of the beholder at all, but determined by what's in the reliable sources and what isn't. Of course that is always distorted to some extent because it's humans analyzing those sources, but we hopefully want to correct that distortion without swinging the pendulum. This thing gets handled wrong in all kinds of different ways and I don't blame anyone for wanting to improve it.
Wikipedia doesn't just prohibit righting great wrongs because of NPOV; wanting to right great wrongs goes directly against most of Wikipedia's basic principles, not just one. Righting great wrongs is vitally important and must be done, but not here. A scheme to right great wrongs using Wikipedia is just a sabotage plan, not a noble cause or even an intelligent one. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 01:14, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
@TooManyFingers I think we might be defining 'righting great wrongs' in radically different ways here, based on the way you seem to be characterizing this. Nothing wrong with disagreement if not, but I'd think it somewhat mistaken to suggest that most editors don't come here with some sort of guiding principle as to what kinds of knowledge they want to afford the public access to through their work.
@CSGinger14 this is interesting, but it doesn't seem to be what I'm talking about so much. It's certainly a piece of it, but what I'm really after is that by not going and looking for sources that are reliable and definitely exist, Wikipedia continues to essentially commit great wrongs. AfD routinely nominates and deletes non-western articles, particularly on female subjects, without doing a lick of research. I'm trying to be charitable and assume this is laziness or unconscious bias, but whatever it is, it continues daily, unabated.H0n0r (talk) 16:01, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
@H0n0r I don’t disagree with you, and if you have a strong argument to make I encourage you to make the case. It’s nominally a location for proposals but, as you can tell, many editors have thrown in alternative ideas and reflections on the issue. If we want something to get done about it everybody has to be involved, so please do share.
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.
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.
We don’t like TooManyFinger-slop like that. Please actually write the articles yourself. CuteLittleBlobs (talk) 00:16, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, what is "TooManyFinger-slop"? Most of his edits here are quite helpful. In solidarity, DollarStoreBa'al (Converse) 14:03, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
I think this is just an unfortunate overlap in usernames and typing styles. CuteLittleBlobs I'm sure is referring generally to AI "slop" (AI image generation has a tendency to mess up human hands, including adding fingers) and not the user TooManyFingers (who I agree is helpful) Packrat3860 (talk) 14:10, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
Blanking and starting over is the correct approach. I have fixed up LLM articles to acceptable standards 3-4 times and won't be doing it again: it is more work than starting over, and risky too. WP:TNT is the accepted solution and won't be seen as an attempt to hide. All the evidence is preserved in the article history anyway: even for fully deleted articles admins can examine it.
You can save the references and read them to make sure they're okay (sometimes LLMs will cite wildly inappropriate things, including articles that don't even mention the subject) and use them for a human-written article, alongside references found yourself.
Good luck with your new articles! M kuhner (talk) 19:08, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
@SIPE ILUMINARI You can do the same as someone who rescues an LLM draft – stubify it and start again. Mme Maigret (talk) 13:00, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
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)
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.
I mean that AI doesn't generate my writing, it is still my writing but I use the AI to help read sources. For example here are a few: GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 21:47, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
I can see some problematic things here. You asked ChatGPT "What does KB mean?" and the explanation it provided cites no source. You can't therefore cite that information on Wikipedia, because it's as good as speculation. If you say "X was Knight of the Bath," you don't actually know that to be true beyond what ChatGPT has said, and without a reliable source it fails our standard for verifiability. These are the things you need to be very careful about when using AI for research. Athanelar (talk) 21:52, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
It says here that "KB" in History of Parliament Online means "Knight of the Bath" but yes, I will be more careful in future. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 21:54, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
Great, as long as there's a published, reliable source to cite, you're good. My point is to not take ChatGPT at its word. If it gives you a factual claim that a name in a particular source refers to a specific person, or a certain abbreviation refers to something, make sure you follow up and find a source that confirms that claim. And when it gives you sources to use for an article, don't just take its summary of what the source contains at face value. Make sure you actually find the source and read it and get the information directly from there. ChatGPT's summary of a source cannot be trusted at face value. Athanelar (talk) 22:07, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
@Athanelar: There is nothing that needs to be cleaned up. The articles are my writing and I don't need to tag them on my created articles list. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 21:50, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
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.
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.
Sorry, I overlooked these first question and jumped directly into <<<Can you speak to the reason for that; -> If not, a rationale for why AI concerns might have been raised would be helpful.>>> so my answers in the sub-answers were indeed all guesses of what might have triggered AI-dectection. (no hard - "no, I have no idea" as I get asked of that ideas). Unfortunately I can't help with model-number as I don't have a LLM on my side^^lg DarioDS (talk) 22:54, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
@DarioDS "Unfortunately I can't help with model-number as I don't have a LLM on my side". Do you mean that you don't have the model number of the LLM that you used? Your answers are quite confusing. David10244 (talk) 08:58, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
@DarioDS And "I get asked of that ideas" doesn't quite make sense as an English phrase. David10244 (talk) 09:00, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining the next steps to me. Is the review still outstanding, or has it already been done without considering any of my questions?^^lg DarioDS (talk) 19:38, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
The draft was declined on the 22 October. You can re-submit it for review as long as you are sure no AI-generated text is present. qcne(talk) 19:40, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
How can I make sure that <<<A volunteer will check all the things you're asking about, as part of that review.>>> happens BEVORE the review is closed?^^lg DarioDS (talk) 22:22, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
You can't. Checking for these things is part of your job when writing an article. But if they see that you really tried to fix the things that need fixing and they believe that you could succeed if you tried again, they are allowed to give you another chance - it's up to the reviewer. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 14:24, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
Because this time I'm not only left with the unanswered question from first attempt, but also with the question of what triggered the AI-detection^^lg DarioDS (talk) 22:29, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
AI detection is triggered by the use of AI. It sometimes happens that people use AI when they think they are not; for example, most grammar checkers are AI even if they don't tell you. If you used any kind of writing helper, the way to fix it is to completely delete everything and start over with no help.
Earlier when asked about AI, you said Not in my text/work. Thank you for doing your best to avoid telling a lie, but when a person is asked about this they don't give such a strange answer unless they are trying to hide something. But everyone already understands - the hiding has already failed. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 14:10, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
Deleting everything is not a penalty, it's just the easiest way to fix the problem. When you use AI it's like you put a whole cup of salt into your soup; you don't work to get the salt back out, you just make new soup. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 14:42, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
(Note that if you say "I deleted and started over" but you didn't, everyone can see the real truth of what happened.) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 14:14, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
Maybe we can assume good faith and assume that they are just confused...
This seems a little harsh.
Either way, please DO NOT USE AI!(while AI may be helpful in certain areas, creating entire articles is not one of them)16dvnk (talk) 11:41, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
Dario, if you used AI at all to create your draft or responses, please properly disclose so. GreatWhiteEditor (talk) 21:10, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
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)
is an example, this one has been edited as a part of whatever they're doing it for, however you can notice the exact same auto-generate edit reason for the first revision and the second in the same minute (both edits are in the same revision page), its seems like the automatic sandbox tour creates it twice, and for the second edit, just puts the sample text as a repeat, this isn't an every time bug though. [] did not get the duplication issue. ~2026-56525-12 (talk) 17:55, 28 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)
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)
(Slightly late but) I'm using the mobile app right now; from my experience, it looks like the app ignores custom .css and .js for most namespaces, so if you load up the Main Page in a new article tab, no dice. The Main Page version on the Home tab doesn't have TWAfI. As for logging in, have you tried going down to settings and scrolling down to the very bottom, where it says "account"? Might be able to log in there. 7amiþ = reform(solidarity).__init__(t, c) # Leave a talkback, TWAfI's wild rn 16:06, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Please help me improve my article
Hello! I was wondering if you guys could give me some suggestions or even edit my work in progress article: User:Dender Hello/FreeWater (company). It would help a lot and I would really appreciate it! Dender Hello (talk) 13:36, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Just blatant advertising of a non notable company. Theroadislong (talk) 13:45, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Hello. It's great that this company does good things, but doing good things is not enough to merit a Wikipedia article- you need a summary of critical analysis and commentary about the company that shows how it is a notable company in a Wikipedia sense. Most companies on Earth actually do not meet that definition, because most coverage of a company is about its normal activities.
If you just want to tell the world about the good things this company does, that's exactly what social media is for. 331dot (talk) 13:51, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Hi! Thanks so much for taking the time to read my draft and for giving me such helpful advice.
You make a great point, and I completely agree with you! It makes total sense that a company needs deep, independent news coverage to have a Wikipedia page, and that doing good things isn't quite enough.
I really appreciate you steering me in the right direction. I think I will pivot and look into writing about a topic, object, or company that is already more notable in the Wikipedia sense. I'll stick to social media to share the good work this specific company is doing.
Thanks again for your time and for being so helpful! Dender Hello (talk) 14:04, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Hello @Dender Hello. Please do not use AI to create or reply to comments on Wikipedia; the practice is prohibited per Wikipedia:AITALK. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 15:50, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
I write all my own replies. I take time to make my replies and be respectful, so it's pretty annoying that you're accusing me of using AI just because my writing is good. .--. .-.. . .- ... . / -.. --- -. - / .- -.-. -.-. ..- ... . / .--. . --- .--. .-.. . / --- ..-. / ... --- -- . - .... .. -. --. / - .... . -.-- / -.. --- -. - / -.. --- .-.-.- Dender Hello (talk) 17:05, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
GPTZero says your comment above is 100% AI generated. Theroadislong (talk) 17:08, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
It’s has to be a false positive. Dender Hello (talk) 17:37, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Here, you wrote "It's has to be a false positive", which is a normal little mistake for a human to make. (I can think of at least two ways it might have happened.) It also shows that you are not necessarily such a careful writer, because a mistake in the first word usually gets noticed and corrected, and it shows that your own writing is direct and makes sense.
In the other message, there are no careless little mistakes, but there are large and embarrassing mistakes that you yourself are quite unlikely to make. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 19:18, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
The morse code reads this “ PLEASE DONT ACCUSE PEOPLE OF SOMETHING THEY DONT DO.”
but why would someone communicate in a language that not many people use? SillG (Hi! Want to talk?) 15:51, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
"PLEASE DONT ACCUSE PEOPLE OF SOMETHINČ THEY DONT DO."
Could you elaborate on why this is there, and why it's in morse, @Dender Hello? GreatWhiteEditor (talk) 21:26, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
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.
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)
I have a second account ( Yes, i have read the policies. ), However, it does not allow me to log in on my ip, instead showing the block message. It is a public place and account creation is disabled, however it's only for wikipedia. The account is "JacksonTJ330". I can log into other Wikimedia sites, but not wikipedia. What should i do? MisprintMint (talk) 22:32, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
That user doesn't exist here, did you mistype it? St☆rlet! (Talk to me!) (Library) 22:46, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Hi MisprintMint. Special:CentralAuth/JacksonTJ330 says there is no global account so the user doesn't exist at any Wikimedia wiki. If you think the name is really JacksonTJ330 then please link a website where the account works. Some people falsely assume that all wikis using the same MediaWiki software as us are Wikimedia wikis. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:52, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
I think i have misspelt it, the "TJ" is actually tj, which would be "Jacksontj330", which on wikibooks would be en.wikibooks.org/wiki/User:Jacksontj330 . MisprintMint (talk) 02:20, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
However, it seems that the block was only IP-Related, as it seems that i'm already logged in here. I thought that you had to log in on the same IP adress as you created the account in. Jacksontj330 (talk) 02:24, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that with temporary accounts (the numbered kind that has no login) you lose that number if you change IP address. But regular accounts that log in are not affected by that stuff at all. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 20:42, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Temporary accounts are cookie-based, so changing IP addresses will not change the TA you have. Per Wikipedia:Temporary_accounts#Account_creation, As long as the cookie exists, all edits made from this device and browser will be attributed to this temporary account, even if the IP address changes.OutsideNormality (talk) 03:05, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
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)
Wikipedia (the website) does not have any way to know, nor does it care (in the sense that access is free to everyone, regardless), whether a reader kindly donates to the Wikipedia Foundation (the organisation that hosts Wikipedia).
If you create an account, and stay logged in while you read, you can turn off the donation appeal banners. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 10:57, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
Nobody, either people who donate nor people who do not donate, needs to pay in order to look up an article. If you think you saw a message that said you needed to pay in order to read an article, there was some misunderstanding. Perhaps you saw a fundraising banner that suggested that you make a donation, but such donations are not required, and choosing to not donate will not prevent you from reading any article. CodeTalker (talk) 22:52, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
New flags of french departments.
Hello, could you change new flags of french departments more than traditional flags? ~2026-56733-01 (talk) 12:06, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
General requests like this are unlikely to get much response. If you want some change to an article (or several articles), suggest the specific changes on the talk page(s) of the article(s). ColinFine (talk) 14:21, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
Every time I visit a different one, I set it to dark. There might be a better way but I don't know it. If someone else brings a better answer, I'll use it too. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 18:41, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
I haven't tried this, but for most things you can set your preferences on Meta wiki and set them to cascade to all the others. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 09:43, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
I think for some reason (maybe that the dark mode is still being tested?) that this doesn't work for this feature. I had already done as you suggested, but no cascade. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 23:07, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
Avoiding "Speed Deletion" tag
Hi folks, I was recently warned that a Wiki page I was trying to create for a prominent physicist is being marked for "speedy deletion" because an automated Wiki filter thought I was using AI generated text. We all know that LLMs have hijacked the language of scientists (and everyone else), and since there are only a few ways in which text written by a physicist can be used to explain certain technical concepts, it does not mean that the text I am writing was created by AI. I shouldn't have to stoop to using "baby talk", or deliberately use unconvenional inaccurate language, when describing certain concepts in physics to avoid being accused of using AI. Of course I use AI, but not in a blind un-critical, uncomprehending way. I use it as a super-charged Google, to obtain references to papers and articles that I would used Google or some other tool. I would welcome advice on what I should do to avoid having a page, that I created with much time and effort, deleted by an AI tool that accuses me of using AI!
Kirkee1952 Kirkee1952 (talk) 22:22, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
@Kirkee1952 In the section that says "Through instanton calculations, Pruisken demonstrated that the dissipative conductance ... and the Hall conductance ... undergo a **two-parameter renormalization group (RG) flow**. This flow diagram ..."
If this was not generated by AI, why did you write it using Markdown syntax (the asterisks)? David10244 (talk) 09:43, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
Physicists just talk like that. It's part of their language, and they can only explain certain technical concepts in that way. It's terribly uncritical and uncomprehending of you not to understand that! Suðurhafsljósæta (talk) 11:37, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
You accuse others of "uncritical and uncomprehending" in regards to how people here not conforming to how physicists speak. But we're not in a forum for physicists. You're the one who is a guest, in a place where writers of an encyclopedia meet and talk in the language of encyclopedia writers. So for the charge you accuse David10244 of, I would say "physician, heal thyself."
In any case, we have many articles about technical concepts that don't read like they're riddled with LLM use. And, in fact, while there are many technical concepts in physics, a biography of an individual physicist is certainly not a technical concept. It should be a narrative about the physicists life, and touch on works, and how reliable sources have talked about those works. It shouldn't resemble a CV. If someone needs to understand the Lorentz transformation to understand a biography of Hendrik Lorentz, something has gone horribly wrong with that biography. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 13:10, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
I believe the person you're responding to was being sarcastic. Athanelar (talk) 14:01, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
Yes, I was—sorry for being a little too dry there! Suðurhafsljósæta (talk) 15:25, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
[sneaks off to start writing an essay "Improving the CV: Wet Sarcasm and the Uncomprehending Lorentz Transformation"] TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:08, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
Ok, got it. I am going to rewrite everything so that it's going to be a biography rather than a CV. ~2026-57046-93 (talk) 17:15, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
Sarcasm: I bet the AI will fix that within half a second. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 20:50, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
Yeah, physicists use asterisks all the time! It's incredibly rude of people to assume that it's AI! will0w! ;3 (talk) 21:47, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Jil Tracy
How can Jil Tracy be born in 1973 and have graduated from law school in 1979? Someone needs to correct this information. Unfortunately, I don’t have that information. ~2026-56967-67 (talk) 07:08, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
I went by what was actually said. Sorry. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 23:01, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
If you need an admin action, you should ask at WP:AN. An article by that name existed in 2011 and was deleted as promotional advertising. You'll need to make a persuasive case as to why this is necessary. 331dot (talk) 14:42, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
Articles for improvement
Why am I all of a sudden seeing "Help improve this article!" on the main page? I've been using the site for years and I've only started seeing it last week. Useless Editor 1 (talk) 00:08, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
It's just a new thing, it isn't related to anything you did or didn't do. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 00:19, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
So I created this page 5 minutes ago but I don't want it anymore and I can't seem to put templates on it so I can't nominate it for speedy deletion. Can anybody help? Nibnab43637 (talk) 00:47, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
I also want the talk page deleted. Nibnab43637 (talk) 00:50, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Nevermind I've figured it out. Nibnab43637 (talk) 00:55, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Because other people read these questions and may have similar ones: WP:U1 says, (These templates are not displayed on pages such as .css and .js, but their categorization still works.). Rotideypoc41352 (talk·contribs) 02:18, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
dit
Irrelevant to Wikipedia
SECTION D: Practical & Competency-Based Scenarios
Case Study 1: Re-ordering the Path Preparation Sequence
A car needs to reach the baby monkey. The path is blocked by a tall giraffe first, and then a short snake
further down the road. A student wrote this scrambled code:
# Step 2: Adjust the snake length snake_1.length = 8 # Step 1: Lower the giraffe
height giraffe_1.height = 3
Tasks:
1. Rewrite the code block in the correct sequence of execution from top to bottom.
2. Add a comment at the top explaining what the overall sequence does.
Case Study 2: Tracing Code Execution & Comment Identification
# Set up giraffe heights for the bridge giraffe_1.height = 10 # giraffe_2.height = 2
giraffe_2.height = 7 # Print completion message
Questions:
(a) Which line of code will be completely ignored by the Python computer, and why?
(b) What will be the final height value of giraffe_2 when this script finishes?
(c) List the exact order of active instructions that Python executes in this script.
1. Are you here to advertise an educational service? If so, I won't be attending.
2. If I'm ever to be executed, I hope it's not by python. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 03:43, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Citation needed on Gwangyang Re: Steel Works
Hello,
I wasn't sure whether or not my decision to add a 'citation needed' tag to this paragraph: Gwangyang Steel Works was reasonable. I looked at the other source in the paragraph and couldn't find a mention of the statistic that 300,000 people visit each year. I also couldn't find any sources by googling when they have visitation hours or about tourism to the plant. I admit that I don't know Korean and can't examine any sources that are in Korean regarding the Steel Works.
I found this post mentioning that the site gets 'hundreds of thousands of visitors each year' and I suspect that this fact was sourced from Wikipedia.
It sounds as though this may be unsourced. If a source in Korean tells how many people go there in a year, that part of the Korean article should be readable enough from an automated translation to at least confirm that the statement is in there. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 05:30, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Taking a look at the sources that are present, it looks like 4/10 of them are referring to the sister city programs the city has. Other facts such as the temperature and precipitation, geographical features, and more statements that are present don't have citations. Also, some of the statements seem to be inaccurate. The article states that the steel works is the largest in the world, but this Reuter's article says that it's "the world's fifth-largest steelmaker ". Aperture LENS (talk) 14:44, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Remove the "more citations needed" alert
Dear colleagues and friends,
I am new to wikipedia. I just added more information and citations to a page having the initial alert "This article needs more citations. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. "
Should I now remove the tag? I checked on the chronology, cannot understand who included the tag. Also in the "talk "page there is no information.
Thanks for your help! Galileoelaluna (talk) 06:52, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Hi @Galileoelaluna. If you are sure you have now added enough citations that the article content is now verifiable, you can indeed remove the tag. Happy editing! qcne(talk) 09:42, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
@Galileoelaluna If there are still some parts of the article that are not cited, please keep the tag until those parts are cited from reliable sources too.
One example: The section "Mission" will almost certainly need to be completely removed from this article and never replaced, because that is the CNR talking about itself. Wikipedia writes only what the public already knew from reliable public sources independent of CNR, and says nothing from CNR internal sources.
We do accept internal sources for trivial obvious facts such as who is the current head of the organization and what is the street address, but not for the substance of the article. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:56, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
@Galileoelaluna I deleted the Mission section, and left a note on the article's talk page explaining why. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 19:39, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Making an article about a novel you wrote yourself.
Soooo suppose I have a novel published (which I do) and a moderate amount of people read it and it's recognizable in passing. I want to make an article about it, and I want to make it as accurate as I can as I wrote the damn thing, after all. Could I? Of course, it won't be advertising, just a neutral, honest, straight from the source piece of info about a novel.
What I'm trying to say is: if you wrote a book, and you the author make a Wiki article about said book, would that count as advertising? TheOutlaw223 (talk) 07:51, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
this would be considered a conflict of interest, meaning you are 'highly discouraged' from doing this. realistically, if you decide to do this, you will face a ton of extra scrutiny to make sure the information you are putting is well sourced, accurate, etc.
you also are very unlikely to have the knowledge of Wikipedia standards to write a page in the style and structure we try to create, so it would be a lot more work than you think. really, the best thing you could do as an author is to just write and promote a book so well that some fan thats an editor decides to do it themself. Jackjd0 (talk) 07:59, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
So basically, I'd have to wait for someone else to make an article before I even think about doing edits to it? TheOutlaw223 (talk) 05:23, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
That's what you're strongly advised to do, TheOutlaw223. But, to quote Marchjuly, "All of these things don't mean that the book's author couldn't try to create such an article, but it does mean it would be best done the Wikipedia:Articles for creation process." Whoever creates a draft or article, this would only succeed if based on other, sound material. For a novel, such material is likely to be reviews. (Roads to Santiago isn't a novel, and the article Roads to Santiago could doubtless be improved -- for one thing, it's heavy on the quotations -- but it happens to be the article I've most recently worked on and I flatter myself that it's not so bad. If you examine it, you might find that it illustrates what people here are saying.) -- Hoary (talk)WWU👍︎ 05:38, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Hi again TheOutlaw223. You would still be subject to Wikipedia's conflict-of-interest guideline and paid-contribution disclosure policy even if someone other than yourself were to create an article about the book/novel simply because you are its author. This means you would be pretty much expected to refrain from directly editing the article yourself, except under certain conditions (like those mentioned in WP:COIADVICE); you would instead be expected to use the article's talk page to make Wikipedia:Edit requests and propose the changes you think are needed. Someone unconnected to the subject matter would assess the changes in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines and make them if they're seen as being OK. The same would also apply if you yourself were to create a draft that ended up being approved by an WP:AFC reviewer. You would be pretty much left alone to freely work on a draft (you'll only have problems if you start violating some of Wikipedia's major policies (like WP:BLP or WP:COPY)), but you would be expected to take a hands-off approach if the draft eventually gets approved as an article. So, even though you're the author of the book/novel, you'll have absolutely no final editorial control over a Wikipedia article about the book/novel. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:39, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Wikipedia also doesn't allow promotion, but this does not mean "you can't write in advertisement style". Instead, it means you can't seem to be seeking recognition for an event, a product, a company, or a person.
You can see how difficult it would be, for an author to write an article about their own novel yet still seem to not be seeking recognition for the novel. (or for themselves.) And if by almost miraculous skill that was accomplished, the other problems mentioned above are still problems.
Wikipedia is a history-oriented publication. Novels are not an ephemeral thing in the way that pop songs are. A Wikipedia article on a novel - other than some very rare novel that gains instant worldwide fame in its first week - should probably not be written for quite a long time after the novel is published. "After it's much too late to gain any further sales" might unfortunately not be a bad generalization, because Wikipedia needs "How was this work received?" to already be a history question rather than a news item. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 15:04, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Suggested edits
Hello! How are you? Good day to you. Welcome to Wikipedia! I have a question: I have been making "suggested edits" on Wikipedia. Previously, 3 links used to be suggested, but now only 1 link is being suggested. Could you tell me why? Thank you very much in advance! 😊😊Wikiflowers2008 (talk) 09:25, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
1) Did you change your recommendations? If so, that would explain it.
2) If you didn't, then it's very possible that other people fixed those. Lots of editors complete these suggested edits. DollarStoreBa'al(Converse) 15:03, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
One more thing: that program is automated and therefore can have bugs and be inconsistent, such as suggesting tone improvements within quotes or on userspace pages (both of which I have experienced before). It's entirely possible the program just didn't detect the things it previously did. DollarStoreBa'al(Converse) 15:28, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
I think I might just be expanding on what DollarStoreBa'al said, but I've never used this feature.
It's possible that the suggestions are set by Wikipedia to give a maximum of three, but this time it couldn't even find three of the type of things you've requested, so it gave you what there was. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 15:13, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
As far as I know the number of suggested links shown and what links are shown are determined of a algorithm of some sort, so it's probably related to that if I had to throw a guess. Pyrrhic victor(what did I do) 16:09, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
@Pyrrhic victorParrik, you tell me. Aha, I see—that’s possible; but as Dollar Stone Ba'al mentioned, the program could be automated 😁Wikiflowers2008 (talk) 18:30, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Its also worth noting that the suggestions are machine generated (though part of the infrastructure around them is human controlled via the community configuration page) and that you will no longer be able to do the task once you have 150 edits. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page)(contributions) 18:51, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
@45dogs Thank you, you expressed this very clearly. {{Wikiflowers2008 (talk) 18:53, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
@45dogs Are these 3 edits on Wikipedia being consolidated into 1, and is this intended to be the most convenient (i.e., the simplest) way to edit the article? {{Wikiflowers2008 (talk) 15:47, 27 October 2026 (UTC)}}
Newcomer tasks are designed to increase engagement by newcomers and encourage them to edit, rather than necessarily being convenient (though convenience is a good way of encouraging editing). The ultimate goal is to increase editor retention by keeping these newcomers editing and contributing. My understanding of the change from 3 to 1 is that instead of suggesting 3 links on an article and having a maximum of 15 articles per day, it suggests 1 link on an article and has a maximum of 30 articles per day. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page)(contributions) 22:17, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
@45dogs Exactly, you’ve thought this through very well; I agree with your point ✅🆗 Thanks for your! {{Wikiflowers2008 (talk) 09:57, 28 October 2026 (UTC)}}
@45dogs I had another question: this morning, when I woke up and tried to access Wikipedia—intending to write to you—I received an "error 707" message. Sorry about that! I’m writing to ask why the system says this—is it just a temporary technical glitch? 😊😁 {{Wikiflowers2008 (talk) 10:02, 28 October 2026 (UTC)}}
@45dogs Aha, thanks, that’s clear—got it. Is Phabricator an editing interface that works in real time? {{Wikiflowers2008 (talk) 03:08, 29 October 2026 (UTC)}}
The Wikimedia Phabricator is just the primary platform to report bugs and file feature requests related to the MediaWiki software. I believe it is real time, but I do not know much about it as I do not commonly interact with it. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page)(contributions) 03:18, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
@45dogs Understood, thank you. Does this platform work for Wikipedias in all languages?😊😁 {{Wikiflowers2008 (talk) 03:24, 29 October 2026 (UTC)}}
@45dogs Did you wake up? 😁😁 Wishing you the best for your day and your work on Wikipedia—take care! {{Wikiflowers2008 (talk) 03:26, 29 October 2026 (UTC)}}
Hi @~2026-57130-25. Do you have a question about Wikipedia? qcne(talk) 09:44, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
I also edit at school, those blocks are very annoying. We can't do anything about that. Please pay attention in class. DollarStoreBa'al(Converse) 15:00, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Everyone always pays attention in class.
(Just not always to the same things.):) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 15:38, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
As stated above, we do not control your school's content filter. GreatWhiteEditor (talk) 21:41, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
@DollarStoreBa'al Hello, good day—peace, mercy, and blessings of God be upon you. I agree with your point; you’ve suggested an excellent tactic! 😁😊 {{Wikiflowers2008 (talk) 03:29, 29 October 2026 (UTC)}}
my friend we cant do anything we don't run your school Greenestguyinhistory (talk) 16:09, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
COI edit request at Talk:Bonita BPM
Hello. I have a declared conflict of interest: I work for the company the article is about. I am not editing the article myself and I am not trying to bypass the request process.
I filed an edit request at Talk:Bonita BPM on 1 October, reformatted it on 9 October after a reviewer declined the first version on formatting grounds, and left a follow-up on 16 October. There has been no response for twenty-five days.
The request is narrow and sourced: the company was renamed from Bonitasoft to Ofelia in May 2026, covered by Les Echos, Distributique and Yahoo Finance. The sources are in CS1 format with inline ref tags, as the reviewer asked.
I am posting here rather than leaving a third message on the talk page, which would read as badgering. Could someone point me to the right venue, or take a look if the queue is simply long? I am happy to split the request into smaller parts if that makes review easier. Thank you. CG-Ofelia (talk) 09:48, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Your edit request is not marked as such so it isn't in the queue. You need to place {{edit COI}} at the top of your request. This is facilitated by the edit request wizard for future requests. Please be aware there is a significant backlog of requests right now, so it may take time. 331dot (talk) 09:52, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Hi @CG-Ofelia. I am going to be honest: most of us volunteer editors would rather not spend the time and energy doing the work a paid employee has asked us to do. The Conflict of Interest backlog is over 1,200 requests. However, you have not actually submitted your request for review, so it has not appeared in the list of CoI edit requests. Please follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Edit_requests#Making_requests. qcne(talk) 10:04, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Notice about sources help
Hi Teahouse,
I see a notice on a couple different articles and am wondering whether it is standard procedure:
If inappropriate material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue. If you are connected to a subject of this article, help resources are available."
Is it suggesting specific edits for the notice to be removed?
As far as "Is it suggesting specific edits" - not by name or location obviously, but yes it is saying there are edits that need to be made, unless someone already saw the template and already fixed all of them. It means whichever things fit the description given.
Because a biography of a living person can have a direct effect on people's lives, we have a strict policy that anything presented without reliable proof must be ripped right out of the article, not waiting for anyone to say they'll go and look it up. (When it's not involving any living person, we're more lax about it and willing to say "please go look this up in reliable sources so there will be evidence" instead of just deleting it on sight.) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 14:24, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Are these sources enough for an article about a parent company?
Hi! FYUL is the parent company formed in 2024 by the merger of Printful and Printify. Both Printful and Printify already have Wikipedia articles and still operate as separate brands under FYUL.
Before drafting an article about FYUL, I’d like an honest opinion on whether these sources are enough to meet WP:NCORP:
This reads to me like churnalism (a press release regurgitated) and it's also reliant on an interview with the CEO. I think it fails the Independent criteria.
Again, lots of "the company says X" which is a hallmark of churnalism. It also doesn't really mention FYUL much. Fails both Independent and Significant coverage.
I think this is an okay source. It provides some detail, not wholly based off a press release or interview, and seems independent and reliable.
I have restored the paid editing disclosure to your userpage. Please be aware that anybody can see your editing history on Wikipedia, and transparency about paid editing is absolutely mandatory. Athanelar (talk) 12:12, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Thank you so much for your answer, and thank you for informing me that it is mandatory to keep the paid editing disclosure. One more question about the sources, are 2 sources gonna be enough to to meet WP:NCORP or is it supposed to be 3 or more? Marina Droniceva (talk) 13:33, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
You'd want at least 3 sources meeting all the requirements of WP:42 and which are not WP:CORPTRIV. Athanelar (talk) 13:36, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
To emphasize what Athanelar's answer already says, five hundred sources will not be enough - unless every source covers every detail of WP:42 and is also not WP:CORPTRIV. Only then, three or four should be enough. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 14:09, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Have you read WP:BOSS? If not, I suggest you read it, and probably show it to your boss or colleagues. ColinFine (talk) 16:05, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Biography of an Indian scientist
Hello,
I am Dr Kishore M. Paknikar, a microbiologist and former Director of the Agharkar Research Institute, Pune. I currently serve as an ANRF Prime Minister Professor at COEP Technological University.
I am new to Wikipedia and would appreciate guidance on the appropriate process for proposing a biographical article about my scientific career.
I have assembled historical coverage from The Times of India, The Hindu, DNA and Nature News India, along with scientific publications and institutional records. A source verification report is also available.
As the subject of the proposed biography, I recognise my conflict of interest and would prefer that an uninvolved editor independently assess the sources and determine whether an article would satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements.
Could someone please advise me on the appropriate next steps?
Thank you. Kmpaknikar (talk) 12:23, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
I assume based on tbe fact this comment is AI generated that what you've done is have some AI tool like ChatGPT prepare a draft for you and assemble some sources.
Throw that draft out completely. We do not allow AI generated text here, and AI is usually useless at determining whether you are notable.
Read WP:AUTOBIO and WP:NACADEMIC and determine for yourself based on those whether you think you should have an article about yourself, then come back to us. Athanelar (talk) 12:27, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
In addition The Times of India is NOT a reliable source. Theroadislong (talk) 12:54, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Wait for real? I thought they were a legit newspaper. Packrat3860 (talk) 14:22, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
The summary: they are a legit newspaper that takes bribes to publish fake articles.TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 19:49, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
@TooManyFingers: That's not a summary of WP:TIMESOFINDIA. The words "bribe" and "fake" are not used, and such a published accusation can sometimes invite legal action. I suggest you strike your comment (which didn't really add anything to the answer already given). Bazza7 (talk) 09:53, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hello,
For transparency, I am Ian David Marsden. I would appreciate an independent assessment of whether the sources below could support an English Wikipedia biography covering my work as an illustrator, cartoonist, designer and graphic novel author.
My early Google Doodle work is probably the most widely documented aspect of my career, but there are also sources covering published books, product design, an international sporting event mascot, exhibitions and Cartooning for Peace. I would welcome advice on assessing this body of work together.
Google Doodles**
The opening paragraph of the English Wikipedia article on [Google Doodle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Doodle) already identifies me as an outside contractor who designed Doodles before Dennis Hwang took over that role in 2000. I mention this as existing Wikipedia context, rather than as independent evidence.
The Lambiek biography documents my beginnings in the Swiss satirical magazine *Nebelspalter*, subsequent work for Swiss and international publications, and my creation of the official mascot for the 2003 Alpine World Ski Championships in St. Moritz.
I was also a Wacom Featured Artist, with drawing and illustration tutorials presented through Wacom’s website. My [archive of that feature and video material](https://marsdenillustration.com/wacom-featured-artist/) provides background and leads to the original material. I recognise that this particular link is my own website and should not be treated as independent coverage.
Books and reviews**
The Jewish Book Council published an independent [review of *Marvin*](https://www.jewishbookcouncil.org/book/marvin), written by Richard C. Kraus and dated 29 September 2020. It identifies me as the adapter and illustrator of the graphic novel, based on Marvin Hamlisch’s autobiography *The Way I Was*. [Schiffer’s publisher record](https://schifferbooks.com/products/marvin) confirms the publication details.
My published bibliography also includes the following titles, listed in the existing German biography:
*Zürich, my little town* (1988), Nebelspalter Verlag — ISBN 3-85819-124-8.
*Football Heroes* (2006) — ISBN 978-3-9523088-0-6.
*Willkommen im Kollegenzoo* (2008), Droemer Knaur — ISBN 978-3-426-64568-0.
*Footballheroes: See Red!* — ISBN 978-3-9523088-7-5.
*The Secret Egg* (2019) — ISBN 978-1-78127-834-5.
*Marvin: Based on The Way I Was by Marvin Hamlisch* (2020), Schiffer — ISBN 978-0-7643-5904-0.
There is an existing [German Wikipedia biography](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_D._Marsden), with additional references. I understand that its existence does not itself establish eligibility for an English article.
I believe an English-language article existed many years ago, but I have been unable to locate its deletion record. If relevant, I would appreciate help identifying it and advice on the appropriate procedure.
Would these sources provide a reasonable basis for pursuing a biography through Articles for Creation? Are there particular gaps in the sourcing that should be addressed first? Given my connection to the subject, I would welcome independent editorial assessment rather than making that judgement myself.
Thank you very much for your time and guidance.
All the best,
Ian
For additional background and an overview of my work, my official website is https://marsdenillustration.com/. I provide this for context, rather than as independent evidence of notability.
Hi @Marsdenillustration. Please re-write this question again in your own words as a reply to this comment, without using an AI Chatbot to communicate with us. We find it disrespectful for editors to communicate to us via AI. qcne(talk) 12:52, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
How would I rewrite the question in my own words? These are my own words. Did you even read what I wrote? Marsdenillustration (talk) 13:04, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
You very clearly used an AI chatbot help to write that question, so please write it without the usage of AI. qcne(talk) 13:07, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Blogs, passing mentions and listings do not count towards establishing notability, we require in-depth significant coverage of you in reliable sources. Theroadislong (talk) 13:19, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Hi. I'm not going to jump to if this is AI or not, either way, this is very hard to read and please write it properly. Thanks. 16dvnk (talk) 15:21, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Your comment surprised me, 16dvnk, as I've found LLM-generated text easy to read. But LLMs are evolving, and, for all I know, moving in the direction of opacity of output. Anyway, my curiosity was piqued, and so I un-collapsed the text above to take a look. But what I saw was easy to read. (Or so it seemed. Could this have been a delusion?) Which part of it, or which aspect of it, is very hard to read (or very easy to misread)? -- Hoary (talk)WWU👍︎ 21:19, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Ancient joke: Q: "How can you know Martha Stewart has visited your back yard?" A: "The dog turds have been sculpted into swans."
The slick surface and the internal conceptual cluelessness of LLM writing might be what 16dvnk meant. It makes me want to bang my head against the wall in an elegant and stylish manner. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 22:11, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
P.S. And the The slick surface and the internal conceptual cluelessness of LLM writing. is also something that bugged me. @Marsdenillustration, please rewrite your question and show more sources per WP:42. Also read WP:LLM for legitimate uses of LLMs. Thank you. 16dvnk (talk) 12:56, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
What I meant was for them not to have an excuse to avoid rewriting the text. It was super obvious though.edited to avoid misunderstanding.16dvnk (talk) 23:20, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
16dvnk, I've read this (your 23:20 comment) several times, but it still baffles me. Possibly: "I didn't find it hard to read; and I said that it was hard to read simply in order to apply more pressure on Marsdenillustration to rewrite it." I rather hope that I have misunderstood. -- Hoary (talk)WWU👍︎ 00:56, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
This is a misunderstanding. I was editing on mobile, and their wall of text and poor LLM-like format made it hard for me to read. I don't want to assign blame or add pressure on anyone, I want to help them. 16dvnk (talk) 12:43, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Marsdenillustration, when I looked at what you posted here, I thought "this is AI-generated slop. And there's a lot of it. If this guy doesn't even have the courtesy to address us in his own words, he's not getting any help from me." Maproom (talk) 12:30, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
@Hoary I also thought it was AI slop, but I found it hard to read and I wanted them to rewrite them in their own words.
I didn't want to argue with them (per above discussion) if it were AI slop, so I just told them to fix what they wrote.
P.S. The only other good faith explanation for this editor is that they used AI for translation, but even that may be a stretch. (EDIT: Reading their history, this has become increasingly unlikely. They either suddenly changed up their style a lot, or just got lazy.) 16dvnk (talk) 12:41, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
AI & Robots
MESELA BU YAPAY ZEKA İLE NASIL BASA CIKACAGIZ .ÖRNEK SİZ GERCEKMİSİNİZ ;BİR ROBOTLA YAZIŞIYORUM desenize
Please communicate in Engish here. 13:20, 26 October 2026 (UTC) Theroadislong (talk) 13:20, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
I tried to use translate and got
"For instance, how are we going to deal with this artificial intelligence? Tell me, for example—are you real? Am I corresponding with a robot?" St☆rlet! (Talk to me!) (Library) 14:29, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
@Starlet147's translation makes me think you're attempting to report AI use in a talk page. If this is the case, please let us know who is doing this and where this is occurring so we can do something about it. DollarStoreBa'al(Converse) 14:48, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
To me it sounds more like one of those rhetorical philosophical questions that have no real answer and that people sometimes ask here. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 15:21, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Just a hunch, but this might be happening on Turkish Wikipedia. St☆rlet! (Talk to me!) (Library) 17:53, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Using 'the' before superlatives
Hi all, I got caught in a back-and-forth at Jigjidiin Mönkhbat in what I had thought was basic English grammar. The article currently says [...] defeating strongest 1964 Olympic wrestler, while I would probably write [...] defeating the strongest 1964 Olympic wrestler. Sorry if this is not the right place to ask about basic English, but I really need a sanity check here. LkL-70547 (talk) 14:08, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Since this is describing a person (which would be a noun) and that noun comes after the superlative, the word 'the' should be included. I've reverted their edit and let them know on their talk page. DollarStoreBa'al(Converse) 14:43, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure you're sane:)
But certainly on this point of grammar you were right. For some grammar issues there are options, but on this one there aren't any. (Not in English; I expect that the other person was thinking of the grammar of another language in which it's done the way they showed. Many languages have a lot of grammar in common with each other, but little insignificant differences like this trip people up all the time.) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 15:32, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Strictly speaking you could avoid the "the" if the sentence was in the sense of "defeating strongest-1964-Olympic-wrestler-and-reigning-three-time-World-champion Mansour Mehdizadeh", and the preceding words were just qualifiers, but that's a much less natural reading ~2026-57635-38 (talk) 02:06, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
You are correct. If Google and Wikipedia are correct (I do not speak Mongolian), Mongolian does not use definite articles. English does. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 18:34, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Draft:Andrew Bear
Hello. My Wikipedia username is AndrewBearHealing, and I am Andrew Bear.
I have created Draft:Andrew Bear and disclosed my conflict of interest on my user page.
My biography is supported by independent reporting from CBC News, CTV News, paNOW and the Regina Leader-Post.
I received AI assistance in preparing portions of the draft. I would appreciate help from an independent Wikipedia editor to assess the sources, address the AI-generated wording, improve the article's neutrality and prepare it for Articles for Creation review.
Thank you for your assistance. AndrewBearHealing (talk) 19:40, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Hi @AndrewBearHealing. Please do not use an AI chatbot to communicate with us, it is very obvious the above message was either written or partly-written by AI. We consider it disrespectful and we actually prohibit the usage of AI to write content, please carefully read Wikipedia:Writing articles with large language models.
You have not yet submitted your draft for review, but even if you did it would be either declined for the AI usage or because you have not proven how you meet our criteria for inclusion. qcne(talk) 19:52, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
In addition to that, please fully delete every bit of the draft that even might have a chance that it was touched by AI, and rewrite it by yourself. Do not try fixing up those parts, and do not try to keep any parts that AI was allowed into. I'm saying this because it will be less work for you. It's like if you dumped a whole cup of salt into your soup; you don't try to get the salt back out, you just make new soup. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 20:00, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
@AndrewBearHealing If by "independent reporting" you mean they interviewed you, please be aware that interviews are not considered independent. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 20:47, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
What you are trying to do is probably impossible - and if it is possible (i.e. in the unlikely event that you meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability), it is probably impossible for you as an inexperienced Wikipedia editor to write an article about yourself successfully.
When I say "the unlikely event", this is not a reflection on you or your work, but the reality that most people in the world do not meet the criteria, which are not about what they are or have done, but about what people wholly unconnected with them and with no involvement whatever from them or their associates, have chosen to write in-depth about them: most people have not been written about in that way, so there is literally almost nothing which could go into a Wikipedia article about them. All the sources you currently cite are telling what you say about yourself, but Wikipedia has essentially no interest in what you say or want to say.
My advice (and that of several other experienced Teahouse hosts, I believe) is to forget about Wikipedia and continue to do your good work, and promote it in places that permit this: Wikipedia doesn't. ColinFine (talk) 21:19, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
You may find WP:ESSAY helpful. Usually, you just create a user subpage. To do that, just go to your user page and add /essaynamehere to the URL, replacing 'essaynamehere' with your title.
Like if I wanted to write an essay about vandalism I could do:
If you have any other questions, feel free to ask. Happy editing! PixelsRCool (talk • contribs) 23:48, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Help in transcluding
Hello, can someone help me transclude this section and this section to this draft separately? I'm having a hard time not making it a mess. I have already added the templates to them but still find it difficult to use on the target page without repetition. Jôhola 00:20, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
@Josedimaria: It looks like you are trying to use onlyinclude. That's an old messy system when different parts of a page should be transcluded in different places. I suggest using the newer options {{#section:}} or {{#section-h:}} (alternative names #lst and #lsth) at Help:Labeled section transclusion. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:46, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
@PrimeHunter: I still find it difficult especially as regards to this. Could you kindly help me fix that section while I see how you use the tag? thank you. Jôhola 18:39, 27 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.
We get a lot of the same questions here in the Teahouse. But there is one in particular, I'm wondering if we could address in the Teahouse invite. When an AfC article get declined, the banner invites them to the Teahouse but I'm wondering if one thing that should be added to that notice is not to ask the Teahouse for a pre-review. (There may be a better place for this suggestion, like maybe the AfC talk page or the village pump.) Mme Maigret (talk) 01:18, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
An idea that certainly merits discussion, Mme Maigret; but better raised and discussed on Wikipedia talk:Teahouse. Perhaps move it there? -- Hoary (talk)WWU👍︎ 02:16, 27 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.
Old language translation
Hello Editor, I am working on the history of minority community, while working I got an idea, can we translate the old chronicle extinct language with the help of dictionary and ethnolinguistic language cognates , is it possible?
and written on historical page with the secondary refrence . 刘宸宁(LiuChenning) 05:35, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Do modern scholars agree on the correct translation of these texts? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 06:26, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
@TooManyFingers Many scholars disagreed because, when I read other reference histories, I found that many translations were written for mainland people and were not written with that specific community in mind , they were written under the influence of the mainland's religion. Therefore, many scholars agree that most translations were misleading and too biased toward a particular religion, which is not the native religion of the minority community. 刘宸宁(LiuChenning) 06:38, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
If most scholars disagree with you, then what you have is innovative new research, and you should publish it in an academic journal. DS (talk) 13:22, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
We can do this work, but I have heard that we cannot publish our research paper on Wikipedia, is it true? 刘宸宁(LiuChenning) 13:38, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
What is the solution? When I explored I found WikiJournal, is it possible to write a research in WikiJournal and then use it as a reference? 刘宸宁(LiuChenning) 15:47, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Do you understand why it is a bad idea to let people create their own reference sources which they then cite? DS (talk) 17:58, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
I know that many editors will misuse this and write articles in their favor, which will start an edit war.
But my intention was different, I am just focusing on translating the Chronicle in a neutral context and I think other editors of the WikiJournal will review it and give their opinion, then I used it as a reference and provided a secondary reference, this will make it easier for other editors to understand. 刘宸宁(LiuChenning) 18:15, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
What you are saying is "I know that other people would abuse this. But you can trust me. I am special. I would not abuse this."
But everyone will say this.
Creating your own sources which you then cite is a bad idea. DS (talk) 18:28, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Sorry, I won't do that if it's wrong. I just want to provide more accurate historical sources and references, that's why I thought of this idea. 刘宸宁(LiuChenning) 18:42, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
@刘宸宁 I completely understand. There is a big difference between "wrong" and "bad for Wikipedia". What you want to say may be right (the real-world kind of right), but what you want to say would be bad for Wikipedia; if you are allowed to put your interpretation here, then everyone else must be allowed to do the same. In that way, mainland opinion (having larger numbers) would be the final winner of "the Wikipedia war". I think you will see from that, that it's better to block everyone's personal opinions from Wikipedia. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 05:38, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
@TooManyFingers It is not about my personal interest. Actually, I don't want to take any name of that country but their are heavy old mentality religion who where discrimination against minority community . If i talk about this thing it will create political debate But for many years, minority were not part of that country. They became part of that country in the 19th and 20th centuries.
Mainland people also wrote the history of that community, but they gave a strong bias towards their own mainland religion.
Many scholars from different countries have written about this, and in recent times many local authors have corrected the old translated books, but only a few have properly addressed the problem .
So I want to help this type of community, because it is connected to one of the largest family communities that came from South China and To find meanings of words, and tones that match the extinct language of the community from which they migrated.
And I will also take the secondary reference book where I mentioned this here and I will also take the book in which the mistake of the secondary reference was criticized, so that people do not get confused and this will help in understanding the history in a better way. 刘宸宁(LiuChenning) 06:53, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Feedback or review request for Draft:Richard North (ethnomusicologist)
Hi everyone!
I recently submitted a draft about Richard North, an American ethnomusicologist based in Santa Barbara who directs an active gamelan ensemble and teaches Cirebon gamelan, alongside his work in preserving endangered traditional performing arts in Cirebon, Indonesia: Draft:Richard North (ethnomusicologist).
I’ve supported the draft with a combination of reliable English-language publications and independent Indonesian news coverage. Whenever someone has a free moment, I’d really appreciate any feedback or a quick look to see if it’s on the right track.
Thanks so much for your time and guidance! Sedayuu (talk) 05:48, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Which of your sources fit this description:
1. Does not contain any material that appears as if it might have come from Richard North (i.e. no interview, no self-written bio, no CV material, etc)
AND
2. Is a real biography of him, or at least more-or-less like one TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 06:04, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello, I leave this message because I accidentally noticed that current Antinous article features less the historical person and more Lambert's book.
The important thing is to trim out everything that Lambert writes about Antinous. Lambert often has no sources, and when he does, he just points to other writers who also have no sources. It goes in circles. We need to separate the contemporary sources, which are mostly artifacts, damaged and fragmented: the obelisc, the poem, etc.
These are very valuable, but does not clarifly clarly Antinous' personal relationship to the emperor, which makes the "lover" word dubious. We shall use "favorite" as it covers a larger spectrum.
Then we can have all the rest: Pausanias — 2nd century AD writes about Antinous being “highly regarded”, and nothing else.
Senator Cassius Dio about 100 years later, starting "the scandal", we need to write about how reliable source Dio is (or not). Historia Augusta in detail (reliable or not). And then modern authors and interpretations, including Lambert's book, maybe an entire analysis of the book itself.
Antinous is rated as a good article, so its content will have been considered in detail by editors interested in the topic. You have already made a similar comment on the Talk Page of that article, which is the correct venue. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:26, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
I was directed here to share my concerns. The "Good" article rate is wrong. Although it contains a lot of text and is formatted nicely (It seems to be the mere criterion of being "good".), it is mostly based on one book with dubious claims and no sources. The book itself is where you should look for answers, as I have already highlighted some of the most exaggerated claims (but there are many more).
Lambert's book is only a small part of history, but a significant part of it is speculation, and historical fantasy.
The Talk Page of that article is abandoned seemingly. I get the feeling that years ago, someone sat down with that book in hand and copied down whatever they could, and ever since then, that's become “history”. ~2026-56342-88 (talk) 10:41, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
The criteria for an article to be rated 'good' are certainly more than just "a lot of text and is formatted nicely": see WP:GACR6. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:48, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
The six good article criteria
Antinous fails at:
2,b (The whole article is essentially an excerpt from Lampert's book, which fails to cite its sources many times and points to other authors.)
3.b (We descend into a rabbit hole created by Lampert, discussing whether the historical figure was hairy enough to create a distance between himself and his assumed partner, the emperor. We also consider whether this hairiness contributed to the historical figure's assumed suicide. I consider it completely unworthy of serious discussion, as it belongs entirely in the realm of fantasy.)
4. neutral (As far as I know the artice entirely ruled out the research of Robert Turcan, while many historians take a purely romantic or scandalous view of the relationship, Turcan provides a critical academic perspective. ) This last is very serious, and when you check the "talk" page of said article some earlier editor especially was against to portray the historical person anything else than accepted by the modern public view of the internet audience. ~2026-56342-88 (talk) 13:18, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
If you want to challenge the rating, register an account and file a request for reassessment. 16dvnk (talk) 13:14, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep in mind that you should read the criteria first and determine. Your challenge must be based on policy, and trolling is not allowed. I have read through it and it seems that it passes the criteria.
P.S. If you have a conflict of interest with the subject, please declare it. 16dvnk (talk) 13:16, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Read my observation about these criteria above. However, I would again suggest opening the book and comparing it to the article, as I did. Conflict of interest? How so? ~2026-56342-88 (talk) 13:28, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
The conflict of interest part was a precaution, as undisclosed cois are not allowed.
If you think there is a copyvio, you can first leave a talk page message regarding this. You may consider filing a reassessment if consensus has formed in favor. 16dvnk (talk) 13:32, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
I’m not necessarily thinking of a copyright infringement, but rather that the entire article is practically a summary of Lambert’s book, you know? It is not historical. My understanding is that this book was scanned and is easily downloadable, and that’s somehow become the basis for the whole Antinous-Hadrian thing. (In contrast, the other book I mentioned earlier is very difficult for the general public to access -->Robert Turcan’s research on Hadrian) But Lambert's book is frivolous. It’s full of speculation and hair-raising conclusions (I don’t want to quote it here, but the author didn’t shy away from describing Emperor Hadrian’s imagined anal sex practices). The last place I could have imagined this book appearing is in any kind of encyclopedia. Lambert also "analized" sculptures and wrote personality profiles just by looking at said sculptures. It is wild.
(Sorry for my typos, I am on mobile, it is not easy to write longer sentences.) ~2026-56342-88 (talk) 14:09, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
This is something you should raise on the talk page of the article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 14:55, 27 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.
Regarding the use of a quote
Can we use a direct quote from a book which is most likely in some copyright policy, when credits are given to the necessary author.Thanks TeenX808 (talk) 10:06, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
@TeenX808 Yes, quotes are regularly used in WP articles. The advice at WP:QUOTE gives more detail. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:20, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
@Michael D. Turnbull: thank you so much, I read it, in simple words as long as I give credits to the author it’s permissible to use right? TeenX808 (talk) 10:26, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Permissible, yes, up to a point depending on the length of the quote. However, sometimes paraphrasing is better, as the linked page explains. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:28, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
TeenX808, direct quotations should be used sparingly but they can be very useful in specific circumstances. Especially when the wording of the original author is distinctive and highly creative. For example, I use brief quotations by professional reviewers quite frequently in critical assessments of movies, books, albums, paintings, plays and the like. A series of two or three sentence quotations by reviewers can convey an understanding of the assessment of a creative work much better than a bland, neutral summary that most reviewers liked or disliked the work. Proper attribution is mandatory. Cullen328 (talk) 21:44, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Requesting help regarding my AFC submission
Last week I submitted the draft, Draft:Metamorphic solar cell, to Articles for creation. It was declined, with the reviewer citing that it doesn't show that it meets WP:GNG. I thought that the sources I provided did prove notability, so I would appreciate any advice or insight other editors could offer. I already made a post on the AFC help desk regarding this, and I know "double dipping" is frowned upon here, but since it was archived with no other editors commenting on it, I figured it would be ok to post here. I also have access to the books I cited, so if excerpts are needed, I can also provide those. ExitTheWarrior (talk) 13:20, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
You need to find three sources that each meet all of the requirements outlined at WP:42. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 13:35, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: Thank you for the prompt response. Looking at what I currently have in my draft, I think I do have three sources that would satisfy the notability guideline:
THREE sources
The reference book, Solar Power Generation, which has an entire section on metamorphic solar cells. It describes what they are, how they function, and their effect on solar cell efficiency. ISBN9780415621106
The textbook, Solar Cells and Their Applications, which has a section on "inverted metamorphic multijunction cells". Among other things, it describes some of the downsides of metamorphic cells and how inverted metamorphic cells can further increase efficiency despite them. ISBN9780470446331
The journal article, "MOVPE Growth and EQE Artifact Analysis of Upright Metamorphic Quadruple Junction Solar Cell", from the ECS Journal of Solid State Science and Technology. The article includes an overview of metamorphic cells and goes into more detail on the materials and growth methods invovled. doi:10.1149/2162-8777/abe2ed
I believe that all three of these sources are reliable and independent, per WP:SCHOLARSHIP. The books I cited are published, secondary coverage. The parts of the journal article that I referenced are not from primary research, but rather a section where they are documenting background and existing research on the subject, with citations. Additionally, the article is peer-reviewed.
I think these three sources would also constitute significant coverage. The two books each have relevant sections that are at least multiple paragraphs long and cover topics related to the subject. The portion of the article I cite should also be sigcov, with the relevant paragraph I reference being 300 words long and directly addresses the subject.
I also think that the multiple requirement is satisfied here. There is some overlap in the content, especially with what metamorphic cells are and how they work, but each source also covers parts of the topic that the others don't instead of just repeating the same information.
I haven't resubmitted my draft because I haven't substantially changed it since it was declined (only added a source and a brief section on an efficiency world record). I'm not exactly sure what the proper course of action for me would be here and I would appreciate guidance. If possible, I would also appreciate another pair of eyes on my sources. I thought that they proved notability, but maybe I'm misconstruing some portion of the relevant guidelines. ExitTheWarrior (talk) 14:40, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
I'm not in a position to judge, for something so technical. @Sulfurboy: who reviewed your draft, might have an opinion.
We might need to ask for expert advice from the members of a relevant WikiProject.
Also, did you see Mike Turnbull's practical suggestion, below? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 14:47, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
I thought that the subject should have its own article on it, but if that isn't the case then that could definitely be a good course of action. There is actually a section on Metamorphic Multijunction Solar Cells in the Solar cell research article, but it's quite messy and even promotional as it is. My impetus for making this draft was when I made a redirect for discussion post after writing for a different solar cell-related article.
I made the draft so brief just so that I could demonstrate notability before I spend too much time writing about it. It is however a fairly technical subject, so if the community thinks it would be better served with the subject being covered inside a broader article then that's fine too. ExitTheWarrior (talk) 14:48, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
If, as you say, the existing section needs improvement, then it would be a good idea first to to improve that section as far as possible, and then to consider if it could (with minor modifications) stand as an article in its own right. Once an article using that material is accepted, the existing section could then be trimmed down and be given a link to the new article. Many now-existing articles began in such a way. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-56420-06 (talk) 19:07, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Done I'll see about further improvements later, but for now I've added the contents of my draft to the Solar cell research page. Like I mentioned, the existing content was a mess (uncited, primary sources, promotional tone), so I actually just replaced the entire thing. ExitTheWarrior (talk) 20:15, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Hi! I am wondering on how short descriptions are decided and if the short description on my draft above is appropriate. It is currently set as "Spanish locality". Thanks! PixelsRCool (talk • contribs) 13:53, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
@PixelsRCool See WP:Short description. The main idea is that short descriptions help readers find the correct page when they see the results of a search and only the article title and its short description will be visible. In your case, most people wouldn't know that Otalia / Teruel is a place in Spain. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:10, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
(... and that means your short description is good, but just "Place in Spain" is simpler and therefore probably better.)
Short descriptions can sometimes be true but bad; that often happens when they focus on something too small (for example, don't change yours to "Place near Villaspesa") or too large ("Place on Earth").
The best short description is very short, and it answers the questions "What kind of thing is this" and "Have I found the right one" for the majority of people. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:44, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
User Page
How to add my impact on my user page?? AsterixSC (talk) 14:32, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Write about all the helpful contributions you have made to Wikipedia. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 14:50, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Text colour
Hi! How can I add colour to text, just out of interest??
I am Liam Beville, the subject of Draft:Liam Beville (conflict of interest disclosed on my user page). The draft was declined for lacking inline citations. When I try to save a version with citations, an edit filter blocks it. Could an experienced editor tell me why, or add the text for me? I can supply the wikitext. Bevilleliam (talk) 14:41, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Probably because you are trying to cite one or more blocked sites.
Thanks. The message was: "Error, edit not published. An automated filter has identified this edit as potentially unconstructive, so it has been disallowed. Disruptive behavior may result in being blocked from editing. If this edit is constructive, please report this error." It did not name any site. The new references are to guinnessworldrecords.com, openpowerlifting.org, limerickleader.ie, limerickpost.ie, ilovelimerick.ie, irishexaminer.com and todayfm.com. Could you tell me which one is blocked, or check the filter log for my edit attempts? Thank you. Bevilleliam (talk) 16:37, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Are those links literally the only material you tried to add during that edit? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:48, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
yes. I deleted what was there and uploaded my edit and then received the error Bevilleliam (talk) 16:55, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
There is consensus that world records verified by Guinness World Records should not be used to establish notability. Editors have expressed concern that post-2008 records include paid coverage.TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:54, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Thanks but at a loss to why GWR is frowned upon especially in a sport? Bevilleliam (talk) 16:58, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Apparently because they have allowed people to pay to get themselves in the book. It doesn't mean you did that, but it means GWR can't be trusted. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 18:32, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Hullo! I have taken a look at the filter logs regarding Bevilleliam's edits to Draft:Liam Beville. They all refer to "zoomer or moomer slang", which didn't make any sense to me when I looked at the edit content... but I have a sneaking suspicion. @Bevilleliam, could you please try editing the page again, with the same exact content if you like, but remove the reference to the "67.5kg division of the Masters 3 category"? Suðurhafsljósæta (talk) 17:27, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
At least it let me post that here, I wasn't sure it would. Suðurhafsljósæta (talk) 17:27, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
That was it. The edit saved. Thank you both for your help. Bevilleliam (talk) 21:12, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Great, I'm really pleased that worked! Suðurhafsljósæta (talk) 21:14, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
yes and thanks again. It was all down to mention of 67.5kg weight division which was seen as that 6's and 7's zoomer slang Bevilleliam (talk) 21:19, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Loficat
Something legal, hell if I know. I can't make sense of it. -Phoenix
Draft Legal Act
On the recording of the digital trace, the authorial pseudonym LOFICAT, and the unlawful use of the designation
It is hereby recorded that the archival image file image_jdfsP4.png contains a public message posted by a user under the pseudonym mona-koshka, dated and time-stamped August 2, 2013, 13:04.
The following circumstances are visually confirmed in the said image:
the message is posted on a webpage in the format of a forum or guestbook;
the author of the message is identified as mona-koshka;
the text of the message contains a description of a creative concept including elements of a rooftop, nighttime atmosphere, rain, wind, feline imagery, and the designation of the style as cat-lo-fi / cat-like lo-fi;
taken as a whole, the visual indicators allow this message to be regarded as an early public record evidencing the authorial designation and conceptual content.
The above information confirms the existence of a public digital trace associated with the use of the pseudonym loficat and the corresponding creative concept as of August 2013.
Legal Qualification under International Norms
According to the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, authors are recognized as having and enjoying moral rights, including the right of authorship and the right to claim recognition of authorship.
In particular, the following provisions are relevant:
Article 6bis of the Berne Convention — protection of the author’s moral rights, including the right to claim authorship and the right to object to any distortion, mutilation, or other modification of the work prejudicial to the author’s honor or reputation;
Article 8 — the author’s right of translation;
Article 9 — the right of reproduction;
in systemic connection with the general principles of the Convention — protection of the author’s work and protection against unauthorized use of the results of creative activity.
In the event of subsequent use by third parties of an identical or similar designation for labeling another musical or media product, such use may be subject to legal assessment as:
unlawful use of the author’s pseudonym;
infringement of the right to name and the right of authorship;
bad-faith appropriation of elements of an individual creative designation;
creation of confusion as to the origin of the content;
interference with the author’s personal creative sphere;
any other violation of the author’s moral and exclusive rights, depending on the applicable national law.
In addition, such actions may be regarded as use of another person’s authorial and creative trace without the author’s consent and without proper attribution of the source of the designation and concept.
Stronger Formulation
The use by third parties of recognizable elements of another person’s authorial pseudonym and creative concept without the author’s consent cannot be treated as a neutral coincidence of aesthetics; where a proven early digital trace exists, this indicates unlawful appropriation of another person’s creative designation and affects the author’s moral interests protected under international copyright law, including the right of authorship under Article 6bis of the Berne Convention.
Short Conclusion
This material may be regarded as:
digital confirmation of an early public authorial trace;
evidence of the existence of the pseudonym and concept in an earlier period;
grounds for legal assessment of the subsequent use of a similar designation in the context of international copyright norms.
What is your question about using and editing Wikipedia? That is the only purpose of this page.
(I have no idea what sort of answer or response you are requesting from anybody to the above screed). ColinFine (talk) 15:49, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Here is a Google Translate version of what this user posted on their own talk page a couple of days ago as a response to a Welcome message:
Thank you for the invitation. I have been following MonaKoshka loficat (Elena Dubetskaya) since 2008, and I recall how she meticulously and gradually built her own unique "Loficat" universe, as well as the neologism "loficat" that serves as her pseudonym. This raises serious concerns regarding projects that employ a similar visual style—featuring a girl, an orange cat, an "orange" vibe, a lo-fi aesthetic, and rain—and then monetize this imagery. These projects even use the name "loficat"—the pseudonym of the composer @Monakoshkaloficat—and sell "orange Catlofi" merchandise (such as heating pads). In doing so, they tarnish the composer’s reputation and lead the public to believe that this concept originated with them. When someone else’s pseudonym, style, and artistic persona are used without proper respect for the original source, it amounts to misleading the audience—especially when the imagery and terminology in question were created and made public long ago, with a clear digital footprint to prove it.TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:05, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Judging by the fact that they posted on Talk:Lofi Girl, I guess that they're trying to launch some sort of legal challenge to somebody using a name with "Lofi" in it. Irrespective of the merits of such a challenge, it is completely irrelevant to Wikipedia. --ColinFine (talk) 18:08, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
I'd actually argue that this would warrant a WP:NLT block, since it seems they're trying to use Wikipedia to influence the legal dispute. —Jéské Courianov^_^vThrillerNight! 22:12, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
I wondered that myself, and I wouldn't oppose doing it. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 01:27, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
According to available materials, the term and creative pseudonym "loficat" have been used in the project MonaKoshka (Elena Dubetskaya) since 2011; furthermore, certain elements of her musical and visual works can be traced back to even earlier collections and albums.
Specifically, there are publications and pages associated with the author that feature related titles and materials:
— Source (via Google Share): https://share.google/gNQwtG4PDqA7e3w1v
There are also publications that mention the author’s original compositions, such as "Spring of Mona the Cat," "Red Cat)))," "Kitten No2," and "Cats Write Poems."
Please take these materials into account when discussing the chronology, the origin of the term, and any potential similarities to later projects. ~2026-56491-48 (talk) 07:19, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
I wanted to make a badge system where you have userboxes that show milestones of edits and account length and stuff, but I didn't realize there wasn't a way to get the user who is viewing. The MyVariables extension does solve that, but it isn't installed on the wiki. I would like to inquire as to why not. (I would also like to inquire if what I am doing is okay).
WP:VPT may be a better place to ask this. ColinFine (talk) 15:52, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
@ZNomadYT To my knowledge, we purposefully avoid allowing people to have userboxes that live-update based on userstats because the computational requirements of calling for those stats in realtime for however many users have that userbox would be immense Athanelar (talk) 16:13, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
@ZNomadYT: Wikimedia projects have around 10,000 page views per second. It's expensive to parse wikitext with templates and so on so pages are cached for performance reasons. We don't want extentions which break caching by giving different results for different users. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:20, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Editor collaborators
Hello editors, can anyone tell me how to find a specialized community editor on Wikipedia?
It's difficult to find an editor on Wikipedia with whom we can work together.
I had big plans for the Asian country various type of minority community, like a WikiProject. But it was difficult to find editors who specialized in a specific skill. So, any suggestions? 刘宸宁(LiuChenning) 16:37, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
I suggest that you stop looking for help, and just start doing the thing you always intended to do. Almost nobody will join when a call goes out "come and join!" - they wait until they see someone is already doing it, and then they think about helping.
The most popular conclusion to "Someone really should ..." is to call out loudly "Someone should! Someone should!". But the right conclusion is usually "... but no one is doing it, so I will."TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:16, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
You could start by looking at "Parent" wikiprojects (say you wanted to work on articles about Bhutan, and there was no WikiProject Bhutan, you'd look for WikiProject South Asia, or failing that, WikiProject Asia).
Also the talk pages of relevant articles (so, in my example, Bhutan and History of Bhutan, etc.)
I am currently getting started on an article about Cyrtosia falconeri, but whenever I try to get the speciesbox to work it just shows the error message for an invalid taxon. I tried it with other species, but it only seems to not work for the Cyrtosia genus and its species, I have made other articles on cyrtosias and didn't have an issue with the speciesbox. does anyone have any idea on why this is happening? or am I just doing something wrong? YourLocalUSBport (talk) 17:02, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
In my opinion, the chance that something is wrong with just Cyrtosia is pretty low, and the chance that you might have made some accidental, random, hard-to-find error is probably higher. What happens if you directly copy over one of your known-good speciesboxes and edit it instead of the new one? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:25, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
I also see that in fact you haven't saved even one edit on a Cyrtosia falconeri draft or article at all ... unless you did it while not logged in as yourself. Do remember to log in every time - it helps a lot. If you sometimes want to do something where no one will see, Wikipedia is a bad place to do that, because it will get seen and it will get connected to you. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:43, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
I just didn't save it because it was a stub and would be relatively easy to get back, and my teachers often will block any site that isn't school related, so I usually just save the source code in Google docs when I have to. I got it to work when copied though. YourLocalUSBport (talk) 14:38, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
You obviously didn't use Google docs to find out that the Wikipedia speciesbox wasn't working right. Please just don't edit Wikipedia while not logged in, which you did again - and then you did log in to make comments afterwards, so logging in seems to be working fine for you.
I'll repeat that trying to be "under the radar" on Wikipedia is not going to work. It attracts attention by admins when you do that. If you don't want to log in from school, don't edit from school. (If you're under your school's radar, that's not my business; I just mean Wikipedia.) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 18:13, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
(The type of attention it attracts is "YourLocalUSBport keeps logging out to edit - look at these edits, it's obviously the same person. Probably thinks we don't see, but why would they try to be sneaky? Put this on the watchlist.") TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 18:41, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
??? I have never logged out on this chromebook, I have made edits on mobile before though, that might be why? I have no idea why it shows up as logging in or out, I have never done so! I have never attempted to be "under the radar", all of my edits to the website have been public and I've never tried to conceal edits?? what?????? I haven't edited wikipedia without logging in, I made an account for that entire purpose! I have no idea why it shows up like that, I'll try to stick with mobile edits then TwT YourLocalUSBport (talk) 04:15, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
It's easier for us to assist with a problem like this if we can see your work. That can be on a "Draft:" page, or a sub=page of your "User:" space.
I got it to work, apparently I had to put in the genus as Cyrtosia (plant) and put in the species as usual. thanks! YourLocalUSBport (talk) 14:40, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Editing House of Romanov Page Family Tree
Hi all,
Long-time enjoyer of wikipedia, first time trying to edit. When on the House of Romanov page earlier, I noticed that the birth year for Catherine Ivanovna of Russia is incorrect in the House of Romanov#Family tree. It is listed as 1629, but she was born in 1691. I tried to directly input an edit, but the tree is an image that I cannot directly edit. Any suggestions? Thank you! Garlicluvr81 (talk) 18:35, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Good catch. To edit an image like that you need to download and edit its svg file via File:Romanov rulers family tree and timeline.svg and then upload the edited version to that page, which can be quite a hassle if you haven't dealt with it before. I can handle it for you if you give me a moment or so. Will report back. –Maltazarianᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ 18:56, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Forgot to report back for a bit there. I've filed a request to get the original image fixed and in the meantime I've uploaded a fixed version of the image and added it to the article. If you come across a similar situation in the future the software I would recommend for svg editing is Inkscape. It takes a little while to get a hang of it but it's fantastic for making images to use on Wikipedia. –Maltazarianᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ 19:18, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Awesome! Thank you so much! Garlicluvr81 (talk) 19:21, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Are these sources sufficient for a biography of Mohamed Sabek?
Hello, I am Mohamed Sabek, a University of Alberta researcher, and I am considering an article about myself. I understand that this is a conflict of interest. No article has been submitted.
Would these sources support a biography, or is more substantial independent coverage needed? I would appreciate advice before proceeding.
Disclosure: I used ChatGPT to help find the sources and prepare this question. Thank you. ~2026-57320-11 (talk) 21:58, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
None of these appear to have significant coverage of you, passing mentions and university profiles are of little use in establishing any notability. Please don't use AI either. Theroadislong (talk) 22:06, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
One, Fire your LLM. It knows nothing of Wikipedia policies (in particular WP:Biographies of living persons, which must be adhered to strictly). Two, none of those sources would be any good; the Taproot sources are too sparse (read: don't discuss Sabek at length) and the other three are connected to Sabek and thus primary, unusable for WP:N or for claims any reasonable person could challenge. You would need more substantial sources and more relevant sources. —Jéské Courianov^_^vThrillerNight! 22:11, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Also read autobiography, @~2026-57320-11, which explains why creating an article about yourself is so absurdly difficult that hardly anybody has ever done so successfully in recent years. I advise you to find something more profitable to do with your time. ColinFine (talk) 22:53, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Vandalism?
This edit's wording feels suspicious, but I haven't seen the actual documentary. I'm not sure if it should be reverted, but if it is false I don't want to just leave it. What is the correct action or policy here? The user has also made some other odd-looking edits. IlikecatsSDF (talk) 22:09, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
I haven't seen this documentary either, but the user's 2 other edits are also marked as vandalism, which is definitely a red flag. GreatWhiteEditor (talk) 22:24, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Mouhmed tajjour cantfightfate
Hello Wikipedia editors,
I am new to Wikipedia and would appreciate guidance on creating a biography about Mouhmed Tajjour Cantfightfate, also known as Moudi Tajjour and Can’t Fight Fate.
I would like to disclose that I am the person concerned, and my Wikipedia username is Cantfightfatemt. I understand that I have a conflict of interest.
I would appreciate an experienced editor reviewing these independent media reports and advising whether I meet Wikipedia’s notability requirements and whether an independent biography could be created.
Thank you for your time and consideration. Cantfightfatemt (talk) 01:10, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
According to these sources no, you do not meet the notability requirement. The reason is that these sources have you being interviewed, and that means they are not independent. (Being interviewed is like being one of the writers.) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 01:22, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Thank you for your response. I understand your concerns about interview-based sources.
I have found two additional Australian news reports covering events involving me, including an alleged assault, a police investigation and criminal charges.
These articles include independent reporting rather than being solely interviews with me.
Could you please review these additional sources and advise whether they help establish notability under Wikipedia’s guidelines? I understand that I have a conflict of interest and would appreciate an independent editor’s assessment.
Thank you for your time. ~2026-57469-91 (talk) 01:37, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
An author credit is no help, but published book reviews by reporters in reliable sources (no blogs, no social media, no places where members are allowed to edit) could somewhat begin to help.
Large followings on social media are unfortunately worthless here. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 05:39, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
The 4BC article is really really tiny, and contains interview material too. The other is just a crime report. If a Wikipedia article was made about you today, it would be ONLY a straight copy of that Hot Tomato report, just using different words. No other material about you would be allowed. Basically a one-sentence article saying "he was once charged with a crime". I'm sure you wouldn't want that, so it's just as well that it wouldn't get accepted anyway.
Good sources are when they write a full biography of you and you don't even know they did it because they never contacted you, just wrote it on their own. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 01:49, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Also, @Cantfightfatemt, please read WP:autobiography, which explains why writing about yourself on Wikipedia is so absurdly difficult that almost nobody has managed it successfully in the last fifteen years, and so you could use your time much more valuably promoting yourself somewhere that allows promotion, which Wikipedia does not. ColinFine (talk) 09:51, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
HTTP503
I cannot view my notifications and can't reply or it will come up with " failed to fetch notications" or error code http503. Anyone else having an issue?PixelsRCool (talk • contribs) 03:00, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
I have the same issue too. This time I get the message, "Server returned error: HTTP 503." (This edit was made manually.) Slackintosh (talk) 03:23, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
+1 same issue. Seems like loads of scripts are broken. Jacksonvil (talk|contribs) 04:52, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Oh. Nevermind. Things seems to be back up now. Jacksonvil (talk|contribs) 05:01, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Issues with the API at the moment – being tracked at T442667. nilnz 03:40, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
I had the same thing! Maybe the server is just busy. 16dvnk (talk) 05:00, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
How can I add a book someone has written to their Wikipedia page?
I want to add a book someone I know has written to their Wikipedia page. Their page makes no mention of the book. How can I get this added? Thanks! ~2026-54687-66 (talk) 05:15, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Perhaps you want to add a mere mention of it; perhaps you want to add a detailed description of it. Or perhaps you want to add something else. Which do you have in mind? (Also, perhaps it has come out in a single edition; perhaps in a number of translations and editions. Which?) -- Hoary (talk)WWU👍︎ 06:59, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Asking vague questions usually gets vague and not-very-useful answers. Which book? Which article?
The best place to ask if the article's talk page. If you post there, it would be helpful to make clear that you know this person (so you may have a conflict of interest), and suggest why you think this book should be added. An article about an author does not necessarily contain a complete list of their publications, so it would also be useful to point to an independent published source such as a review, to indicate why this book has enough significance to be added. ColinFine (talk) 10:00, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Why is the content I write always perceived as AI-generated?
I have edited the Marsa Matrouh article twice, but both times my edits were flagged as AI-generated. I did not use AI at all. My content is based on the following source:
Cohen, Getzel M. (2006). The Hellenistic Settlements in Syria, the Red Sea Basin, and North Africa, pp. 348–349. ISBN 978-0-520-93102-2.
What can I do to get my edits accepted into the article? Sqfzx0719 (talk) 05:46, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Your latest edit literally says utm_source=chatgpt.com in it. Are you really saying you wrote this edit by hand and then, by hand, you typed in fake AI markings to make everyone believe it was AI when actually it wasn't? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 06:02, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Is a library catalog record a reliable source for a journal’s founding year?
Hi, I'm a fairly new editor working on small economics articles. On Acta Oeconomica I cited a university library catalog record to support the journal's founding year (1966), its original full title and the institute that first issued it. Is a library catalog entry considered a reliable source for basic bibliographic facts like these, or should I look for something like the publisher's own page or a secondary source instead? And if a catalog is acceptable, is there a preferred way to cite it (for example a WorldCat record rather than a single university's catalog)? Thanks for any advice. Maize Ledger 110 (talk) 13:01, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
It's a reliable source. Official pages published by universities (and their component institutions and libraries) are almost always acceptable sources. –Maltazarianᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ 17:18, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
... for that kind of thing, yes they are.
Official university pages usually can't help establish someone's notability, for a different example. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:55, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Yes, notability is a whole nother matter with different criteria, but in most general editing situations university sources are alright. –Maltazarianᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ 18:52, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
"Nonce words"
Hello, could someone please edit the article of Paulo Leminski to change "neologisms" to "nonce words", as it is the most appropriate term? I am being caught by filters. ~2026-57331-25 (talk) 14:26, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
I believe it says "neologisms" because that's what the source it cites calls them. If you can find a source that says he used nonce words, you can add that to the article. In solidarity,🏳️🌈JohnLaurens333(They/them • Not a chatbot • Contribs) 14:37, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
I think "neologismo" has a broader meaning in Portuguese than the English word neologism. In English it seems to be about made-up words that were adopted in current language, while in Portuguese it seems to be about made-up words in general. Nonce word doesn't even have a Portuguese-equivalent article. ~2026-57331-25 (talk) 14:54, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Here: neologismo, according to Michaelis (translated): "A recently coined word derived from the language itself or adapted from another language"; according to Infopédia: "a new word or expression formed within a language or borrowed from another linguistic system"; according to Caldas Aulete: "The use of a new word or expression, generally based on preexisting lexicon, semantics, and syntax, in the same language or in another." ~2026-57331-25 (talk) 15:15, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
I think it's understandable what I meant. What is the point of being so meticulous with words with someone whose English isn't their first language? ~2026-57331-25 (talk) 17:09, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
IKR! Anybody would think we were trying to write an encyclopedia. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 17:12, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Just to make you aware: Paulo Leminski invented words just for the purpose of making puns. Example: in Portuguese, there is the word "utensílio", which means "utensil" in English. It has a ring of the word "útil" ("useful") in it; I don't know if they are etymologically related, and it doesn't matter. The opposite of "útil" is "inútil" ("useless", obviously). So Leminski noticed that and used to say that poetry is an "inutensílio", a pun involving all words I just mentioned. It was just for the purpose of an one-time poetic joke; it was not meant to be a word in the dictionary, for example. In Portuguese, we would call the word inutensílio a "neologismo"; that's why the source talks about "o emprego de neologismos" in Leminski's works. Pretty close to the word neologism in English, right? But take a read on the Wikipedia article about neologisms: "a neologism is any newly formed word (…) that has gained popular or institutional recognition and is becoming accepted into mainstream language." And if you read a bit further into the article: "a nonce word is any single-use term that may or may not grow in popularity." So wait a second, would "inutensílio" be considered a "nonce word" in English then? Let's take a look at the Wikipedia article about nonce words: "a nonce word (…) is any word (…) created for a single occasion or utterance but not otherwise understood or recognized as a word in a given language." Huh, it seems pretty close to Leminski's intention in creating that word. So that means the Portuguese word "neologismo" could be better translated as "nonce word" in a text in English, in this context? I guess so! But when I tried to edit it—Be bold!, as Wikipedia proclaims—on the article, I could not do it because there were filters blocking my edits. I tried to publish the edit many times (so I wouldn't need to bother anyone), to the point an user left a message in my talk page warning about the filter logs. The end of the user's message says: "Feel free to ask for assistance at the Teahouse whenever you like." So that's how I ended up leaving a topic in here. Now, I want to ask: why are you being rude on a topic—that is not about your subject of interest, I assume—in a place that is for helping users? I genuinely don't understand; it feels like troll behavior, honestly. How am I supposed to act when someone replies to my message in such an unhelpful, sarcastic manner? Oh well... ~2026-57331-25 (talk) 18:52, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
I've changed it to "made-up words", which I think is more likely to be understood than nonce-words anyway Elemimele (talk) 17:19, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Can you give us some examples of words that are not made up? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 18:49, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Why not just use the phrase "nonce words"? That's literally how the thing is called. It even has a Wikipedia article: Nonce word. ~2026-57331-25 (talk) 19:06, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Given the meaning of "nonce" in British English, "nonce words" could easily be misinterpreted - Arjayay (talk) 19:57, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Uhm, can't someone just link the article so if someone feels weirded out by this phrase they can check that it's an actual term? It feels like avoiding to call the Chinese leader Mao Tse-Tung because of Tung Tung Tung Sahur. ~2026-57331-25 (talk) 20:12, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Nonce has a completely different meaning in English-English (in fact it's extremely offensive, a level of offensiveness pretty close to that of the other "N" word), and although Wikipedia is famously not censored, because of its alternative meaning within the UK, the term "nonce words" meaning nonsense-words would be understood by no one. And that is a problem, this is supposed to be an encyclopedia that can be understood. Elemimele (talk) 10:04, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
I understand now. I guess you could use the alternative term "occasionalism", then, but that also feels like an unhelpful term. Anyway, I decided to go back to the word "neologism". I paid too much attention to the Wikipedia article on neologisms, which says that a neologism is a word "that has gained popular or institutional recognition and is becoming accepted into mainstream language", whereas the definitions in popular dictionaries aren't that specific. The Collins Dictionary, for example, even says that only "Some neologisms become widely used and enter the language." Thanks for the help though:) ~2026-57331-25 (talk) 10:35, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
I would not, personally, describe it as nearly as offensive as the racial slur. Yes, it made me laugh when I first heard the term used in the phrase "nonce words", but it does have a distinct meaning, which doesn't quite map neatly to "made-up words" as at first it may appear. It's certainly not synonymous with "neologism"; I don't think it's a good idea to advise against accuracy unless there's genuine room for confusion with a homonym. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 11:05, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Nevermind. "Neologism" actually seems like the adequate word to use, per definitions on Cambridge Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, and Collins Dictionary. My bad. Requesting immediate archiving...~2026-57331-25 (talk) 22:06, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
References
↑"Paulo Leminski". Enciclopédia Itaú Cultural de Arte e Cultura Brasileira (in Brazilian Portuguese). São Paulo: Itaú Cultural. 2025-10-31. ISBN978-85-7979-060-7. Archived from the original on 2026-08-23. Retrieved 2026-08-23.
Can I use the url= field in a CS1 citation to indicate where I found a given source even if I'm almost certain that URL is not the official URL for that source? In this case I am referencing an old back-issue of Billboard that I found at . Billboard still exists as a publication and for all I know they have their own official archive somewhere with an entry for this issue. I initially tried to use archive-url= to indicate that this is not the publisher's URL, but that requires that url= already be set to something else that's dead. Packrat3860 (talk) 14:30, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
oh, that didn't load right, hold please. EDIT: fixed itPackrat3860 (talk) 16:55, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
@Packrat3860 Sometimes it is OK to use the URL parameter to link to an unofficial source, provided it doesn't infringe the copyright of the authors / publication. For example, academic papers published behind paywalls sometimes have URL that can be used because the authors have uploaded a version of the paper elsewhere as they are entitled to do if their publisher doesn't demand an exclusive license. In your case, the link is almost certainly a WP:COPYVIO and should not be used unless the article in Billboard is so old it is now out of copyright. However, you can still cite that source: links are just for the convenience of WP readers and WP:V allows WP:OFFLINE sources. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:32, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Yeah I think I will go ahead and remove it. I'm not asking questions I don't want the answers to as far as under what authority that site is publishing this archive (cause I'm guessing it's under the "nobody has told us to knock it off yet" doctrine).
That makes sense though that URLs don't necessarily have to be official (so long as its not WP:COPYVIO). Thanks for explaining. Packrat3860 (talk) 18:49, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Twinkle SPI formatting issue
Hi, I tried to use Twinkle to file an SPI but it looks malformatted. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/198.163.129.1. Can someone help me figure out what went wrong and how to format it properly? Thank you! Marquardtika (talk) 14:41, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
You forgot to close the Wikilink to Joe Mitchell (politician), hopefully I fixed it without breaking anything else. LkL-70547 (talk) 15:24, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Ahh, thank you so much, I appreciate the help! Marquardtika (talk) 15:25, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Trying to publish a page.
I'm trying to create a wikipedia entry for respected Canadian psychologist Augustine Meier. My first attempt was pulled and I made major changes to to a draft I created in Sandbox.
Hi Tightfive03. It looks like you got blocked by an edit filter, since you attempted to move it to the title User:Augustine Meier, rather than moving it to mainspace. When moving a page, to move to mainspace you need to change the "user" section to instead be "(article)". Wikipedia:Moving a page may be helpful to look at. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page)(contributions) 16:36, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Don't submit the article for review until you have included some reliable sources which are independent of Meier and have significant coverage of him (see WP:42). At present, all of your sources but one are authored by him and the other doesn't even mention him! Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:18, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
As some general advice, if you find yourself wanting to publish an article about a "respected" anybody (or "important", "honourable," "prolific," etc) you're already headed for disaster. If you're not thinking from a neutral point of view you probably aren't writing from one either. We write articles about people because they're notable (according to our special definition of that word), not because they are [insert flattering superlative]. Athanelar (talk) 18:42, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
what to put on my user page
I made my wikipedia account today and don't know if I should put anything on my user page or not (or if it's in any way important), and if so what to put. 22Quadrilaterals (talk) 16:38, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Hi @22Quadrilaterals. Most editors like to put a few words describing what they're interested in editing, any Wikipedia achievements they might have had, articles they're working on, etc. A User page shouldn't try to replicate a social media profile, and instead should be directly relevant to your Wikipedia editing. qcne(talk) 16:40, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Also consider reading Wikipedia:User pages for some more information on the matter. There's a user page "hall of fame" somewhere that lists some good, real examples of user pages, but I can't find the link, sorry. crtbob@talk:~$ ls contribs 17:26, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
A couple of the main "don'ts": It can't contain the things your real-life CV or resumé contains, and it can't look like a Wikipedia article. (If you're working on something for Wikipedia, obviously that would look like an article; it can go in User:22Quadrilaterals/sandbox.)
You also can't advertise or promote anything - not even in private-looking places. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:51, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Hello 22Quadrilaterals. I didn’t create my user page until a couple of years after I became an editor, then I began listing what I felt would be helpful to myself, plus anyone who wanted to know about my volunteer work. There are a couple of sentences about my editing interests and goals, followed by a listing of the about 30 articles I’ve created and posted. Over time I added listings of links that I find useful in my editing work. (Many are Wikipedia Help links; some links have useful info on the subjects I’m most interested in working on.) I think of my user page as an online “storage cabinet” where I keep reference tools to help me in my editing. But I’m aware that others can find my user page, so I don’t give my full name, or where I live or work, though some choose to include such info. Karenthewriter (talk) 04:14, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
What exactly is the Wiki Workers United?
I keep seeing members of whatever this workers' union is, but I have no knowledge of it. I first encountered it on TWAFI. Is it something official? Greenestguyinhistory (talk) 17:32, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Thank you, I saw that but I was still unsure. I'll check these again. Greenestguyinhistory (talk) 17:45, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
A side note: Wikipedia itself has no employees at all. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:42, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Counter-Strike Global Offensive page
hey, that will be a tiny remark. Can I (or you) change "360" to "XB360" (only the line next to "release" in infobox)? That will (imho) help to unify game infoboxes between many games. Thanks:) IddyIggy (talk) 18:04, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Hello, @IddyIggy, and welcome to the Teahouse. Your account is autoconfirmed, so you can edit it. ColinFine (talk) 19:31, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Book cover images
Hi,
I was going to upload a better image of this book cover that's not so blurry, but I saw a copyright warning before I did, so I want to make extra sure and get confirmation for the best practices for book covers specifically before I proceed.
Thanks! Toastable (talk) 19:40, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
We deliberately keep non-free images to low resolution, but that's ridiculous. If you overwrite it with something better, someone, or a bot, will reduce it to an acceptable size. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 19:56, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Oh so I don't even really have to worry about size I'm uploading? That makes it easy! Ok thanks! Toastable (talk) 20:02, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Help needed to fix a minor bug
Hi, so let me first say that I don't know much about coding/IT. I edit many articles on economic subjects in India and often have to type financial years (which are from 1 April to 31 March). Whenever I type a financial year (like 2026-27 for the current one), I get an automated message that I am sharing personal information (the system probably thinks that I have typed part of a phone number). I know it's not a big deal and I can just dismiss the warning, but doing that a dozen times in a single edit gets annoying. So, what can I do? Is there someone who could tell the bots to not flag year sequences (2024-25, 2025-26...)? Ar1201u1 (talk) 19:51, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
I have never seen such a thing. It is possible that the Visual Editor makes such checks (I never use it) in which case, see WP:Visual Editor for how to give feedback or report a problem (whichever you regard this as).
Or I wonder if it is might be something outside Wikipedia which is generating this message? ColinFine (talk) 20:34, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
I use visual editor most of the time, I will see if I can give feedback in the right place. I don't think it is something outside Wikipedia, I type similar things in the same browser all the time (in Google docs, e-mails, etc), and I never see anything (plus there is an explicit message saying that anything you type on Wikipedia is forever). Thank you! Ar1201u1 (talk) 20:45, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
I'm helping some folks put together a backlog drive for the COI edit request backlog. I think we're going to try to model it off the the WP:GOCE backlog drives, so folks can sign up and then say which requests they closed out. I was thinking that the simplest way to sign up would be just to ask folks to create their own section of the signup page with their username and a slot (empty by default) that would track the requests they claim and then complete.
We could just ask them to copy paste a snippet and then insert their username or something, but it'd be nice to have a template so that they could do something like {{subst:User:Packrat3860/coi_drive_signup|YourUsernameHere}} or something like it. I am vaguely familiar with the concept of templates in MediaWiki (in a past life I helped out with Liquipedia a lot) but I don't know what's required to make one on en-wiki. I was wondering if it's possible to make one in my userspace so that I don't have to worry about polluting the global namespace, and it would reduce the chance of anybody else accidentally thinking that this one-off template is what they're looking for.
Also it's possible that this is an XY problem where there's a better way to accomplish what I am imagining, in which case I am open to suggestion. Packrat3860 (talk) 20:50, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Let's say it is an XY problem. What result is really needed? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 21:00, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
I would like for it to be convenient for someone to sign up without having to either have them create the structure for their entry in the backlog drive or for someone else to have to go through later and create it for them. So like in Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Backlog elimination drives/September 2026 each participant gets a heading with a nicely formatted working/completed note area and an overall count. To sign up you just create a section for your username. And you don't have to worry about formatting it incorrectly because there's Template:GOCE_Article_list (although that one is not substituted). Packrat3860 (talk) 21:14, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Yes, you can have a template in your userspace. I have one at User:Athanelar/AFCHD that I use all the time. There's nothing really special about templates in Mediawiki, the double-curly-bracket syntax just transcludes the content of whatever page you put inside of it. If you were to put something like {{WP:Example}} you'd transclude the page Wikipedia:Example. Obviously if you don't specify a namespace it tries to pull from the template namespace by default, so {{Example}} transcludes Template:Example. All this is to say that "making a template in userspace" just means "making whatever you want in userspace and then transcluding it using the appropriate syntax when needed". Athanelar (talk) 21:11, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Byte count after editing??
Hi! I was wondering what byte count is? Like I understand it's how much data has been changed after making an edit, but is it better to be adding more data, removing data, or does it matter? Is it just a "scorekeeper" metric of sorts? Thanks in advance! Admirethelamp (talk) 21:20, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
It's not necessarily better to add or remove data or information; it really depends on the topic. I mostly use the byte count so I can glance at a diff and immediately see how major the edit was. For instance, as a recent changes patroller, if I see a +1675 byte edit on a page from a TA, that's a bit strange and should be looked at, whether it's a problem or not. Whereas if it's just +1, the editor is probably just fixing a typo. In solidarity,🏳️🌈JohnLaurens333(They/them • Not a chatbot • Contribs) 21:29, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
It is worth noting however that if you completely rewrite a page and it just so happens that your rewritten version is only one byte larger than the old version, it'll still show up as +1, so don't assume that a low byte change count necessarily equates to a minor edit. As an example we recently had a person get banned for tendentious racist editing in the form of changing "white" to "White" and "Black" to "black" in various pages; all those edits show as a 0 because there's no net byte difference.
I know you probably know this JL, just explaining for the benefit of the OP. Athanelar (talk) 21:41, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
If I remove 500 bytes of bad material and I replace it with 500 bytes of good material, then I have done excellent work - and my byte count is zero. I hope that example helps a little bit.
Byte count says how much bigger or smaller the article is, but it doesn't say why. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 21:39, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Back to your original question: it is *not* a scorekeeper metric of any sort. Adding content can improve an article, and so can removing content; the metric is article quality, not byte count. That said, if you want a better statistical view of how an article breaks down with respect to byte count, you can look at the Talk page to see if it has a {{section sizes}} template, or add one if it doesn't. For example, the second to last boxed banner at the top of Talk:World War II (just above the Table of Contents) is the collapsed {{section sizes}} template; if you expand it, you will see details of how large each section is in bytes, and also in prose words. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 02:31, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Hi Arenghtqru888. I guess you mean interlanguage links to the other languages. For user pages you have to add them manually to each page with code like:
It's usually placed at the bottom. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:15, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
To make it a bit simpler, the English namespace names like User, User talk, and so on are valid in Wikipedias in every language, so that may make it a bit simpler for you. That is, you can also write:
and it works just as well, so you don't have to figure out how to say "User" in languages you don't speak. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 02:24, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
I copied the links from the original post but yes, the English names of default namespaces like User also work. Custom namespaces like Draft and Portal don't work even if the other wiki has a similar custom namespace. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:08, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
@Arenghtqru888: I don't usually use VisualEditor but it has some limitations. I don't think it can add links to the languages menu at all. You can switch to the source editor on a pencil icon at the top right of VisualEditor. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:32, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Requesting a notability assessment for a possible biography (COI — I am the subject)
Hello. I am Philip R Cohen, a computer scientist and AI researcher. I would be grateful for guidance from experienced editors as I am the potential subject of an article and so have a conflict of interest. I do not intend to create or publish an article about myself directly. I believe I may satisfy WP:PROF, particularly criteria 1 and 3, with criterion 6 as additional support. Re. criterion 3: I was elected a Fellow of the Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (1992), the Association for Computing Machinery (2019), and the Association for Computational Linguistics (2020), each through a selective Fellows program. Re. criterion 1: independent scholarly sources have published substantial assessments of the influence of my AI research on intention and teamwork, plan-based speech-act theory and dialogue, multimodal interaction, multi-agent architectures, and user modeling. Re. criterion 6: I served as President of the Association for Computational Linguistics in 1999, and Vice President in 1998. I have assembled a referenced dossier that sorts the sources into two groups: independent scholarly assessments of my work’s impact, and primary sources used only to verify routine biographical facts. I can place a concise version on-wiki if that would be helpful. My questions are: • Does this evidence appear sufficient to satisfy WP:PROF? • If so, is Articles for Creation the appropriate route, and would an uninvolved editor be willing to assess or help develop a draft? For transparency, I have also asked at WikiProject Computer Science and contacted one editor. Thank you. ~~~~Prcohen01 (talk) 22:01, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Please don't use AI to talk to us; it isn't allowed and we find it very disrespectful here.
"Notability assessments" are not a thing that we do, despite what AI chatbots seem to love telling people. It works exactly the opposite way; you are supposed to familiarise yourself with the relevant guideline (in this case, WP:NPROF) and then demonstrate to us how you think the subject of your article meets it. Given that you're writing about yourself, though, you should first read WP:AUTOBIO, WP:PROUD and WP:PAIDADVICE. Athanelar (talk) 22:11, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
@Prcohen01 It is perfectly acceptable for people with a COI to draft articles via the WP:AfC process, provided they disclose their COI. The fact that almost no-one succeeds in producing an acceptable autobiography is because they write it backwards. That link explains what you need to do to have any (small) chance of success. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:59, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Db-g5 tagging
For speedy deletion tagging using criteria G5 for sockpuppetry, do you put the name of the sockpuppet or the sockmaster in the template's user parameter? Because, the sockmaster was the one who was blocked at the time but the sockpuppet was the one who did the editing. E.x: this template. Thank you! 𝓕𝓵𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓷 (Talk to me! · My contribs) 01:02, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Hi. You should be using the master account for WP:CSD#G5. It is the user who is blocked or banned, so the identifiable user is the one who should be named, and that's usually the original account. Blocking accounts is the method by which blocks or bans are enforced. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 14:48, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
adding the citation needed thingy
I use visual editor
I'm so how do I add the citation needed thingy Terry625972 (talk) 02:44, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Terry625972, by "citation needed thingy" I presume you mean a "citation needed" template. There are several of these, each for its own purpose (distinct in one or more ways from the purposes of the other templates). They're conveniently listed in Wikipedia:Template index/Sources of articles, which also tells you where each template should be placed. If I have misunderstood your question, please reword it. -- Hoary (talk)WWU👍︎ 03:42, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Hoary is right, however please note that you can't write something and then put "citation needed" by it. If you have a fact but no reliable source as proof for it, then you have to just not write anything at all. "Citation needed" can only be used on things that were in the article already before today. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 03:47, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
If you are asking how exactly to work the interface. In visual editor, when you type {{, a window should pop up, allowing you to select the template you want to insert. LkL-70547 (talk) 03:56, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Actually, in the Visual Editor, we don’t use {{.
The way to insert a template in the “VE,” @Terry625972, is to click on Insert on the Tool Bar … when a drop-down menu appears, click on Template … type the name of the template you want (or if you’re not sure of it, type as much as you can and close matches will be displayed for you to choose from) … and lastly, press the Enter(Return) key. Augnablik (talk) 05:38, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
@Augnablik, typing out {{ (individually) does open up the template selection window in Visual Editor, in the same way as the Insert button on the top TNM101 (in solidarity · chat) 11:28, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
thanks everyone! I have gotten my answer to the question Terry625972 (talk) 12:02, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
I see you’re right, @TNM101, but it sure comes as a surprise! Thanks, this tip could be useful. Augnablik (talk) 13:21, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Source [1]
Greetings to everyone, good day! My question concerns this article: Adelfa Botello Callejo. In it, the reference [1] has appeared above the infobox—should this error be fixed, or is it meant to stay that way? 😊 {{Wikiflowers2008 (talk) 03:20, 29 October 2026 (UTC)}}
It should not be where it is. The entire reference should be moved so that it directly follows the material in the article that it's here in support of. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 03:43, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
@TooManyFingers Aha, I see—it’s all been taken care of! Another experienced editor has already fixed the Wikipedia article. Thanks a lot to you too! 😁 Best of luck with your work—take care! 😅 {{Wikiflowers2008 (talk) 05:42, 29 October 2026 (UTC)}}
We've seen multiple editors, plausibly acting in good faith, delete due content with extensive coverage on the recent criminal conviction in Hong Kong. Reason given is WP:UNDUE but without justification or substantive engagement on talk page. Most plausable hypothesis is WP:IDONTKNOWIT from Anglo-American editors shifting article further from WP:NPOV. That view based on what little has been shared in talk, edit summaries, and editors' edit history. Reliable Chinese language sources have been removed, contrary to WP:NONENG, for being in Chinese. While this explanation is likely, cannot rule out coordinated effort. Previously raised in WP:RPPI but that doesn't protect from experienced editors. SpringeePal (talk) 04:35, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
It may be important to keep in mind the difference between report and opinion. Opinion in reliable sources must be given far less weight than the actual reporting from those sources. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 05:00, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
You're referring to the deletion of Chinese language references? I'm only going by the reason given in the edit summary. SpringeePal (talk) 05:03, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
You've certainly jumped to a lot of accusations without much backing these aspersions than assertion, and I see little evidence in that WSJ discussion of anything other than people disagreeing with you. WP:AGF is a must here. The concerns with WP:WEIGHT are very real. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 12:29, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Help with rejected draft Draft:Marina Shmatova - COI now disclosed
Dear editors,
My draft Draft:Marina Shmatova was rejected on 29 October by Sulfurboy for COI and conduct reasons. I accept the decision and apologise for my errors.
I failed to disclose my conflict of interest properly, I removed decline templates, and there was confusion over AI disclosure. I have now created my user page User:MarinaShmatova with a public COI declaration. It states that my foundation is Nia Safi Foundation (now Shmatov Fund).
This information is true and verifiable. I am a philanthropist based in Mozambique. Since 2020, my foundation has rehabilitated Mungassa Primary School in Beira for 3,843 children after Cyclone Idai, and built housing for vulnerable families in Vila Massane. A further school for 4,000 children is under construction.
This work was covered in printed independent sources: 1. Meio Ambiente magazine, Maputo, February 2022, p.67 2. Diario de Mocambique, Beira, 4 March 2023, p.4 - Mungassa school 3. Diario de Mocambique, Beira, July 2023 - Vila Massane housing 4. Daily Times Newspaper, Dubai, June 2024 - 4,000 capacity school
I have photographs of the newspaper pages. I understand that writing an autobiography is strongly discouraged. I deserve to be recognised for real humanitarian work and I wish people worldwide to see the truth about my work.
Could an experienced editor please review whether these offline sources meet WP:GNG and advise on the proper next steps? I shall not edit the rejected draft further and shall follow all guidance. I have poor vision and would appreciate clear instructions.
Kind regards, MarinaShmatova MarinaShmatova (talk) 05:48, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
@MarinaShmatova: welcome to Wikipedia. I will not comment on the draft, just mention the fact that there are many scammers who contact Wikipedia users who ask for help with declined/rejected drafts, claiming to be official representatives or experienced Wikipedia users, and offering to "help" for a fee. Now that you have asked for help, there is a risk that you will be targeted by such scammers. Please read this information, and avoid falling for the scam. --bonadeacontributionstalk 08:45, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Hi @MarinaShmatova, regarding I wish people worldwide to see the truth about my work: this is what your own website (or that of your foundation) is for. Regarding I deserve to be recognised for real humanitarian work: people aren't written about (or not written about) on Wikipedia based on what they might deserve. Wikipedia articles are created based on the notability of their subjects, using a specific definition of the word 'notability' that is described in more detail at that link.
Finally, please don't use an LLM to communicate with us here. Suðurhafsljósæta (talk) 10:16, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Hello, @MarinaShmatova. To add to what the others have said:
Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 12:52, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Thank you, ColinFine. I understand that Wikipedia needs independent sources, not my website. Iwas in Mungassa and Beira during Cyclone Idai. People there suffered a lot. Local newspapers wrote about it — Diario de Moçambique 4 March 2023 p.4, Meio Ambiente February 2022 p.67. But these newspapers are only in print form. The internet there works poorly. Therefore websites are not created and everything is in print form. All newspapers of Mozambique wrote about me, but they don't have websites. Iknow that photos are not enough. I am requesting certified copies from the legal deposit at the National Library of Mozambique. I made a press page with scans. Thank you for explaining notability and reliable sources. Look at my site, I inserted photos of newspapers.
In the last few days, some suggestions have been made in WT:Teahouse. Feel free to disagree, or even to agree. (There, not here.) -- Hoary (talk)WWU👍︎ 06:10, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
how make new draft
im ney and confused. Jimmybobjoe21 (talk) 11:07, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Yes and now I want to contribute, is something wrong with that. Id much rather guidance than another attack. Jimmybobjoe21 (talk) 11:22, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
On your user page create a link to, for example,Draft:WhateverNameYouWant, then preview but do not save the edit. When you view the preview, click on the link and start editing the draft, save it when ready (saving often is recommended).
See also WP:Your first article, but before you start writing we strongly suggest you gain experience by making smaller edits to other articles.
New article creation is the most challenging task available on Wikipedia. I would consider looking at articles that already exist in your areas of interest and trying to improve those. Someone aspiring to hike up mountains should try hills first before climbing Mount Everest. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:48, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
good advicce. also love your wording, thanks Jimmybobjoe21 (talk) 11:50, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
publication refusée
pourquoi ma publication a été réfusée HayaShemTov (talk) 13:59, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Puisque c'était vide...there was no content. Lectonar (talk) 14:01, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
markup
Infobox Biographie2|charte=religieux|nom=Shimshon Haïm Nahmani|nom de naissance={{lang|he|שמשון חיים נחמני}}|date de naissance=1706|lieu de naissance=[[Modène]]|date de décès=18 août 1779|lieu de décès=[[Reggio d'Émilie]]|nationalité=Italienne|activité=Rabbin, kabbaliste, auteur, poète|autres noms=Shimshon Hayyim Nahmani, Shimshon Haïm Nachmani, Samson Hayyim Nahmani|œuvres principales=''Zera Shimshon'', ''Toldot Shimshon''}}
Shimshon Haïm Nahmani (Template:Lang-he; aussi transcrit Shimshon Hayyim Nahmani, Shimshon Haïm Nachmani ou Samson Hayyim Nahmani), né en 1706 à Modène et mort le 18 (6 Eloul 5539) à Reggio d'Émilie, est un rabbin, kabbaliste, auteur et poète juif italien du 18th century. Il est principalement connu pour deux ouvrages: le Zera Shimshon, commentaire de la Torah et des cinq Meguilot, et le Toldot Shimshon, commentaire des Pirké Avot.
Il appartient à la génération des Aharonim, les autorités rabbiniques postérieures à la période médiévale, et son activité s'inscrit dans le contexte des communautés juives du nord de l'Italie.
== Biographie ==
=== Origines et famille ===
Shimshon Haïm Nahmani naît en 1706 à Modène. Son père est le rabbin Nahman Michaël Nahmani; sa mère est la fille du rabbin Yehuda Matzliach Padova, rabbin de la communauté de Modène.
Les sources disponibles ne permettent pas de reconstituer avec précision son enfance ni sa généalogie complète. Il grandit dans un milieu familial lié à la vie rabbinique.
En 1733, il épouse Deborah, fille du rabbin Abraham Fontanella. Leurs enfants meurent en bas âge. Dans les introductions de ses ouvrages, l'auteur évoque la mort de son fils unique et sa peine de ne pas avoir de descendance qui perpétue son nom.
=== Formation ===
Il étudie d'abord auprès d'Ephraïm Cohen Lipschitz, originaire d'Ostroh et actif à Modène, puis à Mantoue auprès de David Finzi et d'Aviad Sar Shalom Basilea, auteur de l'Emounat Hakhamim. Il approfondit la Kabbale à Reggio d'Émilie auprès de Benjamin HaCohen Vitali (connu sous le nom de Rabach).
=== Carrière rabbinique ===
Après ses études à Mantoue, il se rend à Pise, où il commence à enseigner, puis à Sienne. Il retourne ensuite à Modène, où il exerce des fonctions rabbiniques et dirige une synagogue.
En 1739, à la mort de Yeshayah Mordekhaï Bassan, rabbin de Reggio d'Émilie, il lui succède dans cette fonction. Il y poursuit son activité d'enseignement et travaille à ses ouvrages.
Il est lié à un réseau de rabbins et d'érudits italiens, dont Israël Binyamin Bassan et David Zacuto, présenté par certaines notices comme son neveu et son élève.
== Œuvres ==
=== Toldot Shimshon ===
Le Toldot Shimshon (תולדות שמשון) est un commentaire des Pirké Avot («Maximes des Pères»), traité de la Mishna consacré à l'éthique et à la conduite morale. Il est publié pour la première fois à Livourne en 1766. Le titre peut se traduire par «les générations de Shimshon» ou «la descendance de Shimshon»; il est traditionnellement associé au souhait de l'auteur de laisser une postérité par ses écrits.
=== Zera Shimshon ===
Le Zera Shimshon (זרע שמשון, «la semence de Shimshon») rassemble des commentaires sur le Pentateuque et sur les cinq Meguilot. Il est publié pour la première fois à Mantoue en 1778. L'ouvrage mobilise le texte biblique, les commentaires rabbiniques, les Midrashim et les enseignements talmudiques, dans la tradition du hidoush, l'élaboration d'un enseignement original à partir des sources.
Selon l'auteur, la disparition de son fils et l'absence de descendants l'ont conduit à vouloir laisser un héritage durable par ses livres. L'ouvrage a fait l'objet de nombreuses rééditions, de commentaires explicatifs et de traductions modernes.
=== Autres écrits ===
Il est également présenté comme poète et auteur de prières. Un recueil de poésie associé à son nom, Korban Ketoret, n'a pas été imprimé de son vivant. Il aurait composé un poème pour le mariage de Moïse Haïm Luzzatto (le Ramhal). Des prières et des responsa lui sont attribuées, mais plusieurs de ces écrits n'ont pas été publiés.
== Mort et sépulture ==
Le 9 Av 5539 (Tich'a Beav), 1779, il fait une chute et se blesse. Il meurt environ un mois plus tard, le 6 Eloul 5539 (18 août 1779), à Reggio d'Émilie.
Dans son ouvrage bibliographique Shem HaGedolim, Haïm Yossef David Azoulay (le Hida) rapporte: «J'ai entendu dire qu'il était expert en Kabbale pratique et qu'il avait ordonné d'enfouir tous ses livres dans sa tombe» (שמעתי שהוא היה בקי בקבלה מעשית וציווה לגנוז כל ספריו בקברו).
Selon son testament, tel que rapporté par TorahSages, son argent devait aller aux pauvres et aucun éloge personnel ne devait être prononcé, hormis le souhait d'avoir contribué au mérite du plus grand nombre, formé des élèves et écrit des commentaires fidèles à la Torah.
=== Lieu de sépulture ===
Il aurait été enterré dans l'ancien cimetière juif de Reggio d'Émilie, situé entre la via Bellaria, le vicolo del Brolo, la via Ferrari Bonini et la via della Veza. Son nom figure dans un inventaire des sépultures conservé aux Archives d'État de Reggio d'Émilie. Ce cimetière, principal lieu de sépulture juif pendant trois siècles, a été déplacé après l'édit napoléonien de Saint-Cloud: en 1808, la communauté établit un nouveau cimetière hors les murs, à l'emplacement de l'actuel cimetière de la via della Canalina, où furent transférés des restes et des pierres tombales. L'emplacement exact de sa tombe n'est plus connu avec certitude.
== Postérité ==
Le nom de Shimshon Haïm Nahmani reste attaché au Zera Shimshon. De nouvelles éditions hébraïques, des commentaires explicatifs et des traductions (anglais, français, espagnol, etc.) ont élargi l'accès à ses enseignements, et des groupes d'étude publient ses commentaires selon le cycle de lecture hebdomadaire de la Torah.
Dans certaines communautés juives contemporaines, l'étude du Zera Shimshon est associée à une segoula, pratique à laquelle les fidèles attribuent une valeur protectrice ou bénéfique, notamment pour les enfants, la santé, la longévité et la subsistance. Cette pratique s'appuie sur les bénédictions formulées par l'auteur dans les introductions de ses livres.
↑Haïm Yossef David Azoulay. Shem HaGedolim. p.Maʿarekhet sefarim, entrée consacrée à Shimshon Nahmani..
↑Archives d'État de Reggio d'Émilie (ASRE), Registres des ingénieurs, architectes et géomètres, Ing. Paolo Malfatti, vol. II (1805-1812), parties 58 à 123.
Hello. I am a contributor to Wikipedia and the Max & Ruby Wiki on FANDOM. There are some pages on there that are about the same topic, such as Rosemary Wells and maxandruby:Rosemary Wells. Obviously, most of the article will be about the same. I know about copyright. Wikipedia uses CC-BY-SA 4.0 and the M&R wiki uses CC-BY-SA 3.0. These aren't compatible.
What I'm asking is can I contribute to a page here, and add the same thing to the page there? I am only talking about my additions/edits, not anyone else. I think I'm allowed to (because they are mine, and I can license my contrib under both I think?) but I just want to know beforehand if there would be an issue. Thanks! Shrivelco (talk) 15:35, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
If you're adding something you wrote, you can do what you want with it elsewhere than Wikipedia; you own it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 15:54, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Thank you. What about like copyvio detectors or something? Would they detect it and think its copied? Shrivelco (talk) 15:58, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
In the menu on your Twinkle tab, select "config". Adjust the relevant option. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 15:46, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
You might have accidentally left the "Keep the deletion discussion userspace log at this user subpage:" option as User:Abdullah1099/XfD log instead of XfD log. Change it to the latter and it should work fine. Jolly1253 (talk) 15:48, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
@Jolly1253, Yeah i tried to reset the Twinkle preference option to XfD log from Abdullah1099/XfD log. I hope the update works. Abdullah1099 (talk) 15:53, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
@Abdullah1099 I have taken another look at your contributions...it seems like after you have changed the preferences here, Twinkle did create the (now deleted) page again (I happened to see the timestamps before the page got deleted and per the deletion log, but please correct me if I'm wrong) I think Twinkle is not registering the userpage as an XfD log as the page itself was first created as a AfC log instead. (I can't help you on that as I'm not that knowledgeable on the technical side on Wikipedia, so I'll leave it to the others to answer this). Jolly1253 (talk) 16:22, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Yeah @Jolly1253, I also not have that much technical knowledge but i started the log as a multipurpose log but primarily as AfC log but recently moved to a new AfC log and added XfD to this log. I updated the Twinkle Config to normal hope the problem is now resolved. Abdullah1099 (talk) 16:27, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
CURIOSITY
I am a reporter on today's world cruelities and excessive use items: basically i discuss what is more used and talked in today's world. Since i am writing a repot ,I need your guys help . As you know , people has normalised the excessive use of AI (artificial intelligence ) and WIKIPEDIA is currently forgotton . What are your stance on the idea of using AI more than either using their creativity or WIKIPEDIA? ~2026-57838-53 (talk) 15:58, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
you probably shouldn't be using this page in particular to ask this question, I may be wrong though. Greenestguyinhistory (talk) 16:37, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Done I'll see about further improvements later, but for now I've added the contents of my draft to the Solar cell research page. Like I mentioned, the existing content was a mess (uncited, primary sources, promotional tone), so I actually just replaced the entire thing. ExitTheWarrior (talk) 20:15, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Requesting immediate archiving... ~2026-57331-25 (talk) 22:06, 28 October 2026 (UTC)