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)
It’s already been shown that pages of women get AfD’d quicker and more often. We don’t need a new survey because you’re doibtful. Further, if people are targeting those pages, there’s no reason others can’t target those pages to save. It’s no different than any of us editing subjects we’re interested in. Mme Maigret (talk) 23:29, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
@MmemaigretIt’s already been shown that pages of women get AfD’d quicker and more often.
Was it demonstrated at the same time that the two groups of articles were equal in terms of their adherence to Wikipedia policy? If not, then the claim hasn't been shown. And this is very different from editing subjects we're interested in, because editing according to interest is useful and inspiring, but pushing to save a bad article about anyone just because of their body parts is simply dishonest. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 12:04, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
@TooManyFingers No one is talking about saving bad articles. The OP was concerned about articles where the nominator hasn't done their due diligence but she thinks sources exist and can be added with a little bit of research. I'm also talking about saving articles where the sources exist to meet notability. If those happen to be articles about women or POC, what do you care? Mme Maigret (talk) 12:44, 30 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)
@CSGinger14 I've finally brought this proposal to the idea lab. Thank you for digging into this here, giving me a lot to chew on, and the push to take it further. I'm so appreciative! H0n0r (talk) 10:58, 31 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.
I don't think you have to get everybody involved to tackle the issue or that you will. In fact, I think trying to get everyone involved is like trying to boil the ocean. Mme Maigret (talk) 23:34, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
@H0n0r Pretending that "Wikipedia" should do "a lick of research" is badly missing the point. Anyone who comes here wanting to publish something must finish the research before they arrive here. Wikipedia is not a person. Wikipedia can't possibly do anything. Wikipedia has no obligation - and no ability - to do even the tiniest lick of research. That's on the person who wants something published. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 05:32, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
@CSGinger14I think we might be defining 'righting great wrongs' in radically different ways here, [...] 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.
"Righting great wrongs" has a more or less accepted meaning, from what's been written about it. To badly oversimplify, it means having a goal bigger than "What's in the reliable sources?". Any guiding principle that isn't subordinate to that one is against Wikipedia. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 06:13, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
@H0n0r "There are users there just nominating dozens of under-researched non-western articles."
If you mean "under-researched by the editors who wrote the articles, making the Wikipedia articles be of poor quality", then we want all under-researched articles to be nominated for deletion.
If some editors are only nominating under-researched non-western articles, that's unfortunate. I suppose the way to balance that out would be for editors to nominate more under-researched "western" articles. We don't need fewer under-researched non-western articles to be taken to ADD if they are really poor quality articles.
But there is really no way to force that to happen. Editors do what they want, and we can't assign "areas of focus" to anyone.
Your original premise might be right, but it's pretty hard to fix.
If by "under-researched" you mean something else, then what I said might not apply. David10244 (talk) 03:45, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
Warning: Long Read
@David10244 @TooManyFingers I think what they mean is that there’s a far lesser degree of what we(meaning the community writ large) would consider to be reliable sourcing on account of the critical lack of informational/reporting infrastructure in many of the nations we consider to be the ‘non-Western world’. This is where I think there’s some disagreement:
Because there’s less easily identifiable reliable sources in say, Zimbabwe than the UK, it’s less likely that a typical WP:BEFORE based on notions of Western source reliability will yield qualifiable results (See my point at the Mary Mgonja AfD(or the collapsed portion at the one for Ainamoi) for further elaboration on this point).
There’s also the problem of editors who don’t perform an adequate BEFORE ahead of time (which is the primary reason for my having raised the referenced VP discussion in the first place), who would presumably find it easier to disqualify sources that are considered substantive by Zimbabweans (but not by Americans) than sources of similar societal weight in the West. It’s thus easier from the outset to go after pages about non-Western topics, especially if they haven’t received considerable attention from Western scholarship.
Many editors seem to disdain IAR because it necessarily clashes with Duty to comply, which complicates efforts to salvage pages that face this sort of bias because such defenses can ostensibly fall under WP:RGW, as was raised by the closer at Ainamoi (who I’ll tag here, as I’m curious (without malice) to hear what their thoughts are on this point). WP:SYO is a really interesting essay confronting this exact issue of editor bias as it pertains to NEWSORGNIGERIA.
My problem with this is, if RGW is itself rooted in that same bias, how do we confront it in the first place, or can we even do so? The sources don’t magically appear, and they won’t in the immediate future, but that doesn’t give us license to erase history outside the West because the West didn’t bother to write about it, or depict it solely from a Western perspective when it did.
There’s a fundamental difference between disqualifying JamiiForums (which is reasonable) and delegitimizing TechCabal or Daily News (Tanzania) out of the context of where they reasonably can be disqualified (similar to BusinessDay, which is one of a handful of reliable Nigerian sources that routinely gets flatly discounted not because the editor has actually considered whether it falls in the use case under the tenets of NEWSORGNIGERIA, but because they read ‘Nigerian sources typically unreliable’ and don’t feel the need to investigate further (a common problem with NEWSORGINDIA as well))). Sometimes there are things they can’t say, or stories they can’t attach a name to, because otherwise that reporter we demanded be present to even consider GNG qualification gets put into the back of a van and is never heard from again.
This is where the confident assertion that RGW is clearly present or applicable when editors put up an IAR defense of non-Western articles (usually construed by editors in opposition as being WP:ADVOCACY) gets iffy in my opinion, because it treats the community’s consensus as necessarily fair and even-handed, as if it wasn’t deliberated and crafted predominantly by middle class white guys aged 16-34 living in the US, UK, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand (where a strong reporting culture and free press conveniently exists).
‘
TLDR: We sort of just assume that the rest of the world should conform to our expectations of source availability and verifiability without considering what it actually means to live in those parts of the world, which is the reason IAR exists in the first place. We’re committing just as big a violation in terms of NPOV if we wipe whatever we can’t see on the public facing internet about these places (e.g. activists, civil society groups, political parties) when the public facing internet is routinely shut down in these countries precisely for the purpose of restricting societal and global access to coverage on activities and organizations these countries’ governments don’t appreciate. That’s never really addressed, cause it’s much easier to say “holy yap if you want to RGW go do it somewhere else.”
Hi @David10244, sorry for being unclear. I meant that nominators don't do the research they are supposed to do given WP:BEFORE. I agree with @CSGinger14 also, but that is what I was trying to say at the outset. H0n0r (talk) 10:33, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
If you see an article that’s been PRODed, AfD’d or is expiring in a week that you think is notable, you add a custom category.
You start a topic on the talk page and add links to the minimum two sig cov sources. This is also where @CSGinger14‘s refideas template could come in.
You bookmark the category yourself and check it frequently
Anyone can follow and uplift the articles that have been categorised.
(ps. Btw, I know you can see the PRODs by date, and AfDs that have been categorised as WIR, and the expiring drafts by week but you have to look at each PROD to see if it’s suitable, not every article is tagged WIR, and the expiring drafts list is too unwieldy.)
We could also start a Wikiproject taskforce but to keep it simple I think we just need the categories. (They can also be hidden categories.)
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)
Dario has been unwilling to deny using AI. Therefore, Dario did use AI. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 06:17, 30 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)
No normal person would just randomly use morse code. Wikiwiz910 (talk) 16:42, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
I've tried ten AI detectors and all of them say that his replies are 100% AI. Wikiwiz910 (talk) 16:44, 30 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)
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)
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)}}
I do not believe the Wikimedia Phabricator has per language editions. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page)(contributions) 20:37, 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)
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)
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)
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)
I know you want to find these things. I think you should do it - it sounds like the right thing to do. I want you to do it.
But not on Wikipedia, because Wikipedia will reject it. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 01:24, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
I understand that Wikipedia will reject my theory or viewpoint, that's why I am saying this here in a discussion with another editor. 刘宸宁(LiuChenning) 03:15, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
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)
Draft:Liam Beville
I am Liam Beville, the subject of Draft:Liam Beville (conflict of interest disclosed on my user page). The draft was declined for lacking inline citations. When I try to save a version with citations, an edit filter blocks it. Could an experienced editor tell me why, or add the text for me? I can supply the wikitext. Bevilleliam (talk) 14:41, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Probably because you are trying to cite one or more blocked sites.
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)
I am interested in the work and the neologism-pseudonym of the composer @Monakoshkaloficat, but I am also happy to talk with you about topics that interest you. ~2026-56491-48 (talk) 07:44, 31 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)
Is the topic of plagiarism—especially the use of someone else’s original pseudonym (a neologism) for personal gain—really a forbidden or irrelevant subject? ~2026-56491-48 (talk) 08:40, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
Yes, you are right. The YouTube channel "Lofi Girl" not only uses the neologism "loficat"—a pseudonym coined by composer MonaKoshka LofiCat (Elena Dubetskaya)—for commercial purposes (specifically by selling hot-water bottles modeled after the main character, Catlofi, who appears in her "cat-themed" songs and poems and was created as early as 2011), but also actively employs the visual universe developed by the composer: the girl herself, the ginger cat, the "ginger vibe" atmosphere, and the characteristic "lofi in the rain" aesthetic.
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)
Ack, it's still not working? Alright, I'll turn it off entirely for now. Thanks for the heads up. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 19:53, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
@Johannnes89, do you think there's anything that could be done to make it more obvious how to report false positives on edit checks? I don't love that we have someone here motivated enough to come to the teahouse to complain about the issue, who nevertheless managed to miss whatever false positive reporting option we've got. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 20:06, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
As I had said, it is too petty a thing to complain about:)
Thank you! The issue is resolved. I am a tech-novice, so I thought I will just ask here Ar1201u1 (talk) 20:33, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
No, it's not at all too petty a thing to complain about! I'm very glad you did complain, and you absolutely should complain when something is annoying you on wikipedia. (A lot of the time, it's annoying the rest of us too, and so we've got some kind of userscript to handle it that you're missing out on. Always complain!!) In this case, this was a test edit check and we really did want people who hit false positives to tell us about it. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 02:10, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
I'm wondering if the three dot menu (including an option to report false positives) that are available for beta & experimental checks/suggestions could also be available for regular checks? @PPelberg (WMF) fyi Johannnes89 (talk) 07:17, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Can I create a template in my userspace?
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)
I'm referring to the deletion of opinion sources. The language they're in is not the point.
I think it looks bad to you because a number of Chinese reliable sources published their opinions on what this all might mean. Opinions do not get weight. Or they get much less, anyway. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:55, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
The U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission Annual Report to Congress is an opinion? The comments by HK's equivalent of the Secretary for Homeland Security only count as an opinion? It does look very bad and the edit summary on that one speaks for itself: irrelevant minor criticisms from chinese sources, many literally in chineseSpringeePal (talk) 21:00, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Just for clarity, I have been an advocate for trimming and done aggressive trimming already. There have been many, many editors building up content based on extensive international news coverage and court reporting. This has been a Wikipedia:BATHWATER situation. I would have / may have already removed the Ben Lam/ Chaser News article. But I would have removed it for the reason you stated, not because of an objection to Chinese language content. SpringeePal (talk) 21:22, 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)
Just noting the above instance of trolling on a page that is supposed to be "Your go-to place for friendly help with using and editing Wikipedia." NotAmPOV (talk) 03:50, 31 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.
The most important words in those newspaper pieces are these: ... disse Marina Schmatova.
Because they are interviewing you, they are not independent reports. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 18:05, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Thank you for your opinion, but it's not exactly like that. The texts about me in these newspapers are not interviews. There is only one quote. They called me and just asked why I did it, what motivated me, and I answered honestly. Could you please look at the whole article, not only that phrase? n the Diário de Moçambique article (Beira, July 2023) the journalist wrote a big independent text about me. He wrote about the Mungassa school for 3,843 children after Cyclone Idai, with his own photos of the destroyed and rebuilt school. He checked the facts himself - how many classrooms, the cost of 1,600 thousand meticais, 4 classrooms, etc. Only one short sentence at the end - "disse Marina Schmatova" - is my quote explaining why I did it. So this is not a pure interview. It is an independent article about me with the journalist's own research and photos, plus one small quote from me. Could you please consider the independent part as a reliable source? The headline "Fundação Nia Safi promete construir mais casas..." was also written by the journalist, not by me. I have full scans on my press page and I can send a full transcription in Portuguese. I marked it for you: MarinaShmatova (talk) 00:49, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
I'm very very slow trying to read Portuguese, but I'll try at least. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 01:26, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Talk
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)
Ça te dérangerait de préciser de quel "post" tu parles? Aussi, pour référence future, merci de poser les questions en français seulement sur la page Wikipédia française appropriée. (Je parle anglais, mais j’ai traduit ce message.) GreatWhiteEditor (talk) 20:19, 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 (Hebrew: שמשון חיים נחמני; 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)
We have means of crossing that bridge if and when we come to it.
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)
There are several articles about this topic on The Signpost (Wikipedia's newspaper), you could look through the Archives. Also Wikipedia is not "currently forgotten"PharaohCrabspeak𓀁works𓀨 17:33, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
If you are posting here in your professional capacity as a journalist, please create an account and verify your ID via WP:VRT.
"WIKIPEDIA is currently forgotton[SIC]"—Yeah, right.
Andy - I'm not a journalist, but I went to see the VRT page you linked, and are you sure that page is the relevant one? I see nothing there about verifying anyone's ID. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 03:02, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
You say that Wikipedia is forgotten, but ask AI any question and where does its first reference usually come from? In my experience it's either Wikipedia or Reddit. So just be thankful we are here, every last human one of us. ~2026-57767-13 (talk) 02:55, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a reliable source because it is user edited, however the sources it uses for articles are reliable, or should be. Theroadislong (talk) 17:38, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Most of Wikipedia is quite accurate--as a working scientist I use it a lot. But not all of it is, and there is limited volunteer time available for fact-checking articles. If you search around you will find some things that are definitely nonsense. So it doesn't work as a "reliable source" in the Wikipedia sense. Neither do other user-edited sites like IMDB or Liquipedia, even though they are often accurate as well.
When you're writing a Wiki article, while you can't use any of these as sources, you can look at what they cite--often they will have identified reliable sources which you can then use directly.
@Arenghtqru888 You've mixed up two different questions. Your answer is for "Would you count on Wikipedia to have the right information to answer a real-life question?", to which the right answer is probably "Yes, at least for some things". But the original question, though poorly worded, meant "Why are we not allowed to cite a Wikipedia article as a source, when writing a different Wikipedia article?" TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 21:08, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
And in my opinion the best way to answer that question might be "The reason you can't use one Wikipedia article as a source for another Wikipedia article is exactly the same reason you can't use one Wikipedia article as a source for itself. Think about it." TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 21:19, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
You should all buy my book! Article A says it's great and cites Article B. Article B says it's great and cites Article A.
...what do you mean, I wrote both of those? You're spoiling my whole plan. M kuhner (talk) 21:32, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
i'm attempting to fix my userbox alignment on my userpage, but i have extremely limited knowledge of CSS, so i'm not sure how to go about it. i would like them to be nicely stacked together instead of weirdly staggered as they are now.
thank you in advance :D ~~~KOTLC-katite (talk) 18:17, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
thank you both for your help :D KOTLC-katite (talk) 18:53, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
One alternative is to wrap them in {{userboxtop}} and {{userboxbottom}}. Off the top of my head I think wrapping each box individually with <div style="float:right"></div> should work too. –Maltazarianᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ 18:28, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
how to find sources for citations
I have seen a few suggested edits asking me to add sources to articles, but I don't know where or how to find sources for them. 22Quadrilaterals (talk) 18:26, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Request for guidance on potential baseball biography
I'm interested in establishing whether Blaine Bullard, a Toronto Blue Jays minor-league outfielder, meets Wikipedia's notability requirements.
For transparency, Blaine is my son, so I recognize that I have a conflict of interest.
There is independent published coverage of his career from Sportsnet, Sports Illustrated, Baseball America and Jays Journal, including articles about his record signing bonus and his first professional season.
I previously attempted a draft that was declined because it contained AI-generated text. Rather than resubmit that draft, I'd appreciate guidance from independent editors on whether the available sources establish notability and whether an independent editor would be interested in developing an article.
I'm happy to provide the source links and factual information, but I understand that editorial decisions should remain with independent Wikipedia contributors.
Thank you for your consideration. AgOdyssey (talk) 18:33, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Hello editor , I just found some one page Bagh Hazarika which claims that the person in the biography was a real life person, but many experts have rejected this person and tagged him as a fictional character.
First, I want to make it clear so nobody judges me for being a Chinese person who is so interested in Assamese culture. I am Chinese, but I can understand the language of neighbouring countries. Sometimes it is difficult, but overall I understand very well what people are trying to say, because I went to that place with my uncle, so I have experience with different languages and cultures.
However coming back on tropic, why I am saying this because when I was researching the culture and history of different regions, I came across this page and found out that he was a very important Muslim warrior of Assam, so I got interested in reading about this person and I got some sources why modern scholars reject this person.
The first mention of this bagh Hazarika, was in Surya Kumar Bhuyan book, written in rajeswarh singha book. It was clearly mentioned on pages Page ১৭০ (177) and Here the first person is mention the bagh hazarika
ৰামসিংহৰ আক্ৰমণৰ সময়ত উজনিত বাঘ হাজৰিকা নামে এজন মুছলমান ৰীৰপুৰুষ আছিল। তেওঁ শুদ। হাতেৰে বাষ এটা কিলাই বধ কৰিছিল, সেইদেখি তেওঁ 'বাঘ হাজৰিকা' নামে প্রখ্যাত হৈছিল। এই বাঘ হাজৰিকাই মোগলৰ যুদ্ধ-প্ৰণালী আৰু কায়দা জানিছিল। তেওঁ লাচিত বৰফুকনৰ লগত থাকি মোগলৰ যুদ্ধ-প্ৰণালীৰ সঙ্কেত কোৱাত লাচিত ফুকনে মোগলৰ বিৰুদ্ধে যুদ্ধ কৰি বিদেশীক পৰাস্ত কৰিবলৈ সুবিধা পাইছিল। কিছুমান মুছলমানৰ মাজত এটা জনশ্রুতি আছে। 'জ্ঞান-মালিনীৰ' কবি মৌলবী মফিজুদ্দিন আহমদ হাজৰিকা এই বাঘ হাজৰিকাৰ সন্ততি। - you can check it here - Internet archive
S.K. Bhuyan himself admits in his book that this story was passed down as an oral folktale/tradition from the poet Mofizuddin Ahmed Hazarika. Any Assamese editors, if they check this post please tell here whether it is accurate or not, and another editor can translate it into their language this passage so everyone can reviw it .
When I was researching the primary sources, there was no mention of Bagh Hazarika and the Ahom primary chronicles always mentioned the rank of the owner and what he did in which year, hence the Ahom chronicles also served as record registers.
And many scholars are saying the same thing and giving many proofs also, I can give here video name of interview of editor can chek it in youtube
Nagendra Nath Bura Gohain was a historian and scholar. He stated that Bagh Hazarika was a fictional character written in the local book “Che Hung” published in 2005, and he was publish in in the local newspaper Dainik Janambhumi, Jorhat, on 23 February 2011 .
I cannot find this book or the newspaper article online because they are local publications, but it is clearly shown in a video of his interview. There are four videos, each about 1 minute long, with a total length of around 4 minutes.
youtube video name - Bagh Hazarika & Nagendra Nath Bura Gohain 1, Anup Arandhara- *Gohain 2,3,4
Dr. Jogendra Nath Phukan is an eminent Indian scholar, researcher, and historian from Assam and got reward also from Indian president Padma Shri Award , also explains that there is no historical evidence to support the existence of Bagh Hazarika as a military commander in the Ahom army in the interview . The interview video on youtube, name-
"আহোম বুৰঞ্জীত নাই বাঘ হাজৰিকাৰ নাম"
There's a lot of evidence here, but their local book hasn't been published online; only his interview appears on social media. As a new editor, my specialty is to analyze and examine the history in depth. In my opinion, Modern scorlar provided a lot of sources, which I believe were strong. When I checked other references that support Bagh Hazarika, the references were based on Surya Kumar Bhuyan and the folk tale of Assamese Muslims.
What can we do to fix this problem in this situation? I'll soon be in the Northeast region buying some local books, so I'll also buy the Scorer book and use it as a reference.
So, that's my complete analysis, and I hope other editors will understand this. 刘宸宁(LiuChenning) 20:38, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
I'm not certain whether I've understood completely, but I certainly understood one part: Interviewing an expert on Youtube or on social media counts zero on Wikipedia. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 20:54, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
After reading several of your messages, I think I see a kind of pattern, or a thing they have in common. I suggest that you read WP:TRUTH; to me, it seems almost like they were thinking of you when they wrote it. Some of your plans are not the right kind for Wikipedia. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 21:06, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Here's a very poorly done summary of WP:TRUTH ...
In Wikipedia articles, telling the truth is not allowed, unless the same truth is already found in reliable sources. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 22:10, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
@TooManyFingers Okay, I'll check the policy before editing, but I'm not saying I'll use YouTube videos for reference. I'll use the books by these two historian scorlar. In fact, I've mention these videos name on the Teahouse so people can watch and understand what the scorlar are saying and what they've explained in their books.
You said it:-Unless the same truth is already found in reliable sources
I have already mentioned here that Surya Kumar Bhuyan , who first person mentioned the Bagh Hazarika in Rajeshwar Singha book around 1936 and offically publish by Assam Prakashan Parisad in 1975 and said that this story is a folktale of the Muslim community. So would you please tell me that if the source was already published and the person who first mentioned this person also wrote that this story was a folk tale of the Muslim community, then this thing should be added to it, am I right? 刘宸宁(LiuChenning) 03:09, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
I don't know for sure because I don't have an understanding of the whole topic. But ... yes? I think so? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 03:11, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Could this be mentioned on the Bagh Hazarika talk page? If other senior editors check and analyze it, those who understand Assamese better will correct it. I don't know how to write this in such a situation, so I'm relying on other senior editors. 刘宸宁(LiuChenning) 03:28, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
This is an excellent thing to take to that talk page. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 12:10, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
D-BELL Draft Review
Hello, I have a draft biography about D-BELL and would appreciate feedback from experienced Wikipedia editors.
I have tried to organize the article clearly, maintain a neutral tone, and use reliable sources to document his music career and growing recognition in the Middle East. I understand that acceptance is not guaranteed, and I would be grateful for honest feedback.
I have no personal or professional connection to the subject. Thank you for your time and consideration. ~2026-57775-54 (talk) 21:00, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
hi so stem means since tech,math ~2026-52946-40 (talk) 21:20, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
STEM stands for Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics. Another variation is STEAM, which includes Art. PixelsRCool (talk • contribs) 21:38, 29 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.
how do I put a condom on Dreamy9651 (talk) 21:41, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Hi @Dreamy9651. This is a place to ask questions related to Wikipedia editing. For other questions, you can ask your internet search engine of choice. qcne(talk) 21:43, 29 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.
Wiki Standards
How does "Cows with Guns" a song by Dana Lyons breach wiki standards but The Guns of Navarone doesn't? ~2026-57644-57 (talk) 23:03, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
What do you mean by "breach wiki standards"? Are you talking about notability of the songs? {{GearsDatapacks|talk|contribs|in solidarity}} 23:21, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not, and can never be completely consistent. The existence of something in one place does not necessarily justify that same thing existing in another. It is possible that neither of these topics warrant their own article, or that they both do. You want may want to read through the essay at WP:OTHERSTUFF. Packrat3860 (talk) 03:45, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
I'm going to take a wild guess and say this: because Guns of Navarone was very well known in its day, and Cows with Guns wasn't. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 03:59, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Whatever you might mean by breaching Wikipedia standards, ~2026-57644-57, where did you read that "Cows with Guns" breached, or would breach, Wikipedia standards? -- Hoary (talk)WWU👍︎ 08:07, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Request for feedback on biographical draft and notability
Hello,
I'm seeking feedback on a biographical draft I've prepared about myself, Draft Frazier (entrepreneur). I've disclosed my conflict of interest on my user page and intend to use the Articles for Creation review process.
The draft includes references from The Wall Street Journal (1997), ZDNet (2008), SmartCompany (2013), Data Center Dynamics (2022), and other industry publications, along with primary sources documenting my career and publications.
Before formally submitting, I'd appreciate an independent assessment of whether these sources collectively satisfy Wikipedia's biographical notability requirements.
I'm particularly interested in identifying sources that may not count toward notability and any changes needed to improve neutrality and sourcing.
I created it by following other business profiles. AI was then used to ensure the language and grammar were more polished and aligned to Wikipedia. AtlasMargins (talk) 00:37, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Thank you. I can confirm those guidelines have been adhered to specifically point number 1. AtlasMargins (talk) 01:13, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
AI is permitted only for things like spellcheck and grammar check. It shouldn't improve the phrasing of your writing or change what it says. And judging by the fact that GPTZero says the draft is 100% AI-written (when I last scanned it), it's changed your draft quite a lot. While GPTZero is not 100% reliable, it's a good guideline.In solidarity,🏳️🌈JohnLaurens333(They/them • Not a chatbot • Contribs) 01:58, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
That's why we can use multiple detectors with different methodologies to help verify. Pangram does both the first two example provided in the link as 100% human. And we also have a lot of experience around here now with chatbot stuff, and use our own judgment as well, not simply detectors. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 19:12, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
sounds like some sort of AI legalese soup, I'm suspicious Greenestguyinhistory (talk) 00:32, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by that. This is an accurate representation. AtlasMargins (talk) 00:34, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
your messages are slightly too formal and "legalese", which LLMs tend to do a lot with Wikipedia. Please be transparent with me and read WP:AITALK. I'm decently new to Wikipedia, so bear with me if I used the wrong link. Greenestguyinhistory (talk) 00:40, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
@Greenestguyinhistory Rule of thumb: if you aren't quite sure what you're talking about yet, please don't start telling other editors what to do. You might want to start by reading WP:AITALKSIGNS and familiarising yourself with some of the actual signs of AI generated comments, because "too formal" isn't really one of them and is not a good position to base an accusation on. Athanelar (talk) 00:53, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
@TooManyFingers: I'm sure you weren't trying to do this and apologies if I'm overstepping, but it feels a bit like you're biting the newcomer here. I was looking at my edits from a few years ago when I first joined, and I made many embarrassing/awkward comments back then (I still do now). Greenestguy was probably just trying to help.
@Greenestguyinhistory: there is no need to rush your time on Wikipedia. Please make sure you understand the rules fully yourself and gain experience with them before you try to help other newcomers, because it could cause further confusion. Thank you. In solidarity,🏳️🌈JohnLaurens333(They/them • Not a chatbot • Contribs) 02:31, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
I certainly don't wsnt to bite, but it's not the awkwardness - it's the copying. I'm a big supporter of awkwardness and of new people. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 02:51, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
@AtlasMargins The photo in the draft is marked as "own work". That means that you took the picture.
It doesn't look like a selfie. Are you sure that you took the picture? David10244 (talk) 08:34, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
Wanting some support to get a wiki article please
Hello,
My name is Valentina G R Cavallaro, founder and creator of Sule Sul Mare 222, an Australian spiritual brand specialising in oracle card collections, tarot and spiritual guidance.
I am interested in understanding the process and eligibility requirements for having an independent Wikipedia biography created about my work and contributions.
I would appreciate guidance on the necessary published sources, editorial requirements and how to request an impartial assessment.
Thank you for your assistance.
Kind regards,
Valentina G R Cavallaro
Founder of Sule Sul Mare 222 ~2026-57689-55 (talk) 04:00, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
For starters, see WP:ABOUTME (on writing about yourself on Wikipedia, which is strongly discouraged) and WP:NOTABILITY (the general notability guidelines). Additional things to note:
Writing an article is one of the most difficult tasks on Wikipedia, and new editors are strongly encouraged to start somewhere else and build up to article-writing. There is a good chance an article about yourself will not be accepted.
The sources would need to be without contribution from you, free from your influence, no announcements, no interviews, no press releases, and they need to be three or more long articles written about the exact topic (i.e. they can't be writing about someone else and just mention you). In other words, very big articles about exactly you, written all alone by the reporter. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 04:11, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
TooManyFingers, which policy page or guideline demands three or more? -- Hoary (talk)WWU👍︎ 05:13, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
None as far as I know. But which policy page or guideline specifically prescribes just one? The original question was not a request for policy particulars; it was a request for actual help. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 05:20, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
The closest I've found is WP:GNG: There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected. I suppose it's partly a matter of degree, each of significance of coverage, independence of source, and reliability of source being a continuum rather than simply yes/no. If each of two sources unquestionably scores high on each of those three criteria, then the two sources should be enough. -- Hoary (talk)WWU👍︎ 06:30, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
There is thus no actual policy about number, yet people generally want a number to work with, and three is a reasonable start in most cases. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 11:10, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
If you have ever said "Hey - they wrote a five-page article all about me and they never even told me about it!" then the chances are better. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 04:19, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Adding a bridge
List of bridges known for strikes Hello this is an anonymous user basically im trying to add a bridge to the list the problem is an editor keeps oversimplifying the description and name because apparently i did original research well personally i think that hes way too oversimplifying and plus the name is obviously oversimplified can anyone help me solve this argument ~2026-55845-16 (talk) 04:09, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Did you try to include something you know, but it isn't officially published? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 04:13, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
I literally just wanted to share something I knew with you guys. I mean, how do you explain a low clearance bridge with the concrete looking like it survived the Battle of Stalingrad? Guys, are things really not Wikipedia-worthy just because they're obscure? Like, if i needed to cite a source then someone needs to have came before me, so, if you're the first person to know, then logically you should share it with the world. If you personally invented a recipe, just because it hasnt been written about yet, does that mean the recipe doesn't exist? See what I mean? I'm just trying to share stuff and the editors keep butting in. ~2026-55845-16 (talk) 02:27, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
But what is worthy of inclusion, and what isn't? The way we decide here is using the notability guidelines. This also includes no original research allowed. If you want to include this information, write it up, get it published somewhere that is reasonably reliable, and submit an edit request to add it. IlikecatsSDF (talk) 04:01, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
You and me ... on Wikipedia, both of us are Just Some Guy, and nobody should believe what we say unless we can show published proof of it in reliable sources. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 04:27, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
I've been in that exact place many times, and I believe you. But Wikipedia won't believe you yet. Have the papers in Bellingham ever said anything about it? If they have, I bet whatever they wrote would be enough to support your statement. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 04:50, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Aren't all bridges registered with their respective state or local DOT depending on the type of road it's traversing? I believe you can access that information through those agencies. This might be the level of verscity needed to make your entry Wiki-worthy. Semera (talk) 14:57, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Correction: verscity should be verAcity Semera (talk) 15:07, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Guys, I seriously need help here.
My content posted on Wikimedia Commons keep getting deleted for being posted without license permission. Can y'all help me out and tell me how to know if media has free licenses or not, or how to get permission to upload the media to Commons? RagnarStickman (talk) 08:33, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
If the media comes from someone else then, they have to grant the free licence. The default is that the creator owns the copyright. If you created the media, say by photography or drawing, or recording a sound, then you own copyright, and you can grant a free licence like CC-BY-SA-4.0. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:43, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Oh.
Wait, so every media here is under copyright? Even tornado damage photos from the National Weather Service? RagnarStickman (talk) 08:50, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Basically: for every photo you find online, you should assume that it is copyrighted, unless you know the exact reason it's not. DS (talk) 16:02, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Hey Guys
Hello, I am a new editor and I have drafted a short biographical article on Babasaheb Gawde on Draft:Babasaheb Gawde. I have included secondary sources from academic journals and major newspapers. Could an experienced editor take a quick look to make sure the formatting and neutrality look correct, and it meets guidelines? Thank you. Lazerrsecretacc (talk) 08:47, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
You have submitted the draft for review using the AfC process. The AfC reviewer will do what you ask. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 10:02, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
I wanted to get a different perspective but thanks nonetheless. Lazerrsecretacc (talk) 15:08, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
@Lazerrsecretacc The "Works" section needs citations. In the second part, you could take some from the Wikilinked articles but you also need ones for the first paragraph where the places mentioned don't have articles. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:46, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
There is a help page at Wikipedia:Signatures with some more information on setting up a custom signature. The way I make mine green is with <span style="color:green;">[[User:Crtbob|crtbob]]</span>. You should just be able to change the colour and the username to suit your needs (if I've worded that really confusingly, feel free to let me know what colour you want and I can help you with the code.) crtbob@talk:~$ ls contribs 10:57, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
I want there to be a green box encapsulating the "Magikarp Fan" part, then making my username and talk page purple with no box. Magikarp Fan, Arenghtqru888 lol ( hopefully I don't get trouted...) 11:04, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Oh, your signature confused me too! I didn't even notice the Magikarp part.
<span style="background-color: green;">Magikarpfan,</span> [[User:Arenghtqru888|<span style="color: purple">Arenghtqru888 lol</span>]] ( [[User talk:Arenghtqru888|<span style="color: purple">hopefully I don't get trouted...</span>]]) should display:
(not sure if you wanted the parentheses to be purple too, if so, it's an easy fix!) crtbob@talk:~$ ls contribs 11:35, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
The body text to background of the green section appears to fail WP:SIGAPP, so this signature would need to be further adjusted. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page)(contributions) 13:17, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
<span style="background-color: green; color: white">Magikarp fan,</span> [[User:Arenghtqru888|<span style="color: purple">Arenghtqru888 lol</span>]] ( [[User talk:Arenghtqru888|<span style="color: purple">hopefully I don't get trouted...</span>]]) should fix this by changing the black Magikarp fan text to white. crtbob@talk:~$ ls contribs 14:11, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
That results in a color contrast ratio of 1.81:1, which is below the minimum of 4.5:1. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page)(contributions) 20:36, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
If you like green then just use that. Magikarp's color doesn't need to have any influence. It was just a personal observation from me. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:41, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
If I’m simply revising the tone of a sentence by fixing the grammar, do I say it is a minor edit? Geekoftheweek1 (talk) 11:06, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:MINOR, a minor edit is a superficial edit that no one would have any reason to dispute. If you are just fixing the grammar of a sentence, it should be a standard minor edit. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 11:11, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Except, for example, if you change "they" (meaning "the whole group") to "she" - that changes the meaning quite a lot, and isn't minor. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 12:13, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Grammar and tone are completely separate things. Just changing grammar can't change tone. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 11:16, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
(Note: unfortunately, the grammar in that part of the Robin Robin article was perfect before, and your change turned a true statement into a false one. I put it back the way it was.) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 11:23, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
yes I apologize. I had made misread the sentence and make a mistake. I will make sure to be more cautious in the near future Geekoftheweek1 (talk) 12:39, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
@Geekoftheweek1 Please find out what tone is, because what you're calling "revising tone" has so far turned out to be "I changed a random word". I get that you're trying to follow the suggestions, but please don't just do a random change that doesn't even improve anything. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 11:39, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
This confusion about "tone" is not your fault though - they obviously didn't explain what they wanted you to do. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 13:01, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Yes, and I apologize for the mistake I made, I will make sure to read Wikipedia policies again. Geekoftheweek1 (talk) 13:11, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
@Geekoftheweek1 I don't know how much policy reading would be needed, to know what they meant by "tone". I blame the instructions much more than you for that part. I think for you the main thing is "Have I really made this article better, or have I only done something just so I can say I did something?"
I have a feeling that when you start doing normal editing without those instructions, your edit quality will go way up. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:12, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
I think "simply" is a pretty questionable word when describing tone as a beginner task, unless the assignment highlights a certain area of the article where an obvious tone problem exists.
Often, neutral point of view requires cutting big chunks out of the article. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:27, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Writing a existing wiki article in a another language.
in tamil language wikipedia , the wiki that is in english wikipedia " Overthrow of Slobodan Milosevic" is not there in tamil wikipedia , i am a history buff so i need to write a wiki for that wikipedia Rjdcxms (talk) 12:35, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
That sounds like a good idea, but please ask at the Tamil Wikipedia, because that's where you're planning to put something. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 13:03, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Before submitting it for review, I would appreciate advice on whether the available sources provide sufficient independent coverage to establish his notability.
The draft currently uses Vatra's own website, a Monitor interview and a Telegrafi profile. I also found this Radio Evropa e Lirë report discussing his involvement in a 2013 election campaign:
https://www.evropaelire.org/a/25021507.html
Would these sources support a standalone biography, or is more substantial independent coverage needed? I have used ChatGPT to help find and assess sources, format citations, edit wording, navigate Wikipedia and draft this Teahouse question. I would appreciate guidance on keeping that assistance within Wikipedia’s rules.
You are wasting your time and ours; there is nothing that suggests the subject, the CEO of a minor marketing agency, is suitable for an article on this project. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 15:17, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Hello. Are you an employee of the company this man is CEO of?
If you are not confident enough in your English to communicate with us without an AI, I would suggest that you edit the Wikipedia of your primary language instead(the Albanian Wikipedia?) so you do not have to struggle to understand or to be understood. It likely has less strict standards that we do, and needs the help more badly; you could have a bigger impact there. 331dot (talk) 15:30, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
[Edit Conflict] Vatra's own website cannot support Bejo's notability, because it is obviously not independent of him, although it might be enough to corroborate minor uncontroversial facts.
The Monitor interview with him is also not independent of him, so cannot support his notability, since it presumably contains mainly what he said; it could probably be used to corroborate the fact that he said some things.
The Telegrafi profile might contribute towards his notability, depending on where its writer got their facts from – if directly from Bejo or Vatra, then no. Even if it does, one source on its own is not usually considered enough, you would need at least a couple of others as good or better, independent of both him and of this profile. Hope this helps. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-56420-06 (talk) 15:33, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
not sure what step i should take next
hello! i recently made a suggested newcomer edit to revise the tone of an article, which i did, but my edit (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peach_and_Me&diff=prev&oldid=1382751251) was reverted. i believe my edit was correct, as the sentences ending in question marks seem unencyclopedic, but i would be willing to accept that i am wrong.
what do i do next, though? i don't want to get into an edit war over this.
thank you in advance :D KOTLC-katite (talk) 15:56, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
The issue is that you not only removed the inappropriate sentences but also the reference that supported the rest.
Try again. Be a little more careful this time. And leave a polite message for the other editor on their talk page, explaining your error. DS (talk) 16:00, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
ahhh i see! what a blunder on my part. i'll try to fix that. thank you :D KOTLC-katite (talk) 16:03, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Feedback on a COI biography draft before AfC submission
Hello. I’m the subject of Draft:Joe Elliot (television producer) and have declared my conflict of interest on my user page and the draft’s talk page. Before I submit it to Articles for Creation, I’d be grateful for advice on three things:
1) Notability. I believe it meets WP:ANYBIO#1 (a shared 2019 BAFTA Children’s Award win for ‘’Numberblocks’’, plus nominations in 2010 and 2017) and WP:CREATIVE#3 (creator of ‘’Numberblocks’’ and ‘’Alphablocks’’, which have independent coverage).
2) Is that likely to hold, or would it be treated as better covered in the ‘’Numberblocks’’ article?
Tone and sourcing. Is anything promotional, or does any claim rely too heavily on primary sources?
Username.
3) My shows are known collectively as the “Blocks” series. Could my username, Joe Blocks, be seen as promotional? I’m happy to request a rename before submitting if so.
I’ve deliberately not submitted the draft yet. Thank you. Joe Blocks (talk) 15:59, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
First off, please don't use LLMs to talk to us. Assessing notability is the main work of actually creating an article. You're expected to read the sources and read the notability guidelines and then make that determination before submitting it for review. Without the sources in hand it's pretty much impossible to say.
Also please see WP:AUTOBIO. Writing about yourself of Wikipedia is discouraged and very rarely successful. Packrat3860 (talk) 16:17, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Thank you and apologies. I’m new here and learning the rules. I studied the criteria around notability carefully before drafting and believe the article qualifies independently on two counts. I had read the guidelines on autobiographies and so made sure every sentence is straight-up factual, robustly sourced and not promotional. I’m an experienced writer and editor and am confident that the wording is accurate, tight, justified and the sources hold. I know there are judgement calls on how much info is worthy of inclusion, and especially on autobiographies, which are discouraged but not banned, and so before taking the bold step of submitting it I wanted to sense check all of the above. I hope the draft demonstrates all of this. Joe Blocks (talk) 19:57, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Seeing as you already have a comfortable command of WP:ALPHABETTISPAGHETTI (very impressive after only one day), what source in here do you think demonstrates the WP:SIGCOV that WP:NBIO requires? Packrat3860 (talk) 20:24, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Gosh, I don’t know what you mean. I haven’t used TLAs (apart from in this sentence) or jargon. To answer your question, sources 1, 2, 3 and 4 point to the BAFTA award win and nominations, and sources 6, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18, 21, 22 and 23 point to being the creator of four notable TV series (that all have their own long-standing Wikipedia pages). These sources include BAFTA, The BBC, The Guardian, and various industry news outlets. Joe Blocks (talk) 21:41, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Oh wait, I misunderstood! I thought you were saying I was using jargon, but I now see you meant that I was getting to grips with WP shorthand. Sorry! I get it now. Thank you. Joe Blocks (talk) 00:51, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
I have reviewed and published the article. Congratulations for achieving the rare feat of being able to write about yourself in a manner compatible with Wikipedia's standards.
Now that the article is published, please abide by WP:COI and do not edit it further. Instead, you can make requests on the talk page. You can find further information which will be useful for you at WP:About you and in particular we would like a photo of you and a recording of your spoken voice, please.
Hey, I know it's not even Thanksgiving yet, but I changed the description of Gwiazdor, (the Polish Christmas character), from being "fictional" to "magical" so I won't destroy the holiday spirit! But I got a question, who the heck is Gwiazdor; is he Santa or his own thing, and what does he look like, and how is he different from Santa? Wawario (talk) 17:02, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
@Wawario: You may wish to take this to the reference desk. The teahouse is for answering questions about Wikipedia editing. Phoenix ‣ Talk // Contributions 17:20, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
You've been starting a lot of random conversations, most of which have little connection with Wikipedia editing. This is an encyclopedia, not a forum or a subreddit or social media. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 18:16, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
ok, but what if I believe in Gwiazdor? I wanna keep the yule spirit alive! 🎄 ✨ Wawario (talk) 19:34, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Feel free to celebrate Gwiazdor as much as you want in real life, but please don't make disruptive edits on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, not a forum or social media. In solidarity,🏳️🌈JohnLaurens333(They/them • Not a chatbot • Contribs) 19:37, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Do you have a question about editing Wikipedia, @Wawario, which is what this forum is for? qcne(talk) 19:37, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Hi, I recently created my first article (here it is Atlanta Thrashers relocation to Winnipeg). I kind of did this on a whim, I only joined Wikipedia to confirm the death of my close friend, so I hadn’t really built up to doing it. I was confident in my writing and research abilities, so I looked at the formatting of some other similar articles to help me through with the unfamiliar aspects. I’m now asking what I should do with the article now, and in general what are the next steps with this kind of thing? Thanks very much:) Sunshinezguy (talk) 18:40, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
@Sunshinezguy For me it depends on the article, but for those I have a particular interest in I will keep some pages open with keywords relating to the article, which every now and then (when I remember that is) I will check those pages to see whether there's been any news. CommissarDoggoTalk? 18:58, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Thanks, this definitely still isn’t over as there’s ongoing talks about a new franchise in Atlanta. Thanks again Sunshinezguy (talk) 19:01, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Just move the Flames back from Calgary to Atlanta, move the Jets back from Phoenix to Winnipeg, move the Replacement Jets to Calgary, rename them the Coyotes, and ... wait, maybe what we actually need is just to merge the actual cities of Phoenix and Atlanta to fix this ... TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 00:02, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
This made me chuckle, consider my thanks as an appreciation of your joke Sunshinezguy (talk) 00:04, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
how to use bots
I would like to know how bots work, how to use them, how to install(?) them, who can use them, etc. (I have seen lowercase sigmabot III for archiving talk page discussions and want to know how to use it if I want to use it in future) 22Quadrilaterals (talk|edits) 19:09, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Hi 22Quadrilaterals. I guess you just want talk pages to be archived. You don't actually have to know anything about bots for that. Somebody else wrote and operates the bot. Editors only have to place a template on the talk page once to request archiving forever. See User:Lowercase sigmabot III/Archive HowTo. Wikipedia:Bots has some general information about bots but I'm not sure it's useful for you. Bots are run by their programmer. It's not something others install and run, and you need permission to run a bot. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:46, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Adding popular song to disambiguation page
I am trying to add a very popular song to a disambiguation page, but it won't be accepted due to the fact neither the song, nor the artist, nor the album, has a main Wiki. What to do? Xx.SebbieJeanne.xX (talk) 20:54, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
What to do is give up - unless you're able to get those articles written and accepted by doing them yourself. To get them accepted you'd need to show exactly where they received a lot of major independent coverage in reliable sources, and in writing the articles you wouldn't be able to add in other facts - you have to stick to only what the reporters said. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 21:29, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Don't add it if nothing relevant is mentioned in Wikipedia. The purpose of disambiguation pages is to lead readers to an article with relevant information, not to list everything with the same name. What is the song? Maybe it's mentioned somewhere. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:35, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
@Xx.SebbieJeanne.xX: Wikipedia has no mention of a "Chase Pena" but his correct name Chance Peña is mentioned in 20 articles. None of them mention the song and the only non-trivial mention of him is in The Voice (American TV series) season 9. If he had performed the song there then I think it would be OK to link but it would be a stretch now when it neither mentions the song nor has biographical content about Peña. If an entry at In My Room (disambiguation) linked the article then readers would expect the song to be there. Draft:Chance Peña lists the song under singles but was declined. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:34, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Maybe (probably) he didn't write the song, and maybe the person who did is more notable. Apparently he did write it, so that possibility is out. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 23:40, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Need advice
I need advice on whether Dr. Shiao Woo qualifies for a biography and if so, how do I find an uninvolved editor because I am Dr. Woo's spouse.
Identifies Dr. Woo as a founding member of the society. ~2026-57903-42 (talk) 21:06, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
My honest advice is to give up on trying to have an article on English Wikipedia about your spouse. Also , watch out for WP:SCAM. 🔥Jothefiredragon🐲talk🐉contrib(s)✨log🌟mail🎉global🎊 21:15, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Hi ~2026-57903-42. In order for anyone to create an article about your wife, they're going to need to clearly establish that she meets Wikipedia:Notability (people) by showing she has received the type of significant coverage in secondaryreliable sources required to establish Wikipedia notablity; no Wikipedia article about her will have any chance of avoiding deletion if there's no clear-cut indication that she's Wikipedia notable. Please understand that in a Wikipedia context the word "notability" means something specific that might differ with how the word is used in everyday conversation.If you feel your wife is indeed Wikipedia notable and want to try to create an article yourself, you may. However, I strongly suggest you read the following before doing so: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia:Ownership of content, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, and Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. I also suggest you start by creating a draft via Wikipedia:Articles for creation and then submitting the draft for review when you think it's ready. One important thing to understand is that you nor your wife will have any form of final editorial control over any Wikipedia article created about here. All article content (positive or negative) will be assessed in accordance in terms of relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. So, even if an article is created about your wife, she any anyone associated with her will be expected to not directly edit it; there are Wikipedia processes in place to help address any concerns she might have, but neither she nor anyone connected to her will be able just to change things to the way she wants them.Assessing the Wikipedia notability can sometimes be a bit tricky, especially for academics. This some guidance on this given in Wikipedia:Notability (academics), but you might want to try asking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women or Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Science and academia to ask one of the members of those WikiProjects for such an assessment. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:54, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Wikipedia editors do not normally carry out "notability assessments" about article subjects on request, nor assess the suitability of individual sources. If you want to write an article on Wikipedia, you are expected to familiarise yourself with the notability standard(s) which apply to your subject, and then demonstrate to us that your subject meets those requirements by finding suitable soirces. The "notability assessment" is your job as the article creator to carry out. General information about notability can be found here. The golden rule is a handy rule of thumb; if you can find at least three sources about your subject which meet that golden rule, your subject is probably notable. If you want help determining whether or not a particular source is suitable, please give your own opinion of whether you think it is or it isn't and why, so that we can see you've made a good faith effort to assess the sources yourself. Athanelar (talk) 22:25, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Seeking Mentor
Hello!
My name is Isabelle (Izzy) Sauve, and I am reaching out to inquire whether you might be willing to assist me with the creation of a personal Wikipedia biography.
I am a Canadian ultra-endurance athlete, multiple Hall of Fame inductee, former Canadian National Triathlon and Duathlon Team member, and a police officer with over 28 years of service.
Throughout my athletic career, I have had the privilege of competing in and winning numerous international endurance events, including extreme-distance races that push the boundaries of physical and mental performance.
My primary motivation for seeking a Wikipedia biography is to share a journey centred on resilience, perseverance, and the extraordinary capabilities of the human mind and body. I am passionate about promoting extreme endurance sports, encouraging others to challenge perceived limitations, and demonstrating how determination and mental strength can help us overcome seemingly impossible obstacles.
I also believe in the importance of increasing the visibility of women in extreme endurance sports and inspiring future generations to pursue ambitious goals, regardless of age, background, or circumstances.
I greatly respect Wikipedia's mission of making knowledge freely accessible worldwide, and it would be a genuine honour to have my athletic journey documented as part of that collective resource, should it meet the platform's notability and sourcing requirements.
I would sincerely appreciate your guidance in determining whether my background qualifies for a Wikipedia biography and, if so, whether you might be interested in assisting with its development. I would be happy to provide my athletic achievements, media coverage, Hall of Fame recognitions, and any other supporting documentation.
Thank you very much for your time and consideration. I would be delighted to hear from you and would truly appreciate the opportunity to benefit from your expertise.
Warm regards,
Isabelle (Izzy) Sauve
Canadian Ultra-Endurance Athlete
Multiple Hall of Fame Inductee
Former Canadian National Triathlon & Duathlon Team Member
Detective Sergeant | Nunavik Police Service IsabelleSauve (talk) 22:46, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
That said it certainly sounds like you could meet the definition of a notable person. While documentation of your accomplishments is important, we are more interested in a summary of what independent reliable sources say about you. If you have at least three sources that give critical analysis and commentary of you, that are not interviews with you, an article may be possible. It is unlikely you will find a volunteer willing to write for you; but you are permitted to use the Article Wizard to create and submit a draft. 331dot (talk) 22:57, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Thank you for the feedback. I will look into Article Wizard IsabelleSauve (talk) 23:01, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
> every new editor is automatically assigned a mentor who they can ask questions about editing
This is absolutely not the case. If IsabelleSauve has a mentor, good, but mentors are not assigned to every new account that is created, or to everyone who corrects a punctuation error, and saying otherwise can mislead people. DS (talk) 00:03, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
Sorry, did I miss something? Wikipedia:Mentorship says that the program automatically assigns a mentor to each new editor (called mentees). Mentors are experienced Wikipedia editors who volunteer to answer new users' questions about editing Wikipedia.In solidarity,🏳️🌈JohnLaurens333(They/them • Not a chatbot • Contribs) 00:11, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
I'm actually one of those mentors. You may be thinking of the Adopt-A-User program that was used prior to February 2025? After that date, the mentorship program was rolled out, which has rendered the Adopt-A-User program largely obsolete. In solidarity,🏳️🌈JohnLaurens333(They/them • Not a chatbot • Contribs) 00:31, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
@DragonflySixtyseven As far as I understand it, yes, every new account created and everyone who corrects a punctuation error is assigned a mentor. I think your mistake probably comes from the fact that having a mentor assigned to their account doesn't compel anyone to actually contact their mentor, nor vice versa. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 02:02, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
Hm. How about that. DS (talk) 04:45, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
Pardon me, but is this the right place to ask questions that are dumb in the sense I probably could find them in reference?
Pardon me, but is this the right place (if any) to ask questions that probably are answered elsewhere but also like... maybe you got a few or its more culture based or otherwise convenient for someone to answer them directly if they feel like but you don't want to waste anyone's time but also it'd be great if they were willing to even brief yes or no some stuff? ʄ̊ŋħɡʟ̝ (talk) 01:05, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
I couldn't quite understand all of that, but yes, this is a place you may ask questions. Here is information about the teahouse itself: meta:Research:Teahouse
Like, I know this isn't the same thing even slightly but reading about the elevation of users, cursus honorum of Wikipedia, if you will, there were a thing about one question per user when vetting people who were nominated for like admin or mod privileges idk kinds irrelevant but makes me wonder if that's: impermissible here or elsewhere (asking multiple questions either in the same post or with repeated posts like I'm doing now, or, if it allowed but it'd be better to condense into a single post or split topics one by one even if ive got 5 questions or if I really should kinda make absolutely certain I have no chance of figuring it out before asking and this site isn't fond of hand-holding people as the figure out the basics. My stuff is mostly "is this actually implemented as written (c.f. laws, human rights, etc.) and "what are the exact boundaries (insofar as definable) of something like fluency in two languages?" because RN specifically I'm trying to see if I can help create niche pages in linguistics and chemistry topics in Spanish and it seems as written, it's just a matter of am I delusionally Duncing-Kroger affect naïve enough to beleïve myself capable of doing a task which decides if I should create the page or not.
That is, is this ^^^^ something I should be seeking help for here or elsewhere and in what form. Ty for help ʄ̊ŋħɡʟ̝ (talk) 01:15, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
i forgot to close the first parathetical and I'd just like to apologize if that makes it not compile when someone reads it ʄ̊ŋħɡʟ̝ (talk) 01:16, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
sigh*. And the first quotation. )" . There. Now my dad will be proud of me. Just as soon as they legalize cigarettes in the UK which is were he'd gone to buy them the last time he answered the phone. We live in Philly. Guess he really cares about going above and beyond for my mum then ʄ̊ŋħɡʟ̝ (talk) 01:19, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
And if you're concerned that the Dunning-Kruger effect might apply to you, then pay attention to that concern, but also note that it's possible to underestimate yourself. The ideal is to see yourself as truthfully as possible, not to beat yourself up. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 04:05, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
You are generally permitted to edit your questions with typos or grammar fixes if nobody has commented yet IlikecatsSDF (talk) 01:38, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
Here, the Teahouse, you are not limited to one question the way you might be in those formal processes you mentioned. As long as they are about how to edit Wikipedia. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 03:59, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
Alternate names
I'm working on a draft for a biography. In doing research, I've noticed that the first name is spelled differently: such as Sargent, Sergeant, and Sargeant. And it's not necessarily a mispelling either, since each of them is used across multiple historical articles to refer to the same person.
How should I include these variations on the page, if at all. Does it all go in first line? Shove them all in an infobox? Make a series of redirects once the page is accepted? Looking for recommendations, examples, or a MOS page. Gmedinakim (talk) 04:17, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
Sorry for peppering you with little messages. One more thing: In general, don't put anything in an infobox unless it's also in the main part of the article. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 04:38, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
You should include them. I'd start the first sentence: "Sargent (or Sergeant or Sargeant) Sambo". This is, I think, clear and unobjectionable. A later editor who believes they can improve on it would be free to do so. And yes, once the article exists, Sergeant Sambo and Sargeant Sambo should both redirect to it. -- Hoary (talk)WWU👍︎ 04:43, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
I certainly can't think of a better way than this. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 04:52, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
Thanks all! Resolved. Gmedinakim (talk) 05:55, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
Talk Page Guidelines
Hello,
Does this talk page reply fall under WP:TPNO, WP:TALKNOTFORUM, or another guideline?
By "fall under", do you mean "is it OK"? Or do you mean "is it bad"?
All talk page replies do fall under both of those; the question is in what way. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 07:04, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
In my opinion the reply is no worse than the topic. The topic was already invalid, by WP:TALKNOTFORUM and maybe by other things too. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 07:08, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
Help Query (unnamed by poster)
I read the goal of Wikapaedia and wonder why my entry with facts of my membership on various legislative committees was termed a problem. I was especially perplexed when looked the page of two of my legislative colleagues who are older than I am. It makes you wondered who is actually behind these random evaluations. My committee memberships are and were established committees of the legislature. For this to be suggested as propaganda while allowing two others to go on for pages with similar statements from the same institution is hypocritical at best. Both city and state experiences were tossed as irrelevant while posting numerous others for the same experiences. I thought maybe its a competitor. I can reenter newpaper, website and other obvious evidnece that stating membership on committes is not propoganda. After a three year observation of how this works, I decided to comment. Mike Davis ~2026-58011-69 (talk) 09:23, 31 October2026 (UTC)
We have lots of articles about people called Mike Davis, including several living politicians. It's hard to help you if you don't tell us which article you're talking about. But generally, please see WP:VERIFIABILITY, WP:COI, and WP:About you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 10:34, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
Request for notability assessment before creating a new biography draft
Hello,
I am seeking guidance on whether there is sufficient independent coverage to support a Wikipedia biography of Bubba Gaeddert. I am the subject and acknowledge my conflict of interest.
I previously created Draft Gaeddert, which was deleted under G11 because the wording was promotional. I contacted the deleting administrator, JBW, who kindly emailed me a copy of the draft. I understand why the original version was unsuitable and do not intend to recreate it.
I have collected published coverage of my work in esports, education, broadcasting and event management. I would appreciate feedback on whether the following sources contribute towards Wikipedia's notability requirements:
I also have numerous other published interviews, podcast appearances, conference speaking engagements and professional articles. I recognise that appearances and articles written by me do not automatically establish notability.
My questions are:
Do any of these sources qualify as significant independent secondary coverage for a biography?
If the sources are potentially sufficient, should I create a substantially new Draft-space article through Articles for Creation, given the previous G11 deletion?
Would it be better to seek further guidance before attempting another draft?
I would appreciate advice on the appropriate next step. Thank you. EchoPixel42 (talk) 12:16, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
Hello. If you're using an AI to talk to us, please don't. We want to hear from you directly, even if your English is not perfect. We do not expect perfect grammar and spelling.
Interviews do not contribute to notability, as by definition an interview is not independent of you.
Please read the autobiography policy. While not absolutely forbidden, writing about yourself is highly discouraged. Writing a new article is challenging, and it's even harder with a conflict of interest, because people have great difficulty setting aside what they know about themselves and all materials they put out. Almost no one succeeds in writing about themselves here- and by that I mean that the number of successful autobiographies in the last 15 years can probably be counted on one hand. I personally have never seen one. Are you the very rare person on Earth who can succeed where everyone else fails? Possibly, but the odds are overwhelmingly against it, especially without broader Wikipedia editing experience. Wikipedia is interested in what independent reliable sources say about a topic, not what the topic wants to say about itself.
Please read this guidance and consider carefully if you really want an article about yourself here. I wouldn't want one. 331dot (talk) 12:40, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
@EchoPixel42 The whole point of the articles for creation process is that it allows editors with a COI to try to write about a topic, including an autobiography. After submitting a draft, experienced editors will review it against our notability policy. What we won't do is evaluate a bunch of URL on your behalf: you need to do the work yourself by actually finding out what our policies mean (WP:42 will help). You will almost certainly fail, as 331dot has already advised but if you heed WP:BACKWARDS and WP:NOLLM you might just be the one-in-a-million who succeeds. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:22, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
IP address blocking
If you are IP-blocked (hence my name, IPv4 is not a thing (visit my talk page)), are you still allowed to move to a different IP, create an account on that IP, and then edit on said blocked IP? (posted on 09:18, 31 October 2026 (EDT)) -- IPv4 is not a thing (talk) 13:18, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
@IPv4 is not a thing: It depends on whether you're the reason for the IP block. If you are, then you should either request an unblock, or some would say at the very least not repeat whatever got you blocked. If you're not the reason for the IP block, then you've perfectly described one of the recommended solutions to your situation. -- zzuuzz(talk) 13:37, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
Then what happens if you were blocked while anonymous/as an IP/as a temporary account? IPv4 is not a thing (talk) 13:42, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
An IP can be shared. For example a lot of schools have multiple students on the same IP, or a blocked mobile range will usually have multiple users. A temporary account (TA) is not shared, so that would definitely be on them. -- zzuuzz(talk) 13:58, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
.jpg)
Requesting immediate archiving... ~2026-57331-25 (talk) 22:06, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Courtesy link: Draft:D-BELL In solidarity, 🏳️🌈JohnLaurens333 (They/them • Not a chatbot • Contribs) 21:01, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Courtesy ping: Mapsax In solidarity, 🏳️🌈JohnLaurens333 (They/them • Not a chatbot • Contribs) 04:30, 30 October 2026 (UTC)