Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1307

Archive 1300

←

Archive 1305

Archive 1306

Archive 1307

Arbitration committee case

I filed an arbitration committee case report asking not to get me blocked or banned because I learned my lesson, but I'm scared that I will get blocked or banned for this

I went to a user's talk page to repeatedly call them out and be mean to them after they had reverted my edit and were mean to me in their edit summary, and even though I said I would not do it again and I had learned my lesson in the filing of the arbitration committee case, I'm scared I'm going to get blocked or banned Gaming Fan 23 (talk) 04:21, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

@Gaming Fan 23: Welcome to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1307. If this is about the edit you made at Airbus A350 that got reverted, your later behaviour at the talk page of the user who reverted you violated Wikipedia:Civility and is unacceptable. You should have discussed the edit on the article's talk page as part of the bold, revert, discuss cycle. If a report is filed on you, other editors will discuss if your inability to regulate emotions is a one-time thing or something that other editors may have to deal with in the future, from which an action will be decided on to prevent further disruption. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:39, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Okay you're making me even more scared. What could happen next? Gaming Fan 23 (talk) 04:43, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

The community would decide if a warning, block, or something else is necessary as a preventative measure. A block could be one or two days or indefinite. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:46, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

My inability to regulate emotions is a one-time thing and I am no longer arguing with that guy and have left his talk page for good and moved on. How do I submit something that tells people this, or will they be able to figure it out from me leaving the talk page (not posting there anymore)? Gaming Fan 23 (talk) 04:48, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

In Wikipedia parlance, we might say this is a good time to drop the stick, meaning that you've communicated the message you wanted people to know and repeating it further might be seen as disruptive. Like I said below, you may want to consider apologizing for what you said to Canterbury Tail if you haven't already, but there's no need to repeatedly say you're moving on. Less is often more. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:54, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Hey there, Gaming Fan 23; I don't see a good reason to block you and I doubt another admin will (although I can't speak for others). We don't do blocks or bans as a form of punishment. We only use them when they are necessary to prevent disruption. Right now, it seems like you don't want to cause more disruption and have realized the mistakes you made, so I don't see what the project would gain from a block. However, you should know that if something similar happens in the future, the community might be less inclined to believe you when you say you've realized your mistake, and may resort to a block at that point, so please be careful and keep this warning in mind. An apology wouldn't go amiss either, if you haven't already given one. Tenryuu, I can't see ANI being a very productive use of anyone's time, and it's quite scary for new good-faith editors, so my hope is that this suffices as a resolution. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:51, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

That depends on what the person whose talk page received those comments decides on. Personally I don't think it'll go that far, and I would invite Gaming Fan 23 to discuss their reasoning with the reverter as to why they believe their edit to be productive and not nonsensical. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:54, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Gaming Fan 23, you should read WP:DROPTHESTICK. Six posts to a user's talk page (some uncivil), an attempt to open an arbitration thread, and now a lengthy teahouse post, all because a user (an admin) undid an erroneous comma you attempted to add. user:Canterbury Tail was not mean to you. Just drop this, and it's very unlikely anything will happen. Keep it up and something may well happen. Meters (talk) 04:56, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Surnames

In Shaquille O'Neal, his parents are introduced as "Joe Toney and Lucille O'Neal." Soon after, it is mentioned that Shaq's stepfather was named Phillip Arthur Harrison. Later in the article, Lucille is referred to as Lucille Harrison. Do we need to mention her name change somewhere? Right now it is just implied. OrdinaryOtter (talk) 00:55, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

If there's already confusion and fighting over this, then it's more urgent to fix something. If nobody is actually making trouble over it, then as long as the current version agrees with its stated sources, I think it's OK as it is. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 02:04, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

And of course we can't mention a name change unless the sources do TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 02:11, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

It is potentially confusing. Personally I'd try to find a source and just drop a brief mention such as "Lucille Harrison (formerly O'Neal)^[1]". Unless it actually mentions the remarriage, in which case it probably falls under WP:sky is blue. ChompyTheGogoat [ Bleat | Munched ] 08:38, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

How do I replace and add userboxes to my userpage?

I'm sorry if I cannot give direct detail on my question, as it feels like this question's title is self-explainatory.

For years/months I have been trying to add or replace userboxes to my userpage, but I am very inexperienced with how to do it.

Would anyone like to give me a brief instruction on how they work? This might also include instructions on how to add or replace templates on the userpage's userbox. Thanks!

Important Information: I am on a laptop. EpicSalmon (talk) 09:49, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

@EpicSalmon There are instructions at Help:Userboxes. Your existing user page looks basically OK to me, so I guess you will just be switching in or out a few boxes from Wikipedia:Userboxes/Galleries. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:20, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Suggested edits suspension

I recently fought vandalism on a page and did some reverts back and forth and other than that a few days ago my tag to a page was reverted by another editor and this caused my suggested edits to be suspended as I have too many edits reverted. Every time I have an edit reverted, I will get a 7 day suspension but now the app is telling me I have too many reverted edits so no suggested edits available FrostyUrsa (talk) 09:42, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

@FrostyUrsa "Suggested edits" is a feature of your Homepage tab which is also linked at Special:Homepage. If you want other ideas, then try the WP:Task center or User:SuggestBot. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:27, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Ooh okay thank you so much! FrostyUrsa (talk) 10:56, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Why do English Wikipedia articles need English sources

Even if they're in another language that shouldn't mean that their information is wrong. And this is making the language bias that is already on Wikipedia worse! I noticed this on the article for the Timurid Empire DYC TY (talk) 13:44, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Per WP:NONENG we definitely permit non-English sources. English sources are preferred (if they exist) but not essential. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:47, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

I think DYC TY was referring to the improperly placed translation needed template in the Timurid Empire. @DYC TY, I removed the template as that is not what it was meant for. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 14:26, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

@Mikeycdiamond: It just required {{translation needed inline}} instead of {{translation needed}}. I have added it together with a parameter to place the translation in. @DYC TY: It's the quoted part of the source which should be translated. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:49, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

how to report a broken category

Hi! I would like to report the category Category:Pending template and disambiguation AfC (cant link it for some reason)

submissions since its been broken for at minimum 5 years and 7 months

I am struggling to find how to report a bug so I thought I should ask here thank you! ~2026-48026-60 (talk) 20:25, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @~2026-48026-60, and welcome to the Teahouse.

What is it about Category:Pending template and disambiguation AfC submissions that you think is broken? It is empty, which I take to mean that there a no submissions of those sorts currently pending.

(To link to things that get treated specially, like files, categories, and inter-language links, you need to start the link with a colon: [[:Category:Pending template and disambiguation AfC submissions]]). ColinFine (talk) 21:02, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-48026-60: Did you expect the category to be added automatically? I don't know whether it's documented somewhere but looking at the code of {{AfC submission/pending}}, the submission has to say |type=template or |type=dab. Maybe it should be automatic for page names starting with "Template:" or ending with "(disambiguation)". PrimeHunter (talk) 21:16, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

hey sorry for the late reply

and for the question, I assumed that it would be auto assigned, but I can confirm it does not get auto assigned (from the many AFC disambiguation pages I have made) ~2026-48026-60 (talk) 13:54, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter I think I should of pinged you ~2026-48026-60 (talk) 17:36, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Can I make a temp acct permanent?

I’ve been using a “temporary username” for the past 5 years. I’d like to use this as my official username. How can I do this please?

thanks, Kate S KateSpelmanRN (talk) 09:13, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "temporary username"; your account is a normal, permanent account, and you may use it as you see fit. The temporary account system that replaced IP edits is not five years old. 331dot (talk) 09:21, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

This is your first edit with this account. Is that the account to which you refer; and if not what is the name of your other account? If this is the account to which you refer, just continue to edit with it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 11:33, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi KateSpelmanRN. Temporary accounts have automatically assigned numbers like ~2026-13169-36 and the system was introduced in 2025. Special:CentralAuth/KateSpelmanRN shows your account was created 6 October 2020. That was around 5 years ago so I guess it is this account you refer to. It's a normal, permanent account as said above. If you refer to edits made without logging in then they would have been registered to your IP address before 2025 but that is no longer possible. If you edit without logging in now then the edit is registered to a temporary account like ~2026-13169-36. Such accounts expire after 90 days. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:04, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

@KateSpelmanRN: also keep in mind that you are strongly discouraged from using your real name as your user name. ^{In solidarity,} 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 ^{(They/them • Talk • Contribs)} 21:57, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

@KateSpelmanRN I think I might be the first to see the question you meant to ask: Are you looking for a way to get your old edits credited to your new account, instead of to the anonymous ones? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 23:40, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

Given that the named account is 5 years old I don't think that's what they meant. ChompyTheGogoat [ Bleat | Munched ] 08:46, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

It might not be. But is "had an account for 5 years, decided to edit without it for all that time, now changed my mind and want my IP edits merged into my history" potentially a bad thing, or impossible? Or is it just unusual and inconvenient? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:29, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Yes, it is impossible. ChompyTheGogoat [ Bleat | Munched ] 19:01, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Mass update to "Infobox French commune"

This year, the French mayoral elections took place in every commune. Therefore the mayors have all started their 6-year terms this year. However I've noticed that many commune pages are out of date on EN Wikipedia, with the 2020-2026 term and mayor still listed. There are upwards of 34,000 communes. On Wikipedia they seem to often have the "Infobox French commune", although not always with the mayor line (ideally this line gets added).

Example without the mayor line: Charrecey Example with the mayor line: Châtenoy-le-Royal

To cut to the chase, I would like to mass edit these boxes to reflect the current mayors if possible, using a publicly available file from the state: https://www.data.gouv.fr/fr/datasets/r/2876a346-d50c-4911-934e-19ee07b0e503

Would anyone be able to help me understand how best to approach this? GreyZoneLife (talk) 07:37, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

As you have a data file with the names that need to be added, and a source, you could ask on WP:BOTREQ for somebody with scripting abilities to write some code to do the job for you.

A better solution would be to ask on the template's talk page for someone to add the capability for it to pull the data from Wikidata and to have the updates made there, if the community here are agreeable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 11:38, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, Andy. How do I find the template's talk page? GreyZoneLife (talk) 12:15, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

Like any page on Wikipedia, there is a "Talk" tab at the top of the page, in desktop view (or are you on mobile?—it's always best to say how you edit when asking questions).

In this case the template page is at Template:Infobox French commune and its talk page at Template talk:Infobox French commune. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 12:50, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

@GreyZoneLife, @Pigsonthewing Is Wikipedia really the best place to go to, when you want to know who the mayor of a particular French commune is? Personally, I would use a search engine for that kind of info.

The only reason I ask is because we seem to put a lot of information into articles that will definitely become incorrect in the future, thus creating an ongoing maintenance burden. I'm not sure there's a good solution, except to leave the time-sensitive information out of the article. David10244 (talk) 00:38, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

I was more motivated to update it as I saw it was outdated on multiple articles which makes Wikipedia look unmaintained. I've done a few manually but there are too many to continue in that manner. If a code solution can be found, it shouldn't be too much effort.

Regarding the use case, as communes are sometimes indeed small, finding English sources online wouldn't always be possible. But - would many anglophones need this information? I don't know. Again, I was mostly just looking to update the many outdated articles. GreyZoneLife (talk) 05:14, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

You may want to know that infoboxes (and what content is or is not included) are considered a contentious topic due to numerous conversations like this that eventually ended up at ArbCom. A large number of them do need regular updating, because we live in a dynamic world. Nothing is forever. ChompyTheGogoat [ Bleat | Munched ] 08:50, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

(I'll also point out that Wikipedia would be much smaller if we never wrote about anything that's prone to change.) ChompyTheGogoat [ Bleat | Munched ] 08:51, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong - much less "contentious" - with OP's question. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 08:52, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Not their question, but infoboxes themselves. I've seen such innocent questions devolve quickly when other participants get very heated over content inclusion/exclusion - in one case nearly resulting in a second round at ArbCom, over bafflingly trivial details. Definitely not what we need at TEA. ChompyTheGogoat [ Bleat | Munched ] 08:55, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Some facts change often but are so important that almost anyone would admit we must include them and keep updating them. Some facts, even very stable ones, are so unimportant that almost no one would object to leaving them out. But when a fact's importance is neither very high nor very low, people have wildly varying opinions - not just on how "importance" and "update requirements" should influence each other, but whether they should influence each other. This can create a situation where each thinks the other's point of view is invalid and irrelevant, not simply going too far one way or the other.

Such a situation exists in well-known permanently unresolvable debates, where the importance of the topics themselves is not disputed. But when similar deadlocks occur over bafflingly trivial details, it seems like the same big red switch is being flipped in people's minds anyway. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 19:03, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Justifying changing disambiguation to hatnote

I feel confident that Pinkwashing should redirect to Pinkwashing (LGBTQ) and that the disambiguation should be replaced with hatnotes. I believe my judgement is correct, but I wanted to check my intuition. The LGBTQ term is far more likely to be the primary usage and have enduring long-term significance (see WP:PRIMARYTOPIC), indicated in part by the direct links referencing the term versus the pink ribbon-related term (958 vs. 29). Is there anything else I need to prove, or would this suffice to justify the change? I realize that direct links can be a shoddy metric, but a factor of 33:1 seems unimpeachable. Gebble (talk) 18:02, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

That looks to me like a solid case for a move—however, changes in the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC status of a term are often controversial, so I would recommend going through the full requested move process to pursue this change. Take a look at WP:RM#Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves for instructions on how to start a formal request. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 18:26, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

I agree with ModernDayTrilobite on how to proceed, and as someone who until today had only heard this term in its pink-ribbon sense, I also think your analysis of the situation is obviously correct. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 19:34, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Am I one clicking my talk page archive right?

When I archive my talk pages with one click archive, someone mentioned to me I mass-clicking my archive talk page and I really don't how the bot will automatically archive my talk page after I add the auto archive templates

Can someone explain to that? I do need some help about archving my talk page... Itsjuenyin^{Talk to me!} 16:07, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

I don't understand their comment.

It's fine to archive the page manually, as you have been doing.

If you would like a bot to do it for you, I can set that up; just say. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 18:22, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the other editor's comment is a simple "you're not wrong but you're doing it the hard way and you don't have to". TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 19:24, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Courtesy ping: IrisChronomia ^{In solidarity,} 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 ^{(They/them • Talk • Contribs)} 19:49, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping! Yeah it really is just a joke - you can archive it however you want to. I just decided to (without much reason at all) say that some Wikipedians blanket move their talk pages into new title to save time. I don't do that and neither I expect many people to do so (afterall, many prefer to leave some threads at the top).

Sorry for making a less-than-straightforward humour. It was not intended to be sarcastic or anything, it really is trying to be funny - albeit a poor attempt. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk / Uploads} 19:56, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Need help with a source predicament

Hi there! I've never used the Teahouse and I'm just starting to get my sea legs on Wikipedia, so.. here I am!

I recently have been editing the page for the Atakapa tribe, and I gave it a major overhaul using sources. One of which was A Prehistory of Houston and Southeast Texas: Landscape and Culture, a major ethnoarchaeological work by retired shell geologist, Dan Worall written with assistance from a geologist and geophysicist that compiles a highly detailed history of the region of the Texas Gulf coast, that inherently involves the Atakapa tribe as their western most bands occupied the area. Worall goes into detail with accurate ethnoarchaeological detail about the tribe including its likely ancient roots. It does this by heavily using older major historical works, first accounts and archeological data, something that for this region and for this particular tribe, is notable since in many areas, high quality sourcing for early history can be outright incorrect in many areas while correct in others, hard to navigate, or unclear, especially as it relates to its bands and organization of the tribe and its ancient history.

Anyone who is well researched into the tribe will recognize many of the sources and claims he uses, for these reasons (I suspect) it had a published review in the Southeastern Historical Quarterly by historian and archaeologist, Stephen Fox, of the Texas State Historical Association to a positive review, he himself noting it is "a crucial first word that integrates geology, cultural geography, archeology, and Indigenous history to expand historical awareness and scholarship beyond written sources alone"

When I edited the Atakapa article, I used this work for brevity and ease of reference after I found it after reading many of the sources he uses myself when I was originally heavily researching the tribe. After publishing most of my content onto the tribes page, for the most part its history was kept (for a lack of high quality sources we currently have) however some claims were removed, and overall my source was removed due to it being a primary source which I was not aware of, published by Worrall's own publishing company.

That brings me here because I do understand the importance of high quality sourcing, and the rationale for some of what was removed was reasonable, sometimes errors on my part, I was appreciative, however, some of the claims and the removal of the entire source alone I feel is in a gray area if not a net negative for the page and understanding of the tribe. I understand that Wikipedia prefers nonself published works. However, editors are from what I've seen and understand, in cases where sourcing is difficult, hard, or scant (as for the Atakapa; a sourcing gap was cited for the keeping of some of what I wrote), editors are told to not only use best judgement, but to use what is available to the best of our abilities.

It brings me here to ask the question. Am I ok to use this source? Normally for any other self published source I would be much more understanding, but for this particular book, I find that if I were to use my best judgement, I would 100% use it immediately and anyone else familiar with the area and tribe, I would imagine would use it too. જ⁀➴ (talk) 04:03, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

This is probably something you should take up on the article's talk page, since editors here aren't likely to know the details or have access to your source. I recommend tagging the editor(s) who undid your changes. One thing I will suggest however is that if you can access the original sources yours references you can use those to support the claims, and others may be more comfortable with your book being used as an additional source to expand claims already supported by those original sources. ChompyTheGogoat [ Bleat | Munched ] 08:31, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Yeah I think this is a good idea, I think what is going on (I’m assuming) is that the book brings up modern day descendants of the tribe and a little bit of how it views these descendants with some mild commentary, in particular for this tribe, this would be under expanded claims next to other archeological claims from what he learns within his research. His ethnological claims using archaeology are clarifying if not major in literature of understanding the region and its tribe, but this alongside identifying the tribe itself and its descendants today are likely to be removed because other sources I’m unsure another editor will support it for I believe is overly strict ideas relating to sourcing to that page I feel for no good purpose and I feel stuck because I think it’s important information however they are likely going to deny it since according to them, it’s self published, which again using best judgement, I genuinely don’t think is the best choice for that article. I also don’t want it to turn into an editing war or something. Should I just be bold? જ⁀➴ (talk) 13:55, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

It would be a bit strange if the information is not written by two members of the tribe that publish frequently, one of whom is a well-published university professor, and is instead only present in a single self-published source. Theevu (talk) 16:46, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Based on our previous discussions on the articles talk page, and editing habits, you are hesitant to refer to the Atakapa Ishak Nation as a tribe and tend to use the word "group" or use language that inherently excludes the Atakapa Ishak Nation as a tribe. Here you are now calling it a tribe. I do not know if you are doing this casually or formally, but considering you have been very deliberate and stringent on being very clear on what is a formal tribe that has formal federal relations with the US in past talks or editing habits, per your logic, if you prefer the page to be written by members of the Atakapa-Ishak Nation in your words, the tribe. The article would and if you do prefer this, should be written and organized more explicitly to relate the historical Atakapa to the Atakapa-Ishak Nation, instead of organizing it where it currently is now. However in the past that seems to be explicitly avoided examining how you choose to talk about the topic and organize the page because you are evidently very concerned about formal proper use of the legal definition of tribe.

The book/source I am talking about described here explicitly goes into depth with the Atakapa tribe and includes a huge breadth of GIS related and archeological work, something the tribe currently has a high quality sourcing gap for, with a majority of historical archeological studies occurring in the midcentury, many of them disconnected from each other within context of the tribe, presenting as hyper focused studies on specific sites. It is a sourcing need to have more modern research and examination of this, from past to present, and Worall even considers coastlines as potentially impacting the Atakapa belief system as a result of carefully researched work with further assistance from a geologist and geophysicist, Worall himself, a retired shell geologist. The book Worall writes and addresses this need, and as a result has a highly positive review by an established archeologist from the Texas State Historical Association. He also mentions the Atakapa Ishak Nation as having established descent from the Atakapa. If you now are positing it is actually the tribe, and we should be instead using those two members works for more definitive connections within the pages organization to connect the Atakapa-Ishak Nation to the Atakapa historical people, and using how those members describe the Atakapa historically for its main history section, I would assume you would of done this earlier (maybe I am incorrect in this assumption) but again from my perspective, in the past you have been deliberately hesitant of doing this and seem to err on not connecting the two hence why this has not already been done.

Now you are both on the page making edits avoiding this conclusion, and are now here claiming we should focus on using sources by members of the Atakapa Ishak Nation that are often published. Yes they are often published, however, their works, do not go into detail with proper ethnoarchaeological depth or analysis about the Atakapa. If anything, even better, it is a wholly independent work of the Atakapa Ishak Nation made by a professional with the assistance of other scholars in the related fields he covers, with a published Academic review, yes it is self published, however it is not in total isolation and using best judgment on matters of sourcing to fill gaps for this, it is very clearly evident that it is well researched and through and combines previous archeological research in a more modern conclusion, also clearing up early history as a result. Using only the sources he uses himself for the writing of the book to reach similar conclusions would be considered synthesis and not allowed.

I think that framing their works (Darensbourg, and Jolivette) as a way to supplement that gap is erroneous and potentially intentionally misleading the context of this situation to those outside of this discussion. In fact if we were to use Woralls book, it would connect the modern day Atakapa-Ishak Nation even more deliberately within his ethnoarchaeological framework as he calls the Atakapa-Ishak Nation descendants of the Atakapa tribe, and further expands on this groups descendants to today and also expands on the Grand Bayou group. It seems to me you have been avoiding using it for this reason, and now are claiming you'd prefer to use sources by Atakapa-Ishak Nation members for the Atakapa page, in particular its history. But if per your habits and how you choose to talk about this group in the past, I am questioning and am suspicious of this sudden change in tone.

Yes we should be hesitant of using self published sources across all of Wikipedia and be hesitant of the quality of sources in general, you have genuinely helped me in this area as I'm still newish. At the same time I also understand that this specific self published source was not created in lack of professionalism, nor isolation, and has a published scholarly review of his work. His work is not sloppy or unprofessional, Worall is a previously independently academically published author in multiple works related to his field of study in science journals relating to the Gulf Coast, including work published by the Geological Society of America. This makes his book utilizing GIS work falling within his expertise. જ⁀➴ (talk) 18:09, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

I'd consult WP:WALLOFTEXT in the future, but i'll read through this regardless, I'd prefer not to write a lot in response so i'll try to keep it short.

I think you should be cautious of making assumptions on what other editors are thinking without asking them, whether an entity is referred to as a group or tribe relies purely on sources. Me inserting my own opinion on this would be WP:OR. I have never made an edit regarding Worall on Wikipedia I think, LMK if i'm wrong? I was commenting on what you've said on this page - there is not a scholarly gap on the Atakapa Ishak Nation given two members of the tribe are very well published. One of them heads multiple departments of UC San Diego.

The point I am making is these two people likely have content you can cite in their - very large body of - published works. If this large body of published works does not contain the information that is present in only one self-published work, that is likely questionable. The aspersions are unnecessary, I think - please just take my words as they are.

Thank you! Theevu (talk) 18:22, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Oh, as a side note, I mentioned those two since they're the ones I recall off the top of my head. When looking through sources on the Atakapa Ishak Nation they show up quite frequently. There's other people you can cite as well, obviously.

EDIT: Oh, I see what you're saying now, it seems I'm a bit confused. I mentioned members of the Atakapa Ishak Nation because you mention here that you're concerned with stuff about them he mentions. I noticed this in the edit history too before I started editing myself. Cheers Theevu (talk) 18:28, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Looking up "Concertina Press" on Wikipedia has pointed to this source being very heavily used on the Akokisa page, being cited more than the rest of the sources combined. Is this part of why you are concerned? Theevu (talk) 18:33, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

I realize I conflated your edits since after my major edit, there were a lot of edits made afterwards and I thought it was you and it was someone else's since I saw a lot of edits were occurring at the time and I accidently misremembered their rationale as yours it turns out so my apologizes on me believing it was you specifically I apologize!, and yes I am very hesitant of assuming what's going on in other peoples heads myself I'm just noticing linguistic patterns here of using group vs tribe in earlier discussions I've seen and you are also seemingly knowledgeable on those two scholars and their works based off edits I've seen from you about their works you have done. My point about the quality of that work still stands however. I did use it heavily on the page for the Akokisa band, again for reasons I explained earlier due to issues of me wanting to avoid synthetization and quality of work, especially as Worrall addresses the often misattributed area as to where de Vaca encountered the Akokisa band. જ⁀➴ (talk) 19:01, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

That's ok, it seems I've misread you slightly here as well (as you can see in my edit). Looking through the work his mentions of the Atakapa Ishak Nation seem to be sourced directly to the nation (he cites them inline, specifically their website, atakapa-ishak.org) rather than his GIS work. I think all i've edited on Wiki was a tag requesting attribution on the Akokisa page when you cited (him or someone else) to say 80 Akokisa descendants formed the Atakapa Ishak Nation. Looking now, you've actually cited him incorrectly, as he does not say this. Theevu (talk) 19:08, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Yes he cites them in line connecting them to the historical tribe. And I'll have to take a look back at the Akokisa edits too, hence why I was really appreciative of the mistakes I made initially that were fixed or mildly reorganized. Overall I think I will reuse and reinsert Worall's work for the Atakapa page and Akokisa band page. જ⁀➴ (talk) 19:17, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

My contention is simply that he isn't really citable for stuff to do with the AIN itself, he's just citing their website in a self-published work. It's not really scholarly. But we should probably continue this on the talk page. Theevu (talk) 19:21, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

I think I lean toward more citing it. Using best judgement since he mentions descendants in the front of the book with a through overview citing secondary reporting (p. 130) and also does similar for the Grand Bayou village (Either news or other secondary source I think I used on the Grand Bayou's page) which is why I want to use it for their tribe too. The book has a large dissection of the Atakapa tribe making it relevant as he connects it to 19th early century history right after using other secondary sources for history that occurs earlier before that point. જ⁀➴ (talk) 19:44, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

And on page 129 he also mentions Hugh Singleton's work relating to the dummyline area which other scholarly work corroborates. જ⁀➴ (talk) 19:46, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Singleton founded the AIN, and there are other works mentioning him that are not self-published, so using this source to discuss him isn't necessary. Theevu (talk) 19:53, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

He doesn't cite a source there, other than a newspaper article ostensibly contesting them. This is important because he himself is the reviewer of his own work, as it's self-published. In this entire work, he only mentions the Atakapa Ishak Nation twice, once simply citing their website directly and the other time mentioning they are contested. Two cursory mentions of this nature in a self-published work, again with no reliable citations or analysis behind them, aren't reliable for citing a topic like this on Wikipedia.

The reason this is important is if you are unable to find this information outside this self-published work, that is questionable. It should be considered it would be in many of the other works about the AIN otherwise. Theevu (talk) 19:51, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Yeah I can see this then unless at some point it gets republished independently of himself. I think for historical references to the Atakapa tibe though it is still helpful, do you agree? જ⁀➴ (talk) 19:55, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Mostly because like you mentioned before its more in the scope of his work, in which he uses many sources. જ⁀➴ (talk) 20:00, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

I haven't reviewed the work well, but i'd rely more on the guidance at WP:SPS than what I say personally. For topics he is an established Subject-matter expert on, it would be reasonable to cite him, depending. I am personally unaware of what he has been recognized as established in, I think you said Geology/GIS? I'm not overly familiar with his work so I'd say use your best judgement. For stuff more out of his purview try to bolster with other sources. Theevu (talk) 20:01, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Yeah Geology, and written in assistance from other geologists, so geology and somewhat adjacently archaeology as it was positively reviewed in an academic journal by a archeologist. I'll have to see what I can do with the source in citing and try and apply where I think best using your guidance, writing and sourcing where he best applies, and using other sources if possible and in some cases, sourcing him and using other sources as well to support it. જ⁀➴ (talk) 20:06, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! Theevu (talk) 20:08, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

There's plenty of academic sources on the Atakapa Ishak Nation that aren't self published, one of their members is the Chair of a university dept (Jolivette), and the other writes frequently as well (Darenbourg). There isn't a sourcing gap for them at all, and they're written about fairly often. Theevu (talk) 16:43, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Requesting help with improving an article

I've recently been trying to improve the Spectrolab article (I have been making the changes on my sandbox). Since I haven't really done this kind of editing on Wikipedia before, I was hoping that I could get some editors to see if I am doing it right and if not, to provide some feedback. So far, most of my efforts have been adding more citations, expanding the article, and making the formatting nicer with things like an infobox and pictures. My biggest concerns right now are that I'm not sure on how significant the sources are and that the current article seems like it could be promotional. While I do believe the subject is notable, a lot of the current references are primary sources, press releases, and trivial mentions. ExitTheWarrior (talk) 14:45, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

• I think before you continue you should make absolutely sure that it's notable, rather than just "believing". Because if it isn't, you should be making a deletion proposal instead of wasting your time.
• The article was definitely better without the infobox, because everything in the infobox was already obvious before.
• To me, everything else you've been doing seems very good.

TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:04, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

(If the article became far longer and more complicated, the infobox would start being worthwhile.) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:07, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. Although I'm still not completely satisfied with the sources in the article, after reviewing all of them (and adding some more) I'm confident that the subject meets WP:ORGCRIT. Because of this, I've published my changes to the article (without the infobox) and changed the article assessment from stub to c-class. Thanks again, ExitTheWarrior (talk) 20:05, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

That sounds good. Thanks for fixing up the article. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 21:10, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

How do I get a draft article moved from my user space

I have created a draft article for a person in my home state (Victoria, Australia), but I wrote it in my user space (User:Browak/Melissa Lowe). I now believe that it should have been created in a Draft space (I have never tried creating an article in Wikipedia before, so I am a complete newbie). I also looked at whether the draft article can be moved, but I now also understand that to do so I have to be an Autoconfirmed user, which I am not. Is there a way to get the draft article moved? If not, is there an alternative, such as simply rewriting the article from scratch in the Draft space? Please forgive me if I am using incorrect terminology or have overlooked something basic. Thanks. Browak (talk) 11:20, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Done. Draft:Melissa Lowe. Next time, you can click on the 3 dots on the page and select "Move". qkuldo(tell me about it) 11:38, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Oops, sorry. That was for mobile. For computer, simply click on "Move" on the Actions sidebar on the right side of the screen. More details can be found in Wikipedia:Moving pages. qkuldo(tell me about it) 11:44, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Not yet Qkuldo. Browak needs to get autoconfirmed first. Cabayi (talk) 11:57, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Oh sorry, forgot to mention that. Thanks though! qkuldo(tell me about it) 12:00, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for the assistance. Browak (talk) 22:23, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi Browak. Now that someone has moved the page to the draft namespace, I suggest you submit it to Wikipedia:Article for creation for review. You can do this clicking on the "Submit the draft for review" button at the top of the page. I don't suggest you do this now, though, because it's not clear how the subject of the draft meets WP:GNG or WP:NPOLITICIAN. Very few candidates for public office meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines just for being a candidate; so, there's typically needs to be some other claim that the person is Wikipedia Wikipedia notable. I'm not sure being on the winning side of a High Court challenge is going to be enough in Lowe's case.-- Marchjuly (talk) 12:09, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I will take another look at the draft requirements. Browak (talk) 22:22, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

I can't move my user page and its subpages before deletion

In February 2022, I asked here for help to get rid of my current user page and the little subpages that I created like a decade ago. I really insist to delete the pages and make myself a new user page without history. Before I mark it with the deletion template db-u1 I need to move the user page and its talk page to another page like «Old user page» under my username. I just decided now after more than four years to carry this out, but I can't do this because I get an error message saying that I don't have a permission to do this or that it violates a page rename rule. דויד פון תמר (talk) 19:37, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

I'm confused about what you really want, because you talked about trying to save the exact things that you're also saying to delete. Which parts do you really think should be deleted forever and not be saved anywhere? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 20:35, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

If you're trying to delete the history list of all the things you've edited, then this is not going to do it. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 20:38, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

If you only want a brand-new clean user page, and you aren't asking to delete your history of editing other articles, then this will work. You need to save your material at home on your own machine, not on any part of Wikipedia - for example copy and paste into a Notepad document and then save it. (Don't use Word or other word processors, because they corrupt what you're trying to save. Just plain text is what you want.) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 20:53, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

I want to only delete my user page and create a new user page (the page that starts with User:) and the little user pages that I have created a decade ago (they are also in my user space; I think they are small templates). My user page is mostly empty, there's not much to save. It only says that I'm active on the Hebrew Wikipedia. I'll create a new user page once my current user page gets deleted. But I was worried that if I don't move it to another subpage then my account might get deleted or that I would not be able to create a new user page in my account because the previous one was deleted and it would be like trying to undelete the current user page. Considering this, can you confirm it is safe to put the deletion template db-u1 on my active user page? דויד פון תמר (talk) 22:08, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

It is safe - I'll just go ahead and delete it for you already. I'll also delete the userboxes. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:13, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! But if I will create a new user page for my account in the future, will it restore the version history of the old user page? It would be very unfortunate if the version history will be restored. I used too many user boxes a decade ago that I later recanted and wanted to erase from my user page history, which is why I requested to delete the entire user page. דויד פון תמר (talk) 22:34, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

It starts again from new. Only admins can restore the deleted revisions, and they're not going to do that unless you specifically ask. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:42, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

You may find it useful to know that if a page is under your old username, admins will usually still delete it under a U1 request from your new username (it may help to supply some explanation, perhaps in an edit summary). -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:06, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Dealing with a Draft made for Malicious Purposes

I encountered this draft made for malicious purposes and am not sure exactly how to deal with it. This draft is completely falsified and almost certainly apart of a scam. The user claims to have a prestigious chess title of International Master (IM), however, their source citing this title does not work, and this rank does not appear on the official chess rankings list (FIDE). I also did some further research into it, and they also sell coaching services and chess books at a premium rate, using this title. It's clear that the intention of the draft is to simply seem accredited to be able to sell these services. I am newer to Wikipedia, so I am not sure what exactly to do regarding this draft. I would appreciate community feedback on how to proceed with this. Horseflyz57 (talk) 20:43, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

If it had explicitly promotional language, it could be speedy deleted under CSD G11. However, since it's clearly not going to be accepted anytime soon, it's not obviously promotional or malicious, and the creator hasn't been trying to publish it since it was declined, it can probably just be left alone. ^{In solidarity,} 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 ^{(They/them • Talk • Contribs)} 20:52, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Lynch44 gave you some advice on their user talk page. The draft was not accepted and is not likely to be, so no one's going to be using it to sell anything. 331dot (talk) 20:53, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

I appreciate the feedback. The draft itself is not promotional, but its based upon falsified content and a singular source, which no longer exists because the website was taken down. It is still in Google's records and helps to validate this false narrative. I just believe that it should be removed, because all of the relevant information listed in the draft is uncited and incorrect, so it makes no sense to even keep it as a draft as to even allow such behaviours. Horseflyz57 (talk) 00:48, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

A note @Horseflyz57: "Malicious" means harm is their primary goal - it's the wrong word for someone whose goal is money, even if they don't care about causing harm along the way. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 21:06, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Is someone harassing me on my user page?

I'm an active editor on the Hebrew Wikipedia and I haven't made any actual contributions on the English Wikipedia. But some user has just dropped a comment in English and Hebrew insulting my English as "not good enough to be useful" (I'm an MA English student, never asked their opinion about my English, never made any contributions in English) and "letting me know" about the Hebrew Wikipedia (but that's where I'm active... why mention this?). How did they even find me? Is this harassment, and if so, where can I report them? דויד פון תמר (talk) 01:03, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

How is this harassment? A new user appears to have made a mistake, and when you questioned their post to your talk page, they immediately agreed and apologized: "Yes, I am sorry." Meters (talk) 01:18, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

I didn't see it; I saw their reply only after writing here. I was too hasty. דויד פון תמר (talk) 01:26, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

OK, and as for "How did they even find me?" you have made several edits to English Wikipedia in the last few days, and your user name is obviously Hebrew. Meters (talk) 01:32, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Could someone fix a link in User:Rlink2/Music 3?

Could someone please change a link in User:Rlink2/Music 3?

"Mantric" to "Mantric (band)"

The page is extremely large, and I cannot edit it on my smartphone because the browser keeps failing while loading the editor.

Thank you!

~2026-52091-03 (talk) 21:16, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

 Done. Deor (talk) 21:35, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! :) ~2026-52091-03 (talk) 03:54, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

The page, which starts off as a mere list of links (I looked no further) -- weighs over 1.8 MB and is in the userspace of somebody who hasn't made any edit to it for over four years or to any page for over two. Does its existence benefit Wikipedia? -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 21:41, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Is it functioning as an article? If it is, then I'd call that the opposite of a benefit, and I'd hope that was grounds for deletion. Wikipedia being not a link repository could conceivably apply to it as well. But is it normal to delete under these circumstances? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 22:33, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

The links are wlinks, not external links, and it certainly doesn't have the appearance of an article. Though the page is huge, I did not see it as worthy of deletion. Deor (talk) 23:14, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to fall under any of the kinds of page described in What may I not have in my user pages?, so no, deletion would not be the normal course. (And of course "deletion" wouldn't straightforwardly save space, as it doesn't involve actual deletion.) Presumably ~2026-52091-03 finds it worthwhile, but for what purpose? (Incidentally, there are other, similarly huge pages where that one comes from: some of these.) -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 23:32, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Hired by an academic research institution to write their page

I'd rather not fall afoul of Wiki policy, as well as waste a bunch of time writing a page that doesn't see the light of day because I screwed up.

Is there a FAQ for hired writers such as myself? I can say up front this institution is housed at a name-brand university and its founder has plenty of publications to his credit.

Thanks for any help you can provide.

Sincerely,

beepollen Beepollen (talk) 19:41, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Please check out WP:PAID and WP:COI, thank you Theevu (talk) 19:45, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

And then WP:NORG and WP:42. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 20:02, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

But first of all, I recommend you read the essay WP:PAIDADVICE, and show it to your employers. ColinFine (talk) 20:32, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

"their page" is an encyclopedia article about them, not "their page". They have their own website that is theirs. Read WP:OWN. Cabayi (talk) 20:36, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Beepollen, and welcome to the Teahouse.

It occurs to me that the answers you have received (including from me) have been rather brusque.

That is not how we usually want to welcome editors to the Teahouse.

Thank you for being up-front about your status as a paid editor.

What all the replies are tending to is that what you are trying to do is likely to be impossible, and if you don't succeed it probably won't be because you "screwed up". ColinFine (talk) 22:13, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Uhhh, OK. This is eye-opening, to say the least, the "impossible" part. Looking around Wiki entries for universities, I see plenty of schools and colleges that are not markedly different than the institution that's hired me. So, to hear "You can't" is jarring, because I'm finding page after page where it's been done. Beepollen (talk) 23:04, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

@Beepollen There are a huge number of articles on Wikipedia that don't meet our requirements, but haven't been subject to appropriate scrutiny for one reason or another. That's why the existence of other, similar articles isn't a valid argument for the soundness of any other article. We judge each prospective article on its individual merits against our requirements.

I really suggest you read WP:PAIDADVICE which was linked above. I'm the one who wrote it initially and it was designed to explain to editors exactly like you precisely why you aren't remotely likely to succeed in this endeavour. Athanelar (talk) 23:21, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

So my mistake was in being up-front with what I'm doing.

Good to know. Beepollen (talk) 23:24, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

No, that wasn't a mistake. Paid editors have a very poor record of flying under the radar as the community has a long history of catching undisclosed paid editing (with an assist from Wikipedia filters too), and the consequences for their ability to edit the project and for the content they create are much, much worse than they are for someone who fully disclosed things. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 23:34, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

You would not be any more likely to succeed in getting your article published, if that's what you mean. Nor do the issues that you will run into have anything to do with your disclosure. Again, please read the essay. The problem you're going to run into is that you're an editor with no experience in writing Wikipedia articles which makes the task difficult enough as is, and when you combine that with the fact that your employer is (whether they state it explicitly or not) expecting you to do something directly contrary to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines by bringing them publicity, the odds are heavily stacked against you.

We tell you this for your own good, it is only your own time and the time of your employer that you will end up wasting in this almost-certainly-doomed endeavour. There are editors who have been active here for 10+ years who have never seen a single person in your position succeed; so you are taking the chance that you will be the 0.1% or less who manages to do it Athanelar (talk) 23:45, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Please also note the disclaimer at the top of PAIDADVIVE:

This is an essay... It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not ... a Wikipedia policy, as it has not been reviewed by the community.

We won't know whether or not you can succeed, until you submit a draft at WP:AfC for community review; but it's certainly not impossible for you to get a good-quality article published by that avenue.

WP:PAID has the policy. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 06:10, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

@Beepollen Another aspect of this: you said that your employer is housed at a name-brand university. This means that the examples you gave are not even valid ones by your own standards; you showed that actual entire universities are represented on Wikipedia, and did not bother trying to show that sub-units of those universities are also represented in the same way. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 05:59, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Both of the examples given are sub-units of universities. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 06:08, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Norms about adding descriptions

Heya! Long-time reader, but very new editor here.

I came across an article about an educator/woman of letters, which specifically mentioned her membership in the Dunning School of Reconstruction history.

I added a link, but would it be within wikipedia norms to also add a half-sentence description of what the Dunning School was/is? It's a reasonably controversial topic, and also I don't have a great feel for how much detail would be reasonable for a smallish article like this.

Thanks! Lotsofsmallthings (talk) 11:49, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Lotsofsmallthings, that's an excellent question which is unlikely to have a single answer. There will be differences depending on the article, and depending on the information in question, and depending on editorial judgement. I like to look at the sources for these sorts of things. On that page, the vassar source says mostly what is on the page already. However, the Goergia Encyclopedia source, already on the article, says that her work was "differed conspicuously in its moderate racial views" compared to other outputs from that school of history, so some expansion may be helpful. CMD (talk) 12:00, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

That makes sense, thanks. Lotsofsmallthings (talk) 12:18, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Special tag for biography of a living person

At the request of my former employer (I am retired), I translated a German-language biography at the German Wikipedia site about him to English, published here Niels Kuster -- I, of course, declared that I was paid for my time to do this task, hence the paid contribution tag. Since then, he has received offers from others to produce a Wikipedia biography for him because of his extensive contributions to research in the field of electromagnetics. He forwards the offers to me -- we both find it odd that the people making these offers didn't find the 2 articles about him on Wikipedia -- when you google Niels Kuster, both the English and German wikipedia entries are among the top 5 hits; google Niels Kuster wikipedia and the English language one rises to the top.

I have 2 questions: 1) is there a particulat tag I should add to the article to indicate that it is a biography (Living person was already there, and I just today added Biography [genre]; 2) Iam guessing that the people reaching out to Niels would expect to be paid for their time -- is that ok by Wikipedia standards? GoneDutch (talk) 06:57, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi GoneDutch. Kuster can pay anyone he likes as much as he wants to create a Wikipedia article about him, but that's an agreement between he and they and doesn't directly involve Wikipedia per se. As long as the person creating the article complies with Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure (Wikipedia policy) and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (Wikipedia guideline), they can't be accused of undisclosed paid-editing. If the person is translating the German Wikipedia article into English, they will also need to comply with Wikipedia:Translation. Kuster should be aware, though, that whatever agreement he enters into with a third-party doesn't mean any article they create will be 100% guaranteed to survive a deletion challenge just because it paid for it.

Subjects are required to meet Wikipedia:Notability for a stand-alone article to be written about them, and for living people this typically means clearly meeting Wikipedia:Notability (people). It's also important for Kuster to understand that each of the different language Wikipedias are separate projects with their own policies/guidelines and their own communities applying those policies/guidelines. Since English Wikipedia is the largest of the different language Wikipedias and also has the largest communities, its policies/guidelines tend to be applied more rigorously than they might on some other Wikipedias. So, any English Wikipedia about Kuster will be assessed in terms of English Wikipedia policies/guidelines and being written about on German Wikipedia doesn't automatically mean "Wikipedia notable" on English Wikipedia as explained in WP:OTHERLANGS: it can sometimes help but is not a guarantee.

As for search result hits, they have really nothing to do with Wikipedia other than Wikipedia tends to appear at the top or near the top of search results because its a extremely well-known online encyclopedia, and can't really be affected expect as explained in Wikipedia:Controlling search engine indexing. If people are contacting Kuster to create an English Wikipedia article about him, then their reasons for doing so are really only known to them. Kuster should, however, be aware of Wikipedia:Scam warning because there are those who will happily take his money and promise him things they are simply incapable of delivering.

There's no particular tag that might apply to a WP:BLP article other than those considered to be maintenance templates like these. Articles about living persons are typically categorized as Category:Living people and there might also be something about this at the top of the article's talk page in a WikiProject banner, but there's not a tag stating something like "this article about a living person already exists so don't contact them asking to create one" (if that's what you're asking) because it going to be assumed (I guess) that would be obvious to whoever sees the Wikipedia article.

Finally, you uploaded File:NielsKuster.png to Wikimedia Commons but attributed the photo to someone else. Unless you're the same person and attributing yourself for some odd reason, you're not really the copyright holder of the photo and Commons is going to need someway of verifying the real copyright holder's c:COM:CONSENT. This can either be done by email or as explained in c:COM:VRT#When contacting VRT is unnecessary. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:40, 29 September 2026 (UTC); edited post to change "can" to "can't" in the second sentence per below. -- 11:03, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the prompt reply! The photo was provided to me by Niels -- I believe but am not sure that he holds the copyright -- I will look into the regulations. GoneDutch (talk) 07:49, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

You also seem to have made an edit request on the article's talk page, but it's not clear whether you received a response. In general, it's better to make such requests as explained in Wikipedia:Edit requests, and it's really helpful to use the Wikipedia:Edit Request Wizard when doing so. It also doesn't look like you included a hyperlink/interlangauge in your edit summary attributing the German Wikipedia article about the as the source of your translation. It may not matter, but it might be best to dot that particular "i" as explained in WP:TRANSLATE#Attribution requirements on the article's talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:57, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Marchjuly, "they can be accused of undisclosed paid-editing"? Can't surely? Cabayi (talk) 09:59, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for catching that error Cabayi. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:03, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

If there are no prior written agreements about the copyright of a certain photo, then it usually belongs to the photographer - not the subject. I don't know whether the laws are similar or different where this photo was taken, but in the US and Canada, the photographer cannot give up their copyright by any informal method; they are forced to continue holding the copyright even if they don't want it, unless they give a formal notice in writing. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 13:04, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

@GoneDutch When people contact him wanting to write on Wikipedia, it is likely a scam. Please see Wikipedia:Scam warning. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 13:16, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

What do you do when..?

What do you do when a temporary account is unreasonably bullied and not treated in good faith?

I am just one person that read the Wiki, saw something disagreeable, and made edits accordingly. I should not be accused of being a sock of some other account just because my opinion happens to align with that user. Why is it so hard to comprehend that two or more unrelated people can share the same stance?

All attempts to communicate this are being unreasonable shut down - it's like people insist on saying what they want to say, and take actions, but refuse to let me talk and listen to me.

This has needlessly escalated from a simple matter about content to ad hominem attacks against me even as I'm trying to clarify and explain the matter about content.

~2026-52074-69 (talk) 04:42, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

I'd skeptically observe what's said in, and against, the "[accusation(s)] of being a sock of some other account" (the account in this case being MAWJ The Awesome, I suppose). -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 05:19, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Accusations aside, the core of the issue seems to be the reliability/notability of the analysis site you are adding to pages. Any source without established reliability or verifiability (e.g. documented in an article) needs a very good reason to be added. You'd probably face less pushback if you were citing a website whose models had been independently verified and which has published a more substantial outline of the methodology. Gebble (talk) 13:23, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

It looks like our complainant has been blocked! If it walks like a sock, and talks like a sock... Gebble (talk) 13:43, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

What is my option when another editor refuses to share his rationale in the content dispute?

Hi,

I'm an editor who started editing Wikipedia two weeks ago. I am in a content dispute with another user, but he refuses to share his rationale in the content dispute he initiated.

I'm confused what to do. What's my option?
He's also threatening me to call the admins if I do not just give in and agree with his position, when I know nothing about his rationale.

This has been going on for the last five days and we are getting nowhere. Censorless (talk) 10:49, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

I guess this is about the discussion on your talk-page. If the discussion seems to be stuck, try getting in a third opinion for starters. Fwiw, I have the rather strong feeling you are using a LLM at least in your talk-page comments, so let me link you to WP:LLMTALK, and generally to WP:LLM. Lectonar (talk) 10:58, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

No, this is about the discussion on my talk page and this article talk page.

The other party listed for a third opinion, but attached a description that is totally new to me.

I never used a LLM. All my communications on Wikipedia have been hand-written. Censorless (talk) 11:08, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

A third opinion is a standard option for editorial disputes. You may want to read WP:Dispute resolution, which covers places you might ask for input (eg. WikiProjects). CMD (talk) 11:47, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

I see. Then I will wait for the Third Opinion editor to intervene, while also studying what WikiProjects are.

Thanks for your input. Censorless (talk) 12:15, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

The other user has explained his rationale - removing repeated content. Your replies on the talk page clearly respond to that point. It is hard to reconcile that with your summary of the situation here. MrOllie (talk) 11:55, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

The thing is that he does not explain any further than "duplicate = bad" while deleting sentences containing non-duplicate information as well.

I kept asking him for his rationale on what convinced him that those sentence were 'duplicate' and 'out-of-order' enough to justify deletion, and I received nothing so far. I even gave him examples of explanations I need to understand his position specific to the sentences in question, and still got no further explanation than the initial "duplicate = bad" one.

I tried my best to find if there is an Wikipedia rule that unconditionally deletes duplicate sentences regardless of context, but so far, I could not find any. Censorless (talk) 12:12, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

And the sentences in question are in a section dedicated to a brief overview of the entire article; they do not overlap with other sentences in the same overview section.

One is a mixture of new information + information briefly mentioned in another section, and another is a paraphrased version of another sentence in yet another section. Censorless (talk) 12:41, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

That you are not satisfied with their rationale does not mean that they are refusing to share it. MrOllie (talk) 12:44, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Should I edit the summary into 'refusing to provide explanations of his position and work together to build consensus'?

Is it okay to edit a post here after it's already submitted? Censorless (talk) 13:03, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

No don't edit posts after others have already replied. In the future just avoid making such misleading statements, they do not help your case. MrOllie (talk) 13:06, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

No reason to object to that.

I considered "duplicate = bad" as more of a verdict than a rationale. If that was misleading, I apologize.

Maybe I had to phrase it like: "When asked for defense and explanation of his judgment, none was provided". Censorless (talk) 13:29, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

That would also be highly misleading, based reading the relevant discussions, particularly the preceeding one at Talk:Hangul which goes a long way to explaining why the other editor is getting shorter and shorter with you. I think the best advice I can give you is to read WP:TLDR and WP:WALLOFTEXT throughly and consider that your writing style is not doing you any favors when writing to persuade. MrOllie (talk) 13:37, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the other editor getting shorter and shorter. Hangul was my first edit, so I knew little to nothing about Wikipedia conventions; the other editor actually did a huge favor for me by giving me harsh, yet accurate lessons on Wikipedia conventions like sourcing and Wikitext. I probably need to work on adapting my writing style for Wikipedia as well.

On the History of Hangul though, I just can't understand why this article's talk-page topic has to stalemate this much. I wanted to end this quick, but I haven't been given any useful info I can work with about the content. I really don't know what to do. Censorless (talk) 13:56, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

If you are reading Talk:Hangul, it'd be very demanding to read from the start to the end, especially because most of the discussions did not contribute to the conclusion of the dispute.

It'd be faster to just read from the end, because the dispute on Talk:Hangul got resolved instantly when I pointed out that the other editor's knowledge of the subject matter was wrong; the other editor had been building his position based on a false information all along. Censorless (talk) 14:05, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Concert tour name question

Hey all,

I'm currently writing an article on Brandon Flowers's newest concert tour in support of his third album, Thrasher. I'm writing the article under the name of Thrasher Tour, but upon further investigation, it's not nessecarily explicitly stated as that anywhere. All press releases from Flowers refer to it as "Brandon Flowers On Tour" or "North American Tour 2026" or simply "Tour 2026" (even on merch), "in support of Thrasher" or rarely, "Thrasher Tour". I'm just kind of torn on what to call the article, so I was looking for input from others.

Thanks, –SassafrassAlabass (talk · contribs · finished projects) 05:44, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi SassafrassAlabass. The titles of Wikipedia articles are, in principle, expected to be in accordance with WP:COMMONNAME; so, I'd imagine the same would apply to articles about concert tours. There is some guidance on this found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Concerts, but you could always ask on that WikiProject's talk page too if you're looking for input with those interested in creating/editing articles about concerts/tours. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:31, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

I figured I should have asked there but seeing as the project is largely inactive with not many responses on the talk page, I opted for the Teahouse. –SassafrassAlabass (talk · contribs · finished projects) 15:17, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

As long as you give your draft what a non-fan uninterested person would consider an honest non-tricky name, you're fine. The name might get adjusted after you submit it, and that's OK. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 06:35, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

(In general, as always on Wikipedia, whatever the reporters for reliable sources are calling it, that's what it's called.) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 06:42, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Requesting to correct that Kam Dev Rao hindi page.

Kam Dev Rao's hindi page is totally different from english one with distorted facts. I am not good in hindi so if you know someone who can write in hindi, please ask from him to edits that page too. TheLostComet (talk) 15:20, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Each Wikipedia is run independently from each other, and this is the English Wikipedia. You can reach out to the Hindi Wikipedia here , and they apparently also have something similar to our WP:EMBASSY at . LkL-70547 (talk) 15:31, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Sungazing

If I'm posting a picture of me looking at the sun with a telescope what would be the best way to bestow this wisdom to human kind? Sun369gazer (talk) 03:04, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

To do so on some website other than Wikipedia. -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 03:26, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Or better yet, not to perpetrate hoaxes. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:58, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

could you elaborate how it's a hoax? Sun369gazer (talk) 14:41, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

probably because doing so would blind you (unless there is a type of telescope that allows it, im not sure) The Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk) 15:50, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

what do I do if I make a draft with the wrong title

Hi I accidentally made Draft:703 (disamboguation) instead of Draft:703 (disambiguation) what do I do? (please dont question it) ~2026-48026-60 (talk) 18:19, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

I've moved your page to the correct title. ^{In solidarity,} 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 ^{(They/them • Talk • Contribs)} 18:25, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Advice on sources for Meikai

Hello,

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus. Athanelar (talk) 19:15, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

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

I am a co-founder and CTO of Meikai and have a financial interest in the company. I am disclosing this connection before asking for advice about a possible article.

Meikai was founded in 2025 and develops software for measuring brands’ visibility in responses from generative AI services, including ChatGPT, Gemini, Perplexity and Microsoft Copilot. Before submitting a draft through Articles for Creation, I would appreciate an assessment of the available sources.

The press coverage includes:

1. Engage — “Meikai arriva in Italia con Luca Aiello: focus su GEO e visibilità negli LLM”, 1 September 2026. An article discussing the company’s founders, activities, locations, financing and expansion into Italy.
2. Open Garden — interview with Meikai’s founders, 15 July 2026. A detailed interview covering the product, methodology, business model and market. Much of the information comes from the founders’ answers.
3. CB News — “Mesure GEO : Media Figaro signe avec Meikai”, 19 April 2026. Coverage of a partnership providing advertisers with measurements of their visibility in generative AI services.
4. The Media Leader — “IA : Media Figaro et Meikai s’associent pour piloter la performance GEO des marques”, 20 April 2026. Another article about the same partnership.
5. BFM Business / Tech & Co — interview with Rachid Ait Addi, 28 September 2026. A dedicated television interview with Meikai’s CEO about the company’s activities.
6. La Tribune — “CMA CGM Start-up Awards : ces pépites qui dessinent l’avenir”, 24 September 2026. Coverage of the award winners, including a short passage about Meikai.

Additional references document the company’s work and award:

1. Bain & Company — “Winning Over the Customer in the Age of AI: A New Horizon for Luxury”, 30 June 2026. A study with Comité Colbert identifying Meikai as a research partner and describing its analysis of consumer prompts and brand visibility.
2. Criteo — Interparfums case study. Identifies Meikai as Interparfums’ data partner for measuring brand visibility during a ChatGPT advertising campaign.
3. CMA CGM — official announcement of the Startup Awards winners. Confirms Meikai won the Next-Generation Media category in September 2026.

For transparency, Bain and Criteo are connected research or commercial sources, and the award announcement comes from its organiser. CMA CGM’s award benefits page also lists coverage through BFM Business, La Provence and La Tribune among the benefits, which may be relevant when assessing the independence of that coverage.

I understand that interviews, brief announcements, partner publications and multiple reports of the same event do not necessarily establish notability.

Which of these sources, if any, qualify as significant independent secondary coverage? Is there enough qualifying coverage to proceed with an article, or should I wait for further reporting?

AI assistance was used to compile the sources and prepare this question.

Thank you.

Jbpringuey (talk) 19:06, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Please don't use AI to talk to other editors here. If you're requesting human attention, put in some human effort. Athanelar (talk) 19:14, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Announcing the death of a family member

Hello. For disclosure, I'm an active Wikipedian, but have elected to separate this post from my account for somewhat obvious reasons. A close family member who is the subject of an article here has died, and I'm uncertain as to whether or not an obituary will be published (and frankly, at least for the immediate moment I don't plan on asking the next of kin). Nevertheless, the fact remains, and I'm uncertain how to go about making that fact known given standard sourcing requirements, though they appear ambiguous on procedure for initial informance, since not everyone receives an obituary in a major publication, or necessarily at all. It will be several days at least before this change would be performed regardless, but I thought I'd raise the issue in the meantime to determine what next steps might look like.

My thanks in advance,

~2026-52182-81 (talk) 22:37, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

As far as I know, it is wrong to consider "initially informing" Wikipedia in any way at all (except what you've already just done, without the name, which is fine). Reliable sources are the only possibility, and if Wikipedia therefore cannot mention the person's death until much much later, there's nothing wrong with that. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 22:59, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

In particular, don't add any kind of alerts, hints, or other material anywhere, unless with a reliable source citation. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 23:05, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

My response applies to all articles on Wikipedia that mention the person. But what about your user page or your talk page? For those, I don't know, especially when it concerns a person who's the subject of an article. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 23:18, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

You can send proof (or notice) of their passing by email to the VRT team. Your identity will be treated in confidence. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 19:29, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Login

Do I login into my Wikipedia account on my phone the same way as I do on my computer? Using the same username and password? Larry Talley (talk) 20:57, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Yes. You may also opt to create a new account specifically for your mobile devices as long as you link the two accounts. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Look out it's Jimothy!} 21:00, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Proofs of convergence of random variables

Hi all, I just come across Proofs of convergence of random variables and it's not like anything I have seen on Wikipedia. It doesn't look like it can pass WP:GNG, but it sells itself as a "supplemental page". I know we have some supplemental pages like DABs, redirects, etc. which can have lower criteria for inclusion, but I have never seen one for maths before. Is this common and is there relevant guidelines for this? LkL-70547 (talk) 15:16, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

@LkL-70547, that page has been around since 2009! According to the creation, it was moved out of its parent article (Convergence of random variables). You are free to submit a request for merge if you think the article is a useless fork and it should return to its parent. Phoenix ‣ _Talk // ^{Contributions} 16:36, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Honestly I'm pretty tempted to just PROD or AfD it, unless there is a "notability math" guideline I am not aware of (frustratingly that's not what WP:NMATH is about :/). Since on first principle none of the material is sourced, meaning zero amount of them can be usable in the main article. LkL-70547 (talk) 18:04, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi @LkL-70547 and welcome to the Teahouse. I too haven't seen anything like this before. The article Convergence of random variables dates to the early years of Wikipedia when editors were just working out ways of handling things. It is not a useless fork; instead it is a way of including the information in the article. See this line from the article and click on the [proof] link.

• Convergence in probability implies convergence in distribution.^[proof]

These days we would probably write it using WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. StarryGrandma (talk) 16:49, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

And there are more of these. See Category:Article proofs. StarryGrandma (talk) 16:51, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Interesting! Would this be analogous to a list article then? Since I think this falls under WP:AVOIDSPLIT on notability grounds, as I don't forsee it having a lot of independent secondary sigcov. LkL-70547 (talk) 18:01, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

@LkL-70547, WP:AVOIDSPLIT is about creating standalone articles. This type of proof article started out as a subpage of the original article until it was realized that subpages weren't allowed. The best place to discuss this would be at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics. They have had various discussions on how to handle proofs, and at one time had a project Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Proofs. StarryGrandma (talk) 21:25, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

i am homemade singer

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 home made singer and i want succes and money i am poor ~2026-52209-38 (talk) 20:14, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

We cannot help with that on Wikipedia. qcne (talk) 20:17, 29 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.

Suggesting an article?

I would like to suggest an article about documentary filmmaker Chris Farina, founder of Rosalia Films. I am his niece and therefore have a conflict of interest, so I understand I can't create or edit the article directly.

Independent sources that may help establish notability include:

• https://augustafreepress.com/news/charlottesville-filmmaker-living-with-als-makes-death-the-focus-of-final-doc/
• https://www.cvilletomorrow.org/west-main-street-brings-local-history-to-virginia/
• https://www.wvtf.org/news/2019-02-12/film-features-college-students-sent-to-prison
• https://www.wvtf.org/news/2023-10-31/charlottesville-filmmaker-to-be-honored-for-putting-virginians-in-the-spotlight
• https://www.piedmontforum.com/2025/12/07/a-story-of-elevating-others/
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Peace_and_Other_Fourth-Grade_Achievements
• https://uvamagazine.org/articles/30_years_of_UVA_pep_band
• https://augustafreepress.com/news/charlottesville-documentary-on-addiction-to-make-nationwide-debut-on-pbs/

His film "World Peace and Other 4th Grade Achievements" already has its own Wikipedia article. Is there a way to provide these sources for consideration by an independent writer or editor? I'm happy to clarify factual details if needed. Ldunham00 (talk) 03:44, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

@Ldunham00: Hey there, and welcome to the Teahouse. WP:Requested articles is to my knowledge your best bet - you can place his name (with the sources you have provided) under the relevant category, and an interested editor (at some point, the take-up there is not particuarly quick) can create the article. The other option I am aware of is the the reward board, the only sanctioned method of paid editing on Wikipedia.

However, neither of these options guarantee an article. The subject still needs to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines to not be deleted, which (generally) requires at least two reliable, secondary sources with extensive coverage on the subject to exist. I haven't looked at your provided sources for notability, though I am happy to do so if wanted? Sycerion (talk) 06:18, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Thank you so much! If you would be willing to take a peek at the sources to let me know if you think they would cut it so I know I'm not wasting my time pursuing it further, I'd be extremely grateful. He's gotten a lot of coverage but I don't know if the sources are what Wikipedia is looking for. Ldunham00 (talk) 18:12, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

@Ldunham00: Thanks for your response. I am just one editor, and thanks to Wikipedia' consensus-based discussion model my opinion is not authoritative - I may feel that the sources are enough for an article to be kept, while others may not.

That said, I am not entirely confident in this passing the Articles for Creation process. Wikipedia's general notability guideline states that articles need significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Most of the sources you have provided incorporate substantial interviews - as they are not independent, they do not count towards assessing notability. However, this is definitely not as clear-cut as some articles we see go through this process. Our notability guideline for creative professionals does allow for notability when they have created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work. As there is an article for World Peace and Other Fourth-Grade Achievements, Farina would likely pass this guideline, as the work would be considered 'significant' under Wikipedia's standards.

Honestly I think you would be best to have a go at Articles for Creation, as this is (to me) not obviously non-notable. Sycerion (talk) 07:20, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Thank you!! Ldunham00 (talk) 20:01, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

@Ldunham00 Thank you for declaring your conflict of interest. Wikipedia doesn't, by policy, prevent you from writing a draft article about a topic with which you have a COI. However, policy insists you use the WP:Articles for creation process so that experienced editors can review your writing before it is accepted into the encyclopedia. Relying on WP:Requested articles is unlikely to be successful. If you decide to go ahead, please read Help:Your first article and WP:NOLLM and maybe practice first by expanding articles on similar topics that already exist. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:38, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Thank you so much, I may try that because it sounds like it may go a little faster than hoping someone else takes up the job. Unfortunately he is dying of ALS (and making another film about it)... I'd like to try to get the article published while he's around to know it's on here. Ldunham00 (talk) 18:15, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

As a fellow Virginian, if you make or outline the draft, I'll be happy to contribute to improving it! If you can find more independent coverage, I think that would help a lot. Gebble (talk) 22:29, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Articles on Scribd

Is it appropriate that numerous Wikipedia articles are on the Scribd website behind a paywall with the claim ""copyright © All Rights Reserved"?

I do not know where this situation should be posted for attention, so I post it here in the Teahouse.

I was doing research seeking a reference from Wikipedia article "John von Neumann". I happen to come across a link "https://www.scribd.com/document/661482564/John-von-Neumann". I was surprised to see that this "document" is a copy of the Wikipedia article "John von Neumann". Scribd, indicates that the user who uploaded it holds a "copyright © All Rights Reserved" on the document. It is behind Scribd's paywall which restricts Scribd's website requiring users to pay money or sign up for a paid subscription to read or view it.

The Scribd user that uploaded this Wikipedia article to Scribd is "thomas555". I looked to see thomas555's activity uploading articles to Scribd. thomas555 has uploaded 25 Wikipedia articles. In uploading these articles, thomas555 is making the claim that he is the author of each article

I tried to make a demand that these articles be removed from Scribed, however, I can only do it if I am "the exclusive rights holder or the duly authorized representative of the exclusive rights holder to submit a legally valid DMCA takedown notice."

What needs to be done to have Scribd remove these Wikipedia articles from their website? Is there some Wikipedia process that addresses what appears to be unauthorized use and a false claim of having a "copyright © All Rights Reserved"? Osomite 🐻 (hablemos) 19:58, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Text on Wikipedia is licensed under the Creative Commons CC BY-SA 4.0 license, which means anyone anywhere is free to do whatever they want with it. However, this license is provided under the stipulation that the origin of the text (i.e., Wikipedia) be clearly attributed, and that any modifications of the text be released under the same license.

The question is; does the "Copyright - All Rights Reserved" notice on the Scribd website refer to the content being displayed, or to the website itself? It's pretty normal for websites to make note of the latter, so just because that notice is visible on screen does not mean they're necessarily claiming to reserve rights to the content being displayed. However, if the article is behind a paywall, then they're probably still breaking the license; since it also stipulates You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits (i.e., viewing, sharing and adapting the material); so if it's behind a paywall they are restricting that.

There doesn't seem to be any specific process for reporting this misuse to WMF or anything that I can find; WP:REUSE has guidance on it but no explanation of what to do if you find it being misused. Maybe it's worth shooting an email to the copyright complaints line info-en-c@wikimedia.org which is mostly for reporting copyright issues on wikipedia, but that's the closest I can find. Otherwise you could reach out to Scribd via email and explain that they're hosting content in violation of the license and see if they'll do anything about it. Athanelar (talk) 20:24, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

The copyright in material published in Wikipedia is held by the editor who added it, not by the Wikimedia Foundation, so it is only that editor who has legal standing to challenge violation of it.

See WP:Mirrors and forks#Things you need to know. ColinFine (talk) 20:43, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi Osomite. Just going to add to what ColinFine posted above by pointing out that very few articles only one author. This is discussed in the "Things you need to know" section ColinFine linked to in their post. In a case like this, there might be strength in numbers. The offending party and Scribd might find it easier to brush off the complaint of one unknown Wikipedian, but emails received from multiple authors of the same article whose work is also being infringed upon might have more of an impact. Be advised, though, at some point depending how long the process drags out, you and others may be asked at some point to provide information on your real world identities if you pursue this out in the real world legal system; so, that might be also something worth consideration. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:26, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Username with non-Latin letters on the English Wikipedia

I'm active on the Hebrew Wikipedia and I imagine that my current Hebrew username is opaque or unreadable and hard to type without copy-paste for English Wikipedia editors. Should I try to ask for a new username with Latin letters if I want to be active and collaborate with other editors on the English Wikipedia? דויד פון תמר (talk) 22:24, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

You're not required to change your username, and it's perfectly fine to have non Latin characters, but if you'd like it to be easier for people to mention you or navigate to your page, you can create a legitimate sockpuppet account in Latin letters (perhaps the transliteration of your Hebrew username, or something else), redirect all of the relevant pages to your real account's equivalents, and declare the relation between the accounts. It may also be helpful to set your signature to this name (but keep the links the same; the less redirects, the better) so it's intuitively clear what characters should be typed to mention you.

Hope this helps, but I'm sure someone a little bit more in the know in this area particularly will probably be along soon to help you a bit more. Cheers, and welcome to enwiki and the Teahouse! Shield ^{\\ |T| - |C| - Solidarity \\} 22:30, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

WP:NLS is the usual advice. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:48, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Thank you @Zzuuzz and @.sh1eldo7. My original username from almost a decade ago was Lispwave. I still think it's beautiful today, and it still redirects to my current username. I created it from the name of the Lisp programming language. I think maybe I can adopt my original username Lispwave as my primary username again. דויד פון תמר (talk) 22:58, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

... which is simpler because it involves keeping the same account and same username while making a mostly-cosmetic change to your signature. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 22:52, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

There's an editor whose signature is their Chinese-character name followed by their Latin-character name, and that seems to work well. I confess I can't tell one Chinese-character name from another very well, so seeing the English helps me remember who this is, while still keeping the preferred form of their name on display. M kuhner (talk) 01:40, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Policy on Translating Titles of Books That are not Currently Translated into Target Language

Hi, I'm working on translating some smaller articles from Belarusian to English. One of the authors I'm working on has relevant books not currently available in English translation. Is there a policy for renaming, translating, or using the original language name in these contexts? Should I default to my own translation of these title names? Should I default to the original language name in this context? Please let me know Wowthatsbroken (talk) 01:54, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi Wowthatsbroken. Before you proceed any further, you probably should take a look at Wikipedia:Translation (if you haven't already) and familiarize yourself with the boxes that need to be checked when translating articles from different Wikipedias into English. You should also take a look at WP:NBOOK and WP:OTHERLANGS for reference too because the fact that article exists on another Wikipedia doesn't automatically mean it should exist on English Wikipedia; a book would need to be shown to clearly be Wikipedia notable per English Wikipedia's notability guidelines for a stand-alone article to be written about it. As for the translating of titles, perhaps try asking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Books since this seems like something that probably has come up before, and a member of that WikiProject might be able to help sort things out for you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:17, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Perfect, Thank you very much! Wowthatsbroken (talk) 02:22, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Adding an article to a task force or subproject

I have recently created the stub T-sentence, and I would like to add it to the Philosophy of Language task force (which is this: Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy/Language). How would I go about doing this? PicoMath (talk) 03:05, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

@PicoMath: I've gone ahead and done this for you on the article's talk page. You can do this quite easily using the rater script - read the instructions there. Sycerion (talk) 03:13, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Or see Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy/Language#Project page tag. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:15, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

I have been blocked forever for an administrative like absolutist.

How I can be no bloc or disbloc by an administrative that acts like an absolutist. And say lays about me and my work.

That subject is called Pau Cabot in catalan edition, from Palma de Mallorca, also called Docosong. He blokc me forever. Who is this man, the sheriff o ranger from vikipèdia in catalan language. Who infravalorate my starting work and don't leave to make modifications an make a better work. That's the way to do it??? Where are the values and etic forms?

User: Pescallunes disseny i coneixement

I'm a Psichologist (UB University), Musicien and Art Paninting Pescallunes disseny i coneixement (talk) 22:34, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

This is English Wikipedia so we're not able to intervene with admin decisions on Catalan Wikipedia. If you wish to appeal the unblock, you will need to login to ca.wikipedia.org and appeal it there. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:48, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

thank you very much Pescallunes disseny i coneixement (talk) 23:39, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

It should be noted that it's doubtful many here would find fault with the administrator Docosong's actions here (and Pau Cabot and Docosong are two different pepole). You were asked about a conflict of interest, you described the subject as your client and yourself as a graphic and web designer and after off-Wiki information about your paid SEO editing were linked, you were blocked. You then reacted with a long, hostile block of text, and eventually had your talk page access and email access removed. There is no WMF project in which this kind of behavior is acceptable; I would recommend you take some time off to think about how you'd like to contribute to a project with a very different approach, and only then take only the proper avenues to appeal. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 07:11, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Mirette_Tarek_El-Hariri

Draft:Mirette_Tarek_El-Hariri

Please can u check this draft and help if I need to make any update RKM81 (talk) 07:01, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

I can't read Arabic. But it seems her best claim to notability is that she was the best actress in a non-notable film. This is not promising. Maproom (talk) 07:37, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Draft appears to contain the use of LLM without having used AI

Courtesy link: Draft:Darrel Moellendorf

My draft has been declined because it appears to contain text generated by a large language model. I have not used any kind of LLM though. On top of that it doesn't even contain any phrases that could seem like they've been created by AI. So I really don't understand why it was suspected of that. Happened after a couple of days of submitting it too. Resubmitting might lead to deletion it says. Do I have no other choice than to rewrite it? Hope someone can help. Thanks! PabloNormativeOrders (talk) 10:53, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

What was the process used for the initial writing? CMD (talk) 10:58, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Retrieving information from the sources I have looked at. PabloNormativeOrders (talk) 10:56, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

@PabloNormativeOrders Your draft contains symbols like 🎓 and 📝, which are weird if not added by an LLM. More to the point, the whole "Philosophy and Research" section is uncited to a source, which is against the policy at WP:biographies of living people. How are we to confirm that His work on climate justice defends an egalitarian version of cosmopolitanism. In this area he has been concerned to keep the importance of poverty eradication at the forefront of climate policy.? Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:02, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply! Didn't think of the symbols, that makes sense! Your also right about the "Philosophy and Research" section, thanks for that! PabloNormativeOrders (talk) 10:43, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Rewriting a Wikipedia article you just finished writing is easy - you're already familiar with all the sources and you know more or less how you structured it and what it said. You couldn't NOT know those things. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 14:49, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

You're right, rewriting shouldn't take too long even though I was quite happy about how I put the text together. Thanks for the reply! PabloNormativeOrders (talk) 10:47, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Quite a few software tools now are AI under the skin: users may not know. Grammarly, DeepL, "machine translation" programs can all be putting AI-style issues into your text. If you tell us your working pipeline we may be able to spot a problem of this kind. M kuhner (talk) 01:35, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Good point. Only used these tools to correctly put commas or whenever I was unsure if a German name should be displayed in Italics. I haven't used it to help me put the text together. Thanks for your reply though! PabloNormativeOrders (talk) 10:55, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Reviewing the draft-article for Bolaq Analysts Network

Courtesy link: Draft:Bolaq Analysts Network

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.

Thank you for the review and for pointing out the notability issue.

I have reviewed the references again and identified several independent secondary sources that provide substantial coverage of Bolaq Analysts Network, rather than merely mentioning the organization or listing its publications.

In particular:

1. Afghanistan International, 14 August 2026, “Hazaras Are Most Vulnerable Community Under Taliban Rule, Says Research Group.” The article provides extensive coverage of Bolaq Analysts Network's research report on the situation of Hazaras during the five years of Taliban rule. It discusses the organization's findings concerning security, political participation, economic conditions, religious rights, cultural rights, and legal protections.

2. KabulNow, 17 August 2026, “Bolaq Investigative Report: Hazaras Subjected to Systematic Discrimination and Violence Under Taliban Rule.” This is a detailed independent news report covering Bolaq Analysts Network's research and its findings concerning security, economic conditions, cultural and religious rights, the legal system, land confiscation, and forced displacement.

3. Etilaat Roz, 17 August 2026, “Bolaq Research Report: Hazaras Subjected to Systematic Discrimination and Violence.” This independent report discusses Bolaq Analysts Network and its research in substantial detail, including the organization's findings regarding discrimination, violence, security, economic conditions, cultural and religious restrictions, legal discrimination, land disputes, and displacement.

4. Afghanistan International, 15 March 2025, “A human rights organization in Denmark displayed photos of 3,000 victims of targeted attacks on Hazaras.” This article independently reports on an exhibition organized by Bolaq Analysts Network in Denmark and describes the organization's work documenting victims of attacks against Hazaras and its Hazara Genocide Archive.

In addition, Princeton University Library has independently archived and catalogued Bolaq Analysts Network's research publications, including its 2025 report on the situation of Hazaras under Taliban rule. I understand that an institutional catalogue is not, by itself, sufficient to establish notability, so I am treating it as supporting evidence rather than relying on it as the primary notability evidence.

I have therefore revised the references with particular attention to the three requirements mentioned in the review: significant coverage, reliable publication, and independence from the subject.

I would be grateful if the draft could be reconsidered in light of these independent sources. I am also happy to make any further changes to the article that are necessary to comply with Wikipedia's notability and sourcing guidelines.

Thank you very much Chilcharagh (talk) 07:24, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

I think you meant to post this at the Articles for Creation Help Desk. Here is the link to do so:

However, using an LLM to generate comments on Wikipedia is not allowed (see WP:LLMCOMM) so please use your own words to post there. Suðurhafsljósæta (talk) 08:56, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, I have already changed it. Sophiabennett (talk) 11:45, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Need help with Draft:Kuo Zhang Article

Hi all,

Any suggestion in getting this article Draft:Kuo Zhang better would be greatly appreciated.

Sophia Sophiabennett (talk) 18:46, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

You were told to rewrite the entire draft from scratch without AI, but GPTZero (which is not 100% reliable, but a decent starting point) still says your draft was entirely AI-generated. Pinging the editors who reviewed your draft previously: @Helpful Raccoon: @Athanelar: ^{In solidarity,} 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 ^{(They/them • Talk • Contribs)} 18:53, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

@Sophiabennett You've obviously still used AI in your latest revision of the draft; it's rife with WP:AIATTR. At this point your continued use of AI is becoming disruptive considering you've been informed about our prohibition multiple times. Athanelar (talk) 18:57, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I have wrote it in my words this time, i haven't submitted it yet. I don't want to do same mistake again and also don't want to annoy any Wikipedian who is taking out time and checking it. Sophiabennett (talk) 11:49, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

I want to create a humor page but I am confused about how to

Hi, I am Lutitium and I wanted to create a humor page like Association of Wikipedians Who Dislike Making Broad Judgments About the Worthiness of a General Category of Article, and Who Are in Favor of the Deletion of Some Particularly Bad Articles, but That Doesn't Mean They Are Deletionists but I am confused about how to do it. I have the general Idea, you have to go to meta wiki and make it there with the humour template but I have a sneaking suspicion that I may be wrong about that and I also have no idea about the details.

(In case I have made a spelling or grammar mistake, fix it)Anyways bye:D Lutitium (talk) 16:00, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi Lutitium. Humor pages can both be here and at meta. If it's here then the name should start with Wikipedia: or User:Lutitium/ so it doesn't count as an article, it should use {{Humor}}, it may be placed in Category:Wikipedia humor (not automatic from the template), and it could still be nominated for deletion if others find it inappropriate. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:47, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Thank you :D Lutitium (talk) 12:34, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Needing a link from google maps to wikipedia article

Pages: Mauda, Jharkhand

Narasandha

I have added display=title in coordinates, which will be visible on wikipedia map (With show nearby articles enabled). However i want link villages in google maps to wikipedia articles, so map explorers can see village's information. How i add link in villages? Rajdhani Fan Person (talk) 12:58, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Rajdhani Fan Person, and welcome to the Teahouse.

We cannot advise you how to add information to Google maps - this is a help desk for Wikipedia only.

Google certainly crawls Wikipedia articles to add information to its Google Knowledge Graph - I don't know whether it automatically adds information to its mapping database as well. ColinFine (talk) 15:07, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Clicking on a city in Google Earth (possibly Maps as well) usually links to a Wikipedia article, but that's something only Google can control, not Wikipedia. ^{In solidarity,} 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 ^{(They/them • Talk • Contribs)} 15:16, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Improving this draft

What are some ways I could improve this draft I wrote? Draft:Alan Styles Garlik-bread666 (talk) 15:42, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Hello. You were given some advice by the reviewer in a message located below the decline notice; put another way, you need independent reliable sources with significant coverage of Alan Styles, which means critical analysis and commentary about him. I almost wonder if it would be better for you to expand Alan's Psychedelic Breakfast with information about him, since that seems to be the only thing he is known for(WP:BLP1E). 331dot (talk) 15:47, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Move request

I have seen many Move Requests on articles and entered into the discussion process toward consensus closing. However, I've never seen anything constructed like this. How can someone constructively enter into a discussion on a particular film, in this case: Jupiter's Wife when the under discussion link brings one to a Talk Page for a separate film all together: Talk:Naari (film) and asks to SUPPORT / OPPOSE on nearly 100 films all at once? To me, this makes absolutely no sense, and I can find no supporting WP policy guideline showing this to be acceptable. Can someone please explain? Thanks. Maineartists (talk) Maineartists (talk) 14:45, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

It's because they're all tied together: each of them has the parenthetical (film), and Pppery is arguing that there's nothing non-film to disambiguate from. Since it's not really about content, it makes sense to bundle them together, otherwise we'd have to go to each one, separately, and make the same argument. See WP:TITLEDAB. 7amiþ = reform(solidarity).__init__(t, c) 14:58, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Hm. I guess. But this film alone: Jupiter's Wife shares the same title as Joe Chester's Best Irish album of 2020: Jupiter's Wife. So what am I missing here? Maineartists (talk) 15:59, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Does the album have its own article? If not, is it suspected to ever have one? If there's currently one article that uses "Jupiter's Wife", it makes sense not to use a disambiguator. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:02, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Updating a Company's Page - How to Disclose

Hello - I am a 3rd party contractor working on updating a bit of the information housed on a brand's Wikipedia page. I know I will have to disclose my relationship to the company before requesting any edits. I do not see that function or a way to properly submit that notification to avoid any risk to the brand. For those who I have this before - can you share how you went about it successfully? AEPMax (talk) 18:42, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Hello. Please see WP:PAID for more information, but you may satisfy the disclosure requirement by typing out a statement on your user page (User:AEPMax). You should also mention it whenever discussing edits you wish to make. You may find the edit request process helpful. 331dot (talk) 18:45, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

I will also post information on your user talk page. 331dot (talk) 18:45, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Got beaten to it, but the information provided also includes instructions and guidance. 331dot (talk) 18:46, 30 September 2026 (UTC)