Wikipedia:Teahouse

Jéské Couriano, a Teahouse host

Welcome to the Teahouse!

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

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

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

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

Help Wikipedia

Assistance for new editors unable to post here

The Teahouse is occasionally semi-protected, meaning the Teahouse pages cannot be edited by unregistered users (users with temporary accounts), as well as accounts that are not confirmed or autoconfirmed (accounts that are at least 4 days old with at least 10 edits on English Wikipedia).

However, you can still get direct assistance on your talk page. ; a volunteer will reply to you there shortly.

There are currently 0 user(s) asking for help via the {{Help me}} template.

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

Understanding the biographies of dead people

I have been seeing more and more biographical pages about dead people, who don't have many references, their page are still live, and a lot of information without citation. I did find WP:BIO and a it's sub-section Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Recently dead or probably dead, however, I don't see how it address the people who are confirmed dead. I have two questions:

1. Is there any policy or essay that address my curiosity?
2. What should I do if I come across such pages?

Idr888 (talk) 11:47, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Just to make sure - your main point is "biographies with poor references or no references", right? If it is, first, don't just delete them. They might turn out to get deleted in the end, but that shouldn't normally be the first step. And keep in mind that if you find an article that you know you're going to really dislike working on, you always have the option of ignoring it. There's still always lots of work to be done on articles you're more comfortable with.

The first thing to do when there are no references is to find some. Try to assume (like it says at Wikipedia:Assume good faith) that the people who wrote an article without references were rushed or lazy or sloppy, instead of assuming they were sneaky or lying.

I just realized I have to leave for a few minutes, but that's the first step at least. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 15:08, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers I understand this, and so far, I haven't nominated nor looked into deletion. Currently, I am fixing tones of suggested pages, regardless of their references. The next step in suggestive edits is to Medium level, and the first one is to find the references. I have tried a few, however, for now I think, I need better understanding of the policies, to move towards the next one. At the same time, when I have observed what I have pointed out above.

The first step you advised is clear to me. What should be the next step?

Thank you for your valuable comment. Idr888 (talk) 07:24, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

My limited experience has taught me one first important thing for new editors. I don't learn this stuff quickly, so I'm newer than I seem. :)

• If in doubt, don't change it.

If you do nothing to an article, it will be no worse than it was yesterday, and you won't have an unnecessary conflict.

About references and their policies: When you're looking at one of these poorly-referenced articles, what is one of the policy uncertainties that keeps you from acting? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 15:19, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers What I am in doubt is sometimes their WP:GNG, and other times the unreferenced content. Like for example Ganesh Vasudeo Joshi, Leonard Claydon, or Ryūji Miyamoto. There are many others.

The most weird of them all was/is Hospice Palliative Care Ontario, I believe its very deceptive. The references are in actuality refer back to the page itself and the citation are in "notes" section. The references in the "reference" sections are random sources, that doesn't even mention the subject. Idr888 (talk) 10:06, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

I see. Here are some suggestions:

• Find sources that show that the person is notable. If you can find sources that prove so, then keep the article. Do not nominate for AFD. Leave a talk page message about why you think it is notable with sources, then list out the areas that you think are unsupported. If there is no response in a reasonable timeframe, contact your mentor or be bold and remove all unsourced materials and replace them with high(er) quality ones. Read WP:BACKWARDS of how to do so.
• If the subject is not notable, leave a comment on the talk page listing that you are preparing to delete it. If there is feedback, follow it. Otherwise, nominate for Speedy Delete criterion A7.
• If there is a dispute, keep your cool and either step out of it, de-escalate, or contact your mentor (or me) for help.

There unfortunately is no easy way to fix these articles. And if in doubt, contact your mentor come to the teahouse for support. Do not do bold changes in that case. I hope my advice was helpful.

Sincerely,

16dvnk (talk) 11:30, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you @16dvnk for your suggestions, and I will definitely contact you, as my mentor is away for undefined time. Idr888 (talk) 11:52, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

@Idr888, @TooManyFingers The references in the "Hospice" article are indeed strange. The references are listed under "Notes", and what's listed under "References" should probably be labeled "Further reading".

The ref-like things listed after "notes" don't go anywhere when clicked; the source has "Reflist" in braces.

I would fix all of this if I understood referencing better. Much of the article dates from 2005-2006. I'm not sure the subject is Wikinotable. David10244 (talk) 05:54, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks you @David10244, Let us keep all the comments related to Hospice Palliative Care Ontario on Wikipedia:Teahouse#Is it a deceptive way of creating an article? So that we can reach a consensus. Idr888 (talk) 08:06, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

@Idr888 You have a number of options:

• First, template the page:

1. If it has no references, add an Unreferenced template
2. If it doesn't have a citation for every statement or it only has one sig cov reference, add a BLP sources template
3. If it doesn't have a citation for every statement and the statement doesn't add anything to the article, delete the statement.

• Look for sources.

• If you can find them, add them.

• If after a due dliligence search, you question the subject's notability, you have at least three options:

1. add a notability template
2. propose the article be deleted (PROD)
3. nominate it for deletion (AfD).

Mme Maigret (talk) 03:37, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks @Mmemaigret for beautifully structuring them. I have opened a discussion on it's talk page for now, and waiting for other editors to discuss it. Then whatever the consensus is, will proceed accordingly. Idr888 (talk) 07:25, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Nguyễn Chế Thanh

Nguyễn Chế Thanh

Could you please review the article and, if the issues have been resolved, remove the speedy deletion template?, The current version of the article was translated entirely by me without the use of AI. I can assure you of that. If this proves to be false, I am prepared to take full responsibility and accept any administrative action, including being blocked.Làm Việc Thiện (talk) 18:13, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

@Làm Việc Thiện highkey cái này là vấp filter markdown codeblock thôi. edit của b có mấy cái đánh dấu ``` như thế này, tức là lấy thẳng từ một khối mã codeblock trong một giao diện có markdown. b có nhập và dịch bảng trong một markdown codeblock r copy sang đây k? [highkey this is a markdown codeblock filter trip. your edit has these marks, meaning that this was taken from a codeblock in a markdown interace. did you translate the table in a markdown codeblock and copied it here?]

vca góp ý chút, Thành phố Hồ Chí Minh -> Ho Chi Minh City [also some suggestions,] ⠀⠀⠀⠀ .n the homo 18:31, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

@.nhals8 I put a expand language template, because i thought there was more to it, however, i have later realized that instead of information it's about sources, like different sources, sources that are not in the English article, hence why i didn't removed the expand langauge template. ~2026-42949-06 (talk) 19:29, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Cảm ơn bạn Làm Việc Thiện (talk) 22:59, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

@Làm Việc Thiện @.nhals8 Even if all you're saying is "thank you", please write in English. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 23:14, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers I would like to ask where I should submit this now so that an administrator or coordinator can review my article. Làm Việc Thiện (talk) 01:27, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

It has a tag basically saying you used help from AI. After seeing that tag, did you delete the whole thing and fully rewrite by hand, or did you try to fix things up? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 01:51, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers The article was translated entirely by me, by hand, without the use of AI. Làm Việc Thiện (talk) 02:52, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers The filter-abuse was tripped when LVT pasted the entire thing at once in the first revision of the article, and the rest of it was them trying to fix it up. ⠀⠀⠀⠀ .n the homo 02:54, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

The tag I saw had nothing to do with tripping a filter. It said that the article contained instruction blurbs from the AI to the user, telling how to use its output. That is, to all intents and purposes, proof of AI-generated material - or at least requires massive explaining. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 03:32, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:AbuseLog/44781528 ? ⠀⠀⠀⠀ .n the homo 03:56, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers, if I may, the abuse filter was tripped by "markdown-formatted text" having been added. The filter description states this: (from Special:AbuseFilter/1369)

Creating this filter, that was suggested at WP:EFR to monitor the addition of markdown text, which is often, but not always indicative of AI-generated text. - PI7

Markdown formatting is not a cut and dry sign of LLM use. I myself use a markdown editor when writing (Obsidian, MacDown 3000, etc).

As for the LLM warning tag you mentioned, I can't find that anywhere. If it was from a previous diff, could you link it please? Giovanni Guasconti (a word with me) 04:06, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

I have nothing against either of you, and nothing against the article. I just don't want the article to get the fastest "No" in history if that can be avoided. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 03:44, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

@Giovanni Guasconti, @TooManyFingers Funny, I don't see any markdown at the AbuseLog link. David10244 (talk) 07:00, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

It is there. It originates from the chatbots response to the user, not in the wikitext itself. ‑‑gurkubondinn 07:51, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

@Gurkubondinn Could you quote and link the Markdown you see? I don’t see any triple ` code block tags. Giovanni Guasconti (a word with me) 15:14, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

@Giovanni Guasconti: the easiest is probably for you to open AbuseLog/44781528 and Ctrl+F for "```". It's there. ‑‑gurkubondinn 16:04, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you @Gurkubondinn, now I see it. That definitely looks suspicious. Good catch!

Also, @David10244, follow gurkubondinn's link. The three backticks ("```") are a Markdown symbol for a codeblock, often used by LLMs to demarcate a block of text in a specific computer language, in this case being Wikimarkup. Giovanni Guasconti (a word with me) 16:43, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, thats actually a really good way to explain that. Feel free to edit the explanatory essay that I wrote and linked to above, because I really struggled with finding a good way to phrase it. ‑‑gurkubondinn 14:56, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

I added this phrasing to it. Thanks! Giovanni Guasconti (a word with me) 20:44, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

@Giovanni Guasconti Yes, I see it now, thanks. David10244 (talk) 09:06, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers I've already provided the translation but alright ⠀⠀⠀⠀ .n the homo 02:30, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Lock Upp Season 2

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.

---

Lock Upp (season 2)#Inmates status

what should i do if i feel like someone is doing disruptive editing and will not do a BRD, but will continue without talking?

I've reverted their editing twice already and i won't go more than that, but when i did the first revert, I opened a BRD in the talk page. They proceeded to revert again just a few minutes after the BRD. So what can I really do in this case if someone is using info that's not available, continuously reverting (with different info each time) and not discussing why they're doing this? Wikipedia backwards (almost) v2.0 (talk) 18:22, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

If they aren't engaging on the talk page and repeatedly reverting edits, you can report them at WP:EWN. {{GearsDatapacks|talk|contribs|in solidarity}} 22:51, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

There is a rundown of many possible avenues for dealing with content disputes at WP:Dispute resolution. If you can't pick among them, feel free to post back here and we can try to help. M kuhner (talk) 23:50, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

I didn’t ignore the discussion. I was simply busy and have a life outside Wikipedia. My edits were always based on reliable sources, not speculation, and my information remained consistent throughout. Subsequent events confirmed that the information was correct. In the future, please wait for a response before assuming bad faith or making accusations. Tenshi Uisu (talk) 16:47, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

your first edit i reverted put the winner as Yogesh. Your second one put the winner as Shreya. Is that not speculation? Wikipedia backwards (almost) v2.0 (talk) 16:54, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Are you sure? Can you provide the specific diffs you’re referring to and verify your claim? Tenshi Uisu (talk) 08:26, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

@Tenshi Uisu When you say subsequent events confirm the correctness of your information, what you really mean to say is "I made a lucky guess". Guessing, predicting, and looking ahead are unacceptable. You have to wait until reliable sources have published their analysis, before you can put anything at all. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:49, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello! By “subsequent events confirmed that the information was correct,” I meant that the information I added ultimately proved to be accurate. My edits were not guesses or predictions; they were based on reliable sources.

Ironically, it was Wikipedia backwards (almost) v2.0 who speculated on the Talk:Lock Upp (season 2) by stating that “the finale is being held instead on the 8th, not the 5th (August)”, which later turned out to be incorrect. I don’t make “lucky guesses,” please verify your claims. Thanks! Tenshi Uisu (talk) 08:48, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

If I got an insider tip- just hypotethically- that Tesla was going to get a trillion dollars and put that in two days before it happened and than it did happen, would that not count as misleading information before confirmed or not?

Am I G-d that I should know whether the info was GOING to be correct? Was it correct in the moment? Wikipedia backwards (almost) v2.0 (talk) 18:47, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, when you don't lay out exactly what your sources are, you're guessing. (Or less polite words could be used.) Nobody trusts you here, and they shouldn't either - not because there's anything wrong with you, just because they can't fact-check you.

Nothing goes on Wikipedia until it has ALREADY "later turned out". TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 19:51, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Im simply going to end the discussion with this @Tenshi Uisu, that the finale is over so we should just let this go but even if you did know for a fact through leaks or insider information that Shreya would win, that violates WP:NOR, so it's not as much as just saying "it was correct, so yay", cause there were 5 finalists and 3 (yogesh, shivangi, shreya) allegedly shot dummy victories so you had a 20-33% of guessing and getting it right. Either way, whether through leak or guess, it goes against established rule on wikipedia Wikipedia backwards (almost) v2.0 (talk) 23:57, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, move on! You wrote: “There were 5 finalists and 3 (Yogesh, Shivangi, Shreya) allegedly shot dummy victories, so you had a 20–33% chance of guessing and getting it right.” “Allegedly” says it all. You’re taking an unverified assumption, turning it into arbitrary odds, and then presenting that as an argument.

It’s you who keeps speculating and then accusing me of knowing the winner through leaks or insider information. If you’re also claiming “(I) edit with different info each time” because I supposedly had insider knowledge, show the evidence. Otherwise, it’s just an accusation built on your own speculation.

After your edit here: Diff/1367708936, I waited to edit article further: Diff/1367851912. The edit History speaks for itself.

I’m not disputing that Wikipedia does not allow editors to use leaked or otherwise unpublished information as a basis for claims. My point is that it is false to characterise my position as “guessing” and then assign arbitrary odds to it after the fact.

The finale has now aired. There’s nothing more to discuss ;) Tenshi Uisu (talk) 15:15, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

ok then end it. What a strawman. The 20-33% chance doesn't matter, the NOR matters.

Also the edit thing was a mistake. Sorry, but it doesn't change the fact that your edits violate WP:NOR. Nothing more to say, it's glaringly obvious :/ Wikipedia backwards (almost) v2.0 (talk) 21:30, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Closing this: please discuss content of specific articles on that article's Talk page. M kuhner (talk) 22:13, 8 August 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.

Tone fixing

I am a new editor. I would want to know what to do to become a professional editor. I have heard I need to edit 50 articles a day and I need to dominate easy, medium, and hard levels side quests on the wikipedia account thingy. Also I heard that I need to create a new article. Is there a guide of steps in order to become a proffesional editors? What do you think people should do? Are this advices rigth? Joe10232310 (talk) 23:56, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Where did you read the word "professional"? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 23:58, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

@Joe10232310, You could see: Wikipedia:There is no deadline. SillG (Hi! Want to talk?) 00:07, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Everyone is different, too. I've been here for several years and never created an article, and so far I'm happy with keeping it that way. If I'm a "professional-anything" on Wikipedia it would have to be professional nitpicker. :) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 01:08, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

@Joe10232310: Welcome to The Teahouse. I have no idea where you heard that you need to do X, Y, and Z to become a "professional editor", whatever that entails. People have different comfort levels as to how much they engage with Wikipedia as a reader or editor. There is no clout from becoming a "professional editor"; people's reputations are built on the quality of their contributions—less so on their quantity.

My primary focus in articlespace is copyediting; in all my years here I've only created one article that remains at start-class. Making meaningful edits to 50 articles a day is a Herculean effort that many people won't bother with. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:45, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Even 1 new article a day is impossible for most people. I can't imagine 50 a day. Mme Maigret (talk) 03:34, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

I guess there are different possible standards, but I have taken two already-finished articles that I thought had poor writing style and given them "full makeovers". The medium-sized one took almost a week; the large complex one took a month. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 04:19, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

The simple difference between a professional cellist/muralist/cook/writer/editor/whatever and an amateur ditto is that the former does it for money (or some similar currency) whereas the latter does it for personal enjoyment. Wikipedia discourages editing for money (with exceptions, notably editing for the Open Knowledge Association), and in this way discourages "professionalism". So what you say you've heard is very strange. But at least it's comprehensible, unlike "easy, medium, and hard levels side quests on the wikipedia account thingy". -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 02:32, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

I would even venture that side quests - which make perfect sense in certain games where they provide added difficulty/extra adventures/bonus points/whatever - make no sense at all on Wikipedia. On here, "make Wikipedia better" is the only goal, and either you're doing some bit of that or you're not. And nobody really cares which parts you do, as long as you're making things better and not worse. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 04:26, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Or perhaps by "professional" you mean something like "as competent at the job as somebody who'd charge money for doing it, and whose performance at it wouldn't disappoint (let alone infuriate) the paying customer". Anyway, Joe10232310, practise your abilities in gauging the quality of sources, examining the good ones carefully and at length, and summarizing and citing accurately and informatively. -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 03:55, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Im not new

why are you guys thinking im new? im not. sorry, i just wanted to clarify im not new. Wikiguythatlikesbiology (talk) 00:35, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

User talk:Wikiguythatlikesbiology Wikiguythatlikesbiology (talk) 00:36, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia Rule #63,282: Anyone who needs to say "I'm not new!" is very new. :)

But you're very welcome! TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 00:53, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

I started in may 2025, so im more of a intermediate. Wikiguythatlikesbiology (talk) 01:01, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Remind me not to tell you Rule #63,283. ;) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 01:12, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

ok :) just wanted to clarify things Wikiguythatlikesbiology (talk) 01:20, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Wikiguythatlikesbiology, you have less than 200 edits. So, you are either relatively new or relatively inexperienced. Either is fine. Hang around and edit more, and both perceptions will evaporate. Cullen328 (talk) 07:28, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

ok! thank you! Wikiguythatlikesbiology (talk) 00:50, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

You have, at the time of writing, 191 edits since 18 May 2025.

I, for example, have 299,155 edits since 16 October 2003.

While that does not make me a better person than you, it does make you much newer here than me. And than most people who edit here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:53, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

wwwooooaaahhh that's genuinely awesome! i joined yesterday so i'm still figuring things out here :) starspark (talk) 15:49, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

LLM use

 Courtesy link: Draft:Open systems theory

I disclosed LLM use in the initial drafting of a page (per WP:LLM) and documented that the content was substantively revised by a subject expert. An AfC reviewer has interpreted this as 'not allowed on Wikipedia' and tagged the draft. Is that the correct reading of WP:LLM, and if so, what is the recommended path for legitimate expert-collaborative drafts? Trond Hjorteland (talk) 03:59, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

WP:LLM says in bold the use of LLMs to generate or rewrite article content is prohibited. The solution is to remove the text and start over from scratch without the use of an LLM. Don't use LLMs to assist your communication with other editors either (WP:LLMTALK). Helpful Raccoon (talk) 04:24, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. Followed your advice and have started fresh and have a basic version in the works, written live here instead of locally as the previous one for better tracking. Trond Hjorteland (talk) 08:44, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

I just saw this idea the other day, and its brilliant simplicity might be helpful:

Revising LLM material is trying to get the rat poison back out of the soup. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 04:35, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

I might almost say that on Wikipedia expert-collaborative drafts are never legitimate. That may be going too far, but it isn't crazy.

Wikipedia articles are never new material, and must not be new material - we intentionally only recycle what has already been REpublished in secondary sources. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 04:44, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

There is a rumor that says Wikipedia hates and rejects experts.

The rumor is not completely wrong. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 05:08, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

You say I disclosed LLM use in the initial drafting of a page (per WP:LLM) but that's not "per WP:LLM" at all since, as Helpful Raccoon has helpfully and raccoonily pointed out, WP:LLM pretty explicitly says that such "initial drafting" with LLMs is not allowed. It sounds like you've made the common mistake of having the AI summarise the policy for you rather than just reading it yourself, so consider that a lesson learned and please heed the actual requirements here; in this case meaning you need to delete everything the AI generated and start over with your own human brain in charge. Athanelar (talk) 07:07, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

per WP:LLM

Thjortel: where does it say that? Did you read somewhere here that LLM use is fine if you just disclose it, or did you get it from somewhere else? ‑‑gurkubondinn 11:40, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Never thought it would be considered AI-generated as it is collaboratively written by two experts in the field, both authors and one is regarded as the top expert and has developed the field since the 70s. When the claim was made by one of the editors, I Googled and figured I needed to be honest about the use of it in the initial phases. Not as a writer, but as an editor and support for structuring the initial draft. It is a massive body of work that needs to be condensed down to a short Wikipedia page after all. Trond Hjorteland (talk) 17:10, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Why are top experts wasting their time working on a Wikipedia article? Their talent and knowledge is ... well, it's not completely useless here, but any new information or innovations they publish here are going to be deleted within hours - if not minutes. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 23:08, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

The expert in this case is not interested in Wikipedia, but I am, as a supporter of both. Trond Hjorteland (talk) 08:40, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

My point, in that case, is why is the expert postponing valuable work to look up copies of secondary literature for you? Wikipedia is a meta-review of available secondary literature, where the power of expert opinion is limited to knowing which journals (or other sources) to look in. The expert's own knowledge is going to receive no exposure. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 18:43, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Correct, but I want the topic to be as precise as possible, as they do. Makes the Wikipedia content better IMHO. Trond Hjorteland (talk) 08:21, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

An expert coming to take the science and technology world by storm through publishing on Wikipedia is like a Formula 1 driver showing up in a railroad caboose. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 23:12, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes, that is a correct reading of the guideline. The way to fix it is the same as if you accidentally pour drain cleaner into a pot of soup: you dispose of the soup and start over.

There's also no discrete category called "expert-collaborative drafts" so I'm unclear why you're referencing it. Articles written by subject-matter experts have the exact same requirements as those that aren't; that someone is an expert doesn't change the sourcing requirements or the applicability of WP:SYNTH or WP:OR. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:57, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Convert declined biography to a book article? (COI)

My draft Draft:Alina Wheeler was declined twice on the notability of the person. My strongest sourcing is actually about her book, Designing Brand Identity (Wiley; six editions, 2003–2024; translated into 11 languages), so I'm wondering whether to rewrite it as an article about the book under WP:NBOOK instead. Independent sources I have:

• A peer-reviewed academic review by Ivan Biošić in Communication Management Review 3(2), 2018, pp. 112–117 (DOAJ-indexed) — note it's a combined review covering two books.
• A signed review by DK Holland in Communication Arts (2004) of the first edition. (An editor noted Holland is thanked in the book; that acknowledgment first appears in the 2006 second edition, after this review of the 2003 first edition.)
• A brief capsule notice in Design Issues (MIT Press) 20(2), 2004.
• Adopted as a course text in design programs (documented at Ohio State University via AIGA's teaching resource; also a long-standing standard text in the field).

Would this support a standalone article on the book, or is it still short of NBOOK? There's also obituary coverage (PRINT, SEGD) and an interview, but I recognize those are about the person and largely non-independent, so I'm not counting them toward the book's notability. Disclosure: I have a COI – I co-authored the 6th edition (but was not involved in the first five). Thanks. RobMeyerson (talk) 04:50, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

@RobMeyerson I looked at the "Communication Arts" review and it's pretty brief; not sure if it meets the standard of WP:SIGCOV. Maybe the Communication Management Review piece is better, but it's not cited in your current draft so I can't see it.

In either case, even if there may be notability here to substantiate an article, I think it's equally possible that you might not be the right person to write it, at least right now. Your account has existed for a long time, but in terms of edits you're still a beginner. Writing an article is one of the hardest tasks on Wikipedia, one that very few people would be prepared for with only 20 edits under their belt (a good few of which are to the article in question), and that task only gets even harder when your COI comes into the mix; since it only makes adhering to WP:NPOV even more challenging.

So, my genuine suggestion would be to leave it for a while and spend a few weeks immersing yourself in the community and learning the basics first. There's no rush to get your article published. Athanelar (talk) 06:58, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello, RobMeyerson! Leaving aside the question of whether this particular book is Notable or not, your original speculation is broadly correct – it is not uncommon for a particular book (or several books) by an author to be Notable (because they have been reviewed and otherwise written about) and to have Articles, but the author themself to be not Notable, because not enough has been published about them personally. I have seen several instances of drafts begun about an author proving unviable but being successfully revised as one about their book(s) instead. Good luck! {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-41275-62 (talk) 07:18, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks @Athanelar and @~2026-41275-62, I appreciate the direct and candid feedback. All makes sense. I'd like to pivot to an article about the book, Designing Brand Identity, rather than the biography of Alina Wheeler. Given my COI (I co-authored the 6th edition but was not involved in first 5) and that I'm a newer editor, I'm hoping an experienced, uninvolved editor will be interested in taking this on.

In addition to the references in Draft:Alina Wheeler (which may only be useful as content, not notability), I've gathered the following independent sourcing:

• Ivan Biošić, review in Communication Management Review 3(2) (2018), pp. 115–117 — DOAJ-indexed, peer-reviewed; full text: https://hrcak.srce.hr/216831 (click the link next to "Puni tekst:" and scroll to page 115).
• DK Holland, review in Communication Arts (2004) of the 1st edition: https://www.commarts.com/book-reviews/designing-brand-identity (Another editor noted Holland is thanked in the book; that acknowledgment first appears in the 2006 second edition, after this review of the 2003 first edition.
• A brief notice in Design Issues (MIT Press) 20(2) (2004): https://direct.mit.edu/desi/issue/20/2
• Documented course use (e.g., Ohio State via AIGA's teaching resource): https://teachingresource.aiga.org/project/brand-identity-system-development/

Would anyone be willing to write or adopt the book article, or is there a better venue to request it? Happy to share everything I've compiled, and I've reached out to the publisher and others who may be able to find additional sourcing. RobMeyerson (talk) 16:19, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

You can make a request at WP:Requested articles but do be aware that there are very few editors with any interest in writing articles for other people, and requests are likely to languish there indefinitely. Athanelar (talk) 16:38, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

@RobMeyerson Can you find 3 reviews in reputable sources for the book? Where the book is the primary subject of the review? Mme Maigret (talk) 09:11, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes, three dedicated reviews where the book is the primary subject, all in reputable, independent sources:

1. Casey, Russell. Review of Designing Brand Identity. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Winter 2004, pp. 100–101. (Full review in a peer-reviewed journal.)
2. Govoni, N. A. Review of Designing Brand Identity (4th ed.). Choice, May 2013, item 50-5098, p. 1676. (The ALA's academic review journal.)
3. Biošić, Ivan. Review of Designing Brand Identity. Communication Management Review 3(2), 2018, pp. 115–117. (DOAJ-indexed, peer-reviewed.)

There's also a brief notice in Reference & Research Book News (Nov. 2009) and a review by DK Holland in Communication Arts (2004). I obtained the first three through university library databases (JSTOR/Gale) and am happy to share full citations or PDFs. Beyond reviews, I have additional supporting material, e.g., the book's adoption as a required text in university courses across several countries, if that's relevant to a WP:NBOOK assessment. RobMeyerson (talk) 23:43, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

@RobMeyerson You have posted the same info three times. Is a chatbot doing that for you? David10244 (talk) 09:22, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

No, I'm answering a direct question from @Mmemaigret: "Can you find 3 reviews in reputable sources for the book?" I listed three, two of which I only found out about yesterday—I had never mentioned them before. They came from a professor via her university library access, so I wasn't aware of them previously. The third I had posted before, but it meets the questioner's criteria. Everything else (e.g., course syllabi that list the book as required reading) is old news, yes. I'm trying to make the case that the book is notable, and figure all of this is potentially relevant, even if it's supplementary.

By the way, I forgot to mention that I'm still waiting to hear back from the publisher, Wiley, about anything additional they may have.

Regardless, I'm still wondering whether anyone without a COI would be willing to write or adopt the book article. @Athanelar basically told me WP:Requested articles is where requests go to die; if no one takes me up on the offer or has other advice, I'll write/post it myself as soon as I hear back from Wiley. Thanks everyone for all the input! RobMeyerson (talk) 13:29, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

How to find sources that critique a work?

I'm working on Lionel Tiger's page and need to find what made one of his books controversial. Specifically, what actual scientists have to say about theories he kind of just made up. Thanks! —LeastConcern 08:13, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

You can use academic search engines like Google Scholar or ProQuest. If you're affiliated with a university they will probably provide you with more tools as well (some libraries can do that too), and if you edit enough you can get access to Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library. But Google Scholar is free and not a bad starting point. Not sure about what the restrictions are for ProQuest without a subscription, since I've only ever used it while logged in, but it's worth a shot. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 08:51, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. I don't have any university creds and I tried GS and nothing came up. It probably has to do with the fact the book is from 1969 or that I didn't use the right terms.

Are there any good places to search through newspaper scans by text or article title? — LeastConcern ^{(they/them) talk contribs} 09:12, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

You might try googling tiger "men in groups" site:archive.org -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 09:18, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, I tried that and all that came up were copies of the book itself, unfortunately. — LeastConcern ^{(they/them) talk contribs} 09:20, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Have a gander at these search results: https://stabikat.de/Search/Results?lookfor=tiger%20men%20in%20groups&type=AllFields

Looks like there's some reviews there. If you need help finding the full text for anything, e-mail me and I can send you a copy. Or if you need several, you can sign up for a free online account. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 09:27, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, Maddy. I kind of gave up on the search of articles but I will use a blog post by some of his colleagues (https://sunynewpaltzpsychologydepartment.blogspot.com/2008/02/did-he-really-say-that-closer-look-at.html). Your userpage is cool and I relate to basically all of the userboxes. — LeastConcern ^{(they/them) talk contribs} 05:51, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Source assessment before restoring Draft:DuoCards (declared COI)

Hello. I have a declared conflict of interest: I am the founder and CEO of DuoCards s.r.o., and I have disclosed this with {{paid}} on my user page.

Draft:DuoCards was declined in June 2022, again in September 2025 and October 2025, and was then deleted under G13 in April 2026. Before I request undeletion and spend more of my own time and a reviewer's time on it, I would like an honest read on whether the sourcing that exists can meet WP:NCORP.

The best sources I am aware of are:

1. Peter Brejčák, CzechCrunch, 4 December 2023 — an independent Czech technology outlet, but the article is built around a funding round, so I assume WP:ORGTRIV applies.
2. Wired, "8 Best Language Learning Apps", 1 August 2023 — reliable and independent, but the app gets only a short entry in a listicle.
3. Roklen24 and AICrunch, both 4 December 2023 — the same funding announcement, apparently derived from a press release, so probably not independent per WP:ORGIND.

I have deliberately excluded App Store and Google Play listings, Reddit threads, affiliate review blogs, and a paid sdělení komerční (commercial announcement) piece in Lidovky, as I understand none of those count.

Is my reading correct that this is not currently enough, and that the right move is to wait for further independent, in-depth coverage rather than resubmit? I would rather be told no now than waste a reviewer's time on a fourth attempt. If there is a category of source I should be looking for that I have overlooked, I would be grateful to hear it.

Thank you. Petrheralecky (talk) 13:51, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

"I would rather be told no now than..."—No.

None of your three "best" sources meet the guidance at WP:Golden rule. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:04, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Petrheralecky. Remember that most companies on the planet do not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability.

The question that occurs to me is why you want there to be an article about your company. Generally when a CEO wants that, they are either wanting to tell people about the company, or to improve their SEO. In either case, this is promotion, and forbidden anywhere on Wikipedia.

A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what the majority of people who are wholly unconnected with the subject have independently chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, (see Golden rule) and not much else. What you know (or anybody else knows) about the subject is not relevant except where it can be verified from a reliable published source. ColinFine (talk) 15:06, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't know whether this very old statement was originally meant as advice or as a complaint, but it said for an individual to get a loan from the bank they first have to prove they don't need one.

On Wikipedia, when someone wants an article, proving that they already received a large amount of the exact kind of coverage that goes into Wikipedia articles is pretty much what's required. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:34, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you Pigsonthewing, ColinFine and TooManyFingers. That is a clear no, and I accept it.

To answer ColinFine's question rather than dodge it: yes, my original motive was to have people read about the company. I understand that this is exactly the motive the guideline is designed to exclude, and that disclosing the conflict does not make it acceptable.

So I will not request undeletion and I will not resubmit. If people with no connection to me ever choose to write about the app in depth and of their own accord, it will be for someone else to judge whether that is enough, and I will not be asking anyone to do so.

One thing I would like to get right. I have a copy of the draft sitting in a userspace sandbox on another Wikipedia. Is it better practice to blank that now rather than leave a promotional-looking draft lying around indefinitely with no realistic prospect of sourcing? I would rather tidy it away than leave the impression that I am waiting for a chance to slip it in. Petrheralecky (talk) 09:40, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Following up on my own message, and I hope this does not read as pushing back — I accept the answer above and I am not asking anyone to revisit the deleted draft.

After posting it I searched Google Scholar, which I had honestly never thought to do. There is academic literature I was unaware of:

• Soyoof, Reynolds, Rassaei et al., "The Effects of Mobile, Gamified, and Paper Flashcards on Vocabulary and Collocation Learning in Young Language Learners", International Journal of Applied Linguistics (Wiley), 2026, doi:10.1111/ijal.70095, open access. A quasi-experimental study in which the app is one of three conditions, with a subsection describing its features and a figure of screenshots.
• Sabila and Salmiah, "Improving EFL students' vocabulary acquisition: a phenomenological study on the use of the 'DuoCards' mobile application", Leksika (Universitas Muhammadiyah Purwokerto), 2025. Here the app is the sole subject of the study. It has been cited a number of times since.
• Rohatiuk and Vargic, "Application for Effective Memorization of Learning Material", Redžúr 2025 (Slovak University of Technology in Bratislava) — a short comparative description of the app's scheduling mechanism.

I also found a Czech weekly "best apps" roundup in Živě/MobilMania from December 2023, but I assume that is trivial in the same way the Wired listicle is.

My question is narrow. Does academic literature of this kind count towards notability, or is it discounted because the app is largely being used as a research instrument rather than written about as a subject in its own right? I do not know, and I would rather ask than assume it helps me. If the answer is that it still falls short, that is genuinely fine and I will leave it there. Petrheralecky (talk) 11:28, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes, we need sources that give the app significant coverage itself, not just merely document its usage. 331dot (talk) 09:29, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

references

 Courtesy link: User:Emccons/sandbox

I have a draft ready in the sandbox but need to know how to add references. Do the numbers have to be in superscript. If so I do not know how to do that. David Emccons (talk) 17:15, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello and welcome. Please see Referencing for beginners. 331dot (talk) 17:17, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

@Emccons Please also read Wikipedia:No original research; I can't be certain about this, but I think the "no original research" requirement might unfortunately eliminate every single thing you have there. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:24, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

No the find has been published in two reputable sources and so is not an original thought in Wikipedia.

David Emccons (talk) 14:57, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Emccons, and welcome to the Teahouse.

A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what the majority of people who are wholly unconnected with the subject have independently chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, (see Golden rule) and not much else. What you know (or anybody else knows) about the subject is not relevant except where it can be verified from a reliable published source.

This crucially means that if Weston is the discoverer, then any article should be almost entirely based on material about the phenomenon wholly unconnected with Weston or his associates.

This is why Weston's career is absolutely not relevant to this proposed article: a Wikipedia article on it should report what people unconnected with its discoverer have published about it, and if there are not yet any, then it does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability. Little about its discoverer is of any relevance unless those independent commentators chose to talk about him.

Given your actual name that you have signed with above, I'm guessing that you may be David Weston. If so, you need to be aware of the restrictions on editing with a conflict of interest, particularly the section "Citing yourself".

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 17:47, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Well Thanks for all that. obviously Wikipedia is not the correct venue for my find.

David Emccons (talk) 20:48, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

references

I have a short draft in the sandbox and want to add references. How do I do that?

David Emccons (talk) 20:22, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Answered above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:31, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Should this page be renamed?

I am not sure if this is the right place to ask this question. In general, I don't see many pages with the diacritics in the title. Do you think this page (Vidyāraṃbhaṃ) should be renamed to remove the diacritics? Coradpuge7 (talk) 20:05, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

No; see WP:DIACRITICS. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:29, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks Andy! I've taken a look at the policy, and it suggests I should look for a common form that seems to be favoured in cited sources. Since this varies depending on what source I check, I'm not too sure what the move is. Do you know if there's any other places I could discuss this, or would the article's talk page be a good place to start? Coradpuge7 (talk) 16:43, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

The latter. If you get no replies in a few days, post a neutral pointer to the discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hinduism. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:26, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

That’s a very useful question, @Coradpuge7, and glad to have Andy’s answer. If I had noticed that sort of discrepancy before, it would have made me wonder too.

As I began writing this message, some playful little leprechaun put it into my head to wonder what diacritics critics are called … Augnablik (talk) 05:05, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

In English, they may be called "But on the cob", in honour of the French distinction between "mais" and "maïs". Or, punningly, "They hate my but", from the above plus the similar sounds of "maïs" and "m'haïssent". :) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 05:43, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Also punningly, that title would be a bit corny (ducking and running, with a promise of no more contributions to this thread). Augnablik (talk) 06:15, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Notability of an event covered in an article that is only sourced primarily

Hello Wikipedia Teahouse,

I really should know this by now, but where can information be found on the coverage of an event required to warrant inclusion in an article? To be clear, I'm not (or at least I don't think I am) referring to WP:N, which is about whether something warrants it's own article. Events are being added to Tally Hall that are only covered primarily, and, while I feel like that means they do not warrant inclusion, I am uncertain as I am not aware of the relevant guidelines.

The answer to this is probably going to be really obvious. I apologise if it is. ~ crtbob (complaints • contribs) 21:56, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Looking over the sources, it seems like at least a quarter of them are primary. ~ crtbob (complaints • contribs) 22:20, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

While secondary and tertiary sources are preferred, WP:PRIMARY (part of a policy) allows for primary sources in come cases. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:10, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

More than once I have mistakenly told people that primary sources are no good for this. My own error was that I was misapplying the notability criteria; notability is required of the subject of the article, but not also required of all the events, actions, or items described inside the article.

It would be wrong, in an article about "person A", to try to embed an off-topic mini-article about non-notables "person B" or "event C"; but if you're only mentioning them as they're duly relevant to the life & career of "person A" then it's fine. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:36, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, with its concept of "due weight", therefore becomes important. If my "person A" created an obscure non-notable invention, I can mention it if it's in the sources but I can't go on about it for several paragraphs. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:40, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Crtbob, I think WP:UNDUE WEIGHT also comes into it: if something has not been mentioned by an independent source, is it important enough to go into the article? Sometimes the answer will clearly be "Yes", and sometimes pretty clearly "No"; but there will be editorial discretion, and the possiblity of disagreement. --ColinFine (talk) 17:52, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

(... which is one section of the NPOV page, but the most important one for this purpose) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 18:05, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your responses!

Since posting this, there actually has been independent coverage of the event, though I don't know how reliable it is. It seems accurate based on primary sources I've seen, but I can't rely on WP:RSP as it's not listed there. The site mostly just seems to discuss celebrity drama.

Regarding undue weight, it's more an announcement than a viewpoint; the band has been on hiatus for about 15 years, and the announcement floated getting back together. I do feel like that's an important inclusion in the article.

I do have another concern though; the announcement was made by only four out of five members, as the other has been accused of sexual misconduct, which they do not condone. A lot of the fanbase of this band is very young and knows little of Wikipedia's policies, and they are interpreting the announcement as meaning that the member has been officially evicted from the band, which they do not say in the announcement. Edits made to the page have been demoting him to past member of the band, calling it his "formal removal" from the band and similar. I opened a thread on the talk page explaining my view and asking for others', but I suspect that most of the TAs making edits don't know what a talk page is.

I've three questions that also function as a summary:

• Is the independent source I found reliable/suitable for inclusion?
• Can the vague Twitter announcement that never explicitly states eviction from the band be interpreted by editors as eviction, or is this WP:SPECULATION? That he is no longer a member of the band cannot be WP:VERIFIED.
• Was opening the thread on the talk page the correct thing to do? Is there a more common way of resolving things like this and getting people to take part in the conversation without canvassing?

I apologise if this is unsuitably long; I struggle to be concise. ~ crtbob (complaints • contribs) 20:23, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

I can say for sure that Wikipedia treats all fanbase reaction (and all fan comments) like they never existed, unless reliable publishers come out with stories that discuss those things. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 22:29, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for this. I assume you're implying that editors drawing the conclusion that Hawley is evicted from the band is fanbase reaction. If I interpret you incorrectly, please let me know, as I am autistic and struggle with social cues.

If this is true, then is it accurate to revert edits suggesting he is a past member? I did this here and here, and recent changes patrollers appear to have interpreted it as unsourced. Would continuously reverting count as an edit war? Does this warrant page protection? ~ crtbob (complaints • contribs) 22:56, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

When this kind of messy news event happens, people can respond in unusual ways. One of those is to try to distort the truth; another is to desperately engage in senseless bickering. I think many autistic people have a strong natural dislike for those things, and while this might be one little reason why I tend to like autistic people, I suspect that some autistic people might become frustrated interacting with a lot of people at once who want to distort the truth, want to bicker senselessly, and who might get offended if asked to stop doing those things.

If I were you, I'd abandon this article until people's stupid reactions naturally wear off. It's probably not worth the stress; the article will end up substantially the same anyway. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 23:45, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for this. I don't think that anyone involved is acting in bad faith; a lot of the fanbase is very young, and unaware of our editorial guidelines. I'm going to unwatch the page, as I realise that dealing with this is causing me more stress than satisfaction. I appreciate your help. ~ crtbob (complaints • contribs) 23:51, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Crtbob. While this may no longer be relevant, PrimeTimer do publish their "editorial policy", at https://www.primetimer.com/editorial-policy, and it seems to be reasonably robust; which suggests that it probably is a reliable source. It doesn't seem to have been discussed at WP:RSN: for future reference, you can always ask about a source at WP:RSN. ColinFine (talk) 17:00, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the confirmation. I'm going to bookmark RSN for if I ever need it in the future. ~ crtbob (complaints • contribs) 00:01, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

I can also say that if you're calling something a "vague Twitter announcement", Wikipedia is almost certain to call it "worthless". TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 22:57, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

References

References

Article is accepted

 Courtesy link: Draft:Infinityfree

My artical is accepted but Not move main space.How many time Draft to Main space? ~2026-43720-58 (talk) 03:07, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

It has not been accepted. You somehow have an accept notice for the already existing article about the letter A. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 03:14, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

In fact, you have been keeping a fake acceptance notice on your draft from the very first day. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 03:25, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

The draft has now been declined, its "references do not show that the subject meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion for organizations and companies". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:52, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

(It had also already been declined, and the improving edit before resubmission was to paste the fake acceptance back into place.)

"Fake it till you make it" really does sometimes work for a person who has underestimated their own competence, but it's not effective for those who have overestimated, and this wasn't the right kind of faking anyway. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:23, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

And a bogus acceptance notice has also been added to User talk:~2026-42602-89 by ~2026-42479-74, who is either the same user or a colleague. STOP DOING THIS, person from InfinityFree: if you carry on this way, you are going to get yourself blocked.

I suggest you have a careful read of WP:BOSS, and show it to your colleagues. --ColinFine (talk) 18:46, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

I removed the bogus acceptance note SillG (Hi! Want to talk?) 20:35, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Edits in My Area of Knowledge

Request for Guidance on Building Edits in My Area of Knowledge

Hello Wiki Tea House, I mainly have knowledge of South Indian history, particularly the Rashtrakutas, Chalukyas, Hoysalas, and related dynasties. I don't have sufficient knowledge of other subjects, so I can only make meaningful contributions to South Indian history articles. I would like to reach 500+ constructive edits by improving existing South Indian history pages with properly sourced additional information, rather than making edits on subjects I don't know well.

Recently, I have been told that I cannot edit certain historical topics until I become extended-confirmed. I understand the requirement, but if I cannot contribute to the subjects I actually know, I am unsure how I can build my editing experience. I am only asking for the opportunity to improve existing South Indian history articles by adding properly sourced information from reliable secondary sources. Could you please advise me on how I can continue contributing constructively within my area of knowledge and build up my edits? Vasilystepanov (talk) 12:13, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

@Vasilystepanov First, you don't need relevant subject matter expertise in order to contribute meaningfully to Wikipedia. Considering we require factual claims to be sourced to reliable sources, even when it comes to editing directly factual matters, your subject matter expertise really only helps you to find relevant information rather than being directly applicable. If there are subjects you're interested in outside of South Asia, I encourage you to branch out into those. Athanelar (talk) 12:25, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a strict rule called No original research, which includes the concept of "no writing from your own knowledge"; every scrap of historical information requires a citation to a published impartial secondary source, and statements based instead on "I know this subject" are deleted as invalid. The essential reason for this is that Wikipedia has no way of assessing expert credentials and therefore cannot trust claims of expertise. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:05, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

there is a big list of things here Wikipedia:Task Center that can be done, and many of these require no knowledge of the topic. for example, copy editing is primarily going to require knowledge of English spelling and grammar rules. each task also has a rating on what level of editor skill it takes to do it, so you might like to go check out some beginner tasks. these can build your edit count as well as help you build a working knowledge of wikipedia's manual of style and policies and such. Jackjd0 (talk) 01:23, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Independent editor requested for Rive (MARSUG song)

Hello. I have a disclosed conflict of interest because I am connected to MARSUG. I am looking for an independent volunteer editor who could evaluate the independent coverage of the song “Rive” and determine whether it qualifies for a standalone Wikipedia article. I do not want to write the article myself and I am not offering payment. Could an experienced music editor please review the available sources or point me to an editor who might be interested? ~2026-43717-71 (talk) 20:50, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @~2026-43717-71, and welcome to the Teahouse.

I have no idea what MARSUG means.

The chances of somebody volunteering to work on such an article are small - not zero, but small. People generally work on what interests them.

The fact that you want there to be an article on the song where you have a COI immediately suggests that your purpose is promotion (which has a wider interpretation in Wikipedia than generally). This is another reason why it is relatively unlikely that anybody will want to put on this work.

Unless you have a very strong reason to think that the song is notable in Wikipedia's sense, I advise you to give up this idea, and concentrate on promoting your song in places which permit this. ColinFine (talk) 22:05, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

MARSUG is a musician (about whom we currently have no article). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:49, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

It would need to meet the criteria at WP:NSONG which, from a cursory look, it does not seem to do.

If you disagree, please provide sources as evidence. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:48, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

How to Publish Breaking News Articles

Hey, I am new and am hoping to publish the Draft:Bald Range fire as soon as possible because it kind of goes without saying its explosive and sudden occurrence is beyond notable. Please help. Thank you! AnxiousVictimoid (talk) 21:17, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @AnxiousVictimoid, and welcome to Wikipedia.

Please note that Wikipedia is not a news organ, and WP:there is no deadline.

You have submitted your draft, and in time a reviewer will get to it.

Well done for citing sources, but I suspect (without looking closely) that they are all primary sources, which is not enough to establish notability in the special sense we use it in Wikipedia.

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 22:10, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

I was hoping somebody would publish it soon, like other breaking news. AnxiousVictimoid (talk) 22:12, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

I get it. But Wikipedia is very slow, and people who really want breaking news basically just don't come here - they know it's not our thing. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 22:43, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

@AnxiousVictimoid Wikipedia doesn't publish breaking news, that's the point. We only write articles on events that are likely to have lasting significance. Athanelar (talk) 05:39, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Published. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:40, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

I think nobody likes me now

so I just stumbled Upon A Link to a page by this guy called Cyrobyte on Talkomatic. And I did some edits and I didn't know what sources I added so I just left it with LOL then I got a message saying that my changes were reverted because I did not tell him the source I added so now I'm left with only one question that is does anybody on Wikipedia really love me? JadenTheEditorAlt (talk) 21:27, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

When your changes were undone, it was to do with your edit, rather than yourself as a person. Probably no one here knows you, let alone loves. For facts on Wikipedia we want to know where they came from. If you were the first person to know the information, that is original research. Also copying stuff between pages that are not related is not helpful. If you want to play around and test editing, please use the WP:Sandbox. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:06, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Recommendation: Work on your own user page. Within reason, you can put what you want there, and as long as it isn't advertisements or copyright material no one is likely to bother you about it. As you've found, practicing on articles other people care about doesn't work out so well. M kuhner (talk) 22:28, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

How can i improve my comma usage and general writing?

I always put capitals after commas, And i would like to know is this bad or good?

᛫ Also this looks like a bullet list but im using runes

HelloImYourNeighbor (talk) 21:31, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

In English, commas are not usually followed by capital letters unless the word is a proper noun (like a name or a place).

I'm not sure what you're saying about the runes thing, sorry. ~ crtbob (complaints • contribs) 21:35, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Oh okay thanks, also the runes thing is a special character. HelloImYourNeighbor (talk) 21:37, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

I can infer that, but I'm not totally sure why you're pointing it out. Do you have a question about it? ~ crtbob (complaints • contribs) 21:41, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

No, sorry lol im just new to wikipedia HelloImYourNeighbor (talk) 21:44, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Okay, no problem! I hope you enjoy your time here. ~ crtbob (complaints • contribs) 21:48, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

@HelloImYourNeighbor, you can make a proper bullet list using * to start each line.

This:

* This is a bullet point

will display as:

• This is a bullet point

Happy editing! Giovanni Guasconti (a word with me) 23:01, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

That's true if they're editing using the source editor. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:00, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

VisualEditor also recognises an asterisk at the start of a line as starting a bulleted list. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:11, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Pick up Strunk and White's Elements of Style. It's like 80 pages and it's everything you'll ever need to write well in English presented essentially as a series of bullet points. It's a godsend. Conas.Lans (talk) 20:08, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Where to chat?

Where can wikipedia users chat generally, not like for questions but like where you have chats and improvements and anything HelloImYourNeighbor (talk) 22:05, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

If you want to talk about improving an article, the talk page is a great place for this! You can find the talk page of an article by going to the article and clicking "Talk" below the heading of the article. Keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a social network though, so stick to discussing improvements to articles. ~ crtbob (complaints • contribs) 22:11, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Each article has a Talk page, only for discussing how to improve that article.

There is nowhere for general chat. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 22:12, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Oh thanks, i just wanted to know! HelloImYourNeighbor (talk) 22:16, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps you would be interested in WP:IRC or WP:DISCORD. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 22:19, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

See WP:Social. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 07:28, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Change sentence from "scheduled to received" to "received"

The sentence is written incorrectly in anticipation of an event and needs to be edited as noted above to show that the event occured. Since the event is about me I can not make this change. I am hopeful someone will correct the language on my page. DBBorenstein (talk) 23:01, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

@DBBorenstein: The sentence in Daniel B. Borenstein#Education and professional activities currently says:

On August 1, Daniel is scheduled to received the Lifetime Achievement Award from Los Angeles Country Medical Association.

That's a mess. The year (presumably 2026) is missing, "scheduled to received" is wrong grammar (your request would fix it), "Los Angeles Country" should probably be "Los Angeles County", and worst: The alleged source says nothing about it. Please give a source. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:32, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

I've fixed the typos and changed the tense to "was scheduled to".

I've also tagged the statement as needing a better source. It is liable to be removed if none is provided. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 07:36, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

References

Luiza Prado

Hi, am concerned that this big edit here by a new editor is created by llm /artificial intelligence and is also promotional, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 00:40, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

@Atlantic306: Welcome to The Teahouse. If you believe content was generated by an LLM, please bring it up at Wikipedia:AI noticeboard. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:48, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

will do, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 00:51, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Dear Wikipedians

Dear Wikipedians. I want to discuss that I am concern about my friend who used to edit Wikipedia. He used to be active on Wikipedia (mostly the Icelandic and Danish) until he got banned. He is diagnosed with autism and I am afraid that the administrators did not understand his needs. He got banned frequently for failing to edit Wikipedia properly and he constantly asked for help to be a better user but the administrators did not help him when he needed it the most. I would like to ask someone to give me some advice about how I can help my friend to be a better user because that is what he wants. He study at the University and he has good relationship with his professors who always find solution when he ask them to do. However when he ask the administrators on Wikipedia to find solutions they seem uninterested to finding solution and my friend deserve help from someone who is willing to find good solutions. ~2026-43812-89 (talk) 00:44, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi ~2026-43812-89. Did your friend get WP:BANNED or WP:BLOCKED? They are two different things and might determine the types of responses you get. Was your friend banned/blocked from English Wikipedia, Dutch Wikipedia or Icelandic Wikipedia? If he was blocked/blanned on English Wikipedia, please provide the name of their account so that someone can try to see why. There is some general information on what someone can do when their English Wikipedia account has been blocked found at Wikipedia:Appealing a block and for users who have been banned at Wikipedia:Banning policy#Review and reversal of bans, but it will be hard to give you a more specific answer without knowing the ame of the account that was blocked/banned. If, on the other hand, your friend was blocked/banned from one of the other language Wikipedias, then there's not much that can be done for them here on English Wikipedia. Each of the different language Wikipedias is a separate project with their own respective policies and guidelines, and their own way of dealing with blocked/banned users. You or your friend will need to ask for assistance on whatever Wikipedia has blocked/banned them. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:00, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Editing Wikipedia is a job that people volunteer to do, but still, it is a job. A person who chooses to take a certain job might be expected to need some help and guidance as they start, but if they appear to be ignoring the guidance and help they receive, and especially if they continue to make very serious errors or cause significant disruption despite having been instructed how to avoid those things, at some point they will not be allowed to continue.

There's also a political or at least social element to everything that people do in groups, and a group that has already excluded someone is often inclined to refuse to even consider taking them back. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 01:04, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Sure he did many errors over a long period of time both on Icelandic and Danish Wikipedia but the thing is that he sometimes simply don´t understand instructions and he needs different method of help to understand them. He currently studies at University like I said and he often needs help from his professors but when he ask them for help they always find solutions and it helps him alot. ~2026-43812-89 (talk) 01:12, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

This is good, but the professors have two advantages: they know him, and they are being paid to help him. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 01:16, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Sure they know him well and they understand him and so do I. Regardless if people are getting paid or not for helping other. My friend simply need help to be a better man and then he can return to Wikipedia as an honorable man. ~2026-43812-89 (talk) 01:32, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-43812-89 In the same way that jogging might not be a good hobby for a person with no legs, Wikipedia editing is not necessarily a good hobby for everyone, particularly for people who chronically struggle to follow instructions or otherwise flourish in a collaborative environment.

I believe I remember the editor you're talking about, and this was an editor who was constantly editing disruptively and then responding to warnings by insisting that other editors take the time to walk them through everything step-by-step so that they could understand it. This is simply not sustainable on Wikipedia. A certain level and type of competence is required to edit here (or rather, to avoid accidentally editing disruptively) and being able to internalise and act upon written instructions is one of those requirements. Athanelar (talk) 05:36, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

It makes sense to think "Wikipedia seems to be a benefit to my friend", and it very well might be true. But it's probably less usual to think "I wonder if my friend is really a benefit to Wikipedia". TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 01:14, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

I think I might remember this conversation. Did you ask a similar question a very long time ago? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 01:34, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

My friend is serious when it comes to ask for help. I agree that his behavior was unacceptable but people can change and so can he. He do regret his behavior and is willing to do better in the future. ~2026-43812-89 (talk) 01:37, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-43812-89: Welcome to The Teahouse. If this concerns the Icelandic or Danish Wikipedia projects, you would have to refer to their processes on appealing blocks and/or bans. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:48, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

But ... it was you who asked a similar question in the past, right? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 02:51, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

I do remember this conversation. The previous "installment" of it was very similar to this one. It could have happened on the Teahouse, the Help Desk, or the Reference Desk. The autistic "friend" (which appears to be that old classic "asking for a friend"), the university with the helpful professors, the expectation that wikis should go above and beyond to support the friend, the fact that it was specifically the Icelandic and Danish wikis, it all matches.

I just wonder why this closely duplicated conversation is happening. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 01:28, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

It's hard to be too specific without knowing the specifics of the case. While I can't say anything about other Wikipedias, I know on English Wikipedia, we have a lot of highly accomplished administrators and editors who are neurodivergent. Many admins and non-admins spend a lot of time trying to help editors with problems. Indefinite blocks and bans are last resorts or for particularly egregious behavior that is dangerous to the encyclopedia.

That being said, while people will generally try and be understanding and helpful, the core project here is to build an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia factory, and this is a factory floor. Unlike someone's family members or teachers, we don't directly know the vast majority of each other, and there are limits into what we can do. While we hope that people on this project find the work enriching and sees personal growth, the primary mission here isn't akin to the mission of preparing students for the "real world." I don't know if your friend is in this category, but in the end, some people just aren't suited for this particular project. And there's nothing wrong with that. Wikipedia isn't life; it's just another project, and we all have projects that we are suited for and projects that we are unsuited for.

We sometimes have to block good people, for no other reason than that the community feels what they can bring to this project doesn't outweigh what they cost the project in time and energy. For example, earlier this year, I was trying to help a probably very young editor learn about the sourcing requirements on Wikipedia. But unfortunately, they could never understand what sourcing even was, and every sentence they wrote in English was almost unreadable. The disruption this editor caused on their frequent pages was a massive time sink for the community, so now they're blocked, and I think it's unlikely they're ever unblocked. And this editor seemed like a perfectly nice person, who really wanted to be a Wikipedia editor. It's sad and unfortunate, but the decisions sometimes have to be made. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 02:24, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Draft declined for accusation of AI use?

Hi,

I recently wrote and submitted my first draft of an article. I spent over an hour on it and researched all the information myself including references. My draft was declined about forty minutes later stating it appeared that I used AI/ChatGPT and in order to resubmit, I needed to make changes to it.

Has anyone else had this happen before? I am firmly against AI and I do not use it for anything. How can I fix this?

Thank you Smallpockett (talk) 03:06, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:Brooke Archer

See also: Smallpocket's talk page

The LLM use issue does seem quite real seen the <ref> tags accumulated at the end of the article instead of being placed inline and the #REDIRECTs placed before every wikilink.

Aside from that, though, the notability issue is more pressing. Only two of the sources provide non-trivial coverage of the subject; the Gelfman Schneider guest list is no more than a passing mention, and the three cited Penguin pages restate the same author details. An non-notable subject basically defeats the purpose of a Wikipedia article, and that won't change until there is more independent, reliable coverage. Giovanni Guasconti (a word with me) 03:34, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

No, the use of #REDIRECT and bunched-up references is not an indicator of LLM usage; it's someone who hasn't yet learned proper formatting. "Bizarre wikitext" is listed as an ineffective indicator at Wikipedia:Signs of AI writing#Ineffective indicators. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 03:41, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

I am very much inclined to believe that it's not AI. But it's unfortunately an extremely weak article because the sources are all associated with the subject in some way or another. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 03:45, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

... and the non-trivial-looking sources are both interview-based, which makes them less valuable than normal sources

. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 03:42, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Number one piece of advice: once you write the draft, look it over carefully! Why does it say REDIRECT all over it? Why are the References completely blank? This is something you would be expected to catch before you submitted. Whether it is LLM or not, it's not ready for publication. M kuhner (talk) 03:45, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Edited to add; there is no shame in getting the wikitext wrong (I just botched my reply to you, forgot that "#" is a special character at the start of a line....). Wikitext is not intuitive for most people. But if you see something wrong, ask for help fixing it. M kuhner (talk) 03:47, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

I would easily make these mistakes if I had no experience of Wikipedia at all.

To which a good response might be "Then why are you immediately writing an article, instead of first taking some time to learn how things work?" TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 03:50, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

I was using the "preview" function to check the progress and misunderstood the coding. I made this account to make articles... I have been a Wiki user for years, I didn't think I messed it up that bad. But I see that I got the formatting wrong for linking other wiki articles. I am not sure what you mean by the references being blank though? I used other articles as an example when writing this one. Smallpockett (talk) 03:55, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

They're not actually blank. The formatting mess is not very hard to fix, don't even worry about that.

The problem is you've got almost nothing to write about because of the type of sources they are. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 03:59, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

I did a bit of fixing on the draft and left a note on its Talk page; hope that's helpful. The fact that references don't go in the Reflist is a surprise to just about everyone--I made an article that looked like that too! Best wishes for your article. Please bear in mind that it's declined, which means "fix and retry", not "we never want to see it again." M kuhner (talk) 04:10, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that! "Show don't tell" is probably more useful than my massive infodumps. —ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email) 04:17, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I just went back in and fixed the mistakes with your help (and the editing course on Wikipedia haha). It looks so much better now. I really appreciate it! Smallpockett (talk) 04:37, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

It does look better. What you need now is reviews. Check the author's web site--you can't use it as a source but reviews may be linked from there. Check the publisher(s) and agent(s) for the same thing. M kuhner (talk) 05:40, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

The fact that it looks better is great, but on a scale of 1 to 10 it scores about a "1" or a "2" for quality of sources. The problem is that the sources come from the author, or from her publisher. You'll need several large sources that have no connection with her (not publisher-sourced, not announcements of anything, and where it's very obvious they wrote without interviewing her or getting information from her). Without those, the article remains just "Author Proudly Announces Herself", which Wikipedia will certainly refuse. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 05:41, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

I've replied at User talk:Smallpockett § Your submission at Articles for creation: Brooke Archer (August 9), but to address the AI accusation: one of the downsides of doing AI cleanup work is that we can get too trigger-happy and interpret newcomer mistakes as copy-pasting output from unintelligent chatbots. @Smallpockett: I apologise for the hasty accusation, and I'm glad to know you are opposed to AI use. —ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email) 03:58, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

No worries at all! I was more concerned about my writing coming off as AI generated. Thank you for all your help Smallpockett (talk) 04:00, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Editing speed

How does B.J edit so fast? i get the fact that he is a good wikipedia editor but HOW? he can instantly edit anything and im just curious! HelloImYourNeighbor (talk) 04:09, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

User:B.J is using Huggle as a counter-vandalism tool. (based on edit summaries) Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:59, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Discord

Is it just me or is the discord 100 times stricter than the main wiki?, i got banned for asking a simple question and the mods are "tyrants", the source for this info is https://www.quora.com/I-keep-on-getting-banned-from-the-Wikimedia-Community-discord-server-by-tyrant-mods-who-are-abusing-their-powers-and-the-admins-on-Wikipedia-keep-blocking-my-accounts-for-block-evasion-every-time-I-try-to-discuss-my?top_ans=2346204, i just honestly feel its unfair for regular wikipedia editors who do not want to pray and obey to all moderators like they are god HelloImYourNeighbor (talk) 04:38, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi @HelloImYourNeighbor, welcome to wikipedia. I'm pretty sure I know who posted that Quora comment - anyone who was a Teahouse host two years ago will remember him too. His idea of "discussing" his ban was to spam the Teahouse with graphic threats of rape and murder. So, that's why he was blocked every time he made a new account to "discuss" it, and that's also why he was banned from the Discord server. As for you, you were timed out for asking the same question four times in five minutes across two different channels, after having been warned about that already. When your timeout expires, you're welcome to participate again, but not like that, please. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 05:17, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

ohhh well i didnt know THAT sorry HelloImYourNeighbor (talk) 14:18, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Creating an article - question

Hey! Frequent article creator, but first time running into this. I stumbled upon someone interesting who I think meets notability standards on WikiProject Women In Red, where she'd submitted a request on the talk page. She provided a list of PDFs of independent sources in a Drive folder - I independently verified their existence (but some of them I couldn't verify the text on - they're not online accessible) and also found more sources. I'm planning to write an article on her entirely on my own. Is there any major policies I should be aware of when it comes to this - is it okay to create this in mainspace? Are there any policies that I should make her aware of as well (besides, ofc, WP:COI aka she should not edit the article about herself but should instead ideally do edit requests and always disclose who she is)? Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 05:21, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

@Jishara: Policy is here: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Beware of an unbalanced point of view (WP:NPOV) if you rely on information she provided. It is usually better to start off as a draft or your own sandbox to prevent issues arising while it is under construction. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:51, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Great. So there's no special COI things or anything like that that I have to watch out for in this situation? Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 13:18, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

If you have a COI, you'd have to declare it of course, and having a COI makes it really hard to write well - it's hard to un-know the things you know.

If you're not sure whether you have a COI, then you do have one.

As far as the subject's own COI regarding herself, I think you covered it already. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 14:10, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Makes sense - for clarity I don't know her personally, professionally, financially, etc, only in the context that she requested an article on her on WikiProject Women in Red and provided her personal archive of her sources, which I independently decided, together with my own research, would likely meet notability - is that considered a COI? sorry for all the questions, i just wanna make sure. Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 15:37, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

@Jishara That should be fine, see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/Archive_103#Author_want_WP_article_about_her for another example. And beware WP:ADVOCACY. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:50, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

I'll definitely keep my eye out. Thank you so much for your help! Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 16:21, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

For the ones you couldn't verify the text of, you might consider asking for assistance at the Resource Exchange. Mme Maigret (talk) 09:46, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Makes sense - i'll consider that. For clarity, she provided the text, I just can't independently verify that that is the text other than her provided text. Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 13:19, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Draft:Typhoon Dolphin (2026)

Draft:Typhoon Dolphin (2026)

Hi. Just linking it here as this is an ongoing event starting to making headlines since e.g., yesterday. (I'm very bad at writing weather-related articles and want some helps.) There are some press coverages / citable materials in the talk page. Thanks! 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk} 07:41, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello. The best place to solicit co-editing is a relevant WikiProject, in this case, Wikipedia:WikiProject Weather. 331dot (talk) 07:46, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Second opinion on a draft allowed?

When a draft of mine is declined, and I don’t agree with the reasoning, is it good practice to leave a comment and resubmit the draft to ask for a second opinion? ~2026-43665-69 (talk) 10:16, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Do you mean Draft:Jean Novo?

Either way, this would be better asked at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk, where AfC experts hang out.. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:34, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Good practice would be to discuss the issue with the reviewer and/or explicitly ask the question to the community here if you need further feedback. Just resubmitting the same draft, without changes addressing the decline reasons, is the express route to getting a draft rejected rather than just declined, meaning it will no longer be considered for publication at that time.

If you are referring to the Jean Novo draft, I wholeheartedly agree with the decline. It's very thin and loosely written, and tells us very little about Novo. What the article only really focuses on is descriptions of what happened during sporting events. The sources are given are simply passing mentions of Novo at best, not significant coverage that is about Novo. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 13:36, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

To directly answer your question: No, unless you first discover that several experienced reviewers strongly disagree with the first one. Most of the time when people disagree with the review they got, they're mistaken. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 15:33, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

How to find articles

I have recently joined Wikipedia.

Is there a conducive way to search for music related content? HendrixGarfield (talk) 10:47, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Use the search bar on Wikipedia to look up articles about music. SillG (Hi! Want to talk?) 11:27, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

@HendrixGarfield Welcome! Nothing comes to mind, but perhaps article categories like Category:Argentine heavy metal musical groups will be of some help. These categories are not necessarily including everything they should, it depends on if an editor added the category to the relevant article. Perhaps the people at Wikipedia:WikiProject Music have some tricks they can share. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:28, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Look into the many subcategories of category:Music. ~2026-43665-69 (talk) 11:57, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Further to earlier answers, at the foot of many articles you will find links to categories. The Dark Side of the Moon, for example, has the links:

• 1970s concept albums
• 1973 albums
• Albums produced by David Gilmour
• Albums produced by Nick Mason
• Albums produced by Richard Wright (musician)
• Albums produced by Roger Waters
• Albums with cover art by Hipgnosis
• Albums with cover art by Storm Thorgerson
• Capitol Records albums
• EMI Records albums
• Grammy Hall of Fame Award recipients
• Harvest Records albums
• Pink Floyd albums
• United States National Recording Registry albums

and you can use those categories to find related items.

Above those you will see templates (which you may need to expand)), with many links. They look like what you see at Template:Pink Floyd (which I won't include here due to its size.

The catch is, none of these appear in mobile view, so if that's what you are using, you will need to switch to desktop view (that's a setting on your device's browser, not Wikipedia). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:43, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Sourcing question: Draft:Robert J. Rosenstein

Hello, I hope it's okay to ask for guidance here. I've been working on Draft:Robert J. Rosenstein and it has been declined three times with the feedback "all sources are about the company, not the person."

I believe the draft does contain personal sources, and I'm hoping an experienced editor can tell me whether I'm misunderstanding the standard. The key source is:

• Beverage Dynamics (February 2, 2007) — "Raising The Bar" — a full personal profile of Rosenstein as CEO of Liquor Barn, with direct quotes from him including: "We made a transition in the '80s to become a one-stop party shop." The article caption identifies him as "ceo of the chain." It is archived here: https://web.archive.org/web/20201126154850/https://beveragedynamics.com/2007/02/02/raising-the-bar/

Supporting sources also naming him personally:

• Market Watch (2015) — names him as a Market Watch Leader
• Smiley Pete Publishing (2012) — Lexington local press, names him as CEO since 1986
• Market Watch (2023) — confirms his 1987 Retail Leader of the Year award

Robert Rosenstein founded what became Kentucky's largest independent beverage alcohol retail chain and won Market Watch's top annual retail honor. Does the Beverage Dynamics profile meet the "significant coverage" standard, or is a newspaper feature specifically required? Any guidance would be hugely appreciated. Jamier93 (talk)

None of these sources are useful. Only awards that are notable themselves help with notability, and simply mentioning that he's a CEO is not enough since CEOs aren't inherently notable. The Beverage Dynamics piece is absolutely not a "full personal profile of Rosenstein." It's a passing mention that says little about him, and being quoted doesn't mean anything for notability.

Wikipedia articles are written about what independent, reliable, published sources say about subjects while providing significant coverage of the subject.

There are also some serious LLM/chatbot/AI signs here, with text that doesn't match the source. For example The same profile identified him as "ceo of the chain" and described his hands-on leadership style, The Ultimate Party Source. is absolutely untrue. The profile says nothing about his "hands-on leadership style" and "The Ultimate Party Source" is a branding subheading for the store itself, not a description of Rosenstein. This is common LLM hallucination, and if it isn't, it means that you're not reading the sources themselves; both are problems.

Are there any conflicts of interest that you need to disclose about this individual? If so, sooner is always better than later. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 13:26, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

In addition to what CoffeeCrumbs said, or maybe just oversimplifying it: all we can be certain of from this material is Rosenstein's existence and what he does for a living. But I also exist and do something for a living; it takes much more than that for a Wikipedia article. (What it takes is several different analyses of his career, put out by reliable publishers who have no connection with him.) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 15:27, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Cite web?

this page Category:CS1 errors: access-date without URL recently jumped from ~100 pages to over 1,100 pages over a couple days. That seems to be caused by a template or something of the sort.

Cite web possibly? I checked one of the listed pages Twenty-fifth_Amendment to the United States Constitution#cite ref-A2essayPS 22-0

which shows the error {{cite web}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)

and the reference being listed as an error has both the |access-date= AND the |url= listed

Quebec99 (talk) 12:51, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

You're saying that the reference does have a valid url, but Cite web is giving an error for missing url? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 13:57, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

@Quebec99: Welcome to The Teahouse. I'm not sure if it's because heritage.org and archive.today were blacklisted, or if it's because |url-status= was set to unfit. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:37, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

@Quebec99, there was a major update to the citation templates and modules two days ago, which is probably what caused this. The best place to report this issue is probably at WT:CS1, the combined talk page for all of those Cite templates. --rchard2scout (talk) 12:29, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. I will move the discussion. Quebec99 (talk) 12:52, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Autoconfirmed

Hi, I'm trying to edit Manchester City F.C. but it says I need to be autoconfirmed, how do i do that please? Imharold (talk) 12:54, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

See WP:Autoconfirmed. Meanwhile, you can leave a request on the article's talk page, Talk:Manchester City F.C.. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:25, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

IP blocked on eswiki

Working a bit on 2024 Villa María del Triunfo explosion (help from MinT translation from Spanish Wikipedia) but there are some problems that I came across. Because I mostly obtain stuff while on private browsing, there are probably some pros and cons about what I'm experiencing in the draft:

• Apparently my IP was blocked by Stïnger on the Spanish Wikipedia, supposedly for "Abuso a largo plazo (LTA)" (Long-term abuse (LTA)). This is a bit weird because I can still edit while logged in, the IP block was made on July 25. Was an IP block exempt given in the spirit that I would continue editing? Maybe.
• Is there an outage in MinT servers right now? Attempting to click the Translate button even with the default text ("Jazz is a music genre that originated in the African-American communities of New Orleans, Louisiana, United States, in the late 19th and early 20th centuries...") will still time out and throw an error.

I have no idea if this shall also be moved to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical), but despite that, it may or may not be some kind of poison that came while editing enwiki or something, because I'm more focused on my drafts than what I'm meant to fight: vandals. — (this page isn't responding) (HTTP 500) SimpleObjects-9ei 🏖️/☀️/🥵 (see talk) 14:11, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

IP blocks are frequently done anon-only, meaning editors with accounts can still log in to edit. You do not have IPBE on es-wiki. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 14:38, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

@Asilvering Yeah... but what about MinT? I still can't translate anything. — SimpleObjects-9ei 🏖️/☀️/🥵 (see talk) 16:44, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @SimpleObjects-9ei. I've never heard of MinT, but as far as I can see it has no connection with Wikipedia or any Wikimedia projects, so I don't understand why you're asking about it here.

Note that translation tools are rarely of much use in translating Wikipedia articles, and are not allowed unless the result is then carefully reviewed by somebody proficient in both languages: see WP:MACHINETRANSLATION. ColinFine (talk) 17:08, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

You'll have to ask the maintainers of MinT. It's not obvious to me who they are, I'll see if I can find out. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 21:00, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Well, the team in charge of that is mw:Wikimedia Language and Product Localization, so I'm not sure what the best way to get in touch with them is, on account of how seriously out-of-date that page is. You could try the talk page there, or perhaps mw:Talk:MinT. Maybe they're active in their Telegram group? In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 21:23, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello! I'm Gerard, the product manager for the Language and Product Localization team at the foundation. Our team maintains https://translate.wmcloud.org/. Thank you for flagging this issue, the incident is now resolved and the service should be working as expected. But please, let us know if you encounter the same or any other issues when you try again. GGalofre-WMF (talk) 07:52, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

How to speed up how long it takes for a Draft to get made into a article

I have made my own Draft which is Draft: Hong Kong Football Festival and it has been a Draft for nine days now is there anyway to speed up the process? Puppygray (talk) 15:18, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

 Done Theroadislong (talk) 15:33, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Newspaper citations that link to search results

Hi! I initially got this question back when I was still unregistered (Talk:Louis Antoine, Duke of Angoulême § Broken citations under "Personal life"), but it seems to be a far more frequent occurrence than I thought.

A lot of articles seem to cite search results from the British Newspaper Archive website as URL sources for newspaper issues. In some cases, like reference no.1 for Wuthering Heights, the ranges are specific enough that the search results just lead to (what appears to be) every page of a specific issue. But then reference no.3 for Elstree Studios (Shenley Road) greets you with a whopping 46,460,323 matching newspaper and publication articles, as the actual filters just set some keywords in a date between January 1st, 1900 and December 31st, 1949.

Search links: Special:Search/insource:"britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/search/results"

My best guess is that the citations where the search queries are very broad are either just laziness from their submitters or an artifact of their in-progress research. Maybe the search function on BNA used to work differently (though I couldn't find any of those queries on Wayback Machine). Either way, the website seems to have very bad OCR with a lot of artifacts that ruin searching.

As such, two questions:

1. What can be done about the citations that point to a wide range of matches but still mention a title, a date, and a publisher? Is it okay to just remove the unhelpful URL?
2. What can be done about those same broad citations that do not mention anything (plain URLs), like the ones I mentioned on the Louis Antoine talk page?

Thanks! — EmoryNB ^{(they/them) talk contribs} 15:45, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Oh dear. That's definitely a problem. @EmoryNB, if you don't get useful replies here, try WP:VPT. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 21:03, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Are you sure VPT is the correct venue for this? I just don't know if this is a technical issue about Wikipedia, more like a widespread citation bug... Maybe I should try reporting this to WikiProject Reliability? — EmoryNB ^{(they/them) talk contribs} 07:53, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Can you give me some tips on my article?

User:HelloImYourNeighbor/sandbox I am writing a article about the Xi3 Piston and i would need some tips for it i am trying to improve on wikipedia and its formatting and all of that "Xi3 news". Games Industry.

HelloImYourNeighbor (talk) 16:03, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

The problem is a basic one: Wikipedia is not for news, it's for history. I would suggest dropping the whole idea until the Piston has become a mature product. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:24, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

What counts as a "mature product" as in it is in the free domain and doesnt have copyright? HelloImYourNeighbor (talk) 16:29, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

@HelloImYourNeighbor My understanding of your draft is that you are describing something planned for 2013 but that didn't make it to production, or if it did was not very successful. Is that correct? If so, your content could go at Steam Machines#Vendor support. The current citation #2 in your draft is prnewswire, which may be unreliable (see WP:PRNEWSWIRE). "Mature" in the sense used by Wikipedia is that several people have published extensively in reliable sources about them: see WP:42. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:36, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

hmm thanks also it wasnt very succesful you are right HelloImYourNeighbor (talk) 16:40, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

I misunderstood because you were showing announcements as if it was a brand new product maybe not even out yet. If it WAS a brand new not yet out product, my thing would have made sense. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 20:06, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Yep, also Steam Machines#Vendor support is vague on what was it so that is why i am making a article for it HelloImYourNeighbor (talk) 23:25, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @HelloImYourNeighbor, and welcome to the Teahouse.

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

Second tip: Start creating an article by finding several sources each of which meets all the conditions in WP:42. That way, if you can't find several such sources, you'll know that there is no point in spending any more time on the subject at present.

Third tip: If you've found at least three such sources, then set aside everything you know or think about the subject, and write a neutral summary of what those independent sources say about it. ColinFine (talk) 16:36, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Interlinks, is it possible to change the destination of a link between 2 languages?

I was trying to change the interlink between "Campionamento casuale" (Italian wiki) and "Sample (statistics)" to "Simple random sample", which to me is a more correct translation of the Italian page. This is because there already is an Italian version of "Sample (statistics)" and it is called "Campionamento statistico". However, I wasn't able to do this and it gives me an error. I don't know if I missed something. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks :) MiniFeather (talk) 16:13, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

You will need to edit the wikidata item itself, go to the article click on the "Edit Links" button then scroll down to the wikipedia section, find the languages code you wanted to edit then edit it and then type in the new destination article name and then publish/save it, no need for thank yous! HelloImYourNeighbor (talk) 16:17, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

I tried but it gives me this error:

"Could not save due to an error.

The save has failed.

The link itwiki:Campionamento statistico is already used by Item Q49906. You may remove it from Q49906 if it does not belong there or merge the Items if they are about the exact same topic. If the situation is more complex, please see Help:Sitelinks."

The code Q49906 refers to the page "Sample" MiniFeather (talk) 16:26, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

scroll down to the wikipedia section again repeat everything except before doing the campionamento statico creation you must delete it then retry again, if it still does not work try merging the two HelloImYourNeighbor (talk) 16:32, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Does this count as a off-topic/not the right channel thing?

I just wanted to show you something interesting i found with Unicode, if you use Variation Selector 15 [U+FE0E] with a emoji, it will turn it monochrome, ☠︎ with the variation selector, ☠️ without, this could be useful for emojis on your profile that are not needed to stand out with color, i just think this is cool HelloImYourNeighbor (talk) 16:47, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes @HelloImYourNeighbor, that is completely off-topic. This page is only for requesting help with Wikipedia. Shantavira|^{feed me} 17:40, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Words

Like what is the max words you can have in an article. Is it 2000? OrangeCow735 (talk) 19:12, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

While there is no maximum, the recommendation of Wikipedia:TOOLARGE is that articles should not exceed 15,000 words. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 19:23, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Is there a page for advice on how to construct an infobox template?

I have a requirement for a very simple infobox. Is there a page for advice on how to construct an infobox template? Or can anyone think of an example that I can plagiarise? (I have template editing privilege but have barely used it.) 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:31, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Answered at the above-linked thread. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:56, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Easy way to count contributions by namespace?

I'm committed to making quality edits, and want to track my progress toward joining the ranks of extended-confirmed users, which, as I understand, requires 500 edits in mainspace. My homepage edit count includes edits in teahouse, edits in my userpage, etc. I can filter my contributions page, but still have to count manually. I did find this tool which shows me counts by namespace and tells me only 57% of my edits have been in mainspace. Is there perhaps an edits-by-namespace template I can put on my userpage that will update automatically? Gebble (talk) 19:37, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

@Gebble: The first link above states after the account has made at least 500 edits to the English Wikipedia and after 30 days have passed since the account's first edit. It has no qualification for mainspace. So edits to teahouse, user page and all the other places that you mention all count towards the 500 total. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:10, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Oh, weird, I thought I saw some policy somewhere saying that access would only be given after 500 non-deleted Mainspace edits. Is anyone aware of a policy like that? Gebble (talk) 21:53, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Various user rights, such as rollback and new page reviewer require a certain minimum of mainspace edits. In this case, you are probably referring to the new page reviewer criteria. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 01:18, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking of! I knew I wasn't imagining it. Thanks for the link, I'll keep it bookmarked. Gebble (talk) 16:41, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Redrose64 is right, but while we're at it, maybe you'd be interested in the meta:MoreMenu gadget. It adds a menu with a bunch of useful links, including one that takes you to XTools, when you're on someone's user page. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 20:18, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Have i improved my article?

Im a newbie at wikipedia so i am asking you guys, i think i have improved my sandbox page but i dont know myself i need second/third party reviews, it is a WIP so i will gladly accept any tips or inquerys you have! HelloImYourNeighbor (talk) 23:55, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

the sandbox is User:HelloImYourNeighbor/sandbox HelloImYourNeighbor (talk) 00:02, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Let me take a look! I'll reply once I've read it. ‍🌷Reverosie🌷^★talk★ 00:24, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

I do have a few suggestions for you, but overall, this is extremely well-written for somebody so new to Wikipedia! Major kudos. I'll start with what I'd like to suggest and then move to what you did well.

First of all, I noticed that the entire beginning is one great big run-on sentence. Many of those commas need to be replaced with periods! My usual recommendation is that the absolute longest a sentence should go is 35 words, but you can go up to 40 if that is absolutely necessary.

Second of all, the article needs more interlinking to other articles. The paragraphs should not be barren, but some of the words should link to the articles about them; if they do not have articles yet, the red link is fine! (Some examples are: Jason A. Sullivan, Motherboard, Mini-PC, circuit boards).

Now for what you did right. The sufficient addition of sources is something I'd like to point out, especially for a new editor. I understand that grabbing sources can be tedious and learning how to add them can be hard, so I'd like to applaud you on that! The article is also very well-written, and you are already very good at writing with an encyclopedic tone.

Overall, you're off to a brilliant start! Just one more thing from me: I'm a new pages reviewer, so if you'd like me to review your draft once you're ready to submit it to become a fully fledged article, just let me know and I'll get it done for you! ‍🌷Reverosie🌷^★talk★ 00:31, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Touched up the page based on your suggestions, should i submit it? HelloImYourNeighbor (talk) 00:52, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Can you review my page again? i edited it to be better, thanks, reveroise HelloImYourNeighbor (talk) 01:06, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Hey! Sorry for the late response, I fell asleep shortly after reviewing for you. I'm happy to say that your article was accepted! Amazing work! If you still want me to look at it, let me know :) ‍🌷Reverosie🌷^★talk★ 15:28, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Pico-Burnside Baths

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus. Athanelar (talk) 04:30, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

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

Hello Teahouse. I'm working on Draft:Pico-Burnside Baths and would appreciate some guidance before resubmitting. The draft has been declined three times (nn → adv → corp), and I'd like to make sure I'm addressing the underlying issue rather than repeatedly resubmitting.

The subject is a Russian-style bathhouse in Los Angeles that opened in the mid-1950s. It has operated at the same location for roughly 70 years and was renamed City Spa & Health Center after a change of ownership in 1989. The site is also associated with the origins of WET: The Magazine of Gourmet Bathing; Leonard Koren held a bath party there in the 1970s that he later identified as the inspiration for the magazine.

SurveyLA identifies Pico Burnside Baths as a locally significant historic resource (status code 5S3).

Independent sources I've found include:

• a 1996 Los Angeles Times feature devoted to the bathhouse;
• a 1998 Jewish Journal feature;
• a 2005 Los Angeles Times feature discussing the bathhouse and its history;
• a 2025 Los Angeles Times article discussing the site's connection to WET;
• the SurveyLA historic-resource record; and
• additional discussion of the Pico-Burnside/WET connection in the Los Angeles Review of Books and other publications.

The most recent AfC decline cited WP:NCORP, which made me wonder whether I am framing the subject incorrectly.

My main questions are:

1. Given the SurveyLA record and the site's documented history, should the subject primarily be evaluated as a historic building/site under WP:GNG / WP:GEOFEAT, or as a currently operating business under WP:NCORP?
2. Are the 1996 Los Angeles Times and 1998 Jewish Journal standalone features the type of independent significant coverage that would help establish notability here?
3. A reviewer objected to the full street address in the lead, which I have removed. Should an address be omitted entirely from a draft of this type?
4. More fundamentally, does this appear suitable for a standalone article, or would the historical material be better incorporated into an existing article such as Wet (magazine)?

I want to avoid another resubmission until I understand which notability standard experienced editors think is appropriate. Any guidance on framing or sourcing would be appreciated. Yitzhak Eliezer (talk) 00:34, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Significant coverage generally boils down to the reporter for a reputable publication expressing the reporter's very own major extensive & intensive analysis of the whole subject, or at least a very significant chunk of it.

If you have that, see which of these orientations the reporter seemed to think was the "best angle". TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 02:06, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Sorry if this is a repeat question but

I would like to know if i have improved on editing, i am trying to publish my article about the Xi3 Piston, you can view it on my sandbox

i would just like some inquerys and tips, thank you! HelloImYourNeighbor (talk) 01:14, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

I think you're missing the most important kind of sources. A lot of your sources are just announcements, and they don't help much. Reliable publishers with articles about "I used one for a week and here's what I think" - or that type of thing, where they talk for a long time about their opinions of the real item - that's what you need. Lots of them. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 01:38, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

The reason: If there aren't any articles like that, it is close enough to proving that nobody cared about this machine and that Wikipedia should avoid having an article about it. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 01:44, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

The "big-picture" reason: In every article on Wikipedia, having quality sources that really analyze the subject is FAR more important than quality writing skills. If you have excellent sources and your style is bad, hundreds of people like me know how to fix the style. But if the sources aren't good? Either you find good ones or you give up. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 01:52, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

It got accepted! Xi3 Piston. HelloImYourNeighbor (talk) 01:55, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Well that settles that, doesn't it :) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 02:26, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

User page

on my subpage, I am using a table. I don't know how to use a third colum 🏏Cricket233r (Talk to the sixes). 02:02, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Every time you want to start the next row of the table, you need to add an extra line with just this on it: |- TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 02:22, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

So add an extra line just after Sri Lanka, and put that on it TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 02:24, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

i did 🏏Cricket233r (Talk to the sixes). 02:26, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Is that what you wanted? Or did I miss the point? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 02:27, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

It works 🏏Cricket233r (Talk to the sixes). 02:28, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Rows go across (like "row"ing a boat). Columns are vertical, like columns on a building. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:02, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

miss world bulgaria, miss universe bulgaria

Hello, 

I am the creator of the "Miss World Bulgaria" page. Unfortunately, my original account was deleted. I would like to regain the ability to edit and manage my pages. Could you please guide me on how to restore my access or link my new account to the page? 

Thank you for your assistance Star Models (talk) 03:18, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Star Models, welcome to the Teahouse!

You can simply go to Miss World Bulgaria by searching for the article or clicking on the underlined blue text above - like any other user could - and click "Edit" or "Edit source" in the top right corner. You have no special privileges by being the creator of the article.

Happy editing! Giovanni Guasconti (a word with me) 03:23, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Star Models, the history of the article Miss World Bulgaria shows that the article's creator was Vivian kk, an account that hasn't been deleted, or even blocked. Are you saying that you were previously (and would like again to be) Vivian kk? -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 04:20, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

@Star Models It should also be noted that you have no right whatsoever to "edit and manage your pages", you do not own or control any page on Wikipedia, even articles you created. Athanelar (talk) 04:35, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Is "Star Models" the name of a business? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 05:07, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

@Star Models: Accounts cannot be deleted. They can be blocked but User:Vivian kk hasn't. If you forgot the password but still have access to mail sent to the stored email address then you can use Special:PasswordReset. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:55, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Are you talking about any of the accounts listed on Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Wictoriamalawi? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:39, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Im a newbie soo

Is is allowed if i make a media section on my page which features a disassembly of the device/thing that is made by Bringus Studios? HelloImYourNeighbor (talk) 04:31, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Do you mean you're working on an article? Or that you want this as a permanent feature on your user page (or a subpage of it)? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 04:42, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

nevermind figured it out HelloImYourNeighbor (talk) 04:54, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Just a question

Hey just a question, if a youtuber describes a computer in a video about the product negatively does it affect their opinion on the device itself? thanks its for a page HelloImYourNeighbor (talk) 04:55, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

For a Wikipedia article? Usually, the youtuber's opinion doesn't count and can't go in the article, because YT isn't a reliable source. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 05:02, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers This is not really accurate. Youtube is not an inherently reliable source; it depends on who on youtube is saying the info. If it's from a channel which is verifiably associated with someone who we would consider a reliable source, then it can be used as a source. It's just that you can't use Joe8638383629's video with 3 views as a source. Athanelar (talk) 07:04, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Or even Joe8638383629's video with a million views. ColinFine (talk) 16:47, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Conflicting information in different sections of the same article

Hello everyone,

I am currently working on improving a Wikipedia article and noticed that different parts of the article appear to give slightly different information about the same subject. For example, the lead section says one thing, while a later section provides information that seems to contradict or qualify what is stated in the lead.

I would like to correct the inconsistency while making sure I do not unintentionally change the meaning of the article or introduce my own interpretation. What would be the best way to handle this situation?

Specifically:

1. Should I first discuss the discrepancy on the article's talk page before making an edit?
2. If the information can be reconciled, should I rewrite the relevant sections so that they are consistent?
3. How should I decide which wording is appropriate when the existing text is ambiguous?
4. If another editor disagrees with my proposed wording, what is the recommended way to resolve the disagreement?

I would appreciate advice on the usual Wikipedia practice for dealing with internal inconsistencies and disagreements over wording.

Thank you! DefaultActually2453 (talk) 05:46, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

This post is the only edit you’ve made on this account. Are you using any additional accounts or temporary accounts? Electricmemory (talk) In solidarity 06:18, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

It is better to fix the information or discuss it with others, but if you are unable to fix it yourself or don't get replies you can mark the article with {{Contradictory inline}}. MKFI (talk) 08:38, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @DefaultActually2453, and welcome to the Teahouse.

As usual, when an editor asks what is clearly a question about a specific case, but fails to identify the case, we are limited in our ability to help.

One thing this crucially depends on is the relationship of the conflicting information to the sources.

• If one claim is supported by a reliable source and the other isn't, then the other should be removed.
• If both claims are supported by what appear to be reliable sources, then they should usually both be included, cited to their different sources, and the article may point out the discrepancy, but should not make any attempt to resolve it. (That would be Original research)
• If neither claim is supported by a reliable source, then ideally you should look for sources; and if you can't find any, remove them from the article.

(This is oversimplified, but it's the best I can do with the limited information). ColinFine (talk) 16:55, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

May I move an article to main space after it is reviewed and rejected?

If someone say, submits a draft to the review page (I forgot what it's called) and it gets rejected, can they just ditch the review and move it into the article space? Abudefduf221 (talk) 07:07, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Unless someone has a conflict of interest, is partial blocked from creating articles, under editing restrictions, or using a temporary account, the AFC draft process is voluntary. You could move a draft into mainspace and disregard the reviews. However, this increases the chances that the article would be subject to a deletion discussion or moved back to draft. Unless you have experience in having drafts accepted, it is best to use the draft process so that you figure out any problems first, rather than after the draft is moved, when it is assumed you knew what you were doing. 331dot (talk) 07:25, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

I have a lot of accepted drafts. What I care about the most is if I'd get in trouble for it. Abudefduf221 (talk) 09:05, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

You wouldn't "get in trouble" for doing it once or a few times, but if you make a habit out of moving drafts into mainspace that are continually moved back or deleted, that wastes other editor's time and and some point you would be asked to stop. 331dot (talk) 09:11, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

I think you really mean two questions:

Can they? Usually nothing stops them.

Will it be allowed to stay there? Very doubtful IMO. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 08:06, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

@Abudefduf221 If you're confident in your ability to write articles to an appropriate standard then you don't need to bother with AfC anyway.

I think it is generally inappropriate and a bad idea to move a draft to mainspace after it's been declined. The whole point of the decline is that the reviewer is telling you it's not fit for mainspace yet. If you put it in mainspace anyway, then you're first of all essentially saying the reviewer's judgement is wrong (in which case you should discuss it with them rather than just ignoring them) and secondly you're potentially wasting editor time by subjecting the article to a possible AfD discussion etc, (not to mention wasting the AfC reviewer's time by submitting the draft for a review that you had no intention of abiding by anyway) Athanelar (talk) 09:47, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Can you? Yes. Should you? No. Draft's don't get declined/rejected for no reason. If a draft gets declined or rejected then it doesn't belong in mainspace in its current state (for a decline) or ever (for a reject). Electricmemory (talk) In solidarity 11:13, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

What is #BOI AI?

Hello Wikipedia Teahouse, In patrolling recent changes, I have come across some edits by new TAs with the edit summary "#BOI AI". What is meant by this? Seeing these was what prompted me to ask this question, but I remember seeing the same thing yesterday, though I don't have a link. crtbob@talk:~$ ls contribs 08:37, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

BOI AI is an AI company, however it doesn't make sense that a company of its caliber would be involved with TAs vandalizing Wikipedia. Electricmemory (talk) In solidarity 11:11, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

My first guess would be that they were using AI to make the edits, although clearly doing a very poor job of it (even for how bad AI is in the first place). Or maybe they're just a bro trying to smear the name around? ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 09:42, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

The edits seemed to reference nonexistent templates, which I could imagine AI doing. Not sure though. crtbob@talk:~$ ls contribs 09:44, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

I can't even begin to guess what they were trying to accomplish. If it was a hallucinated template in a larger body of slop that would be more typical. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 09:47, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Seeking feedback on "neutral point of view" in draft

Hi all, new editor here. I've recently had a draft declined "This draft is not written from a neutral point of view" citing the following: promotional language, personal commentary, and informal language.

I've re-worded a line that previously contained "denied" as that was one of the words flagged that could introduce bias. I'm interested if there's any specific feedback on this draft that can help me edit?

Draft article here: Draft:Judah Smith

Any guidance appreciated. Kv0033 (talk) 08:45, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Fixed link for proper display. 331dot (talk) 09:04, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

@Kv0033 Have you clicked the link to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view which is attached to the sentence you've quoted? That page is our relevant policy on the matter. Athanelar (talk) 09:49, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

@Athanelar: Yes, I've read it, along with Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch linked from that page. I saw that "denied" was potentially loaded and have since reworded that line in the draft. The decline cites promotional language, personal commentary and informal language as categories, though each paragraph is cited to independent reporting rather than the subject's own material, which is part of why I'm unsure what's triggering it.

Is there feedback on the specific elements that fail the test?

I'm wondering whether it's a weighting problem rather than sentence-level, e.g. too much space given to the controversy (critique) or to his books (promotional). An example would help me learn and apply the same standard across the rest. Kv0033 (talk) 10:28, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

You cannot include content like "Smith's preaching generally emphasizes divine grace, forgiveness and acceptance." in Wikipedia's voice. Theroadislong (talk) 10:45, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Why not? Provided the information can be sourced, a (notable) preacher's theological viewpoint is just a description of how they do their job, in the same way that we describe Jean-François Champollion as a philologist known primarily for his work on Egyptian hieroglyphs, Keynes as an economist known for founding Keynesian economics and so on. Stating that Smith preaches about divine grace, forgiveness and acceptance doesn't mean that Wikipedia believes in grace, forgiveness and acceptance, it just means Wikipedia, based on sources, thinks that's what the guy talks about. But the important things (Kv0033 are: (1: sourcing) we can only say what independent people tell us Smith talks about; (2: accuracy) we have to write it in a way that makes it clear this is Smith's viewpoint, not The Truth According To Wikipedia; (3: non-promotional) we have to choose neutral words that don't make it sound as though we approve or disapprove of Smith's viewpoint. Elemimele (talk) 12:21, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

@Kv0033 NPOV isn't a matter of removing certain words; it's a structural problem. A Wikipedia article should generally be a dispassionate summary of what reliable sources entirely unaffiliated with the article subject have written about that subject. If an article reads like the sort of thing that would be on the subject's own website, or consists mostly of things they themselves would like us to know about them, then that can be an NPOV issue. The best person to ask would be @Sulfurboy, since they're the one who declined it. Athanelar (talk) 13:13, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Old Wikipedia...

On Reddit,There is a chat that has the following question,Had Wikipedia used to be bad? Many people contributed to this question so I am asking you Wikipedians if you think so too.

Just asking... SinplicityOverused598 (talk) 11:53, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

This page is for questions about editing Wikipedia, if you want to chat about WP, use Reddit or similar forums. Had Wikipedia used to be bad? is not an understandable question. That said, you may or may not find From Anarchy to Wikiality, Glaring Bias to Good Cop: Press Coverage of Wikipedia’s First Two Decades and other chapters from that book interesting. Or WP-articles like Reliability of Wikipedia. According to some people, WP-articles tend to get better over time, or at least those that get attention, according to other people, every WP-article, page and editor is part of a leftist conspiracy. As a reader, you have to reach your own conclusion. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:51, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Right at the top of this page is (my emboldening) "Your go-to place for friendly help with using and editing Wikipedia." Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:32, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Granted, but the OP is about neither, correct? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:43, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

wikipedia not being updated

why isn’t Wikipedia updated for a long time?! Way of a hope0 (talk) 15:31, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? Are there particular articles that seem out of date? Is something not showing up in searches? (When new articles are written they are blocked from search engines until 90 days or a review, whichever comes first, so often they will not show up quickly.) Are you not able to see changes you know have been made? (You could try clearing your browser cache.) ~2026-44020-82 (talk) 15:47, 10 August 2026 (UTC) (apologies for the TA, this was me, it suddenly logged me out-- M kuhner (talk) 15:54, 10 August 2026 (UTC))

Seconding the TA. This is too vague for us to give anything close to a fair answer. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Look out it's Jimothy!} 15:49, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Way of a hope0, Wikipedia has over 7.2 million articles: nearly all of them are independent entities that are updated by those particular individuals (around 100,000 different people in any month period) interested in them, when there is something to update. Some topics are updated frequently if there is reason to, others may perhaps be a little neglected.

The majority of all updates and indeed all edits have to be made by volunteers who choose to do so, although a few figures may be automatically updated from other sources, like Wikidata, with which Wikipedia has links.

If there is some particular article, or subject area, which you think is too infrequently updated, tell us what it is. You may be right, in which case we may be able to do something about it, or there may be reasons that we can explain to you. Awaiting your reply . . . . {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.;195} ~2026-41275-62 (talk) 19:33, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

WHAT HAPPEN! You Blocked ME!

because lock editor upload was enter me Hello! (talk) 15:52, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

What?

You are not blocked, @Giovanni Mosa. And your post makes no sense at all. Draft:Saltsjo Warth also makes no sense at all. Perhaps you would be better working in the Wikipedia of your native language (perhaps Italian?) ColinFine (talk) 17:03, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

@ColinFine It may be significant that OP is indeffed on sv:Wikipedia. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:10, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Ok! I'm Not Blocked me Forever! Hello! (talk) 17:37, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Adding a Geographical Map to a Wikipedia Article

Hi everyone! I would like to add a geographical map to help readers understand the location being discussed. What is the recommended way to add a map to a Wikipedia article, and are there any guidelines or templates I should follow when choosing or creating one? SimplyAdvanced10 (talk) 16:29, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @SimplyAdvanced10, and welcome to the Teahouse.

See WP:Maps for Wikipedia. (Hint: when looking for information about a topic in editing Wikipedia, it often works to put "WP:" on the front of it. I typed "WP:Maps" into the search bar, and autocomplete gave me that link). ColinFine (talk) 17:05, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

@SimplyAdvanced10: Many articles use infoboxes with a feature to include a map. Which article is it about? PrimeHunter (talk) 22:40, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

New sports play creation!

Hi! Yes I'm excited to have invented/discovered a simple but profound concept that has allowed me and my volleyball community to create a whole new way to play that is ideal in all key ways. I've never submitted anything to Wikipedia, nor copyright and patents (maybe I should get that first ???). But I want the world to know and benefit from it. So I'm looking for help, advice, companionship with this project. James Boulder, Colorado. ~2026-43988-01 (talk) 17:27, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

@James, sorry to disappoint you but Wikipedia does not publish original research. You will have to use some other outlet for your invention. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:31, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-43988-01: Welcome to The Teahouse. If sources that Wikipedia considers reliable pick up this concept, it might warrant a mention on an existing article (or maybe its own if there's substantial information). Until then, I'd suggest looking at some alternative outlets. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:36, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

About other parts of your plan: You can't own or protect a scheme for playing volleyball. Everyone will always be free to copy you. (There might be ways around this, but if you succeeded, then your team would be disallowed from playing.) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 23:16, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-43988-01 Please see also WP:MADEUP. David10244 (talk) 13:52, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Help with Draft: Anu Tomar - reliable newspaper sources added

Hello, I have been working on User:Advocate_vinit_tyagi/sandbox about Indian shooter Anu Tomar from Baraut, Baghpat. My earlier drafts Draft:Anu_Tomar were declined for reliable sources.

I have now replaced all primary NRAI sources with multiple independent newspapers from my personal collection of offline clippings:

• Dainik Jagran (19 Nov 2009, p.5), (20 Nov 2011, p.3), (14 Feb 2012, p.5)
• Amar Ujala (19 Nov 2009), (1 Apr 2012, Baghpat)
• Hindustan (19 Nov 2009, Meerut)
• Rashtriya Sahara (19 Nov 2009, Meerut)
• The Hindu (18 Aug 2010) for Indian Railways squad selection for USIC World Railways Shooting Championship, Poland

All are cited with newspaper, date, location and page where available using Cite news template.

Could someone please check if these now meet WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:RS for notability? I have resubmitted my sandbox for review.

Thank you. Advocate vinit tyagi (talk) 17:49, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello. If you have resubmitted it, the reviewer will conduct the review that you are requesting, there is no need for a pre-review review. However, as I write this, I see that it was rejected, so it's the end of the line. 331dot (talk) 18:46, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

How do I create a new sandbox?

I create sandboxes for myself to help organize different projects I am working on for Wikipedia. Currently I am working on a specific military unit.

I used to be able to search on wikipedia at User:(your username)/sandbox, now it says this is blacklisted? Are we not allowed to create sandboxs for ourselves anymore? Or is there another way to create them? Thanks. (:

Historyguy1138/sandbox51 Historyguy1138 (talk) 19:25, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

@Historyguy1138: Welcome to The Teahouse. It looks like you were looking for your sandbox in articlespace, and page titles cannot have the string sandbox. If you're trying to look for subpages under your username (which includes your sandbox), you can try typing User:Historyguy1138/ and let the search bar look for specific pages.

Perhaps the easiest way without installing any scripts would be to go to User:Historyguy1138, clicking on the three vertical dots button in the top-right corner, and clicking "Page information". From there you can the link that says "Number of subpages of this page" to get a list of all subpages. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:40, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi thanks :) .

I am trying to make a new sandbox, I know where my other sandboxes are. I think up until recently you could create more than one sandbox.

This is a recent development not having the string sandbox before as I have been able to do it several times in the past.

Is there another way to create a sandbox or something similar that you know of?

For example could I just try to say User:Historyguy1138/testzone or something instead of Sandbox? Thanks. (: Historyguy1138 (talk) 19:52, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

You can use any page name that is not egregiously offensive or disruptive (subject to the usual technical limits), within your "User space". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:18, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Hmmm I think that solved the problem. Thank you. (: Historyguy1138 (talk) 20:25, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

@Historyguy1138: Your original post had a link to Historyguy1138/sandbox51 which is missing User: so it's in articlespace where names with sandbox are blacklisted. You should be able to create User:Historyguy1138/sandbox51. Do you get an error when you try? PrimeHunter (talk) 22:35, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Hmmmm I did. But it looks good now. Maybe it was just glitching out or something. Thanks. (: Historyguy1138 (talk) 05:35, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Christian Science Editor

I'm not sure where to take this to, so I figured I would take it here. The editor, @Soderstromverrier, created their account in April and since then have edited almost exclusively the Christian Science page around 100 times. The editor seems to have a connection with Christian Science, from their user page, "Worked at The Mother Church in the Office of the Archivist 1971-1977", which I presume refers to the Christian Science Mother Church. Their edits seem quite biased, including such gems as, "From the 1890s, the liberal section of the movement became known as New Thought, in part to distinguish it from the more Scripturally based Christian Science.", and an uncited section that seems to try to argue against a common criticism of it, "Quimby did not publish articles or books about his theories or methods for healing; he made cursory handwritten notes but left no manuscripts in his own handwriting. The closest documentation available of his approach to mental healing was his advertisement (cited above), which is noticeably lacking in reference to the Scriptures." This user had their edits reverted at least 5 times, but kept readding them.

What is the best way to deal with this? Would it be wise just to revert to the last edit before Soder started editing? It seems like it would take a ton of work to go through every single edit made and figure out whether each is reliable.

Thanks so much for any advice- Therealdoomcat (talk) 20:31, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

There is a general discussion of content disputes and what steps are available at WP:Dispute resolution. Has this been discussed with the editor, either on their Talk page or on the Talk page of Christian Science? If that hasn't been done it is an essential first step. If it has been done and problems continue, one of the noticeboards is a likely next step. I'm not sure the COI noticeboard is going to be appropriate for a connection that deep in the past: I'd look at either dispute resolution, edit warring, or as a last resort ANI, depending on your judgment of the situation. Feel free to ping me if you'd like help navigating the noticeboards. M kuhner (talk) 21:19, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Two different users have brought it up on Soder's talk page back in April, but the behavior continued after that. I only just stumbled upon this page and these issues today and so haven't personally reached out to them yet, but I definitely will right after this. Therealdoomcat (talk) 21:41, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Any way to cancel a speedy request

Is there any way to cancel a speedy rename request because when I tried to request a rename to a category, I accidentally placed the wrong deletion type (C2A) and it’s supposed to be C2D, is there any way to cancel it and re-do it again? SBF2004 (talk) 23:08, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

I assume you're referring to this? It's since been fixed, but for future reference all you need to do is edit that single character, since it appears with this type of nomination it only affects that text line. In other situations if the nomination is entirely wrong you can just self-revert and redo it correctly. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 08:56, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

10 That Changed America

Would 10 That Changed America be a massive copyright violation based on Wikipedia:Copyright in lists or no? 781h (talk) 23:21, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Why can’t I put critical information about Sam Cooper on his page?

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

---

I’m trying to include legal issues and controversies surrounding Sam Cooper and his journalistic reporting why am I unable to do it? Zaytovenati (talk) 23:28, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

It's at least partly because you are creating intentionally biased material by changing the article to say what you want to say about Cooper.

If you're planning to stay on Wikipedia instead of getting blocked or banned, what you'll need to do is quit having opinions while editing. Your opinions only count when you're not on here. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 23:41, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

I would ask.....why are you here? To help us build this encyclopedia? Or to tell the world your views about Mr. Cooper's reporting? If he wasn't involved in what you deem controversies, would you still have come here to edit about him?

Please read WP:BLP very carefully. Writing about living people is a very difficult task to dive into as a new editor. 331dot (talk) 23:48, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

I understand the WP:BLP concern, but I think you’re making an assumption about why I’m here. Yes, I have an opinion about Cooper’s reporting. I also actually read the reporting, looked into the underlying sources, and found documented issues that I think are relevant to his biography.

I’m not asking Wikipedia to publish my opinion that Cooper is a bad journalist. I’m asking why court findings, an inquiry, lawsuits and an actual retraction are apparently off-limits when they’re directly relevant to the subject’s journalistic history.

If the wording is biased, let’s fix the wording. If a source doesn’t support something, point it out and I’ll remove it. But telling me to “quit having opinions” isn’t really addressing the material I’m proposing.

That’s exactly why I requested a third opinion. Let someone who isn’t involved in this disagreement look at the sources and decide whether the material belongs and how it should be written. Zaytovenati (talk) 23:55, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Those are primary sources. 331dot (talk) 00:17, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

... And if what you were putting was the truth, then that means you don't even understand what an opinion is - and in that case you'd have a very tough time succeeding here. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 23:52, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Well, since all it says on there about him is that he’s an award-winning journalist and talks little to none about his controversy. There’s clearly some type of biased already there. How would you address it? Zaytovenati (talk) 23:56, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

You know what they say about pointing fingers, the more you point the more that are pointing back at you haha let’s try to remain lighthearted guys Zaytovenati (talk) 23:58, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

There are proper sources that discuss the awards he's won. Not what you deem a controversy. If you have independent sources that report on the results of a lawsuit or official inquiry, let's have it. 331dot (talk) 00:18, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

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

What should I do, if I recognise that there should be an article about a specific topic, but do not have the skills to create one?

This is specifically about Talagrand's Convexity Conjecture (now solved) in Math, usually I would ask my mentor, however they haven't been active for the past 300 days. Kirby123456 (talk) 01:17, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

At the foot of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics, you might suggest article creation. -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 01:31, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

You can request a different mentor if yours is no longer active, FYI. But we're always happy to help over here too. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 08:45, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Is a poor source better than no source?

I'm looking at Marty Haugen. It says it needs citations and I am not an expert but I thought I'd try to find sources to verify some of the claims.

I was specifically looking into the claim

> He holds a position as composer-in-residence at Creekside United Church of Christ in Minneapolis.

Ideally I would like something like a published resume or staff page at the church in question, but I couldn't find either. I could find articles about him that fact, including this one from Reformed Worship: https://www.reformedworship.org/resource/minister-word-through-music-interview-marty-haugen. To me at least, they are not the kind of household name that I trust them to not have copied this from wikipedia themselves (I can certainly find low quality "articles" that are just a carbon copy of the wikipedia page itself). They don't themselves cite any sources or even have like an author line, which makes me even less confident of its quality.

In a situation like this, is it better to add an imperfect source to back the claim in the article, or leave it without a source cited, or do something else entirely. Packrat3860 (talk) 03:33, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

As church musicians go, in the denominations with which he's usually associated, Haugen is about as close to being a famous celebrity as anyone. If it says he works at a certain church yet you find no sign of that, it may mean that since this part of the article was written he has started working somewhere else. It doesn't have to mean that, I don't know. But I would look around for a better or newer source, leaving the article as-is while looking. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 05:06, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

It's also possible that this composer-in-residence thing was an ad hoc arrangement and they don't exactly consider him a staff member there. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 05:11, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

@Packrat3860: the answer to your question is that there should be no information in an article on a living person (WP:BLP) which isn't supported by a reliable source, therefore you should ideally take such information out.

If, for whatever reason, you opt to leave it in, then I'd say it's better to have it tagged with {{citation needed}}, than 'supported' by a poor quality source, because the latter gives to a casual reader the impression that the statement is properly supported, which it isn't. Or you could support it with a poor source and tag it with {{better source needed}}, which might be marginally better than leaving it entirely unsupported. (This is just my drive-by take on the matter, not necessarily grounded in any of that policy stuff I keep hearing about.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:55, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

I think I'm going to track down the provenance of the source I do have that mentions him. The couple places I can find online that reference this composer-in-residence appointment trace back to an Emily R Brink who shows up as a researcher/editor in the field of Christian worship music (so she probably knew what she was talking about) but also having retired in 2021 (so who knows if it is still the case). I'm going to see if I can find which book or original publication of hers they're all citing and then I'll at least have a reliable source for when it was published.

I also had the idea that I might just send an email to the congregation office and ask if he is employed there (or if they have some other formal arrangement with him that isn't "proper" employment), but if I were to do that could I even cite the result? Packrat3860 (talk) 06:02, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Emily R Brink is/was associated with a major website associated with church music in general, but not associated with individual churches, and (as far as employment information for an individual) likely to have been already out of date on the day we first sourced it. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 06:13, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

(And if she's still with us, she is now over 85 years old.) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 06:17, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

You could see if the editor who added that statement is still active, and if so ask them how they know. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:58, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Tropical Storm Utor (2001)

Can you check your authorship of Tropical Storm Utor (2001)? Anubis blocking me "Oh noes!". Should be disabled Anubis? Thank you. ~🌀Ampil ^{「💬 / 📝」} 03:40, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Ampil,

What do you mean by authorship?

As for Anubis, it shouldn't be a problem. Try reloading the page (Cmd/Ctrl + R); if this fails, try using Incognito mode, a different browser or a different device.

Happy editing! Giovanni Guasconti (a word with me) 03:52, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

@Giovanni Guasconti:, Storm Utor (2001) Here Check if Ampil more than 10 percent authorship. Iframe showing

Oh noes!

Your browser is configured to disable cookies. Anubis requires cookies for the legitimate interest of making sure you are a valid client. :::Please enable cookies for this domain.

Go home

Protected by Anubis From Techaro. Made with ❤️ in 🇨🇦.

Mascot design by CELPHASE.

This website is running Anubis version 1.25.0.

I don't want to enable cookies. still having error. ~🌀Ampil ^{「💬 / 📝」} 04:05, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

If you don’t enable cookies, which are presumably required by Anubis to verify your session, you will likely keep getting the same error. I don’t know of a workaround myself. Giovanni Guasconti (a word with me) 04:48, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes I can. This shows that I've made no edits to it. However, this (an attempt to show how many you've made) brings a 500 error: "You shouldn't be seeing this page. Please report this to User:Σ on enwp." -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 04:08, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Use Xtools, not Sigma. I will nominate for GAN. Thank you. ~🌀Ampil ^{「💬 / 📝」} 04:17, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

My Xtools gives 25.5%. Do not reply on this section. ~🌀Ampil ^{「💬 / 📝」} 05:03, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Do the sources in Draft:EazyDiner meet WP:NCORP? (COI disclosed)

Hello. I have a disclosed conflict of interest — I work at EazyDiner (stated on my user page, {{paid}}) — and I wrote Draft:EazyDiner through Articles for Creation. It was declined on 8 August for corporate notability and promotional tone. Since then I have revised it: the only company-website citation was removed (all 15 references are now independent publications), and wording was neutralised. My mentor kindly did a quick read and felt the wording is now neutral, but did not have time to assess the references, and suggested I ask here.

Before I use the resubmission, I would be grateful if someone could look at whether the sourcing meets WP:NCORP. The references I believe count towards notability (the rest are used for routine facts only):

• Business Standard, "How EazyDiner is carving a niche that Zomato can't enter" (26 August 2015) — dedicated feature on the company's model
• Forbes India, "Eating Out? Reserve Your Table With EazyDiner" (14 April 2016) — ~1,000-word feature
• Business Today, "Table for All" (3 July 2016) — magazine feature on the business model and unit economics
• The Ken (2022) and The CapTable (April 2025) — analytical pieces on India's dining-out market that discuss EazyDiner's position

My specific questions: (1) do these amount to the "multiple, independent, significant" coverage NCORP requires, and (2) if not, which of them fall short and why, so I know what kind of source would actually close the gap? If the honest answer is "wait for stronger coverage", I would rather do that than resubmit prematurely. Thank you. Hemantt001 (talk) 05:32, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

@Hemantt001 Please don't use AI to talk to us. We have no way to determine whether you actually understand the requirements or the feedback being given when we see the same AI generated question about notability, with identical wording, that we've seen from 100 other users.

In short; like the vast majority of other companies in the world, this one does not seem to meet our requirements, largely for reasons of WP:CORPDEPTH. Athanelar (talk) 05:43, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Would "Gambling and Finance" be a good article?

Hi, lately I think there's been an increasing convergence of the financial world with gambling (re: prediction markets, rising popularity of 0dte options, r/wallstreetbets and its meme stocks, etc.) and I was wondering if having an article dedicated to documenting the relationship/history of the two (particularly in the last decade or so) would be an appropriate addition. Thank you ~2026-37166-79 (talk) 06:44, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Have reliable sources "[documented] the relationship/history of the two (particularly in the last decade or so)"? If so, somebody could distill these -- citing them scrupulously, of course -- into a draft that would have a good chance of being accepted as an article. If such sources weren't cited, then a draft would be doomed. So, first amass the sources; then create the draft. "No original research." -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 08:22, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

I think you'll find most or all of that is already covered on various individual articles. I suspect you'd have difficulty finding sources that discuss them all as a single phenomenon. Combining them when sources do not would be a violation of WP:OR. You are however free to expand on the existing articles such as prediction markets, and maybe improve the coverage at gambling itself.
I may be wrong however, and if there are multiple reliable sources that discuss it in detail it may indeed qualify for a separate article. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 08:36, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

I have a gut feeling that sources probably do exist for such an article; I've definitely seen video essays on the topic (but we can't use those as sources) - as the others have said, though, the question of whether such an article can exists depends entirely on whether such sources can be found. Athanelar (talk) 09:15, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

If you decide to go ahead with this, I suggest that you don't limit the article to "particularly in the last decade or so". The overlap between finance and gambling goes back many decades. Here are a couple of sources that you might find useful:

• Sorkin, Andrew Ross (2025). 1929: Inside the Greatest Crash in History. Viking Books. ISBN 9780241479421.
• Kucharski, Adam (2016). The Perfect Bet: How Science and Math Are Taking the Luck Out of Gambling. Basic Books. ISBN 9780465055951.

Mike Marchmont (talk) 11:59, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Others have already said this, but I have a feeling that different words may help.

You know about Wikipedia:Reliable sources. For some topic to be worth a Wikipedia article, reliable sources have to literally show you that it's worth a Wikipedia article; they do that by publishing their own articles that are on the exact topic. In the case of "combined-topic topics" like this one, then their articles need to be explicitly about both at once; you as an editor can't choose some single-topic sources and fit them together. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 14:10, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

How do i make teto talk?

Im trying to make some video of teto alking and it dosent let me in ANY WAY Someonewholovesteto (talk) 09:54, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Someonewholovesteto, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Is this relevant to using or editing Wikipedia? I don't quite see how. If not, then I'm afraid this is the wrong place for the question. ColinFine (talk) 10:04, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi Someonewholovesteto. The Wikipedia Teahouse is a place where you can ask questions related to Wikipedia, but it's not really a place to ask question about non-Wikipedia stuff. So, if by teto, you mean Kasane Teto, then you probably need to search online for some official website or forum directly connected to that particular software/product/thing for information on how to do what you want to do. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:09, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Notibility

is it possible for someone with three article to have Wikipedia page? Mayommugezi (talk) 11:48, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Greetings @Mayomugezi, What three articles are you referring to? Best Regards, Barbara ✐✉ 12:56, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Mayommugezi, and welcome to the Teahouse.

What do you mean by "with three articles"?

If you are talking about three articles that the person wrote, these do not contribute in any way to establishing that that person meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability.

This does not necessarily mean that they are not notable, just that them having written articles does nothing to support this.

On the other hand, if you mean three substantial, secondary, independent, reliably published articles about them, with no involvement from them or their associates, then it is possible that that might be enough to establish notability, so there can be an article about them based on those three independent articles: see WP:42. ColinFine (talk) 16:01, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

@Mayommugezi Your talk page shows that you've had many many failures and no successes. A simple little question like this is not going to solve anything. Please really read what they said when they reviewed your articles. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:02, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

CopyVio or not

The content of this article around the History of metal casting was taken from "Doru Michael Stefanescu (2023-02-10). "A Succinct History of Metalcasting Knowledge". International Journal of Metalcasting. doi:10.1007/s40962-023-00971-5. ISSN 1939-5981. S2CID 256797492." I have contacted the author on ResearchGate, and since then, we have been in contact. He kindly then contacted the journal to get the rights to his own work, and they could not change the license on the main without a retraction, but allowed him to upload the article publicly to ResearchGate. I am finalizing the typesetting, making sure the text can integrate with other articles that mention pit and pieces, and then he was suppose to contact Wikipedia to donate the text but am not sure if that will even work given that what is indicated in the Journal published article's Rights and permissions. FuzzyMagma (talk) 11:49, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

If there's going to be permission, it can only come from who the law thinks is the owner of the copyright. If the author gave his copyright to the journal, then the journal owns the work and he doesn't. In the same way that I can't give people permission to live in a house if I already sold that house to you, he can't give permission if the rights aren't his anymore.

(If he succeeds in making some kind of deal with them, then it depends on what the deal actually says.) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 13:50, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Make sense. I do not think there is anyway around it. Its a copyVio. FuzzyMagma (talk) 16:05, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

@FuzzyMagma Also, text can't be donated for Wikipedia's use only. Text can be put into the public domain, in which case we could use it verbatim, and so could everyone else in the world. The copyright owner is the only one who can place text into the public domain.

On the other hand, once something is published, we can cite it as a source, and paraphrase what it says. Most of our sources, including articles in major newspapers and books, are copyrighted. We just can't paraphrase the material too closely. David10244 (talk) 14:05, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Text can be donated (not for Wikipedia's use only, which is something I have never stated), see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. FuzzyMagma (talk) 16:04, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Stepping back a moment: A Wikipedia article is not a scientific journal paper. Even if this were legally possible (and once it's published by a journal, it very likely will never be possible), it wouldn't be desirable. The best approach is for someone to write a Wikipedia article based on this (and other) sources. Just to point out one difference (as someone who writes science papers professionally): science papers prefer primary sources, Wikipedia prefers secondary sources. M kuhner (talk) 14:44, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

The main/original article was written so it can be accessible to the public. Not technical at all. But I get your point FuzzyMagma (talk) 15:59, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

But a Wikipedia article is different from any other kind of writing that I know. A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what the majority of people who are wholly unconnected with the subject have independently chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, (see Golden rule) and not much else. What you know (or anybody else knows) about the subject is not relevant except where it can be verified from a reliable published source.

Looking at User:FuzzyMagma/History of metal casting, I see the line "It was the dawn of the Iron Age", with a citation to - a report (apparently - I get 404) about two bronze age axe-heads.

That sentence is an example of the sort of editorialising which is appropriate for a magazine article, and entirely inappropriate for a Wikipedia article. ColinFine (talk) 16:07, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

@FuzzyMagma It's not anything about accessibility for the average reader - it's to tell you that Wikipedia refuses material that comes straight from an expert. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 18:40, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Corrections needed to Wikipedia page

The Wikipedia page - https://w.wiki/BkK5. On top of the webpage following message appears: This article may rely excessively on sources too closely associated with the subject, potentially preventing it from being verifiable and neutral. Please help improve this article by replacing such sources with more appropriate citations to reliable, independent sources. My question is what need to be done to fix these errors? Can you guide me to fix these errors, or someone at Wikipedia will look into it and fix them? Please suggest, looking forward to hearing a response, thank you Ashok Jain ~2026-44058-77 (talk) 14:51, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

The page you're referring to, Ashok Jain (biotechnologist), appears to be about you. Is that true? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 15:47, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Well, they said thank you Ashok Jain at the end of their post, so I think so. Justjourney (talk | contribs) 16:15, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @~2026-44058-77.

I'm afraid that the error is that the article was created by @HRShami, who at that time clearly did not understand how to create a Wikipedia article. (I hope you didn't pay them anything).

A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what the majority of people who are wholly unconnected with the subject have independently chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, (see Golden rule) and not much else. What you know (or anybody else knows) about the subject is not relevant except where it can be verified from a reliable published source.

But Ashok Jain (biotechnologist) does not appear to have a single source which is independent of him (you?). It is like a house built without any foundations, without even surveying the ground to see if it is fit to build on.

The most pressing problem is that the article does not show that Jain meets the criteria for notability, or the more specific criteria for notability as an academic. If he does not, then the article should be deleted. If he does, then the article should be rewritten, probably from a blank start, as a summary of the required independent sources (see WP:42).

As for what you can do: not a lot, if you are Jain: see WP:AUTOPROB - but that is mostly about an article which is adequate, but needs updating or correction. Finding sources that demonstrate that you meet one of the criteria linked above would be the strongest thing you can do, but you will still be dependent on a volunteer editor choosing to work on the article. ColinFine (talk) 16:26, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

There is a potential get-out clause for academics: a really good publication record is enough to satisfy the first criterion of WP:NACADEMIC, one of the links that ColinFine provided. The author's own publications do count towards this, and therefore generate notability. Although they are not independent of the author (they were written by him and his associates!), if the publication is in a respectable peer reviewed journal it counts as independently-validated as relevant and impactful, and if there are enough publications sufficiently widely cited, this can indicate that the academic has influenced his field enough to be considered notable in Wikipedia's sense. In this situation, it's also okay to provide the bald facts of the academic's career based on institutional websites, because we have a touching faith in academic organisations to be truthful about their staff. The bottom line is that at the moment it reads like a CV intended to impress; it would stand a much better chance of surviving an AfD deletion discussion if it were reduced to a minimum of facts, worded in a totally neutral manner. To the original poster of the question: if you are Ashok Jain and you actually want a Wikipedia article about yourself (it's not always an advantage), you can post edit requests on the talk-page (make them really specific, and backed up with sources) - and you are also allowed to join in with the deletion discussion if the article is nominated for deletion; the deletion discussion is also a place where you can bring up additional sources if you think they would help. Please don't be too down if the article does get trimmed or deleted; Wikipedia has a very strange and specific definition of notability; many, many fundamentally good people doing very important things (and doing them outstandingly well) nevertheless don't meet Wikipedia's definition. Elemimele (talk) 16:43, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Unidentified User

A user by the name of Pageturner3 has been editing one of the pages I manage. This person has removed my references and put in his own in place of them. I believe this individual is one who has used aliases in the past to edit my page and who is in disagreement with my researched findings. Because he does not agree with my historical findings (all documented) he feels entitled to remove them. This is part of an effort of three people to discredit the clan and myself, their historian. Who do I report this to? I was under the impression that Wikipedia required login and user identification pages to edit. But this person has no personal page or anything that identifies them. I can tell by the content who I believe it is. Pheigi (talk) 16:20, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Pheigi, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Without looking at the details, I can say that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia. There is no such thing as "a page I manage". All pages in Wikipedia - articles, talk page, even user pages - are the property of Wikipedia, and (with certain restrictions) anybody in the world may edit any of them.

If another editor disagrees with you about what should be in an article, they have precisely as much right to edit the article as you do. If you disagree with their edits, then you need to discuss it with them, according to the procedure in WP:BRD; and if you are unable to reach a consensus, dispute resolution will tell you some ways to proceed. ColinFine (talk) 16:38, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

I notice that Pageturner3 has used the talk page of Clan MacLaren. It would be a good idea to address the issues there. Reading the comments, there are several people writing things that are basically "I know because I'm an expert"; that's not how Wikipedia works. When a Wikipedia editor "researches" something, that can only mean "reads a range of books/articles/etc. written by other historians", not "forms his/her own opinion based on looking at primary sources, talking to people and deducing stuff".

There is also a slight awkwardness, Pheigi, when you describe yourself as "their historian". If you consider yourself as having an official capacity related to the subject, you should not be editing the article at all, because this is a conflict of interest. You should probably be placing edit-requests on the talk-page instead. Elemimele (talk) 16:54, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

First, thank you everyone for the responses and the welcome - much appreciated.

I apologise for using incorrect terminology. I edit the page in question and a couple of others that fall within my knowledge and research interests. I realise I don't own it or really manage it. I just didn't quite know how to phrase that.

I will continue to address the issues on the page itself. But my question really related to people using alias to edit - is that kosher?

Thank you. Pheigi (talk) 17:13, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

@Pheigi There is no requirement to create an account or to use your real name when editing Wikipedia: it is "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit". However, even temporary accounts now have user talk pages. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:21, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you Mike. That answers my question.

Pheigi Pheigi (talk) 20:24, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Article With Improper / Erroneous / Misrepresented Citations

Hi! I'm excited to join the volunteer crew.

I wanted to ask about an article that biases strongly against a psychological professional consensus--specifically, the article on Attachment Theory. I looked up some of the sources cited to support its (extremely long, extremely verbose, extremely leading) controversies section, and many of them do not contain any of the cited information in the text. They may be being used to bolster the criticisms of the phenomenon at the expense of veracity, perhaps assuming that no one would read the sourcing.

The page also has an extremely biased use of language when describing the consensus view on attachment theory which borders on disparaging and mocking. The article also sets up lines of argumentation in its descriptions and leads the reader into the conclusions generated by that lead.

So, in a situation like this, what's the best way to call these problems out? Should I create a Talk page that lists each of the bogus citations and why they don't work? What's the way to best call out the biased language on the page to warn readers against a minority, non-consensus opinion? What's the best course of action here? Conas.Lans (talk) 18:35, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello and welcome. Each article has an associated article talk page, in this case, Talk:Attachment theory. You may use that page to raise any concerns about the attachment theory article and generally collaborate with any other editors that may be following that article. 331dot (talk) 18:43, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

It sounds as if you know quite a bit about attachment theory, and it sounds as if that might be a problem. Wikipedia articles must mainly represent the mainstream view of everything, including that if secondary sources in mainstream psychological literature question or reject something, Wikipedia must question or reject it too. (If mainstream opinion is split, then we say that, and show the sources to prove it.) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 18:49, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

About argumentation in the article: if that argumentation is shown to come from reliable sources, we have to keep it. But if it's a renegade editor making things up, that's totally different. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 18:53, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Hey, thank you so much for the quick replies! I started a Talk thread in that article, and hopefully I can get some response. However, this does appear to be a case of a rogue editor--all of the additional nonsense added was by this one person in the past 10 months or so, with no real activity on the article previously since 2009. Is there an ideal way to address this kind of off-the-handle conspiracist point of view? Conas.Lans (talk) 20:00, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Conas.Lans

You always have the option of simply editing the article. If you edit the article and somebody disagrees and reverts your edit, then in order to pursue it, you'll need to open a discussion on the talk page: if you think there is likely to be pushback, then you can start by opening the discussion without making the chane first. See WP:BRD for how this works.

I advise you not to use phrases like "nonsense" and "conspiracist" in the discussion, as that is likely to inflame things: focus on the content and its compliance with Wikipedia's principles, and attempt to reach consensus.

If you are unable to reach consensus with other editors, dispute resolution gives possible next steps.

If an editor persists in tendentious editing after discussions and warnings, then you can take them to WP:ANI (but read the matter at the head of that page carefully first). But this is about another editor's behaviour, not about their views or beliefs. ColinFine (talk) 21:05, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

creating attributions

I wonder if I could have some assistance with my Sandbox. I have pasted a draft in, and in the original there are small icons that look like paperclips next to statements that will allow anyone to confirm their veracity. However, when I pasted in the text, the icons no longer appear in the document Norbo1952 (talk) 18:56, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

@Norbo1952 You have pasted the draft from where to where? You do not have any edit history showing a draft in your sandbox or anywhere else. Be sure to hit "Publish changes" if you're trying to create a draft in your sandbox. Athanelar (talk) 19:11, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

See also: associated discussion

Hi @Norbo1952,

If you can link to your sandbox, that would be great since I can't find it.

Also, according to your conversation with Raihanur, you used AI to "verify" the statements in your draft. There are two problems with this.

1. It sounds like you're writing your draft backwards. This is extremely difficult and not recommended at all.
2. It also sounds like you're using an LLM (AI) to verify information. This is not allowed since LLMs tend to hallucinate - make up - sources, claims and other information.

My honest advice is to 1) save your draft so we can see it; 2) start afresh. The one case where LLMs are technically allowed is in finding sources to start with, as long as you stop using the LLM after finding your sources. Even so, most editors would recommend using a search engine, academic database or library instead to find reliable source material. Giovanni Guasconti (a word with me) 19:44, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

I will save my draft, Will you then be willing to look at it.

To clarify, I did not use AI to verify. The verifications are legitimate such as actual chart notifications and actual recordings that exist in real time posted on Youtube. Everything related to this band has legitimate and important cultural relevance. Norbo1952 (talk) 19:59, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Here is a link to my sandbox....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Norbo52/sandbox Norbo1952 (talk) 20:02, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

@Norbo1952 If you've written this because you know it yourself, then unfortunately Wikipedia won't accept it.

But if you can show exactly which publication each detail comes from, and if those publications are ones that Wikipedia considers reliable, then it would have a chance. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 20:57, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Are you able to look at my Sandbox? Before I pasted it in, there were small Icons that looked like paper clips that brought the reader to actual verification. Once pasted into the Sandbox those were gone. (I can show you a screenshot of the original document with the citations present) The first and second notations took the reader to actual recordings of the song mentioned posted on Youtube one. The third notation took theb reader to a site called Discogs. all of them are legitimate Norbo1952 (talk) 21:15, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Norbo1952, and welcome to the Teahouse.

A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what the majority of people who are wholly unconnected with the subject have independently chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, (see Golden rule) and not much else. What you know (or anybody else knows) about the subject is not relevant except where it can be verified from a reliable published source.

Start by finding several sources that meet all the conditions in WP:42: independent, secondary, reliably published sources that contain significant coverage of the subject. Don't include any sources where the subject or any associates of the subject had any involvement.

If you can find several such sources (and only then), continue by setting aside everything that you know personally about the subject, and writing a neutral summary of what those independent sources say.

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 21:09, 11 August 2026 (UTC)