Wikipedia:Teahouse

PrimeHunter, a Teahouse host

Welcome to the Teahouse!

Your go-to place for friendly help with using and editing Wikipedia.

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

Can't edit this page? ; a volunteer will visit you there shortly!

New to Wikipedia? See our tutorial for new editors or introduction to contributing page.
Note: Newer questions appear at the bottom of the Teahouse. Completed questions are archived within 2–3 days.

Help Wikipedia

Assistance for new editors unable to post here

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. ; a volunteer will reply to you there shortly.

There are currently 1 user(s) asking for help via the {{Help me}} template

[Teahouse volunteers: If you have helped such a person, please don't forget to deactivate the request template.]

My deleted Wikipedia page

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.

---

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.

---

To whom it may concern:

       A Chinese editor posted a completely accurate page about my career as an historian of Japan.  Within 6 weeks it was unfairly deleted.
       I have written 7 monographs on Japanese history, including one that won a prize.  I have held 2 endowed chairs, including the prestigious Sen Chair at the University of Hawaii at Manoa.  I have appeared on NHK in Japan, KBS in South Korea, and on TV in the US.  I was a Visiting Professor at Harvard.
       Why was my page deleted?  I am mentioned under several topics for Wikipedia, including Japan-Korea relations, Japanese population, Epidemics, etc.
       I ask you most humbly to repost my page.

Sincerely, William Wayne Farris Wwfarris 33 (talk) 00:34, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

@Wwfarris 33: The article William Farris was deleted per Wikipedia:Speedy deletion#G5 because it was created by a banned or blocked user. See Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Lounghuang Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Lounghuang. The user keeps creating accounts and edit against our policies, probably undisclosed paid editing. I suspect you paid them after getting false promises. See Wikipedia:Scam warning. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:02, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

Hey PrimeHunter, Wwfarris 33 disclosed to me on my talk page that they did in fact pay the author. Bennett Li11 (talk) 01:34, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter, Wwfarris told me on my talk page that he DID PAY someone to write the article. Bennett Li11 (talk) 02:45, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

@Wwfarris 33 I'm afraid you've been scammed by the person who contacted you. It's a very common scam; in this case, they have clearly been blocked for the same thing before.

Furthermore, Wikipedia is not a record of achievement. It is not a place to promote yourself or to enshrine your work for posterity. All we are is an encyclopedia which has articles about subjects that have been robustly reported on in other secondary sources. If you want to see the kind of requirements you'd need to meet to deserve an article here, you can take a look at WP:NACADEMIC.

My genuine advice, though, would be to forget all about the whole thing. We are sorry for the money you wasted in paying the scammer. Please ignore any such requests in the future, and do not concern yourself with getting a Wikipedia article. It is not some trophy to aspire to. Athanelar (talk) 11:34, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

My well-deserved Wikipedia page was deleted without thought!

To who it may concern:

     I am a distinguished historian of Japan.  A Wikipedia page was posted for me, but I did not realize that the one who posted it was banned.
     Despite this unfortunate circumstance, I deserve a Wikipedia page.  I have published 7 monographs on Japanese history, one of which won a prize.  I have held 2 endowed chairs, including the prestigious Sen Chair at the University of Hawaii at Manoa.  I have appeared on both NHK in Japan and KBS in South Korea.  I have appeared on US TV.  My work is cited in several Wikipedia entries, including the samurai, Japanese population, Japan-Korean ancient ties, epidemics, etc.
     Surely you can post a page like the one that was deleted.
     Please advise.

Sincerely, William Wayne Farris Wwfarris 33 (talk) 01:30, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

I should say, nobody "deserves" a Wikipedia page. It's not a reward or a punishment. We have articles on terrible people. Murderers. Legislators. DS (talk) 02:14, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

I deserve it b/c of my contributions to the study of Japanese and world history.

Wayne Farris Wwfarris 33 (talk) 02:32, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

@Wwfarris 33, Maybe you ask someone who has a neutral perspective of view, the person who posted did not disclose that they were paid. Bennett Li11 (talk) 02:49, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

@Izno: - pinging admin who deleted the page on 22 Aug 2026. Relevant here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lounghuang/Archive.--Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 03:07, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

From skimming through your discussion in the help desk, I saw that you said the previous article was deleted for being in violation of G5. That just means a banned user created the article in violation of their ban. Despite that, after a cursory look at Google, I am unsure if you meet Wikipedia:Notability (academics). If you don't meet NACADEMIC, a Wikipedia article about you cannot exist until you meet the criteria. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 03:09, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

All I can say is that if an eminent historian of Japan with my record of accomplishment and contribution to the field of Japanese history is not entitled to his own Wikipedia page, then ther is something disingenuous about Wikipedia.

William Wayne Farris, Sen Chair Emeritus Wwfarris 33 (talk) 08:15, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

We do not need your word that you are an eminent historian, we need independent reliable sources wholly unconnected with you that describe you that way and show how you meet WP:NACADEMIC.

You could also try writing on the Japanese Wikipedia, which likely has looser standards for inclusion than we do. 331dot (talk) 08:23, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

My book reviews and the prize I won, 2 endowed chairs. so on and so on.

Wayne Farris Wwfarris 33 (talk) 12:26, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

Could you list some reliable and independent sources that proves your notability? It might have been a problem on my end, but I do not see any. If you truly are notable, I would be happy to write an article on you. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 12:44, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

Here is my CV. I have received 3 Fulbrights, NEH Grant, 2 Japan Foundation Grants, SSRC, etc. Wwfarris 33 (talk) 15:58, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

☁How do I attach my CV? I see no need to repeat all that information.

Wayne Farris Wwfarris 33 (talk) 16:04, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

Don't bother. We don't accept curricula vitae as a source (connexion to subject, too sparse). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Look out it's Jimothy!} 16:18, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

To add on to what Jeske said, a Wikipedia article is a summary of what reliable and independent sources have to say about you. We don't care what positions you held, grants you recived, or books you wrote unless a reliable and independent source covered it. What I asked before was for you to list some of the sources about you that are independent of you. You said earlier that others have reviewed you book. That might be a good place to start. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 16:30, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

To whom it may concern:

You exhaust me! I am notable in several respects:

For starters, check the review of Japan's Medieval Population in CHOICE, which made JMP an Outstanding Academic Book. All reviews of JMP were outstanding including the Journal of Japanese Studies, the Harvard Journal of Asian Studies.

I no longer have all the book reviews for my seven books.

William Wayne Farris, Sen Distinguished Chair, Emeritus, University of Hawaii at Manoa Wwfarris 33 (talk) 17:06, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

Nobody is "entitled" to a Wikipedia article about themself, alhough some people may meet the relevant required criteria, which in your case would be those at Wikipedia:Notability#Academic: all material in it would also have to comply with WP:BLP. Note that "you having" a Wikipedia article is a misconception; it would be Wikipedia having an article about you.

Note also that you yourself could have no control in what such an article might contain, provided that all the contents are properly cited to published Reliable sources, even if those sources are actually incorrect, and neither you nor anyone connected to you would be allowed to edit the article directly (except by removing demonstrable errors and falsehoods, which would be checked by disinterested editors and reversed if they disagreed).

There can be downsides to there being a Wikipedia article about you. I suggest you read Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-43920-01 (talk) 11:03, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

Please no. To say that somebody has an article on Wikipedia is idiomatic, and the meaning it most obviously expresses is in line with that by which Wikipedia has an article on that person. (Yes, yes, one possible meaning is that the person has authority over the content of an article that Wikipedia has about them; but I doubt that this interpretation, which of course is contradicted by Wikipedia policy, is a common one.) -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 11:24, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

I think it's fairly common, and that quite a lot of people who come here to "get" an article think that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:42, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

GGS is right here. We get plenty of requests at help fora attempting to take control of an article about them, generally due to the person in question assuming Wikipedia is closer to Facebook or Xitter. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Look out it's Jimothy!} 16:10, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

And I added that advice because it seemed to me that this is what was likely happening, or had the potential to be an issue, in the case of this OP. I am well able to distinguish between signs of the misconception and mere colloquial uses of the term, and in the case of the latter would not bother raising the issue, not being a pedant. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-43920-01 (talk) 17:06, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

You are insulting me when I was making an enquiry and trying to work with you.

Wayne Wwfarris 33 (talk) 17:09, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

I recommend you calm down and spend some time actually reading what everyone in this thread is trying to tell you. Aggressively demanding we legitimise the actions of a blackguard who was only looking to rip you off isn't a winning argument, and we generally take a very dim view of people who do not seem to be paying attention. Mikeycdiamond gave you instructions on how to move forward. Read them, and then think about what may be available other than an unusable-as-a-source CV. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Look out it's Jimothy!} 17:19, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

How do I attach my CV?

Wayne Farris

I was told that mickey diamond would write an entry for me. Please help me! Wwfarris 33 (talk) 16:09, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

I really think WP:NOTCV would be useful for you to read. Wikipedia is not a platform for publicising yourself. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:16, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

This user has apparently been scammed by an UPE, and was already informed that unfortunately we cannot help them and will not restore the deleted page. ChompyTheGogoat [ Bleat | Munched ] 16:26, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

@Wwfarris 33: As you have been told in the previous thread, people who solicit money from you in exchange for writing an article typically turn out to be scams. You have been told that Wikipedia articles are only written on subjects that have demonstrated wikinotability. No CV can help you here, as your own is a non-independent source.

If by some chance reliable, independent sources write about you in significant detail, an article might be considered. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:08, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

I'm exhausted by your emails.

I will accept what little Wikipedia has on me and ask you to leave me alone.

Wikipedia is a fraud! You don't promote the pursuit of knowledge, but stifle it!

William Wayne Farris Wwfarris 33 (talk) 17:13, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

You can disable email notifications in your account settings. ChompyTheGogoat [ Bleat | Munched ] 17:15, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

We have a lot of academics here that are editors. We strongly discourage writing about yourself but you can write about topics that you are interested in and topics that you have studied. You will need to cite WP:Reliable sources for any statements that might get challenged. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:20, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

With all due respect, I don't see how an article about you would pursue any knowledge. Wikipedia has standards in what subjects to cover, as if there weren't, this site would be drowned in slop.

If you're having trouble finding where to disable notifications, simply go to Preferences → Notifications and uncheck all the checkboxes under Email, specifically on the one that intersects with Talk page subscription. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:23, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

To whom it mat concern:

I am a distinguished scholar and find you all sad and embarrassing.

Wayne

Pls do not contact me again. Wwfarris 33 (talk) 17:46, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

Threats to "leave and never come back" inevitably invite the response: don't let the door hit you on the way out.

- Wikipedia:Don't be high-maintenance 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk / Uploads} 18:02, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

"I was told that mickey diamond would write an entry for me"—You were not; you were told (empahsis added) "If you truly are notable, I would be happy to write an article on you". That notability—in the Wikipedia sense—must first be demonstrated, by the existence of reliable and independent sources about you which have been requested and which you have not provided. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 18:35, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

Please stop trying to use Wikipedia to promote yourself.🔥Jothefiredragon🐲talk🐉contrib(s)✨log🌟mail🎉global🎊 16:41, 12 September 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.

Apology

Previous discussion: WP:TEA#My deleted Wikipedia page

To all editors with whom I corresponded:

I offer an apology for my intemperate words. Wikipedia is a handy site and it is a source of some pain to me that I flew off the handle. Please let me know that you accept my apology.

Best wishes,

William Wayne Farris Wwfarris 33 (talk) 19:18, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure I can accept an apology on behalf of Wikipedia, but I accept it for myself. Your feelings were completely understandable. I can say we are sorry that you appear to have been scammed. 331dot (talk) 20:02, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

Dear sir:

Thank you. I did not wish to anger or antagonize anyone at Wikipedia.

With best regards,

William Wayne Farris Wwfarris 33 (talk) 20:06, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

My offer still stands. If you can find the sources to prove that you meet Wikipedia:Notability (academics), I will write an article about you. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 20:46, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

Dear sir:

Thank you for your kind offer. Can you give me an idea what would constitute appropriate sources?

I still have the blurb written by the scammers. Would their sources be OK?

Wayne Farris Wwfarris 33 (talk) 21:19, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

I mean, I could take a look at their sources. You can list them here or paste what they gave you into User:Wwfarris 33/sandbox. A sandbox is your own personal page that you can experiment with without effecting an article in the mainspace. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 21:23, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

Dear sir:

I cut and pasted the entire scammed article to my sandbox. It has many precise references.

Please advise

Sincerely,

Wayne Farris Wwfarris 33 (talk) 21:30, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

It looks as though you forgot to "Publish" the sandbox. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 21:32, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

Hello:

I realized my mistake and have published in the sandbox.

It lacks paragraphing and indentations, but you will get the general idea. It has many specific references. Thank you for your kindness, no matter how this turns out.

Wayne Farris Wwfarris 33 (talk) 21:37, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

@Wwfarris 33, how did you send money to the scammers? Bennett Li11 (talk) 01:48, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

It was some kind of transfer to the bank account of one Henry Williams. I don't remember exactly.

Wayne Farris Wwfarris 33 (talk) 12:23, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Formatting fixed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 07:41, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Unfortunately I do not believe these sources are sufficient to prove your notability according to Wikipedia standards. We need significant coverage that talks about you as an academic and the influence you've had on your field, not just listings of your works - those may be used as supporting references, but only in addition to others that show notability. Have you read the page at Wikipedia:Notability (academics) other people have mentioned? This could help you understand the types of sources that might justify an article on you. ChompyTheGogoat [ Bleat | Munched ] 09:47, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

As ChomyTheGogoat already gave an overview of why the sources don't work, I will give a source by source breakdown.

1. I am unsure about this source. The use of the word "Publications" implies that the institute is connected to the publication of the book, which would mean it isn't Wikipedia:Independent.
2. As you are an employee of the University of Hawaii and it seems that the University of Hawai'i Press also published the book, it isn't independent.
3. The page doesn't exist and, even if it was, it isn't independent.
4. Same reason as the second source.
5. As you were just briefly mentioned and cited, this source doesn't have significant coverage of you.
6. This is the same source as the first one.

Mikeycdiamond (talk) 13:04, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

FYI I did find an archive for #3, but it's just a brief description of a past workshop. ChompyTheGogoat [ Bleat | Munched ] 13:09, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

After searching deeper, I found a few usable sources. Firstly, https://www.encyclopedia.com/arts/culture-magazines/farris-william-wayne could be useful. Secondly, I found several reviews of your books on JSTOR. Do you know of any coverage of your career, your obtainment of your chair position, or you getting your award? I think we are getting close to proving your notability. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 13:44, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Dear sir:

Thank you for your persistence!

Let me think a bit.

Sincerely,

William Wayne Farris ~2026-49790-59 (talk) 15:44, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Remember to log in before replying to a comment. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 16:34, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Dear sir:

I have copies of 2 interviews I did with NHK in Japan and KBS in South Korea, the relative equivalents of PBS in the US. If I dig in my files, I may find references to interviews I have done with Yomiuri newspaper in Tokyo during the pandemic and a French publication on Japanese feudalism. Would any of this be useful?

Sincerely,

William Wayne Farris ~2026-49790-59 (talk) 00:45, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-49790-59: Interviews in which you are a participant would be considered primary sources and would not establish wikinotability. It might be useful for some things, but it's best to save that for if an article could feasibly be drafted about you. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:18, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

As Tenryuu already stated, interviews are not useful to establish notability. Do you have any coverage of yourself that isn't an interview? Mikeycdiamond (talk) 16:47, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Dear sir:

I have been looking through my files and have an article in which I am cited repeatedly in a journal called LINGUA FRANCA. I also have proof of my being appointed to the Sen Chair--the appointment letter from UH.

What do you think?

Wayne ~2026-49790-59 (talk) 19:01, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

I consider the subject to be notable under both WP:NAUTHOR and WP:NPROF#5, and I have accordingly made William Wayne Farris. Please do expand (but @Wwfarris 33, it's best to use edit requests on the article's talk page as you have a conflict of interest. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 10:40, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Dear SunloungerFrog:

Thank you so much! You have made my day. Rest assured that I will follow all of Wikipedia's rules from now on! Should I have questions, I'll ask.

With many thanks,

William Wayne Farris ~2026-49790-59 (talk) 12:41, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Dear SunloungerFrog:

I noticed that you did not include Japan's Medieval Population which had several outstanding book reviews and won a Prize from CHOICE in 2006 as an Outstanding Academic Title. I also have 3 other monographs, all well reviewed and important to the field of premodern Japan.

As you noted, I have a conflict of interest, but I can provide citations.

What would you suggest? Perhaps not that important?

Wayne ~2026-49790-59 (talk) 01:38, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

The other four monographs are actually in the source wikitext, commented out for the time being: I didn't have time to search out the necessary reviews to include them yet. I intend to add them properly over the next couple of days. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 04:22, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-49790-59 @SunloungerFrog,

I was able to link many of the professor levels on Farris’s page. Bennett Li11 (talk) 04:28, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Dear Bennett Li11:

Thanks again!

Wayne ~2026-49790-59 (talk) 12:38, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Dear SunloungerFrog:

Thank you! Wikipedia editors are indeed conscientious!

Wayne ~2026-49790-59 (talk) 12:36, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Hello! I just wanted to let you know; I’ve taken the liberty of expanding the article about you further. Fengrímur (talk) 11:18, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Thank you!

Wayne ~2026-49790-59 (talk) 12:35, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

@Wwfarris 33: Now that the article is live, please consider providing a photo and a recording of your spoken voice, as explained at WP:About you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 11:48, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Hello @Wwfarris 33:

As the article about you, William Wayne Farris, has now turned out quite nicely, I’m going to nominate it for Good Article (GA) status. You can see what exactly that means here: the six Good Article criteria.

As you can see, the free Wikipedia articles turn out better than the ones you pay for—heh. Well, it may take several months for the nomination to be reviewed and the status, if the article passes, to be awarded to it.

Providing a photo of yourself — or even a recording of your voice — as mentioned above, would also be helpful, but both are completely optional. Fengrímur (talk) 12:27, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

That's great! I'll have to take another look!

Gratefully,

William Wayne Farris ~2026-49790-59 (talk) 12:40, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Hello:

I read through the entry William Wayne Farris and it is quite exciting for me! Thanks for filling it out so nicely! My gratitude knows no bounds!

What does being nominated for Good Article criteria mean, should it be accepted?

Once again, thank you for your hard work!

Sincerely,

William Wayne Farris ~2026-49790-59 (talk) 12:51, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Dear Fengimur:

I'm not sure about how to add my voice. I have a recent photo.

You might want to add that I was a Visiting Professor at Harvard during Fall 1998. I still have the list of courses with my name in it. Possible?

Sincerely,

William Wayne Farris ~2026-49790-59 (talk) 13:00, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Did you take the photo? Due to the nature of our project, images need to be released under a license that allows anyone to use the image. Thus, you need to be the person who took the image in order to release it under one of the licenses needed for images on Wikipedia. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 13:05, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

The photo was taken at a UPS store a few years ago.

Wayne ~2026-49790-59 (talk) 18:36, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

If someone else, such as a UPS worker, took the photo, you are unable to upload it to Wikipedia because you do not own the copyright of that image. We need an image that you took of yourself. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 19:13, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

A Good Article (GA) is a status awarded to exceptionally good Wikipedia articles. Such articles — as you can also read here — should be well-written (clear, concise, and understandable prose with correct spelling and grammar), verifiable (properly referenced with reputable sources), broad in coverage (properly addressing the main aspects of the topic without going into unnecessary detail), neutral (representing viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias), stable (not changing significantly from day to day), and well illustrated (supported by media such as images).

Since the article about you satisfies all of these criteria, I’ve nominated it for that status. This means that a reviewer will soon — probably within 60–100 days — verify whether it meets the criteria above. If it doesn’t, according to the reviewer, I — as the nominator — will work through the issues until the reviewer is satisfied and awards it GA (Good Article) status. I’m quite positive that it will pass without much further work with the reviewer.

In practice, this doesn’t change much — your article will simply receive a green badge in the upper-right corner to indicate that it is particularly good. See C. Doris Hellman for an example.

I can add that you were a visiting professor at Harvard University. It would probably be helpful if you could give me a source for that directly, so I don’t have to do as much research.

Images are optional, but licensing can sometimes make the process complicated. It’s probably best if you can take a photo of yourself. For instructions on how to do that, please read this guide.

I’m glad that you like the article! Fengrímur (talk) 13:16, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Dear Fengimur:

My name is listed in the Courses of Instruction for 1998-99 on p. 241 and I am listed as a "Visiting Associate Professor of Japanese History" on p. 223. It is written below on the title page "Official Register of Harvard Faculty of Arts and Sciences." Enough?

Wayne ~2026-49790-59 (talk) 18:43, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Hello Wayne! I was able to verify that you were a visiting professor at Harvard, so I added that to the article. I also felt that the previous version was a little harsh in places — for example, it left out some of your responses to criticism and understated your relevance. I did some further research and addressed those as well, expanding the article. You should probably take another look.

Regarding the photo, it needs to be either a photo you took yourself or one whose photographer agrees to release it under a Commons-compatible license. (Wikimedia Commons is the website Wikipedia uses to store images and other media.) I can walk you through the process, but the first step would be to log back into your account. For your last few replies, you’ve been using a temporary account — ~2026-49790-59. These are automatically assigned when you use Wikipedia without being logged in. It would be best if you could log back into your previous account — Wwfarris 33 — or create a new one if you’re no longer able to access it. Fengrímur (talk) 17:53, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Dear Fengimur:

Thank you for your diligence! I shall check out the page asap.

I'm sorry about not being logged in, but I don't know how to do it.

Please advise!

Wayne ~2026-49790-59 (talk) 18:56, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

You can use Special:Login. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 19:13, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

The page I linked to above says:

For more details of how to make and upload a recording, examples, and a suggested script, please see Commons:Voice intro project.

Please be sure to log in to your account before uploading a photo or voice recording (and, preferably, before commenting in discussions like this one). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 14:16, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

@Fengrímur, Not sure William Wayne Farris article is a good article looking at the requirements, it is requested that you should put an image or video/recording. Word for word is

1. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
   1. media are taggedwith their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
   2. media are relevant to the topic, have suitable captions, and have alt text.

Useful to nearly all readers, with no obvious problems; approaching (though not necessarily equalling) the quality of a professional publication.

Right now it’s stub class, so maybe you try to do start class, C, and B classes before GA. Bennett Li11 (talk) 01:36, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

WP:RATER suggests "B or higher". Higher would be GA. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 09:40, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Okay, this thread is getting very long, and I believe it's served its original purpose. Might I suggest moving this to Talk:William Wayne Farris? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:52, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

@Tenryuu,

Yeah probably. We might as well rather do that.

Bennett Li11 (talk) 02:32, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

@Qcne, please close this question, and ask everyone involved to move to Talk:William Wayne Farris. Bennett Li11 (talk) 02:34, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Payment for Wikipedia entry to Henry Williams

I checked my emails, and the payment was made using the Stripe payment link as a wire transfer by credit card.

Wayne Farris Wwfarris 33 (talk) 12:34, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Hi Wwfarris 33. You might want to continue discussing this via email per WP:REPORTPAID before you post anymore names or other information about real world individuals you dealt with regarding this matter here at the Teahouse. There's not really anything here at the Teahouse can do to help you get your money back if that's what you're hoping. The best that can happen, to the best of my knowledge, is that an administrator could block someone's Wikipedia account if they find they're involved in undisclosed paid editing, which is a violation of the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use. The account might also be added to some internal lists of known Wikipedia scammers. None of those things, though, are likely going to result in you getting your money back. Whatever contractural agreement you entered into with this other person is really just between you and they; morover, any redress you seek will probably need to be done via whatever laws are in effect where you live. We can't really give legal advice on Wikipedia, other than perhaps to say you probably should contact a lawyer (ideally one specializing in this type of thing) and see what they have to say about this and ask them to explain whether there's anything you can do to get your money back. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:08, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

It's a known UPE socker that was already blocked per previous discussions. ChompyTheGogoat [ Bleat | Munched ] 13:07, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Best thing to do is contact your credit card company. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 13:26, 13 September 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.

Draft for review

I created an article and I would like to have it reviewed. The URL is Woman of Peiting. It doesn't have "Draft" in the URL, though I did move it to draftspace. Which is all to say, I can't submit it through the submission wizard because the URL is in the wrong format. What am I doing wrong?? IfShrimpHadABarbie (talk) 18:09, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

It was not in fact in draft space, but I have now moved it there; Draft:Woman of Peiting. Athanelar (talk) 18:57, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the assist! IfShrimpHadABarbie (talk) 18:59, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

I've submitted it now. Thanks again! IfShrimpHadABarbie (talk) 19:03, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Reviewed and published - that's a really good first article! Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 19:54, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Wow, thank you!!! IfShrimpHadABarbie (talk) 20:09, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

@IfShrimpHadABarbie I see you have nominated the article for a WP:DYK, which it easily deserves. I would suggest a different "hook" based not so much on the factual description but maybe about the discrepancy between the apparent age of her boots and her death date! Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:56, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

I didn't nominate it - it was someone else. But I am beyond flattered! IfShrimpHadABarbie (talk) 14:01, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

@IfShrimpHadABarbie That nomination has been withdrawn (see Talk:Woman of Peiting). There is a note saying that you can nominate it again within the next couple of days, which I certainly think you should do. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:04, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Thank you - I have just started the process. I appreciate your support! IfShrimpHadABarbie (talk) 13:08, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Should I work on draft after deletion of the page?

My first article has been deleted due to AI generation. As it was my first, I was very confused with the information and source editing. So I took help from LLM. But now I am working on it from scratch. The page has been nominated for speedy deletion. It's okay with me. But can I work on the draft now, or should I start it after it's completely deleted? KN Sunjida (talk) 05:22, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

The deletion should happen fairly soon, so it's probably safer and easier just to wait. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 06:58, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. Another question. Can I work on my Google draft and then copy and paste it into the sandbox? Or is it mandatory to write in the sandbox from the beginning? I am strugling with this confusion. KN Sunjida (talk) 07:17, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

You're allowed to work on the draft in another app and then copy it to Wikipedia if you want, but it's really easier to just work on it in stages directly on Wikipedia, because then you can immediately see if your formatting looks correct and so on. Athanelar (talk) 07:31, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

It's a good idea to keep working on drafts even after they're deleted or denied; practise makes perfect, as they say, and Wikipedia editing is no different. If you don't have access to the text after deletion, you can always request access to it at WP:UNDELETE. Shield ^{\\ |T| - |C| - Solidarity \\} 14:00, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

The draft hasn't been deleted yet. Does it take a while? I wanted to practise in the sandbox. But there is no option to write there, as the draft is now showing as redirected. KN Sunjida (talk) 14:05, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

That's very interesting. I have personally never seen a {{Db}} tagged article that unambiguously meets WP:CSD stay up for more than 5 hours, much less 10.

As for the sandbox, I've disabled the redirect. Hope you can bring your article to fruition. User:KN Sunjida/sandbox.

Cheers! Shield ^{\\ |T| - |C| - Solidarity \\} 15:16, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Shield! I am working on this now. As I am new to Wiki, I am still learning the article creation terms and phases. Your help means so much to me! KN Sunjida (talk) 04:39, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Confused on closing an MfD.

On this MfD, there are 3 people voting for userfy. The other 3, said redirect. Do I close as redirect, userfy, no consensus, or both? Thanks, 🐴🌀^{[citation needed]} 08:15, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

@Guythatlikeshorses2 If you're not confident in closing it, then don't.

Closing discussions is not a vote. You as the closer need to decide which is the best option based on the applicable policies and guidelines, taking into account the arguments presented by the people who have participated in the discussion. "No consensus" means "neither side has presented a strong enough argument", not "neither side outnumbers the other". Take a look at WP:Closing discussions. Athanelar (talk) 08:29, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

You can do both. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 13:26, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

This has wormed its way to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Allow autoconfirmed users to archive MfD pages, instead of being bot exclusive, via the admins' noticeboard and my talk page. Graham87 (talk) 05:53, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

I am honestly not trying to vandalise any page I edited in regards with adding IMDb.

I’ve been editing wiki on and off for 13 years and I have been accused by a volunteer recently that I’m vandalising pages just because I include IMDb pages on some people who have the pages. I thought I was trying to help but it seems this rule on Wikipedia came to a head recently and that I’m pretty much the bad guy. I don’t care if the link has gotten rid of the page, I put it there with careful observation that it is the ACTUAL person. I mean if wiki is editing pages, then surely IMDb should be allowed as it’s the same as Wikipedia. I don’t want to fall out with anyone at all over this honestly. If I have to give up the editing then so be it as I just feel there’s just toxicity. I really wanted wiki to be fun and helping people but looks like I’m getting spat at and I just don’t know what to do now.. Vlove1 (talk) 08:53, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

@Jessicapierce, why do you consider this WP:VANDALISM? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:19, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Ok, I see now there was previous discussion , and I agree that we don't have to have an imdb page under EL just because it exists. Still, more possible DR than VANDALISM, I think. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:25, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

@Vlove1 The warnings you've been given are a generic template for disruptive edits, you should not take them as a personally-tailored comment on your behaviour.

That said, Wikipedia is not supposed to be an aggregator of links about our subjects and we don't need to include external links to subjects' IMDb pages just because they exist. The "external links" section is not supposed to be a repository of every link relating to a subject; see WP:ELNO and WP:ELYES for guidance. Specifically, ELNO says we should not include links to; Open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors. This certainly applies to IMDb, which we specifically consider to be an unreliable source due to its information being user-generated. Athanelar (talk) 10:36, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

@Athanelar Yes, but imdb is also incredibly common as EL, and generally accepted as standard for actors etc. Also, even if you're using templates, WP:NORESVAND applies, and if a template doesn't fit, words can be used instead. Taking the Rosalind Ashford example, there are 10 items in her "credits", people can reasonably disagree on if that's enough, but IMO it's acceptable-ish. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:41, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

I agree on the NORESVAND point; it's just that some editors really latch onto that word in a way that prevents them from productively engaging with the feedback the templating editor was trying to give, and I like to reframe things in that direction rather than focus on the misapplication of "vandalism". Athanelar (talk) 11:52, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Not so much WP:NORESVAND as WP:NOTVANDAL. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 13:20, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Jessicapierce, the recent history of User talk:Vlove1 shows behaviour which is hard to distinguish from WP:HOUNDING. Taking the issue to WP:ANI would have given your repeated templated messages some community validation rather than the appearance of a personal vendetta. There's a reason that WP:Don't template the regulars was written.

Vlove1, using {{2O}} or {{helpme}} or taking the issue to WP:ANI would have gained independent assistance. Repeatedly blanking your user talk page in the hope that the question will go away does not work. -- Cabayi (talk) 11:09, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Before taking this to ANI, I was following standard protocol of escalating through the warning levels.

On September 10, I left Vlove1 a message explaining why it was not generally appropriate to put IMDb links in the "external links" section for non-film or TV related people, such as criminals and politicians. Every public figure has appeared in the media, but that doesn't warrant an IMDb link. We had a brief exchange, in which Vlove1 said "they do not have to be a member of any film industry as that’s what IMDb does is show their credits" - we didn't even get into the issue of IMDb not being considered a reliable source. Vlove1 then blanked their talk page.

The next day, Vlove1 made a similar edit, adding an IMDb link to Princess Astrid, Mrs. Ferner. I left a first-level warning, with an added note that we had discussed this issue, and to please stop.

Six days later, Vlove1 added IMDb links to Jon Kyl, a politician, and Rosalind Ashford and Ronnie Dove, musicians. (In retrospect, I could live with the link on Dove, as he did have his own TV show, but he does already have his own website in the "external links" section, which seems enough.)

I left second-level warnings about these edits. I do not have a personal vendetta and did not intend to "hound" this user; I was keeping an eye on a behavior I considered inappropriate, and was following the general practice of escalating warnings until I needed to bring it to someone else's attention as well. I stand behind my reversions and warnings here, but if I have violated policy, please let me know. I understand the NOTVANDAL point (and will review that text), but I did consider this vandalism, as Vlove1 was continuing to do something against procedure, after having been repeatedly warned and explained to. Jessicapierce (talk) 14:20, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

"I understand the NOTVANDAL point ... but I did consider this vandalism"—Your second statement disproves your first. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 14:58, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

I'll rephrase. I understand that editors should be mindful of what does and does not constitute vandalism. I considered Vlove1's continued addition of inappropriate external links to be vandalism at the time I left those warnings (especially given their unwillingness to discuss, and blanking of talk page). Now, having done my due diligence and reviewed NOTVANDAL, I still consider the user's actions vandalism. Jessicapierce (talk) 15:38, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Then you are still wrong, so far as NOTVANDALISM is concerned. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 15:53, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

+1 Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:25, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Ok. Should this have gone straight to ANI, and if so, at what point in the process? Genuinely trying to understand. Thanks, Jessicapierce (talk) 22:50, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

I wouldn't have picked ANI at first, but if things continued after , I would have tried WP:ELN to see what response I got. What fits per WP:IMDB-EL is a bit eye of the beholder. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 03:24, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

See WP:DR. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 10:35, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

@Jessicapierce Vandalism on Wikipedia is a much narrower category than it is elsewhere. Example: If Wikipedia included a real statue, spraying it with paint would be vandalism, but ripping off the name plaque and replacing it with a different person's name would be merely a mistake. Any time that an UNreasonable person might possibly claim their version is better, that is not vandalism. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 01:02, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Giusy Caruso wiki page draft declined for submission

 Courtesy link: Draft:Giusy Caruso

Good morning,

I am currently writing Giusy Caruso draft pag Wikipedia that was currently declined for insufficient references.

We were surprised because all the references in the page are from notable sources.

Questions:

1. We can add others also available offline, how can we mention the references on journals in papers?
2. Shall we reply to the review making a lists of motivations regarding the sources?

Thanks in advance for this explanation and right direction.

Best regards

GigliolaC (talk) 10:25, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

@GigliolaC As the comment left by the reviewer explains, your draft was not declined due to the sources you provided being unreliable, it was declined due to not having enough citations. In biographies of living people, every factual claim needs to be attributed to a source.

Please read WP:BLP H:YFA and H:REFB. If you have any personal or professional connection to the subject, please also read WP:COI and disclose this appropriately. Athanelar (talk) 10:28, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

This was the motivation: This draft is not adequately supported by reliable sources.

Reliable sources were referred, maybe not in a correct way? GigliolaC (talk) 12:36, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

"Not adequately" = "not enough". For every single fact you write, you must show which page it comes from. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 14:02, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi GigliolaC. Why are you referring to yourself as "We"? Is there more than one person using the "GigliolaC" Wikipedia account and working on this draft? -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:26, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Hello.

I am working on this draft and used "we" because I asked for the references provided. I don't know how to refer to articles in journal in papers, maybe providing the link to the online reference? Es. Classic Voice https://www.classicvoice.com/riviste/classic-voice/classic-voice-311.html?fbclid=IwY2xjawUaEKtwZG9mAWV4dG4DYWVtAjEwAGJyaWQRMUZJQWhZWVd4QmU3ZnVuWUpzcnRjBmFwcF9pZBAyMjIwMzkxNzg4MjAwODkyAAEeIkphPR6t7zYwIwKNoetvCyIOsjzGk1epoPQdslsGfjyvAyhBDRVtJfeHo20_aem_wXmqCSsQ0lSoTJVbKDkCuA GigliolaC (talk) 12:43, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

User:GigliolaC said on their talk page (April 2026) that they were the collaborator of Giusy Caruso, so Caruso is likely the other person being referred to here. I don’t see any COI acknowledgement on their user page, though. Suðurhafsljósæta (talk) 14:09, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

@GigliolaC In the edit history of the draft, one of your recent summaries says you removed the external links. However, there are still about 15 external links that need to be removed. For example, there should be no links to websites of any of the people she has collaborated with.

An easy way to check for external links: Every place that you can find the little square box with an arrow like this - it shows another link that needs to be deleted. (Or changed to a reference citation, but only if it's a link to a reliable source.) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 04:37, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

… ~2026-50696-92 (talk) 12:57, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-50696-92 You can cite that magazine using the template {{cite magazine}} or {{cite web}} if only online. Note that the URL is for the convenience of readers but the more important parts are the title of the piece, with its issue, date, page number and authors. For technical journals with a digital object identifier we use {{cite journal}}. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:14, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

CurseForge split proposal not opened correctly?

hi. I saw Talk:Curse LLC#c-IgelRM-20251225202100-Pneen-20230224080400 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Curse_LLC&diff=prev&oldid=1329386443 and wanted to know where I went wrong. I tried to follow Wikipedia:Splitting.

The info page doesn't state a maximum amount of time for the proposal to be closed (and being a volunteer project, it's hard to make time for this). There were 4 supports, 2 opposes. My main concern was Ferret's comment, which pointed of the notability criteria. It's an issue with all of modding Minecraft honestly.

Currently the Curse LLC article has "For the active video game modification platform, see Overwolf." which is incorrect. CurseForge is an active video game platform. It's just owned by Overwolf now. It didn't go at all as I thought it'd go. I've struggled to find similar cases to this situation. Usually articles are written about the primary service(s), if not also the company as well.

Id greatly appreciate if you could explain where I went wrong, and what you think of the situation overall. Pneen (talk) 02:04, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

I do not know this topic. But you wrote It's an issue with all of modding Minecraft honestly - and I think probably this is exactly the truth but not in the way you meant it. It's very likely that modding Minecraft is just not much of an encyclopedia topic and not worth writing about on Wikipedia, and that that's the issue. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 23:53, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly one of the things I'm debating. Minecraft has the largest modding scene of any game ever. But then there's articles like List of Source mods, Skyrim modding and Grand Theft Auto modding so there's precedent. I see obscure Wikipedia articles pop up all the time and yet something so prolific doesn't have articles about its stats.

It's tricky. Pneen (talk) 11:50, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Precedent makes zero difference. Size of the scene makes zero difference. What matters is what has been written about it in Wikipedia:Reliable sources, and there's an excellent summary at WP:42 of what's needed for an article.

Basically, if something was unbelievably huge and unbelievably popular but the reporters for reliable sources never wrote about it, Wikipedia would treat it like it didn't even exist. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 01:07, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

An in-depth explanation/case study of this can be found at WP:BFDI. 7amiþ reform · solidarity · 💬 · 📊 02:18, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Hiya, we talked about this on the Discord. I think you followed the split process fine, so pinging @IgelRM so see if they can shed light on why they thought I don't think the split proposal was opened with proper procedure. qcne (talk) 12:16, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

I thought there is a maximum time period where Template:Split gets displayed on an article? But I realize now that I should have made that comment as I was not experienced enough and would like to apologize for the confusion this has causes. Regards IgelRM (talk) 15:08, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

In that case, @Pneen, feel free to be bold if you think there is the argument to split the article. qcne (talk) 16:48, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

I think I understand your point and have changed the wording. Regarding the split, I assume you want Template:Split restored? Feel free to do so if nobody here knows of a limit. Apologies again for the confusion. Regards IgelRM (talk) 20:41, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Might be silly to ask here

This might be a somewhat really silly question, but I am trying to better understand how one goes about reaching out to people to get a photograph for a given Wikipedia article. I know there is WP:IFSM and WP:PICYOU and WP:BRP. And over on Commons, there is also c:VRT, c:COM:CONSENT, c:Commons:Permission requests and there is also meta:Free knowledge based on Creative Commons licenses. Is there anything I am missing, or anything else I should read up on?

I feel like I've been around way too long and ought to know this way better than what I do, but I still find myself a bit confused about it. From my understanding, how might one do it is: Me reaching out to → person/PR/photographer → they agree under a c:COM:WKL → permission is sent to VRT → VRT verifies it → image can be hosted on Commons. That's the gist of what I understand. However, I really feel like I should know this better than I do, as it feels like I am missing something. Issac I Navarro (talk) 03:53, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Not silly at all! I see requests like this on various social media platforms; in fact, I just came across this Bluesky thread today (as you'll see, it can take quite a while for these to be resolved). If the subject publicly declares they're releasing the image under a suitable licence, there's no need for VRT. —ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email) 04:36, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

While, I understand that process as seen with WP:PICYOU. Where I tend to get more hazy on is on the side of an editor and for people that may be less public. For instance, I would like there to be a photograph for a bio stub I been working on; Fernando A. Fisher. And I been able to track down his email fernnyfish@gmail.com on his website. I believe I know that I would be the one that would need contact per WP:BRP, then the next steps, that is where I get a little more lost. I think I know, however, I am not all that confident about doing it. Issac I Navarro (talk) 05:59, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

If they e-mail you photos, you can upload them to commons and then tell them to contact VRT. Or you can tell them how to upload the photos by themselves, if they're willing to put in the time and effort to do that. ;; Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 10:04, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

@Maddy from Celeste, @ClaudineChionh I sent an email to Fisher, and he did respond that he understood. However, he did not specifically any further, later I seen File:Fernando A, Fisher.jpg. It seems he has decided to upload the file himself.

Should I either add the {{licensereview}} tag, ask him to send the permissions to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org directly, or add the email exchange as a carbon copy to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org? Or, since he uploaded the file to Commons himself, would no further steps be necessary? Issac I Navarro (talk) 02:24, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

This is at the limits of my Commons knowledge, but I don't think the licensereview template is correct here. It says: This file, which was originally posted to an external website. But this isn't the case with this file. As far as I know, you should just leave it as is now. It shouldn't be any different from you or me uploading our own work to Commons. If Commons admins/VRT people want to clear something up, it's up to them to say that now. ;; Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 11:34, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Part of my concern was that photograph was being used on his social media accounts as a profile picture.

However, it's the first time that I have seen that photograph in that quality and that full aspect ratio without anything being cropped been.

Thank you for the help and recommendations. Issac I Navarro (talk) 15:29, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

How do you spot AI pages

I have recently started to look for errors and violations in the Articles for Creation page and I found the most common violation is AI but I can never tell if it is unless it has the AI tag. Is there a tool I can use? Is it obvious? Also, if I was to find one what do I do? Do I tag it or request a Speedy Deletion?A1Gaming22 (talk) 05:06, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

These are some tools/websites I use that I personally have found helpful. They are not perfect but they get me on the right track:

• https://www.grammarly.com/ai-detector
• https://gptzero.me/
• https://www.zerogpt.com/
• https://www.copyscape.com/
• https://copyvios.toolforge.org/

Issac I Navarro (talk) 06:11, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

I should also mention, that I think you may find WP:WPAIT helpful. Issac I Navarro (talk) 06:19, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

The internal page WP:AISIGNS might be helpful. LightNightLights (talk • contribs) 06:13, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi, @BengalMC here from a public computer, for me, the best way to instantly detect ai pages in seconds is https://wikipedia.gptzero.me/, and if you want to look for ai line by line, then the websites above are highly recommended here. BengalMCwasHere (talk) 06:19, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

The WP:AI noticeboard often has recent cases where experienced LLM-detectors talk about why they are suspicious. Browsing a few of those might help fine-tune your detectors. (And if you wanted to pitch in, we sure wouldn't mind!) I find the most certain, but most painful. way to do it is source/text analysis. As a bonus, if you decline an article because source/text mismatches make you think it's LLM...the article was bad even if not LLM, so no regrets. M kuhner (talk) 06:53, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

@A1Gaming22 I would be very cautious re: the AI detectors other are recommending here. They are good for confirming a suspicion, but you should not rely on them as your only indication. (Granted, they are more reliable now than they used to be, but still).

The best way to do it is just to get familiar with how AI generated text looks. Read through WP:AISIGNS and WP:AITALKSIGNS and compare them to drafts that have been declined for being AI generated. Do that enough and you'll develop a nose for AI generated content. It helps that AI generated comments and edit summaries are usually glaringly obvious, and someone who uses AI for their comments and edit summaries is definitely using it for their draft too, so that can be a good secondary sign. Athanelar (talk) 10:48, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Just a tip look for phrases that are padding of the AI generated output like if it adds "Okay I'm Writing this while keeping the 'Crazy Story' vibe" Normally people remove that but sometimes people don't remove it. Strongshorts (talk) 11:23, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

@A1Gaming22, I'm a bit late, but I would also recommend playing around with various AI models to generate text. I've done that lots to get a taste of how LLMs write. Giovanni Guasconti (a word with me) 18:24, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

I want to create a fictional US route number U.S. Route 300

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.

---

creating a fictional US route number Akdlso (talk) 12:00, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Akdlso, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a place for fiction. You will have to find a different website for that. KylieTastic (talk) 12:05, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: WP:ALTOUT —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:12, 19 September 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.

What's the difference?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

These articles being discussed here are also currently being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2026 Women's European Volleyball Championship final round and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2026 Men's European Volleyball Championship final round and their respective AFDs are where any further discussion about them should take place. Trying to hold separate discussions about them at different places will likely only lead to redundacy and confusion and may even be seen as WP:FORUMSHOP. The consensus as to what to do with the articles will be established in those two AfD, not here at the Teahouse or anywhere else.

---

Can someone tell me what is the difference between the pool stage articles for the 2025 FIVB Women's Volleyball World Championship and the pool stages for the 2026 Men's European Volleyball Championship and 2026 Women's European Volleyball Championship. The 2025 Worlds page is deemed fine but someone has nominated the 2026 Men's European Volleyball Championship and 2026 Women's European Volleyball Championship for merging.

The user says the European Championship pool pages lack secondary sources but the 2025 Worlds pool pages also lack secondary sources. I brought up that fact and asked what is the difference but he has declined to so, thus, I am coming here to get more of a clarification on what is the difference and a reason why the European Championship pool pages are deemed inferior?

Best regards ILoveSport2006 (talk) 17:49, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Nominating for merging is a separate thing.

Of course these brand-new pages lack secondary sources - they've been pushed onto Wikipedia before they're ready. Yes, they're most definitely inferior, but fix the sourcing ASAP and everything should be OK. The merging is probably a great idea, just let that happen while you hunt for excellent sources. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 00:46, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers You didn't really answer my question. Why is the 2025 Worlds page that also lacks primary sources from a year deemed better than mine?

Also, for your information, I have these articles for pool A of the men's edition that clearly shows notability.

• https://www.oasport.it/2026/09/litalia-vince-il-girone-degli-europei-di-volley-la-classifica-finale-quoziente-set-e-punti-vantaggio-di-2-vittorie/amp/
• https://www.ceskenoviny.cz/zpravy/cesti-volejbaliste-na-me-porazili-slovensko-a-zajistili-si-postup/2874417
• https://www.tanea.gr/2026/09/17/sports/othersports/ethniki-volei-emathe-antipalo-stous-16-tou-eurovolley
• https://www.rtvslo.si/sport/odbojka/ep-v-odbojki-2026/slovenci-popustili-v-odlocilnem-nizu-v-osmini-finala-jih-cakajo-srbi/794069
• https://www.athletiko.gr/pire-tin-prokrisi-stoys-16-toy-eurovolley-i-ellada-oi-pithani-antipaloi-tis-102159
• https://www.megatv.com/2026/09/16/eyropaiko-protathlima-volei-i-ethniki-omada-prokrithike-panigyrika-stous-16-tis-diorganosis
• https://sportklub.si/odbojka/reprezentance/kdaj-slovenija-srbija-osmina-finala-eurovolley-2026/
• https://sportklub.si/odbojka/slovenija-v-izlocilne-boje-eurovolleyja-z-ogromno-okrepitvijo/
• https://www.sportovnilisty.cz/cesti-volejbaliste-postupuji-do-osmifinale-ze-4-mista-o-postup-se-v-pondeli-utkaji-s-belgicany/
• https://isport.blesk.cz/clanek/ostatni-volejbal/479865/volejbaliste-maji-jiste-osmifinale-italie-nesmi-nas-to-tizit-v-trenyrkach-vi-kouc.html
• https://www.torinotoday.it/sport/cev-eurovolley-2026-nazionale-italia-maschile-danimarca-20-settembre-ottavi-palavela-biglietti-orari-diretta.html
• https://www.rtvslo.si/sport/odbojka/ep-v-odbojki-2026/cebulj-odlocitev-ni-bila-tezka-upam-da-bom-lahko-pomagal-do-zelenega-uspeha/794251

ILoveSport2006 (talk) 08:49, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

I think you may want to take a look at WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. It is possible that the 2025 article also is insufficiently sourced or should be merged and simply nobody has gotten around to doing so. You're better off trying to look at the article you're working on "in a vacuum" and checking whether it meets Wikipedia's standards. Packrat3860 (talk) 14:21, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

@Packrat3860 @TooManyFingers Don't the articles I showed above show Pool A's notability? The editor who wants to remove the pages used third party sources for the 2026 AVC Men's Volleyball Cup Pool A and 2026 AVC Men's Volleyball Cup Pool B pages to confirm who made the knockout stage. Since the European Championship is even more prestigious, I have found plenty of similar third party articles that say who advanced to the knockout stage from Pool A. They were very easy to find and I could probably found way for the other pools in both genders and the knockout stages. ILoveSport2006 (talk) 10:16, 21 September 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.

Dealing with a problematic userspace draft

Hi! I was looking through Recent Changes when I spotted this. It is a draft about a Malaysian youth field hockey player who may not meet the notability requirements on a new editor's main user page. The draft contains quite a lot of biographical and sporting information, but has essentially no usable sources. The user who created this only has two edits so far, which are to create this. Is this a problem?

There might be a COI problem given the context, but I'm not sure. Plus, I probably shouldn't be trusted to deal with things like this because I'm very unfamiliar with this area of the encyclopedia. Can someone please help me with this? Should I simply leave it alone, contact the editor, tag the page, or do something else? Thank you and sorry if this was a silly question. Kapicapybara (talk) 18:32, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the alert, Kapicapybara. I've deleted the user page, and explained on User talk:Monstersfc77. -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 08:49, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

article move getting declined

am trying to move my sandbox to article but dont know were am going wrong as the links are notated Kasuba97 (talk) 21:03, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I'm afraid you (like the vast majority of us!) are not a notable individual by the standards of Wikipedia (see WP:NBIO). This means you won't be able to publish an article about yourself. CoconutOctopus talk 21:06, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

how can i do it then? can you help? am lost. Kasuba97 (talk) 21:55, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

There is nothing to do, @Kasuba97. Wikipedia is not a social media website. We do not host profiles. Go to LinkedIn or another website. qcne (talk) 22:02, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

There is no way to do this; you should go on about your life as if you had never heard of Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 22:02, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

thats hash, dont you think? just cause maybe the country magazines am mentioned in is in africa? Kasuba97 (talk) 22:25, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

you gotta reply politely mate Kasuba97 (talk) 22:26, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

All thw replies you received were polite, and they showed you the reasons too. It has nothing to do with which country anyone is from. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 23:45, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

just wanted to understand but the comment was hash and you know that Kasuba97 (talk) 23:47, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

bet know this is my first article, so am learning reason am asking to many questions.

“Kabusha takolelwe ubowa” Kasuba97 (talk) 23:53, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

What wouldn't be kind is to encourage you to continue pursuing this article, spending your time on a subject that does not appear to be notable. It's already been speedily deleted twice due to being blatantly promotional. Something isn't unkind simply because it's something one doesn't like to hear. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 00:02, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

I think you might have meant "harsh" instead of "hash"? (Both of them are normal words, so it's easy to mix them up.)

I think it was not harsh, but receiving "no" can always seem harsh, and I'm not always a good judge either. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 00:37, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

@Kasuba97, it often surprises new editors to find out that:

• Wikipedia isn't like a social media platform for information about ourselves to be posted in an article
• ... unless there are a number of reputable "third-party" sources written about us, which helps establish what Wikipedia refers to as notability and determines whether someone is eligible to be written about in an article
• ...and that even if there are such sources, we ourselves can't be the writers of an article about us because of something Wikipedia calls conflict of interest

I think every one of us editors further along in our Wikipedia journey is very sympathetic to your confusion about all this, because you're far from the only new editor who came with similar issues. How well I remember my own issues not that long ago. There's a lot to learn when you come on board.

Your comment just above @CoffeeCrumbs' is a good sign that you understand you're in a learning phase. One of the best ways we learn, whether as children or Wikipedians, is by making mistakes but also being open to finding out what we should have done instead. And why. CoffeeCrumbs so well expressed our need to realize that "something isn't unkind simply because it's something one doesn't like to hear." You might want to re-read that message. Augnablik (talk) 11:10, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Repeat citation with different pages

I've been cleaning up some citations on the article for the Battle of Petrograd. There are a bunch of instances of {{cite book}} that are all for the same book, "Red Victory", and the only difference is the page number(s) that are referenced. Is there some clean way to have those all collected together or otherwise avoid having to copy it in each place? I have seen <ref name="some-name"> but as far as I can tell that only works if the citations are exactly the same (these differ, but only in the page number). Packrat3860 (talk) 03:10, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

You may be interested in the {{sfn}}/{{sfnp}} family of templates. ScalarFactor (talk) 03:40, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Our documentation for this is at Wikipedia:Citing sources#Citing multiple pages of the same source. LightNightLights (talk • contribs) 11:04, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Gallery of homogenized cheese

Dear Friends.

Not really a question, but rather an information - I edited the article about Homogenized cheese. Instead of just two photos, not it features 5 different photos in a separate gallery section. Not sure If I did everything properly, though. If somebody could look over my changes, I would be truly happy.

Best wishes! Kaworu1992 (talk) 08:59, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

@Kaworu1992 Gallery sections are generally improper. Photos should be spread throughout the article in contextually appropriate places. See WP:GALLERY and MOS:SECTIONLOC. a gallery consisting of an indiscriminate collection of images of the article subject should generally either be improved in accordance with the below paragraphs or moved to Wikimedia Commons. There are exceptions, but I don't think we need a gallery for homogenised cheese. Athanelar (talk) 10:16, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Dear Friend.

Basically, I wanted to include in this article all 5 photos, but the article in itself was kinda... too short to spread them 5 photos in this article in a 'visually ok' fashion, so I opted to use a gallery instead. i am sorry if I had done something wrong. Shall I delete the gallery?

Best wishes

--Kaworu1992 (talk) 09:39, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

@Kaworu1992 I've already removed the gallery so there's nothing for you to do on that front; but yes, I would advise against a gallery in this article since it goes against our style guidelines on the matter. Athanelar (talk) 10:18, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

There's no need to apologise; Wikipedia works by people making edits and others reviewing them and either keeping them, or not; see WP:BRD. Also, everyone here learns by experience. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 10:21, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

The markup in your editing was correct.

Some of the claims you had in the captions ("best known and best-selling brand", "unorthodox flavors") should not be made without sources. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 11:03, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Dear Friend.

I kinda see what you mean, however... I kinda "know' (and this is a basic knowledge in Poland) which brand is the most popular and which flavors are kinda... special, however, this is very hard to 'prove' in a WIkipedia-like fashion.

Do you maybe have some idea what to do now?

Best wishes

--Kaworu1992 (talk) 09:41, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

If you can't prove it with a source, do nothing.

See also WP:OR. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 09:50, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Edit count

Hello! I'm planning on applying for the Rollback user right to use Huggle, I know I don't meet the requirements yet but I'm wondering it says I need 200 main space edits, so do reverts, speedy deletion requests and maintenance tagging count. As I'm a RecentChanges patroller most of my edits are welcomes or reverts Strongshorts (talk) 11:00, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

WP:ROLLBACK does not specify a hard edit-count threshold required for you to gain this right, how did you come across the 200 number? As far as I know there is no hard threshold that you have to pass to request for Rollback.

In general though, for purposes like WP:Extended confirmed, any edit counts as long as you are not obviously WP:Gaming the system. LkL-70547 (talk) 14:32, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Oh yes, but it does say most people accepted get it. Nevermind then Strongshorts (talk) 06:39, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Mubashir Husain Rehmani (declared COI)

Hello. The article Mubashir Husain Rehmani was tagged for speedy deletion under A7. I am his student, so I have a conflict of interest, and I have disclosed this on the talk page.

I contested the deletion on Talk:Mubashir Husain Rehmani and listed some independent sources. For example, Silicon Republic named him on the Clarivate Highly Cited Researchers list in 2020, 2021 and 2025.

Could an uninvolved editor please check if these sources are good enough, and maybe improve the article? I will not edit the article myself. Thank you. ~~~~ Muhammad Absar (talk) 13:28, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

All of the articles provided appear to be lists of researchers or directory listings. I'm not familiar with the speedy deletion process but if you want to improve this article I think per WP:42 the biggest thing missing here is significant coverage. We want to see what independent sources have to say about the subject and his work, and if all there is in that regard is thin mentions that name him on a list of researchers then I suspect he does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines.

Do you have independent sources discussing the subject rather than just listing his name? I could not find any with a quick search. Packrat3860 (talk) 13:49, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

hCaptcha not working after new CSP changes?

Moved to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) § hCaptcha not working after new CSP changes?

 – NightWolf1223 <Howl at me•My hunts> 15:43, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

How do I rename User:YourName/sandbox to rename it?

I have nowhere else to rename and I don't know where it is. LucyAngelFarrow (talk) 18:29, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @LucyAngelFarrow, and welcome to the Teahouse.

I'm not sure what you mean.

You can have a sandbox called User:LucyAngelFarrow/sandbox, but so far you haven't created it (which is why the link is in red).

The page name you've put in the header is just an example, meant to have your own username (LucyAngelFarrow) put in in place of "YourName".

Does this help? If not, please clarify what you are asking. ColinFine (talk) 18:51, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Renaming is known as moving a page on Wikipedia. The option to move a page will appear in the menu options you see on a page once your account is autoconfirmed. Cabayi (talk) 16:28, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Does anyone know how can I fix this?

Does anyone know how do I fix the discontinuation date not showing up when reading the article Sora (text-to-video model) even though it has that in both the source code and the infobox template in Visual Editor)? I am asking because I will fix it if anyone knows how to and tells me. Gaming Fan 23 (talk) 19:45, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi Gaming Fan 23. The documentation at Template:Infobox software says the only valid value is | discontinued = yes. This will display "Final release" at latest release version. I don't think you can disply a discontinued date in addition to the final release date. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:56, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Neptune

The article Neptune is written in British English so the spelling is different "color" is "colour" traveled is "travelled" center is "centre" etc. Is there a specific reason why it is this way and if not why has nobody changed it? EzYop (talk) 01:00, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

It was written that way, therefore anyone who edits it must stick to only British English with their edits. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 01:12, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

@EzYop: Welcome to The Teahouse. You may be interested in reading MOS:RETAIN. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:16, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

(Further information is also at MOS:ENGVAR.) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 01:17, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Nested parenthese

I checked MOS:TEXT regarding nested parentheses, but I couldn't find any information. Should I use brackets or avoid nesting? link:Multiplicative graph#Definition. See WP:RD/MA#Underlying structure for semigroupoid for why I used nesting. SilverMatsu (talk) 01:31, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

So, Silvermatsu, you are asking not about mathematical notation but instead about, as an example, (existence of units^[11][12] [existence of composition for loops]) versus (existence of units^[11][12] (existence of composition for loops))? -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 02:23, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Hello? I'll assume here that yes you are. MOS:BRACKETS neither deals with this nor points the reader to a discussion anywhere else. I infer that either is OK. For me, either is OK. I don't think I've ever seen the former system -- (  [  ]  ) -- described as wrong, whereas I have on occasion seen the latter -- (  (  )  ) -- described (however mistakenly) as wrong. So, with no desire to pettifog over this minor matter, I use the former system. -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 04:18, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

In text, nesting is OK unless the text itself is confusing. If the text is confusing, restyling some of the brackets won't fix it. If it's not confusing, making all brackets the same style won't suddenly confuse people. So do your best to write clearly, and use the bracket symbols that seem good to you. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 04:54, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

@Hoary and TooManyFingers: Thank you for your valuable advice. Ideally, I wouldn't use nesting, but if I need nesting, I'll take (  [  ]  ).--SilverMatsu (talk) 00:30, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Confused about edit revert

Why was my edit tagged vandalism and was reverted?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AWoodlands_MRT_station&oldid=prev&diff=1375962046

is this not a legitimate use of a talk page? ImpossibleBruh (talk) 03:56, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Courtesy ping: MakaylaHippo1998

@ImpossibleBruh: Welcome to The Teahouse. I've pinged MakaylaHippo1998 here so she can provide her rationale. Note that the reversion was tagged as using AntiVandal, which is used to quickly revert edits deemed unconstructive. It does not mean your edit is considered vandalism, which has a slightly narrower meaning on Wikipedia. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:06, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Sorry this was an error on my part, "LTA" stands for long term abuse (see WP:LTA), something there have been a lot of lately on Wikipedia, especially those who communicate gibberish in Mandarin when vandalizing, sorry "LTA" inserted into articles is more often than not vandalism by frequent abusers of Wikipedia, I should have read the post a little more. MakaylaHippo1998 (talk) 04:10, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Factual error on AfD deletion for Anne Cleary (psychologist)

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Hello, I am writing to request a review or restoration of the deleted article for Anne Cleary (psychologist). The page was deleted under the AfD consensus where a primary argument for deletion was that the subject had "no books or fellowships to indicate notability."This core claim is provably and factually incorrect. Dr. Cleary is a prominent cognitive psychologist and professor at Colorado State University who meets the Academic Notability guidelines (WP:PROF), specifically Criteria 1 (significant impact) and Criteria 4 (academic publication).The deletion discussion overlooked major, independently published secondary books and substantial independent media profiles. Major Publications: She is the first author of the book The Déjà Vu Experience (2nd Edition, Routledge), first author of the book Tip of the Tongue States (Cambridge University Press), co-author of the book A Guide to Effective Studying and Learning (Oxford University Press), and co-editor of the book Memory Quirks (Routledge). Independent Secondary Coverage: Her pioneering laboratory research into memory and déjà vu has been featured in major, independent media outlets, including appearing on the History Channel's The Unexplained, in the children's book "Brains On!", on BBC News, BBC Radio 4's The Forum, Fox News Magazine, Bild der Wissenschaft, TED Ideas, Popular Science, and many others. Academic Fellowships: Contrary to the AfD claims, she is an elected Fellow of both the Association for Psychological Science (APS) and the American Psychological Association (APA). Because the original deletion consensus was built upon a clear factual error ("no books"), could an independent administrator or editor please open a Deletion Review, or at least restore the deleted text to Wikipedia:Draft space so that it can be properly updated with these and other verifiable citations?

 ~2026-50855-66 (talk) 04:32, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-50855-66: Kindly do not use AI to speak to other users and instead use your own words. Copypasting the above in a new thread does not change things. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:15, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

It wasn’t AI ~2026-50916-19 (talk) 05:21, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi ~2026-50916-19. The Teahouse isn't really the place to contest the deletion of an article. Since the article was deleted by a consensus established via Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anne Cleary (psychologist), you should follow the guidance given in WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. The first thing would be explaining why you think an error was made to the administrator who closed the AFD discussion; you can post do this by posting a message on their user talk page. You should do that even if only as a courtesy before proceeding to a more formal request for a WP:DELETIONREVIEW, if necessary. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:09, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Question about references

I'm creating a new article and I wanna know what the minimum number of references is required for an article? Krazonyx (talk) 07:23, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi Krazonyx. There's no minimum number of references that needs to be satisfied, rather it's the quality of the sources cited that matters the most. An article with lots of references that do nothing to show that the subject has received the kind of significant coverage needed to clearly establish the subject's Wikipedia:Notability is pretty much no better than an article with no references at all. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:22, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

For most subjects, you need at least two to establish notability, three being preferred. See WP:42. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 09:44, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

ah alr thank you Krazonyx (talk) 10:11, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Is taking a extremely long wikibreak bad?

do i need to delete my account if I take a wikibreak that is way too long???????? Wordsonwordsonpagesonwordshello (talk) 09:47, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

No it's not bad; and accounts cannot be deleted. You may edit as frequently or at little as you please . Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 09:52, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hi Wordsonwordsonpagesonwordshello. Wikipedia accounts can't be deleted because of licensing requirements. All Wikipedians are WP:VOLUNTEERs who can edit as much as they want whenever they want as long as they don't use their accounts to cause problems. Some people make lots of edits at once and then are never log in again, while some people may make one edit once every few years when they feel the need to do so. So, you can take a WP:WIKIBREAK for as long or as short as you want. A Wikibreak, however, doesn't mean you're no longer responsible for any problematic edits you made before your break; in other words, a Wikibreak isn't a Wikipedia wikt:get out of jail free card; moreover, Wikipedia doesn't stop while your on your break and others won't wait for you to come back if they feel they can do things that improve the encyclopedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:02, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

YAY THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I have a another question, if someone makes a really good edit like REALLY good edit on a article but at the very end of their edit puts a tiny amount of vandalism like a smiley face for example will the edit still get reverted? Wordsonwordsonpagesonwordshello (talk) 10:08, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Why would this ever happen? aesurias (she/her) (talk) 10:20, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

idk but like what would happen if it did im just wondering Wordsonwordsonpagesonwordshello (talk) 10:21, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

It's either a good edit or not; no amount of vandalism is going to be considered OK. Whether that leads to the entire edit being reverted, I can't say because it depends on the actual edit; however, Wikipedians who regularly patrol for vandalism often do so using WP:TOOLS/WP:SCRIPTS and some of them might just revert the entire edit without really looking closely at it. So, I don't suggest you start adding smiley face to any edits you make to articles if you don't want them being reverted and possibly even warned by a Wikipedia administrator to stop doing such a thing. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:37, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

okay thank you! Wordsonwordsonpagesonwordshello (talk) 10:40, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

If I was RCPing and saw an edit like that, I'd probably just remove the smiley and keep the good edit per WP:REVONLY - being bundled with bad content isn't an excuse to throw out good content. 7amiþ reform · solidarity · 💬 · 📊 13:44, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Depends on the tool used and the specific editor reviewing, you're supposed to closely review every edit and just remove the bad if a situation like that occurs, however it's still possible that a editor may accidentally throw the baby out with the bathwater. I personally would remove the vandalism, leave the otherwise good content, and put a warning on the talkpage of the editor who did it. Pyrrhic victor (what did I do) 14:52, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Deleted email address

I have used wiki and sponsored it annually for years, but recently attempted to load the Wikipedia app to my phone. On doing so I realise that the details of my account have a now defunct email address that I need to update, but the process of changing anything requires a code to be sent to my old address. Do I need to open a new account or is there a way I can salvage this? Thanks for your help.

. Timthetangent (talk) 10:11, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi Timthetangent. You can check Help:Email confirmation and Help:Reset password, but my understanding is that your account is probably just going to end up being preserved for posterity unless you're able to log in to it and update your registered email address. Please note that it matters not how much you may have sponsored/contributed (thank you for doing so though) to Wikipedia over the years; the same applies equally to us all. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:29, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

You were logged in as Timthetangent when you posted this. If it's about that account and you know the password then you can change email address at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-personal-email - or set an email address since it appears you haven't. It's optional. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:21, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

When will the following pages be published?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Lawrence_J._Marnett https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:David_Cortez https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Timothy_Cover Mitchell2526 (talk) 17:14, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

The first one is not submitted, so nothing will happen until it is submitted for publication. The other two are in the queue, and marked as needing 2-3 weeks. However, this time can vary a lot.

For the impatient, I have a tip: Reviewers do not work in order, but pick any article that takes their fancy, so you'd like to be easy to review. Clearly good and clearly bad articles are easy to review; intermediate cases are harder. Spend some of your waiting time improving the articles as much as you can, and this may actually get you a quicker review. As a concrete suggestion, adding an infobox to each article wouldn't be a bad idea, and may help you spot any missing information you could usefully add. M kuhner (talk) 17:33, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Requesting Assistance

Hello,

I am looking to make a page for VICB. As of now, I do not think we have enough references. Is there another way to talk about VICB and mention faculty members that do not have enough resources to have their own page? Mitchell2526 (talk) 17:17, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

@Mitchell2526 I would first suggest you read WP:PAIDADVICE and heed it well. I can see you've created a lot of drafts for various faculty members; please be aware that Wikipedia is not LinkedIn or any kind of company directory; our purpose is not to serve as a repository of information for your organisation and its members. We are an encyclopedia, and articles here need to meet our notability requirements; WP:NORG for the organisation as a whole, and WP:NACADEMIC for the individual academics. If you don't have the references to meet those requirements, then there can be no article. Athanelar (talk) 18:28, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Need help on Draft:Kuo Zhang

I have resubmitted the draft after rephrasing, need help if any one can identify any loop holes so i can cope over it before another decline. He is the President of alibaba.com and it seems that he is quite notable. Any suggestion in getting his page live would be highly appreciated. Sophiabennett (talk) 18:35, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Your reviewer noted in the decline that merely rewording the existing LLM-generated text is unlikely to resolve the problem of LLM usage. The best way to get your draft submitted is to start over, sans AI. The most obvious issue is this: In July 2024, Fortune reported on an Alibaba.com program launched at the Paris Olympics to help former professional athletes move into entrepreneurship. Zhang was featured as the company's president. This isn't about Zhang but Alibaba, and hence doesn't seem to fit. 7amiþ reform · solidarity · 💬 · 📊 20:02, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks Sophiabennett (talk) 12:51, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Album chart template

I've tried using the "Album chart" template for a draft of an album page, but for reasons beyond me it doesn't properly create a table. I've tried copying in the example from the template page, but that doesn't appear as a table either. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:The_Definitive_Collection_(Chuck_Berry_album)) JPF84 (talk) 18:57, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi JPF84, welcome to the Teahouse. The lead of Template:Album chart says: "The template produces a table row with chart name, reference, and peak position for inclusion within a table. It does not create surrounding table markup." Your code needs surrounding table markup. See Template:Album chart#Examples. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:54, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Oh, whoops! Thanks for the reply. JPF84 (talk) 20:02, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Repeated vandalism at Salt Lake City School District

Hey y'all,

Temp user ~2026-50476-89 was vandalizing Salt Lake City School District and subsequently banned 9/18/2026 see here they vandalized by replacing lake with leik in the whole article

recently a new temp user ~2026-50675-88 has been making the exact same edits, I'm going to give them a warning but I'm wondering if temporary semi-protection, banning the account, or something else should be done Goetia [She/They] (talk) 20:40, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

The article has been semi-protected. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 21:17, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! Goetia [She/They] (talk) 00:40, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

They've hit a few other articles related to that geographic area and have been doing so back at least to February 2026. Lots of TAs involved from multiple IPs. Various TAs and IPs have been blocked by several admins...let's see if that helps. DMacks (talk) 04:38, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

That seems like so much work, and for such boring and quickly reverted vandalism, I really will never understand it. Goetia [She/They] (talk) 19:19, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

School pages are one of the most common vandal targets, almost solely from students or former students who wish to "leave their mark" or spread an in-joke. You'd be surprised at how persistent some of them are. Shield ^{\\ |T| - |C| - Solidarity \\} 20:23, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Also from kids who REALLy hate their school. Starlet! (Need to talk?) (Library) (Sandbox) 14:10, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

I'll keep a eye on similar utah pages for the time being and reverting because I don't think we should semi-protect every page if they'll just go to another page Goetia [She/They] (talk) 20:21, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

If you see any further TA's replacing lake with Leik, Immediately file an SPI report against the LOUTsocking LTA at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/~2025-37846-35 BengalMC ^talk 14:24, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

From what i have seen from the edit history, im likely sure the TA vandals are the Colorado Toñito Sockfarm that targetted Colorado related topics BengalMC ^talk 14:15, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Ayup. DMacks (talk) 16:13, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Citing a hymnal

hihi. I am trying to cite Evangelical Lutheran Worship as a source for a composer being the one who composed a particular piece of liturgical music. In the section that contains the hymns there are not printed page numbers. The section is instead organized by the numbers assigned to the hymns (the indices and such refer to those), which is common for hymnals as far as I can tell. If I want to give the specific hymn in the book that I am referencing can I do {{cite book|...|at=hymn 157}} or something like that with the "at" parameter? Or is there a better or more common way to cite a physical book that doesn't use page numbers (I suppose I could count the pages but that would be silly and unhelpful to anybody looking to verify). Packrat3860 (talk) 21:01, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

The general advice in my experience with writing scholarly acceptable pieces is that you should cite the nearest clearly defined section (in this case, I'd say the hymnal title and number would be best). This would probably be best for the encyclopaedia as well. A cursory glance of WP:CITEHOW confirms that this should include the required information for attribution. Shield ^{\\ |T| - |C| - Solidarity \\} 22:30, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

In doubtful cases, the main (or only) thing to do is to give whatever information will lead a clueless reader to find the right material. A clumsy but correct pointer to the right source is unlikely to draw any blame from anyone.

In the case of hymnals in particular, many hymnals carefully suppress the printing of page numbers, to avoid constant confusion between "Page 50" and "Hymn number 50" which will nearly always mean different things. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 23:17, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Please move my sandbox to article space

I have a draft about Eugénia Martins da Vera-Cruz in my sandbox:

User:EliezerPinaCV/sandbox Could someone please move it to the main article title Eugénia Martins da Vera-Cruz?

Thank you! EliezerPinaCV (talk) 03:33, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi, and welcome to Wikipedia. Before your article is moved to the mainspace, it needs to go through a process called AfC (Articles for Creation). This means an editor has to review your draft first to make sure it's fit for publication. I've added a template to your draft so you can submit it for review. Just make sure you hit the button that says "Submit", and a volunteer will come review it. ^{In solidarity,} 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 ^{(They/them • Talk • Contribs)} 03:40, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi EliezerPinaCV,

I took a quick look, and I have to ask you directly: did you use any AI tools in this writing? There are lots of awkward phrasings that are common to AI results but uncommon in standard human-written language. DMacks (talk) 04:33, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi DMacks

No but the reliance of translating texts from Cape Verdean creole and Portuguese into English make it seem like awkward phrasings, if you have any advise on how I can improve this let me know!

beep boop EliezerPinaCV (talk) 04:58, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Courtesy ping: Sulfurboy ^{In solidarity,} 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 ^{(They/them • Talk • Contribs)} 05:18, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the courtesy ping @JohnLaurens333. @EliezerPinaCV, your draft is undoubtedly 100% AI generated. We do not allow the usage of LLMs to draft articles. Beyond the phrasing, there are reference errors and issues that we simply don't see in human written drafts. I would ask that if you are going to ask for assistance from fellow editors in the future, you at least be honest with them. Beyond the LLM issues, I'm not convinced of notability either. My advice to you would be to take WP:TNT to the article and write it in your own words, using sources that you collect. Sulfurboy (talk) 05:28, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

@EliezerPinaCV If you used any AI tool to translate the draft like Google Translate or DeepL, that also counts as "LLM generated" for our purposes. Please see WP:LLMTRANSLATE for the guidelines around AI translation. Athanelar (talk) 13:12, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Also, if you translated anything at all—regardless of the type of source—rather than writing strictly from your own mind, those sources need to be cited explicitly. DMacks (talk) 16:46, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Need Help Move Sandbox to Draft Space

Hi, I’m a new editor and I have prepared a draft article about Ed Mun in my sandbox:

Could an experienced editor please review it and advise whether it is ready to be moved to Draft:Ed Mun and submitted through Articles for Creation? I would also appreciate help with the correct moving and submission process. Thank you. Sara Daily (talk) 03:54, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Moved to Draft:Ed Mun. Hit the "Submit" button to submit it. A volunteer will review it within the next few weeks. Let me know if you have any more questions. ^{In solidarity,} 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 ^{(They/them • Talk • Contribs)} 04:10, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

hi thank you so much for your help. utterly appreciate the assistance Sara Daily (talk) 08:40, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

@Sara Daily We do not allow the usage of LLMs in draft creation. I would advise against submitting the draft at this time as it would be declined for WP:LLM usage. Sulfurboy (talk) 05:30, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

hi there. which part is considered LLM? is there any ways someone can help me on improving the article before submitting the draft? Sara Daily (talk) 08:39, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

HiSara Daily. Users who create a registered account and then immediately try to create a Wikipedia article are often connected to who or what they're trying to crete an article about. Are you connected in any personal or professional way to Ed Mun, the subject of your draft? If you're connected in some way, then the more transparent you're about said connection, the easier it will be for others to help and the less likely you're going to find yourself running into problems down the road. I'm not asking this to be mean and don't mean any disrespect to Ed Mun, but it's a bit unusual for someone to just appear out of the blue to try to create a Wikipedia article about a Malayasian interior designer / entrepreneur / author, unless there somehow connected to the person in something more than a casual way. You're going to most certainly be asked about this at some point by someone else (most the reviewer who reviews your draft when you submit it); so, you might has well get it out of the way right now. For reference, being to connected to Ed Mun doesn't mean you can't try to create an article about them, but it does mean there could be additional Wikipedia policies and guideline you'll be subject to when you try to do so.

As for your draft itself, if there are concerns that it created using some kind of WP:LLM, then there's not much you can do except WP:BLOWITUP and start again, this time writing things in your own words based on whatever Wikipedia:Reliable sources you feel best establish Ed Mun's Wikipedia:Notability. There's some general guidance on how to create new articles found in Help:Your first article, but creating a new article for the first time can be pretty hard and discouraging (particularly when a draft you submit ends up being declined). It's often suggested that new users trying to create an article first spend some time working on improving existing articles to get a better feel for Wikipedia's various policies/guidelines and a better understanding of how an article is expected to be formatted and written. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:05, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

How do i align my userpage? Is my userpage good for wikipedia?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

OP's account has been indefinitely blocked by checkuser. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:32, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

---

Hello british people (because i assume anyone in the teahouse drinks tea which makes the british),

After making this account for a College writing assignment, the first thing Wikipedia told me to do, is to make a userpage, so i did that, but for some reason something keeps striking it down. The current posted version is the most accurate that survived that menace. I think its because its not aligned? Please help TripAtKnight (talk) 05:36, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

TripAtKnight, your userpage looks like nonsense to me. Perhaps you think that's amusing and maybe a few editors might agree. Your account is one hour old, and you have already made some strange edits. Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is a project to build an encyclopedia. It is not a breaching experiment. Cullen328 (talk) 06:28, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

The Teahouse is patrolled by many editors from different places - I'm from Canada myself. Your userpage has not been edited by anybody other than you: it has not been "struck down", or reverted as people usually say. As @Cullen328, you've made some strange edits. You added deletion request templates in places where they're not needed. I would recommend refraining from such behaviour - if you persist, it may get you sanctioned. Giovanni Guasconti (a word with me) 06:56, 22 September 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.

Help with Draft:Nitin Srivastava - cleaned LLM issue

Hello,

I have cleaned Draft:Nitin Srivastava as suggested by Bonadea. I have:

- Removed LLM-style wording and duplicated content - Removed invalid tweet reference - Kept only 2 independent reliable sources: Amar Ujala (2021) and Dainik Jagran (20 Nov 2025) about humanitarian work at Poddar Andh Vidyalaya - Rewrote in neutral third-person tone

Link: Draft:Nitin Srivastava

Could someone please check if it now looks okay for resubmission? Thank you. LyonSeva2026 (talk) 10:02, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Your draft has been rejected, and will not be considered further. @Bonadea has found that the topic is not notable, which means that no matter how much you revise the draft, it will never meet our notability criteria. You can appeal to Bonadea to remove the rejection, or you can abandon the draft as it will not be approved. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 10:58, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

@LyonSeva2026, It would be great if you could read WP:AUTOBIOGRAPGY TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 11:41, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for all revert

Thank you @Mikeycdiamond and @TheGreatEditor024 for your guidance. I have read WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY and WP:COI. I have disclosed my COI on my user page User:LyonSeva2026 and I have appealed to Bonadea to change Rejected to Declined. Thank you for your help. LyonSeva2026 (talk) 11:56, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @LyonSeva2026, and welcome to the Teahouse.

I predict that Bonadea will undo the "Reject" only if, at a minimum, you present at least three sources each of which meets all the conditions in WP:42.

The first one you cite does not - it lists some things that Srivastava has done, but does not contain independent in-depth discussion of him. I suspect that this is true of the others as well, though I have not looked at them.

Bear in mind that most people in the world are not notable in the sense that Wikipedia requires, and so articles about most people are impossible. You will need to show that you are one of the few who are notable, otherwise you will be wasting Bonadea's time as well as your own. ColinFine (talk) 16:28, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

How to request an unblock

I have been blocked from making articles because I have been that I need to learn about notability, even though 95% of my articles I have created are deemed fine. How do I request an unblock? ILoveSport2006 (talk) 12:01, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

@ILoveSport2006 You can follow the instructions at WP:GAB but having read the discussion with Star Mississippi on your talk page I find it very unlikely that you'll be successful in requesting an unblock at this time unless you can actually recognise why you were blocked and how you plan to avoid the issue going forward. Athanelar (talk) 13:04, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

I was blocked for doing what I normally do in sport articles. That's why I don't know why I have been blocked. ILoveSport2006 (talk) 15:08, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Well then the thing you normally do in sport articles is evidently problematic. Athanelar (talk) 16:55, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

I don't think so because when I edit on other sports, no one deletes my pages. It is only in volleyball where one specific doesn't like my work. ILoveSport2006 (talk) 18:40, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

It's entirely possible that nobody has looked at your other articles to check whether they're suitable or not. You've already been pointed to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS multiple times for this exact reason. The point is that you have made a number of articles which are not suitable, and you are struggling to understand that and act on it, which is why you've been pblocked from page creation. If your only response to that is "But these other articles, but these other articles," you're going to stay pblocked. You need to learn the guidelines for notability in sport and understand why the articles that have been pointed out to you don't meet those guidelines, not just keep pointing at other articles. Athanelar (talk) 18:55, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

I have made at least over 100 articles and most of them were reviewed with no issues. ILoveSport2006 (talk) 20:53, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

I understand WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS but what I don't understand is why some people made similar articles to mine that solely use primary sources but when I did it, I don't understand notability and I am treated like dirt and a terrible editor. There is no consistency. ILoveSport2006 (talk) 20:56, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

If someone could actually properly tell me the difference between my pages that are deemed not good enough and pool pages for the 2025 FIVB Women's Volleyball World Championship that also use primary sources, then we could start getting somewhere and I can improve the pages I started. ILoveSport2006 (talk) 21:00, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Nobody's treating you like dirt. You've been partially blocked for disruptive article creation and you're going to remain partially blocked until you start listening to the feedback you've been given multiple times by multiple people. It's entirely possible that many of the other articles you've created are also unsuitable; I wouldn't know because I'm also not familiar with NSPORT and don't have the time or interest to review all of your articles against it; but either way, you need to drop the stick and focus on the articles that have already been pointed out as unsuitable.

I understand OTHERSTUFFEXISTS but... there is no consistency Then you don't understand OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The whole point is that you cannot expect universal consistency; this is a volunteer-driven project, and just because I notice a problem in one article does not mean I can simultaneously notice that same problem everywhere else it exists. It's like saying that a cop can't arrest you for a crime until they first stop all other crime in their jurisdiction. "I bet there's tons of people doing this exact same crime right now and NOT being arrested!" It's the same argument. Yes, I'm sure there are plenty of articles that don't meet WP:NSPORT, even articles you may have written, that haven't been noticed and given the appropriate scrutiny yet. That does not change anything about the articles that have been noticed. You've been told what the problem is with those articles, you've been told what you should do about it to get your PBLOCK lifted. If you instead want to go ahead crying foul and refusing to heed the feedback, that's your prerogative; but don't expect to get your pblock lifted any time soon.

WP:NSPORTSEVENT clearly says To be notable, games should be extraordinary and have a lasting impact on the sport; news coverage should be extensive (e.g., outside of the week of its occurrence and in non-local newspapers). Some games or series are likely or almost certain to be considered notable, including but not limited to the following: The final series (or single game when there is not a series) determining the champion of a top league... College bowl games... All-star or similar exhibition games... A game that is widely considered by independent reliable sources to be notable, outside routine coverage of each game, especially if the game received front page coverage outside of the local areas involved. So, if your article about a particular event doesn't have any independent reliable coverage and doesn't demonstrate that the game is in some other way extraordinary or worthy of note; then it indeed doesn't seem to meet the requirement. That's the only thing you should be focusing on, not which other articles do or do not exist. Athanelar (talk) 21:22, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

@ILoveSport2006, have you connected with your mentor about all this? He or she is there to help you one-on-one … although you’ve received some pretty top-notch advice from several expert editors right here in this conversation.

Having a knowledgeable editor there for you amid all the bumpiness of taking off as a new Wikipedian is a priceless asset. Augnablik (talk) 05:08, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Why won't specific sources work?

I tried to put a source on an article, and I am unsure why some don't work, is there a way to know which sources are ok to use and which are not? Garlik-bread666 (talk) 14:03, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi Garlik-bread666. Your question might refer to different issues. Which source and page was it and what happened? PrimeHunter (talk) 14:49, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Question about AfC review waiting time

Hi! I was just wondering what the usual waiting time is for an Articles for Creation review. I completely understand that reviews are done by volunteers, so I’m not trying to rush anyone, I’m just curious about what to expect.

I’ve spent quite a bit of time improving the draft on Peter Lodwick and its sourcing, so I’m naturally a little curious about the outcome too :-p While I’m waiting, is it worth continuing to look for more independent sources, or is it better to wait and see what the reviewer suggests?

Thanks so much for all the work you do here! MaySundAnd (talk) 14:10, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi @MaySundAnd welcome to the teahouse. Our current estimate is about 3 weeks. We've just finished a backlog drive in August, so the backlog should be a bit shorter. Justiyaya 14:25, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Hello @MaySundAnd, and welcome! You are free to edit the draft even when submitted. I apologies for the review taking a while, but drafts are not reviewed in any particular order. GGOTCC 16:55, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

MaySundAnd: if you want a speedy review, you could make things a lot easier for a reviewer by deleting most of the references. When a reviewer see a list of 72 sources, mostly in Norwegian, and most or all not demonstrating notability, they'll not be keen to plough through it - their time can better be spent on other drafts. Two of your English language sources, currently numbered 12 and 13, are just listings by his employer, and do nothing to show that he's notable. Get rid of everything like that, and you'll have much shorter list, and a chance of a review soon. Maproom (talk) 10:40, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

How do I make my edit or rewrites sound better?

Hello, I'm new and want advice, editing these have made me notice that when I edited without a account I just didn't care. But now i do a lot more. Eliminatingfan123 (talk) 15:03, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Could you link some examples from your contributions? It's difficult to give you effective advice without knowing what exactly you're referring to. Shield ^{\\ |T| - |C| - Solidarity \\} 15:53, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

{{hat|Suspected sock Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 18:43, 22 September 2026 (UTC)}}

Uncollapsed question as suggested by ChompyTheGogoat and struck my previous comment. Courtesy linking answer to similar question at User talk:GentleHillRacer#Question from JonhallinLA (00:27, 19 September 2026) (permalink). Sorry about that. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 22:17, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

I think you mean to link to User talk:GentleHillRacer#Question from Eliminatingfan123 (14:24, 22 September 2026) instead. ChompyTheGogoat [ Bleat | Munched ] 22:52, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Yes, thank you! While not strictly needed, I've struck the wrong links in my comment. (Hopefully that's less confusing than leaving it up.) Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 22:57, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Image

How should I add an image?Artzee123 (talk) 16:11, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

See WP:Images for beginners. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 16:28, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Question: Spell check (Quillbot)

Hi- so um- I'm really bad at spelling, and I use a spell checker to help with that, specifically Quillbot—it uses AI (I dislike AI, but this is the only somewhat decent spelling and grammar checker I could find for free) I haven't edited any articles yet- so I just wanted to be sure if it was allowed? I checked the policy, but I have autism, and it wasn't really explicitly stated (imo) what is allowed- (like ik you're not allowed to have an LLM generate the whole dang article for you)—but I wasn't sure if spell/grammar checkers were allowed? I would be sure to keep the articles I do edit NPOV- (i also used it to help with my spelling on this question so it is actually ledageble)

Thanks in advance  Humanflavouredjam (talk) 18:06, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

From WP:LLM: Editors are permitted to use LLMs to suggest corrections to their own writing, and to incorporate them after human review. This is limited to spelling, punctuation, capitalisation, grammar, and other simple mistakes. Editors must ensure that any text copyedited in this manner is still supported by the sources cited. So yes, that would be fine. You can also always ask another editor to copyedit for you; the WP:Guild of Copyeditors would probably be willing. Tip for reading long policy pages: you can just use the find function to look for a keyword, like "spelling", which is what I did to find that quote. ^{In solidarity,} 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 ^{(They/them • Talk • Contribs)} 18:12, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Thank you so much! :)

(I love your username btw)

Humanflavouredjam (talk) 18:21, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

No problem, and thank you! ^{In solidarity,} 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 ^{(They/them • Talk • Contribs)} 18:26, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

@Humanflavouredjam: Welcome to The Teahouse. If you can avoid using an AI spellchecker, that would be ideal. The regulars over at the AI noticeboard would rather not deal with AI in articles if possible, but our AI use guideline allows for basic copyediting with it. If you are going to be using AI-powered spellcheckers, I suggest typing out your changes/additions in your own words in the articles (errors and all), copypasting that into an LLM, and then replacing your original content with the polished version. Using an edit summary like Used AI for basic copyediting will be helpful in disclosing what you used it for.

As always, make sure that the AI doesn't do anything beyond making spelling/grammar corrections before publishing your changes. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:55, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

If you can find a way to make it so that it will identify errors but not replace them for you that would be best. That's how I have mine set, since I also unfortunately have yet to find one that doesn't rely on AI these days. ChompyTheGogoat [ Bleat | Munched ] 22:50, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

___________________

@🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 and @Humanflavouredjam, although the Guild of Copy Editors (also known by the acronym GOCE) is pleased to accept copy edit requests, there is an expectation that a reasonable amount of basic writing skills have been applied to articles first.

In other words, GOCE editors aren't expected to serve as personal proofreaders or work one-on-one with editors. At least, that's not part of their "job description"—though they're all volunteers—with a lot of backlog copy requests to work on.

And, Jam, from this little snippet of your writing in this conversation, I have some happy news for you, if you haven't already been told this: that even if you may be spelling-challenged, you're a good writer. What you wrote is very clear and flows well. And it's obvious that you're very interested in editing and writing. Plus you're committed to doing the right thing as a Wikipedian. All this points to a bright Wiki future.

It might be some consolation to recognize that English spelling is a challenge for lots of folks, because our language has borrowed words from quite a few different countries. (At least we don't have to worry about remembering whether a desk, a car, or a sandwich is male or female, as we'd have to if we were raised where one of the Romance languages was spoken!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Augnablik (talk • contribs) 11:48, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Does anyone how to add 2nd opinion for GA?

I don't know how to source code very well and I'm trying to add a 2nd opinion for Siegmund Nimsgern. (YLZFS) 18:53, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

You need to change the source's code according to what you want to change. The instructions for GA reviewers are found at Wikipedia:Good_article_instructions#Reviewing, and they detail how to work during the process. Tbhotch^™ (CC BY-SA 4.0) 20:25, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Signature examples?

i feel like my signature is a little too plain for my liking, are there any examples that I could see? TuffMangoPhonk6741🥭🥭 (those who talk 💀) 19:31, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi TuffMangoPhonk6741. See Wikipedia:Signature tutorial#Real-life examples. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:35, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

thanks, appreciate it ✌ TuffMangoPhonk6741🥭🥭 (those who talk 💀) 19:40, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

What is a WikiBirthday

What is a WikiBirthday? EzYop (talk) 20:06, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi, @EzYop:

A WikiBirthday is a celebration by the volunteer Birthday Committee of your real birthday, the anniversary of the day you created your Wikipedia account, your first edit, the day you became an admin, or any combination of those days. The volunteers on the Committee go to the talk pages of people who've signed up for well wishes or listed their birthday on those days and use WP:WikiLove or templates to wish them a happy birthday or anniversary. Shield ^{\\ |T| - |C| - Solidarity \\} 20:20, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Editor mass-reverting my contributions as “COI / refspam”

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I'm looking for some outside perspective on a dispute with a Wikipedia editor.

I received a message from an editor, MrOllie, accusing me of using Wikipedia for self-promotion because some of my citations were "to academic research with which I have an affiliation" (same-author). I explained that the material was peer-reviewed research and that my intention was to add substantive information to articles.

This part of our exchange I believe best summarises our respective positions:

As a subject matter expert, I would expect you to be familiar with a wide range of sourcing of diverse authorship - and yet everything you added traces back to a single individual. If that is all you are familiar with, I suggest you broaden your reading a bit. MrOllie (talk) 19:43, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

The edits made (excl. the iBoxx page contribution) are narrow addenda to established pages with *extensive existing references*, adding incremental new information/context as it is independently reviewed by academic peers and published in journals.

If you are familiar with the nature of the academic corpus, research tends to add to the frontier of knowledge incrementally. There are established knowledge pages, and new research from authoritative sources is cited as/when it is released to update the frontier.

That is precisely what these contributions were intended to do. To add relevant, newly established findings to existing bodies of knowledge. The fact that I am familiar with particular research does not, in itself, make the information promotional. I would invite you, again, to reflect on the merit of the contributions.

I do not appreciate your passive-aggressive suggestion that I “broaden my reading”. I would ask that we keep the discussion focused on the substance of the edits, the quality and relevance of the sources, and the applicable Wikipedia standards, rather than making insinuations about my reading, motives or professional conduct. Vagabondreturns (talk) 19:52, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

As a knowledge community, I would expect users to contribute information from authoritative sources with which they are familiar. It is unclear to me how new knowledge (validated independently by academic peers and published in established academic journals) would otherwise be disseminated.

Today, he has reverted a large number of my previous contributions, using edit summaries such as “rm COI / refspam” and “rm COI / refspam / undue emphasis on one person's publications.”

The reverts covered changes made since 2021 to several pages and approved by various independent Wikipedians over time.

He also substantially altered/merged the iBoxx article, citing sourcing and independent-notability concerns.

The thing I'm most struggling with is the blanket characterisation of these contributions as COI/refspam. My editing history goes back several years and includes substantial contributions on topics such as iBoxx, green bonds, sustainable finance, swaps, and modern portfolio theory.

I'm interested in hearing from experienced Wikipedians: Is this normal COI enforcement, or is there a proper process for challenging a blanket characterisation/reversion like this?

I'm particularly interested in whether individual edits should be evaluated separately for relevance, sourcing and undue weight, rather than assuming that every contribution associated with a potentially conflicted source is promotional.

I can provide the diffs and the relevant sources if useful. I'm looking for procedural advice rather than a pile-on against the editor.

N.B. I realise as I write this, that I'm not the first of MrOllie's victims:

https://x.com/docmilanfar/status/1928609721835045047?lang=en

https://lightcapai.medium.com/wikipedia-is-not-free-how-mrollie-enforces-algorithmic-censorship-and-how-to-bypass-it-d9b4daefa7c5 Vagabondreturns (talk) 20:41, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

You're not a victim of anyone or anything. Wikipedia doesn't publish original research; that means stop expecting Wikipedia to publish your original research. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 21:26, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a lagging indicator of ideas, by design not cutting-edge on novel research. An article being in a "peer reviewed journal" is not sufficient. Instead, policy requires WP:SECONDARY sourcing. Per your explicit request to evaluate the material being added, research with only primary citation is not sufficient sourcing, and is undue weight. And the apparent COI nature coupled with these edits and your repeated insertion of this ref makes it prohibited behavior as well. DMacks (talk) 21:31, 22 September 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.

Taking the image description from Commons at face value

It's quite common to see a image caption on Wikipedia that's entirely based on the image description of said image from the Commons. For the most part it is common sense, but sometimes we run into disputes (like here ). By principle, Commons' description is WP:UGC and not RS, but is there a specific guideline that carves out some leeway so that it is not our WP:BURDEN to prove every single image is what it says it is?

Another example is that the oat article used to include File:Oat noodle rolls served in Beijing (20170406174236).jpg based on the description that it is an "oat-based dish", but I removed it on the grounds that the dish is made out of Avena nuda based on my personal knowledge of the dish - which as a more experienced editor now I realise is totally WP:OR - but would the burden be on me to prove a negative?

LkL-70547 (talk) 21:57, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

I'm sure someone will come along to point to a specific policy, but my editor-senses tell me that the answer is probably "if it's not self-evident in the image and there's no reliable source to attribute the description, then it's not verifiable and we shouldn't include it in an article." Athanelar (talk) 22:03, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

I've been submitting renamings on Commons for some images that are obviously incorrect, as well as updating the captions and removing them from articles where they aren't appropriate. If it's subjective I recommend starting a talk page discussion there to determine whether or not it is what it says. Generally speaking, I think editors should avoid adding images if they don't have the necessary experience to tell whether it's accurate or not. Anyone can verify whether a film poster or a celebrity's portrait is what it says, but I work on topics like wild mushrooms, and if you can't tell by sight when something is mislabeled you probably shouldn't be the one to add it to articles. OR is forbidden, but exercising our judgement on what to add from other sources isn't - and technically the identification of any original upload (as opposed to those shared from reliable sources with permitted licensing) is OR on behalf of the uploader, but Commons doesn't operate on the same rules we do. ChompyTheGogoat [ Bleat | Munched ] 22:33, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Personally, in that specific situation I think I might have left it in the article but updated the caption to mention the other species since it seems to be used the same way - or possibly moved it to the Avena nuda article instead. Oat already has numerous images of other foods anyway. ChompyTheGogoat [ Bleat | Munched ] 22:40, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Very early in my time as a Wikipedia/Wikimedia Commons editor, I uploaded a photo of a rodent called a marmot rifling through a backpacker's unattended food supply. I still think it is a good photo but I got the specific species wrong. Fortunately, a sharp eyed and knowledgeable editor noticed my error and corrected it. The photo is now in Yellow-bellied marmot. So, if a photo description seems wrong, ask questions and make corrections. Cullen328 (talk) 04:56, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I've been doing. The ones I've submitted without discussion are either blatant errors by people who aren't knowledgeable on the subject, or in a recent case species that have been reclassified since the original uploads. I handle it at Commons and try to update any pages they're used on, so it's addressed top down rather than just on individual articles. Mistakes happen. ChompyTheGogoat [ Bleat | Munched ] 05:06, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

@ChompyTheGogoat In discussions I normally try to suppress my pickiness with words, and save it for copyediting articles - but this being a low-stress low-stakes discussion containing a word that could potentially become higher-stakes somewhere else, (and with an apology for intruding), here I go: "I'm calling on behalf of my mother, who now has severe difficulty speaking." Or: "Dave paid for a large box of groceries on the group's behalf."

"On behalf of X" means "acting for X's benefit or as X's representative". There's also "on his own behalf", meaning he self-represented in a situation that someone else would normally be expected to handle. (The better ways of phrasing your real idea can seem clumsy, so "behalf" is attractive because it looks like an elegant solution.) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:41, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

You're correct - I think I was going for "on their part" and my tired brain swapped it for no particular reason. ChompyTheGogoat [ Bleat | Munched ] 17:00, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

I will say that I've personally made that dish with European oat flour and it's... entirely the same texture, aroma and flavour as using Chinese naked oats. FWIW. It's a good dish. A bit of a personal fave. Simonm223 (talk) 16:44, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

FWIW the original disagreement here appears to have been simply a misinterpretation by a passing TA. Nothing wrong with the original caption by the uploader. ChompyTheGogoat [ Bleat | Munched ] 18:15, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Jim Varounis Bio

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I am the subject of a potential biography and therefore have a conflict of interest. I have collected independent sources and would like an uninvolved editor to assess whether an article could be appropriate. ~2026-51128-87 (talk) 22:08, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

This duplicates Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk#Jim Varounis Bio. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 22:24, 22 September 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.

new Wikipedia editer

hello yall im new to wikipedia what do y'all recromend me to read before I edit MRR08036 (talk) 01:35, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Try reading WP:HOW, a guide to contributing to Wikipedia. A list of other good reads can be found Help:List of tutorials and introductions. Happy wikiediting! 7amiþ reform · solidarity · 💬 · 📊 01:48, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Reliable, independent, secondary, published material about the subject you have in mind. (Your offer here was well-intentioned and generous but shows misunderstandings.) -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 02:28, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Question regarding inline citations

Hello, I would like to ask how to insert inline citations within a short paragraph. ~2026-51267-04 (talk) 08:15, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

If you're using the visual editor (which I believe is the defualt), you can click the "Cite" button, paste the link to the website you want to cite, then the system will insert the reference as a little number within the text, and automatically add it to the references section at the bottom of the article.

You can also read our internal help page Help:Citing sources for a better explanation. Don't hesitate to let us us know if you've any more questions! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crtbob (talk • contribs) 10:11, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your help! ~2026-51267-04 (talk) 15:51, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

See also WP:Referencing for beginners. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 12:18, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Ok, thank you! ~2026-51267-04 (talk) 15:52, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Guidelines regarding TV show streaming service availability

I'm curious as to what the rule is regarding updating articles on shows for when they leave a streaming service. My goal isn't really to facilitate a changelog of shows being shuffled around to different streaming services. I'm more so thinking for the example with what happened to the Willow TV series, where the series was removed and it isn't actually available anywhere else. Not sure if there is a category for that.

Apks94 (talk) 08:49, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

I think one part of this has to be Wikipedia's focus on history and its relative non-focus on news. Whether a show is now available, and where, is (on Wikipedia) not a very big deal. It's similar to how a magazine article on a new car doesn't give the entire history of the manufacturer - in each case something important is intentionally being skipped over. The reason is the same too: "That's not really our thing, readers can get that elsewhere."

However, if secondary reliable sources have published a lot of opinion about the moving-around of a show, that opinion stuff really should go into the article. And when they haven't published a lot of opinion, but the facts of where it was dropped from and where it was moved to are reliably sourced, then I'm sure it's OK to add it in using those reliable sources - as long as playing whack-a-mole with "Where is our show this week?" doesn't become a big focus of the article. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 15:43, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Globally locked accounts

If an account is globally locked is it typically because of misbehaviour; and following on from that if a new user pops up with a very similar username and editing pattern, is that sockpuppetry? 10mmsocket (talk) 09:18, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

I don't have much experience with sockpuppetry, and someone who has more experience with the subject should also answer the question, but it does seem like a CheckUser should look into the two accounts with similar misbehavior. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 10:49, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

You can report such cases via WP:Sockpuppet investigations. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 12:14, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Yes, global locks are typically based on a pattern of abuse over multiple projects. Whether or not a CheckUser is called for depends on the degree of similarity. Some LTAs have fairly generic behavior that can be harder to spot while others are very obvious. ChompyTheGogoat [ Bleat | Munched ] 16:08, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks @Mikeycdiamond / @Pigsonthewing / @ChompyTheGogoat. TBH it's odd. The old username was changed and then locked, which may indicate someone wanting to make a fresh start. However the new username is very similar and the articles edited are the same. So it's entirely possible it's not shenanigans at all, but entirely innocent. They weren't / still aren't the best of editors but neither are they someone I would have reported for blocking, but without knowing a reason for the original username being locked I guess I won't know. I have asked a friendly checkuser admin in the meantime without (yet) revealing the user I'm concerned about. 10mmsocket (talk) 16:18, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

They can't run a CU without knowing who it is. Investigations are handled through SPI so there's a record.

You're saying the original account was renamed and is still active, but their previous name is locked? In that case it's more likely to be a violation of username policy instead. I'm not sure why anyone would want to recreate it in that situation. If they were renamed and then fully blocked they were probably trying to hide their identity (we did have a recent case like that involving a LTA). ChompyTheGogoat [ Bleat | Munched ] 16:55, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, to clarify, the original username was renamed then the account was locked. Then the new account with a similar username to the original was created. I understand what you're saying about SPI, but I'm reluctant to go there at the moment. 10mmsocket (talk) 17:11, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Well, no one can check on it without knowing the accounts in question, but we're much more likely to see that type of behavior due to abuse. That is exactly what happened with the last one which is an ongoing LTA with dozens of blocked accounts, and it may well be who you're talking about. Unblock requests typically have to be made through the original account, and reusing the account name would negate a fresh start by linking them to the previous account anyway. ChompyTheGogoat [ Bleat | Munched ] 17:17, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Going back to editing the same articles is typical sock behavior too (including the LTA in question). Fresh starts are typically recommended to avoid editing in areas that caused problems in the past. ChompyTheGogoat [ Bleat | Munched ] 17:19, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Good point. Should I ask the new user? That would initially avoid the trouble of SPI (assuming they're honest of course!) 10mmsocket (talk) 17:23, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Why would you assume that a sock would be honest? Just report it. Clerks will evaluate the situation and decide whether the evidence supports CU or not. (If it is a LTA they can also be abusive and may target you if you engage. Less likely if you just quietly report and let admins handle it.) ChompyTheGogoat [ Bleat | Munched ] 17:46, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Notability check before I draft: are interview-based profiles enough?

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I work at Brainlabs in a brand and content role, and I’ve disclosed that connection on my user page. I’m considering drafting an article about our founder and CEO, Daniel Gilbert, but I want to check whether the sourcing is strong enough before I start.

These are the four pieces I found where he’s the main subject:

1. City A.M., November 2017, “The Brain behind Brainlabs,” by Elliott Haworth. A reported feature based on an office visit, about 1,200 words and free to read.
2. Campaign, around 2018, “Brainlabs founder: the triumph of brain over brawn,” by Gideon Spanier. It’s paywalled, so I can confirm the byline and framing but haven’t read the full piece.
3. The Media Leader, autumn 2023, by Jack Benjamin. About 1,300 words and free to read. It’s labeled an interview, but the writer also reports on Brainlabs’ acquisitions and position in the market.
4. Performance Marketing World, May 2026, by Robin Langford. Paywalled, and from what I can see, it looks more like an interview than a profile.

My main question is how WP:YFA applies here. It says material originating from the subject, including most interviews, doesn’t count toward independence. Would a piece like The Media Leader count if it includes the journalist’s own reporting alongside Gilbert’s quotes? Or would reviewers likely discount the interview-framed pieces altogether?

I also found these awards and rankings. I don’t think they establish WP:ANYBIO on their own, but I’m including them in case they’re relevant:

• Deloitte UK Technology Fast 50, 2016: Brainlabs was the overall UK winner, according to Deloitte.
• BIMA 100, 2019: Gilbert is listed by name under CEOs and Leaders.
• FT 1000, 2017: Campaign reported Brainlabs as the fastest-growing UK company in the ranking.

There’s also a 2021 Forbes piece that reads like a profile, but it’s a contributor article, so I’ve left it out. Most of the other coverage I found is about Brainlabs acquisitions with Gilbert quoted as CEO, or columns he wrote himself.

Based on these sources, is an article worth drafting now, or should I wait for stronger independent coverage?

AbigailS-Brainlabs (talk) 13:20, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

They would not be independent sources, @AbigailS-Brainlabs. You require multiple sources that are secondary, independent, and have significant coverage (per this). It does not seem you have these yet. While you can draft the article, I highly doubt it would be approved unless you can find multiple sources that meet the three criteria.
Cheers, Phoenix ‣ _Talk // ^{Contributions} 14:12, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, that’s helpful. One thing I’m still unsure about: if an article includes an interview but the journalist also adds their own reporting and perspective, is that part considered independent coverage?

The City A.M. and Media Leader pieces read more like reported features than Q&As. The Media Leader writer also raises questions about Brainlabs’ ambitions and mentions senior departures. If you consider those alongside the Campaign piece, does that change your view on whether there’s enough coverage to draft an article? AbigailS-Brainlabs (talk) 14:50, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

I'm going to suggest that you read WP:PAIDADVICE and WP:BOSS, and show them to your CEO. You're not likely to succeed at this, especially as a new user without broader Wikipedia editing experience. As you have disclosed your relationship, you are free to attempt it anyway, but you should know that the odds of success are very low. 331dot (talk) 14:57, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

The whole article containing the interview is non-independent, at least most of the time. I do remember one situation where the person writing an article pointed out that one interview-based article was sharply critical of its subject and the reporter did not believe what the subject was saying; I don't know how that situation turned out. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 15:01, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Please don't use LLMs to communicate with us; the practice is prohibited per Wikipedia:AITALK. Also, if you intend to create a draft using an LLM, that is also prohibited per Wikipedia:Writing articles with large language models. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 16:13, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Problematic editor

Hello, I wanted to report that user ~2026-50131-43 is ignoring messages asking to stop deleting information from many articles about Indian constituencies. It seems that they also change the parameters of some tables regarding election results, and sometimes delete information about parties' subdivisions in those tables, which leads me to think that they are doing so in bad faith. Also, I would like to ask if it would be possible to revert their edits automatically, as none of their edits are productive as far as I saw. Here are their contributions and talk page: Special:Contributions/~2026-50131-43 User talk:~2026-50131-43. Thank you! Simas10 (talk) 15:03, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Depending on the scale of disruption they can be reported at either WP:AIV or WP:ANI. ChompyTheGogoat [ Bleat | Munched ] 16:05, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

is wikipedia going to go ipo?

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.

---

might help with the funding issues, ways to make money, you all need to come up with ways to make money, ~2026-51448-17 (talk) 15:17, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Hey there, and welcome to Wikipedia:

The vast majority of the volunteer editors here at the Teahouse don't work for the Wikimedia Foundation and thus cannot predict or make comments on the day-to-day operations of the Foundation/Wikipedia. Regardless, in my opinion, I don't believe Wikipedia or Wikimedia is likely to go public; the Foundation has long been against external influence in order to keep Wikipedia neutral.

Wikipedia has many donors, both personal and corporate, and receives large (in the scale of millions of US dollars) grants from nonprofit organisations often.

Cheers!

Shield ^{\\ |T| - |C| - Solidarity \\} 15:24, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

The finances of the WMF are stable at the moment, there is no urgent need to come up with cash. 331dot (talk) 15:25, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

there's also open source projects — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-51448-17 (talk) 15:18, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

i'm still working on it here

i need to come up with some kind of article

i think it has to do with the subject areas and subject matters and SMEs

subjects

well, you can mention mathematics and physics and chemistry and biology and psychology and psychiatry and psycho and psy and then end up with a kernel

ended up with hardware firmware software and a kernel and kernels and colonels and the the whole bust a rhyme thing and it was all serial killers and cereal killers

there's also the killers and the murderers

the killers

the murderers

Ghost In The Machine — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-51448-17 (talk) 15:41, 23 September 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.

Number of quotations

See this page: Subhas Chandra Bose. Does it have too many quotes or is it acceptable on normal standards? There are 50+ quotations in the footnotes, some of which are rather long. Does this deserve an {{{over-quotation}}} template or is it fine? Also please do not delete the page for this or remove all quotes. Babin Mew (talk) 16:34, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

It sounds to me like a lot of quotes. I'm really just here to note something else though: "don't delete" requests are a weird thing on Wikipedia, because they usually happen just before the thing really does get deleted - usually for an obvious reason that the "don't delete" person never mentioned.

BUT: Having too many quotes is not going to get a page deleted. It will just get some of the quotes deleted. And if there are useful ones, those will be kept. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:28, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

It's not overquoted in the body, and I doubt the article is at any risk for deletion. Someone just felt the need to dump a metric buttload of quotes in the notes and refs for some reason. Could definitely use cleanup but not a big deal since it doesn't interfere with overall readability. (That ref format gives me serious eyetwitch tho.) ChompyTheGogoat [ Bleat | Munched ] 18:13, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

It sounds to me like a lot of quotes. I'm really just here to note something else though: "don't delete" requests are a weird thing on Wikipedia, because they usually happen just before the thing really does get deleted - usually for an obvious reason that the "don't delete" person never mentioned.

BUT: Having too many quotes is not going to get a page deleted. It will just get some of the quotes deleted. And if there are useful ones, those will be kept. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:34, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Turkmen name policy

Hello! I was hoping to create an article on a Turkmen woman, however I have seen her name spelt both using Turkmen orthography and English orthography in different English-language sources. From looking around at other Turkmen people with Wikipedia articles, I can see that some have their names in English with the Turkmen spelling in brackets (like Mahrijemal Mammedova), while others have the article name with the Turkmen spelling (like Muza Nyýazowa). I was wondering if there was an established preference or policy on which is the best to use? Animaliak (talk) 16:55, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Yes, there is a policy: in each case, use the spelling that the majority of reliable English-language reports about the person have used. In case my answer doesn't cover your situation properly, the full policy is at WP:COMMONNAME. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:11, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Request to review a COI edit request at Talk:Space Capital

Hello — I'm an employee of Space Capital (disclosed on my user page), so I don't edit the article directly. There's an open COI edit request at Talk:Space Capital with two small, well-sourced factual corrections: adding a managing partner to the infobox (sourced to an SEC Form D) and correcting an outdated sentence in the lead (sourced to Via Satellite and the firm's SEC Form ADV). It's waiting in the backlog. Could an uninvolved editor take a look? Thanks! Brendan.Guin (talk) 17:53, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Unless you can make a very persuasive case as to why your request should be placed at the front of the queue ahead of the hundreds of other requests, this isn't likely to work. Please be patient for a volunteer to get to your request. 331dot (talk) 17:58, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

I will say that government filings can't be sources. Your company website could be used as a source for its own personnel. 331dot (talk) 17:59, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi there,

As 331dot said, there are 897 COI edit requests pending review right now, including yours. As unfortunate as it is, you are very unlikely to have your edit cleared very far ahead of the queue. The best thing to do for now is wait. Shield ^{\\ |T| - |C| - Solidarity \\} 18:29, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks and understood! New to Wikipedia and happy to wait. Brendan.Guin (talk) 18:34, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

question on ISO code redirects

hey there, I have a quick questions about redirect pages for ISO codes I noticed the page BZJ has a redirect to Belizean Creole so I ask can MQE and MZX can act as redirects to their respective codes since they cant ask as disambigs ~2026-48026-60 (talk) 20:11, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Yes, they can add should. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 22:17, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Working on it! -- Reconrabbit (talk) 15:43, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Feedback on my recent edits to the Cape Verde armed forces pages

Hi everyone, I’m still pretty new here and just finished updating a couple of related articles:

Cape Verdean Armed Forces

Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces (Cape Verde).

I updated the current Chief of Staff to Rear Admiral Manuel António Pereira Semedo (he took over on 8 November 2025), added some more pictures, put in the official military banners, fixed a few missing citations, and generally tried to make sure everything was properly sourced and consistent between the two pages.

Would love any feedback if you’ve got a minute especially on whether the sources look okay.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by EliezerPinaCV (talk • contribs) 20:15, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Understanding Wikipedia’s Reliability and Accuracy

I’m trying to better understand how Wikipedia maintains the accuracy and reliability of its articles. Could someone explain, in detail, how Wikipedia’s editors and volunteers verify information, what happens when two editors disagree about whether information should be included, and how sources are evaluated? Also, how are incorrect or biased statements identified and corrected, and what processes are used for articles about controversial or frequently changing topics? Finally, are there any tools or guidelines that a new Wikipedia editor should learn to help them make accurate and constructive edits? TheYearOfAge2026 (talk) 22:07, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

See, to start with, WP:Referencing for beginners, WP:RS and WP:DR. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 22:15, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Request for independent assessment – Shane Cuthbert biography

I am Shane Cuthbert, so I have an obvious conflict of interest regarding any proposed biography about me.

I am looking for an uninvolved editor to independently assess whether the available reliable secondary sources satisfy Wikipedia’s notability requirements and, if so, consider preparing a draft through Articles for Creation.

There is substantial independent coverage extending from 2012 to 2026 across multiple distinct periods, including News.com.au, ABC News, Nine/A Current Affair, Cairns Post/Courier-Mail, Cairns Local News, The Guardian, Brisbane Times/The Age and other outlets. The coverage concerns earlier offending and later rehabilitation, youth-justice/community advocacy, the 2024 Cairns council and Queensland state elections, and the 2026 Cairns suppression-order/open-justice controversy.

I have prepared a source dossier containing the strongest original-publisher links and a source matrix. I am not seeking any particular wording or favourable treatment and would leave notability, weight and article content entirely to uninvolved editors.

Could someone please advise the best place to request an independent assessment, or whether an editor here would be willing to look at the source dossier? ~2026-51390-10 (talk) 23:05, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

If you haven't already, see WP:ABOUTME. ^{In solidarity,} 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 ^{(They/them • Talk • Contribs)} 23:10, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-51390-10 I suggest you read WP:PAIDADVICE. It's not directly targeted at people writing about themselves, but the same principle applies. Athanelar (talk) 23:57, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

I want to add a Notable Person to Post Costa, CA page

Artist Roy DeForest was a resident of Port Costa for many years. He is not listed in this section. Imlayy (talk) 00:27, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi Imlayy. The basic criterion to meet when adding someone to a list of names like notable residents of a particular city or town tends to be that the person in question be Wikipedia:Notable in their own right and have a stand-alone Wikipedia article already written about them, and there's cited content in the article that connects them to the city or town. In this context "notable" means "Wikipedia notability"; it doesn't mean "well-known" as the term might commonly be used by many out in the real world. Is the Roy DeForest you're referring to this Roy De Forest? I think it is, but I want to mkae sure. Roy De Forest#Later years does state that De Forest did live in Post Costa near the end of his life, but that statement is completely unsourced. Are you aware of any WP:Reliable sources which can be cited to support that De Forest lived in Post Costa? Otherwise, that sentence in the Wikipedia article about him could be removed, which would mean any mention of him in the Post Costa article would also end up being removed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:46, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Imlayy and Marchjuly, for half a century, I have been interested in artists associated with UC Davis, the so-called "funk art" movement, Port Costa and Roy De Forest. It was trivially easy to find a reliable source for De Forest's residence in Port Costa, and I have added De Forest to the Port Costa article, and the reference to both articles. Cullen328 (talk) 07:55, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for finding that Cullen328. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:32, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Per WP:NLIST, entries within lists don't necessarily need to be notable in and of themselves if they're included in a list published by a reliable source - though having their own standalone article certainly helps support their inclusion as well. ChompyTheGogoat [ Bleat | Munched ] 10:53, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

NLIST is for standalone list articles. For a "notable people" section in an article about a place, Marchjuly's advice is correct. Athanelar (talk) 10:56, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Assistance with getting my first wikipedia page approved

I am looking for assistance on a short wikipedia page, tried to follow a certain format and it was flagged. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Janet_Pierson

I tried following a specific formatting structure suggested by wikipedia and had my friends look over the drafts, but the draft was flagged/declined for AI concerns. At first before I saw the LLM rule, I ran my references in a LLM to double check them. I realize now that I shouldn't and that is against Wikipedia guidelines.

I am wanting assistance on how I can get better! I happen to be Austin based, and I simply wanted to create a page due to her notable contributions to the Austin film community and SXSW.

Would love some help to get the draft aligned with Wikipedia's criteria! Willxwhit (talk) 00:39, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

By far the easiest way to fix the LLM problem is to throw away everything, every word, and start again without help. LLM material is extremely hard to fix, so I wouldn't even bother trying. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 02:11, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Two things I'd say. One, like what TooManyFingers said, you should just throw out anything touched by a LLM, while that probably isn't what you want to hear, fixing anything tainted by a LLM model is significantly harder than just rewriting it from scratch. Secondly, I'd recommend adding and using more sources, you only use three in the article at the moment, and two of them are from the same paper, more reliable sources supporting the article the better (within reason). Pyrrhic victor (what did I do) 02:39, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

I spot-checked bits of the text against their sources, and they don't always match up. This suggests you may have taken the LLM's word for the facts in your article. For example, During her 15-year tenure heading the festival, she expanded its scope, introduced a dedicated episodic television section in 2014, and grew its focus on emerging voices. is not well supported by the given source, which says the TV thing was "two years after" 2010, does not mention "episodic", and doesn't really say "grew its focus on emerging voices". (That last phrase is also one LLMs love far too much.)

I have to agree with the other editors: you can salvage the sources (that Vanity Fair article is good) but the text needs to be thrown away and rewritten after you have read your sources yourself and thought about what's important in them. There's really no substitute. M kuhner (talk) 04:28, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

"grew its focus on emerging voices". (That last phrase is also one LLMs love far too much.)

... because it sounds sophisticated but is in fact meaningless. A focus can't be growed (and yes, "growed" is the only correct way to spell what the machine seems to have wanted), and voices can't emerge unless they were formerly inside an enclosed space, whether literal or metaphorical (hint: they weren't, in any sense). TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 05:56, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

A focus can't be growed (and yes, "growed" is the only correct way to spell what the machine seems to have wanted) Grown? Athanelar (talk) 10:53, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Grown is the past participle, to be used with has/have/had. There's no proper usage of growed. The sentence is nonsensical but appears grammatically correct. If it said "grew tomatoes" instead it would be fine. ChompyTheGogoat [ Bleat | Munched ] 11:03, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

This can't be done with a focus though. The ordinary verb "grow" doesn't operate on things that can't be grown. The machine used a new other verb "grow" that fits nonsensical cases. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:37, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Can you elaborate on how you ran [your] references in a LLM to double check them? If it was simply verification and not insertion of any material that wouldn't be a problem in and of itself, but the above concerns seem to indicate there was more LLM involvement than that. Any generated content that was inserted needs to be removed, and if it comprises a significant amount of the draft it's usually better to WP:TNT it and start over. One key thing to be aware of is that you cannot write a draft and then try to find sources to support what you said - this is WP:BACKWARD writing, and if you ask AI to find the sources it will often suggest ones that don't actually say what you wrote, or even hallucinate them entirely. You need to find WP:RELIABLESOURCES first, then summarize what they say - you cannot write anything not covered by sources even if you know it to be true, because that's considered WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH. ChompyTheGogoat [ Bleat | Munched ] 10:43, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi everyone! I didn't wanna blow up notifications, but I appreciate everyone's help. I will be using this to move forward and restart from scratch. Thank you! Willxwhit (talk) 17:35, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Establishment of consensus prior to filing an edit request

Hello Wikipedia Teahouse,

I just declined this edit request for requiring consensus. After doing so, I realised that the article covers a contentious topic, and the filing editor doesn't meet the requirements to engage in discussion on the talk page.

If a change requires consensus, but the editor is forbidden from discussion (due to not being extended-confirmed, in this case), how should the request be answered?

Thank you, Wikipedia Teahouse. crtbob@talk:~$ ls contribs 03:09, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

I think it should be with an apologetic refusal to consider the request, giving the reason. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 04:34, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

 Done in Special:Diff/1376444097. Thanks for your advice! crtbob@talk:~$ ls contribs 04:54, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

How to search the history of an article

I want to fix citation errors in Orgasm, by searching the history to see if the references occurred in any earlier versions.

How can I search the entire history? For example:

Cite error: The named reference Dunn was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Cite error: The named reference Mah was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Cite error: The named reference soc was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Cite error: The named reference Schacter was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Thank you. Comfr (talk) 04:34, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

How can I search for these references in other articles? The references might have been lost if the article was merged or split. Comfr (talk) 04:37, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi Comfr. All those four references are already defined in the article and it doesn't display any of those error messages. Maybe you tried to preview the section Orgasm#Males. The references are defined in other sections so a section preview can give the errors but that's OK when the saved page works. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:56, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

To elaborate on PrimeHunter's already good answer: When you edit any certain section of an article, your edit window is "blind" to the contents of all the other sections. This causes it to mistakenly flag definitions that appear in the other sections as if they were missing. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 05:20, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Submit to be on Wikipedia

Hello! I'm a comedian and I'm wondering whether I meet Wikipedia's notability criteria based on the independent coverage I've received. I don't want to create an article myself because I understand there's a conflict of interest. Would someone be willing to look at my sources and advise whether an article would be appropriate? Many thanks! ~2026-51345-81 (talk) 06:13, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Here, in this thread, you could provide links to the top three sources. (But have you read Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing?) -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 06:38, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

I think it might help to know how Wikipedia articles are written.

1. Collect the reliable published sources

2. Plop them onto a page

3. There cannot be a step 3. Steps 1 and 2 are all you get.

For most people, the fact that Step 3 is not allowed to exist turns out to be a problem. People want an article about them to be more and better than what it says in the newspaper, and that is not happening. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:54, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Hashim Thaçi

Hashim Thaçi article contains too many unnecessary links. Not enough proper links.

Do I really have to scroll through multiple Control/Command +F instances of KOSOVO before just finding a link to the actual Kosovo wiki page? It used to be common practice to hyperlink the first mention on there page but this is all jacked up. Why is this acceptable but I make a minor correction I know to be factually true and backed up with a source results in a one year ban from editing? Make it make sense. ~2026-51416-66 (talk) 06:14, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Are you saying that while logged in you are currently blocked from editing? -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 06:33, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Something tells me there's more to the story. ChompyTheGogoat [ Bleat | Munched ] 09:27, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

(In point of fact, I just checked and the first standalone mention of Kosovo there is crosslinked to the relevant article. The previous mentions are part of other crosslinks to more specific articles for political positions.) ChompyTheGogoat [ Bleat | Munched ] 11:11, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

That link is the result of an edit made after this question was asked. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:41, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Creating an article about a company

Hi everyone,

New to Wikipedia and looking for some advice on creating an article about a company.

I recently created a draft article, but it was deleted under G11 (blatant advertising or promotion). I’ve since read through the relevant Wikipedia guidelines and understand that the article needs to be written from a neutral, encyclopaedic perspective and supported by reliable, independent sources.

Before attempting to rewrite it, I’d be very grateful for any tips on common issues to look out for when writing an article about a company, particularly how to avoid it being seen as promotional or advertising.

Would rather make sure I’m approaching it correctly before submitting another draft, as I would rather not risk another deletion.

Any advice on what I should focus on, or what experienced editors would recommend checking before submitting, would be much appreciated.

Thank you. PlantPiano100 (talk) 11:16, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Firstly, if you have a connection to the company see and comply with WP:COI and WP:PAID and, if you have been tasked with writing the article, WP:BOSS.

After that, check that the subject meets the requirements at WP:NCORP.

Thirdly see WP:Your first article - but we strongly recommend you gain experience through making smaller edits to exiting articles before you try to write one from scratch.

You may also find WP:NPOV and WP:RS useful. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 11:41, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

@PlantPiano100 To be a little more discouraging than Andy above, writing an article about a company you have any personal or professional connection with (which I presume is the case, though you haven't specified) is, in every instance I have seen so far, almost certain to be a doomed affair. Doing so with no experience in editing Wikipedia elevates this from "almost certain" to "certain". I suggest you take a look at what is written at WP:PAIDADVICE. In short, it's quite impossible to avoid it being seen as promotional or advertising. because generally when a company pays somebody or has one of their employees come to write about them, promotion and advertising is precisely what they're trying to accomplish. Athanelar (talk) 12:02, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

About avoid it being seen as promotional or advertising: What you have really said there, probably by accident, is that you only don't want it to look like those things. Wikipedia looks at what an article really is, not just what it looks like. Promotion that has been carefully edited so it doesn't look like promotion is still deleted. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:24, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Help; How to Edit Infobox Citations

Hello, I am new to the tasks of editing and contributing to Wikipedia. I want to change the 1963 census report with the 2006 census report on the Ngwa people article including the infobox therein, which is a more current report on the Ngwa people population.

The difficulty I faced when I tried running the edit was how to edit and replace the citation on the infobox (Under the total population - the little number '1' on a square bracket between the population count, and the year and census in parenthesis). The source I will be citing from is a website; https://www.citypopulation.de/en/nigeria/admin/. The editor I'm using is the visual editor.

Please help me understand how to cite or replace citation on not just an infobox but on an article body, in general, so my contributions now and in the future will be organized and accurate. Thank you!

~~~~ Championazukaoluebubechi (talk) 12:01, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

A good introduction to references with the Visual Editor is in our introcutory guide to editing Help:Introduction, particularly at Help:Introduction to referencing with VisualEditor/1. Dealing with material in templates is trickier. Select the template and the word Template will appear at the bottom of the screen. Select the pen to open the visual editor for the template contents. The limitation is that the contents are written in wikitext, not visually. I don't know if this works the same way using the Wikipedia app on a phone rather than editing with a browser on a phone. Hope this helps. StarryGrandma (talk) 16:36, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Is it true the teahouse gives tea?

WP:NOTFORUM

When i went to the teahouse it didn't give me tea but the name says teahouse but theres no tea to buy. ~2026-51460-18 (talk) 12:59, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

No it’s just a place to ask questions and about Wikipedia Idk what my name will be (talk) 13:09, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

This is a place for new editors to ask questions about using Wikipedia, not an actual teahouse. Garlik-bread666 (talk) 14:39, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

This appears to just be a time wasting vandal. ChompyTheGogoat [ Bleat | Munched ] 16:05, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Unsure about WP:UN Compliance

Hello, i've been reading Wikipedia for awhile now, but never tried to contribute. Thats why i want to create an account, but after reading WP:UN, im unsure if my username could work..

So, i simply wanted to ask, is "CasinoLuigi" compliant with the Username policy?

Thank you. ~2026-51542-22 (talk) 15:16, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse (and Wikipedia):

Forgive me, but I'm not entirely sure why CasinoLuigi would not comply with our username policy. Could you explain your concerns about it?

Shield ^{\\ |T| - |C| - Solidarity \\} 15:18, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for welcoming me!

i was unsure because the "Luigi" part is refrencing Luigi Mario from Nintendo, thought people could mix that up, i think i was just overly anxious. ~2026-51542-22 (talk) 15:22, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

So long as there is no casino called Luigi it'll be acceptable. As it appears the username is in use elsewhere on t'internet it would be ill-advised to reuse the name if that is you. See WP:REALNAME. Cabayi (talk) 15:20, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Okay, i have a few Usernames to fall back on, because i do infact use CasinoLuigi elsewhere.

Thanks for the heads up! ~2026-51542-22 (talk) 15:27, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Overcategorization

There's this article that I tagged with too many categories, due to the redundant nature of said categories. At the time, I recalled a page mentioning how categories shouldn't be redundant. (i.e. a page shouldn't be categorized with Colors and Shades of Red,) but I can't find the page that said this! Did I imagine that? Should the recategorize tag be removed? Siteseers (talk) 16:16, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

@Siteseers: that page would be WP:Overcategorization! Phoenix ‣ _Talk // ^{Contributions} 16:23, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

@Phoenix So sorry, but I still can't find where on that page it mentions redundancies, and I would prefer not to fix the page on that subject until I am absolutely certain you should remove the "parents" of intersections (such as the category Category:American people of Irish descent being an intersection of Category:American people and Category:People of Irish descent. I guess my question is: With a page with all 3 categories listed above, should the last two be removed? Siteseers (talk) 18:09, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

I believe (but can't prove) that given any set of categories that are valid for the topic, and that all describe the same characteristic at different levels of specificity, only the most specific one is to be used. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 19:29, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Urgent guidance needed please

Hi team,

I made honest mistake and I need guidance on how to navigate back to prior state.

I mistakenly reverted a Redirected page, since the topic has 2 other duplicates as below

Governor of the Reserve Bank of India (original, latest maintained and actively edited)

List of Governors of Reserve Bank of India (redirected to 1st, defunct)

List of governors of the Reserve Bank of India (redirected to 1st, defunct since May 2026, I made my isolated mistake on this one)

I did not know the whole history of this 3rd redirect, I arrived on it from user activity of Tempday1ofedit who is currently blocked for some reason. I mistakenly believed their May 2026 "redirect" to be vandalism, so I reverted it yesterday.

because - A they are blocked, B made a large deletion (as happens in redirect logs but is normal)

I later went through whole 3 page mess to realize that Tempday1ofedit was entirely in right , the 1st page is currently maintained. Hence I need to reinstate the redirect on 3rd page to original May 2026 state as they had left it. Unfortunately, immediately after, Zackmann08 made a minor infobox edit on 3rd one.

Revision history of 3rd https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_governors_of_the_Reserve_Bank_of_India&action=history

I hence cannot do the revert on my own, else be framed for vandalism for reverts as already happened here User talk:~2026-51468-05

Unfortunately Zackmann08 appears to be offline since that. Need guidance on this.

Thanks!

// ~2026-51648-27 (talk) 17:14, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

 Done: please contact me if any issues with this page arise in the future. Thank you and welcome to Wikipedia Shield ^{\\ |T| - |C| - Solidarity \\} 17:47, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

cc Zackmann08; Girth Summit (as sockmaster blocking admin)

Shield ^{\\ |T| - |C| - Solidarity \\} 17:52, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi @.sh1eldo7

Thank you very much for your swift help. I truly appreciate it!

// ~2026-51648-27 (talk) 18:02, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Of course. Feel free to ask any other questions at any time, and consider creating an account. Thank you Shield ^{\\ |T| - |C| - Solidarity \\} 18:07, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Missing documentation

Where is the tag {{-}} documented in Wikipedia or Wikimedia? I added it to my user page User:Comfr, and it does what I want, but I would like to know what I am doing.

An online search assistant provided the following result, but I cannot find it anywhere in Wikipedia or Wikimedia:

"{{-}} is used in wikitext to remove whitespace at the beginning of a line. It helps in controlling the formatting of text by eliminating unwanted spaces."

Thanks: Comfr (talk) 17:52, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Please see Template:Clear/doc. Thanks and welcome to the Teahouse. Shield ^{\\ |T| - |C| - Solidarity \\} 17:54, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, I tried {{Clear}}, and it also works, but I still cannot find an explaination for {{-}}. Comfr (talk) 18:09, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

{{-}} actually is {{Clear}}. It's a shortcut to make it easier to use several times without having to type {{Clear}} every single time. Every time you use {{-}}, you're using the exact same code as {{Clear}}, so you don't have to worry about documentation differences, they're the exact same. Shield ^{\\ |T| - |C| - Solidarity \\} 18:19, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Adding on to .sh1eldo7's comment: You should see that {{-}} is designated as a shortcut in the documentation for {{clear}}. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:35, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Need some education on this please.

I would like to bring the attention of the house to this discussion here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Amofah , i need some education. Thanks MadeInGhana (talk) 18:33, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Some suggestions:

Read WP:Golden rule;

Read WP:Notability (people), and note in particular WP:Notability (people)#Invalid criteria;

Hope this helps. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-41275-62 (talk) 18:55, 24 September 2026 (UTC)