Wikipedia:Teahouse

331dot, 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.]

No Pressure Talk

Is It Possible To Have A Looser No Pressure Talk Here About An Article? The article: Performance poetry and the article about ME as a Performance Poet Marty Watt So, I have a conflict of interest. I'm Marty Watt. It has taken me so long to get my name mentioned in the Performance Poetry article but with this bizarre sentence " Marty Watt was connected to the term performance poetry in 1976 through his physical expression of recited poetic works." I was simple a "Performance Poet" who "performed MY memorized poems for live audiences." Thing is that I was most likely the "first" Performance Poet of the Seventies. I have the sources etc mainstream newspapers. Earlier than the one cited in the Performance Poetry article. But that's the kind of thing that Wikipedia figures out - sources etc.

At the top of the Performance Poetry article Wikipedia has posted a caution "This article may lack focus or be about more than one topic. Please help improve this article, possibly by splitting it or creating a disambiguation page. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. (September 2026)" But there has not been anyone on the "Talk Page" for years to work with. The article has SO MANY issues that I have no idea what could be done, If anything. There's setting up some guidelines as to what "Performance Poetry" is and isn't, where other things mentioned - taking up so much space - like Oral Tradition, Performance ART, Spoken word might be given their OWN articles. On & on. How check the sources of some dubious statements.

Many other strange things about the article. So, what with the "Conflict Of interest," I have no idea how to proceed.

I just would appreciate a couple of answers to a couple of questions. Now, I'm an old guy - 74 - not the young character of the history I'm talking about. This whole thing makes me SO nervous. I don't want to break one single rule, or in anyway be the slightest bit inappropriate. Thanks for ANY help,

Marty Watt 22:13, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

Posted by Marty Watt, following Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1307#Article_On_Poetry_Seems_Incorrect_But_Conflict_Of_Interest (of a few days ago). -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 22:32, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

In the earlier thread, ColinFine wrote: "It occurs to me that you might get some discussion if you post at WT:WikiProject Poetry." Your response, Marty Watt: "Yea, Thanks, I'll give it a try." Did you give it a try? -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 22:48, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

Got caught up in other stuff, most firming up and collecting more sources. The talk page there very slow, empty. The nature of poetry. Funny, I became a " Performance Poet" at 19 in 1971, to get AWAY from the " Poetry Scene." They still give me the willies. Marty Watt (talk) 23:07, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

In the earlier thread, ColinFine also wrote: I would advise you use the edit request wizard to create a {{COI edit request}} on the talk page [i.e. Talk:Marty Watt, or Performance poetry, or whichever article you hope will be improved] , which will come to the notice of a wider set of editors than those who watch that page. Be as specific as you can in your request, and cite the sources fully. How about that advice? -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 00:01, 10 October 2026 (UTC) [Slightly amended -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 01:22, 10 October 2026 (UTC)]

i don't want to start any trouble. I will post something there AND wait to see if someone answers this question. Basically seems there is nothing that can be done. I was trying to ask politely as possible. Marty Watt (talk) 00:32, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

Posted in POETRY TALK

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Poetry#h-Is_It_Possible_To_Have_A_Looser_No_Pressure_Talk_Here_About_An_Article?-20261010003900 Marty Watt (talk) 00:43, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

Marty Watt, you have not been impolite and I hope I have not suggested otherwise. You've posted a message to Talk:Poetry. That's a page for suggestions for, and discussions about, a single article: "Poetry". (It's not the same as WT: WikiProject Poetry, which is a page for suggestions for, and discussions about, articles about poetry [articles about particular poets, trends in poetry, poems, poetry books, meter, whatever].) -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 01:22, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

Aaaarrrghhhh! Jeez. Marty Watt (talk) 03:08, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

So, I put my plight on the "WT: WikiProject: Poetry" etc. Nothing. No one is ever on these things about Poetry etc, "Performance Poetry." So, is that it? Too many weirdnesses:Conflict Of Interest, No One Ever On The "work areas" Of These Subjects? Me, I have all the dates etc sourced and whatever is needed. Does this ever happen: bizarre article about a subject but no way to change it? A subject that no one is ever on? Do they just stay that way for years and years? Marty Watt (talk) 02:32, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

Marty Watt, you're referring to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poetry#Nedd_Changes_To_PERFORMANCE_Poetry_Article. In it, you write about the one article Performance poetry. You want its content changed. The place to ask for this is Talk:Performance poetry. (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poetry is a good place to post a brief alert to the request you've made at Talk:Performance poetry.) You've already asked in Talk:Performance poetry (in two threads). You've provided references to three sources (and you've mentioned the existence of others). Of the three, the one that both (i) is likely to be easiest to find and (ii) has the most promising title is Alan M. Kriegsman, “Watt’s It All About, Marty?”, The Washington Post, January 23, 1976, pp. C1, C11. Easiest of the three to find ... but for most editors, not particularly easy to find. So what you need is an editor who's at least moderately interested in performance poetry, who knows enough about it not to be tripped up by terminology, competing claims, etc, who's willing (i) to search for the whereabouts of half-century-old issues of the Post, and (ii) to overcome the hurdles needed to view the article via (I'd guess) microfiche in some research library. -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 03:52, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

This is exactly my point. There are no editors interested in Poetry OR Performance Poetry - no one even on the Talk areas. THAT is the whole point of my question. So, in that case, it just stays the way it is.

The sources don't just have to with me being real. They are there to give dates for how early I was doing this as compared to others mentioned in the article. That being the case, the earliest newspaper review would be best if only one is allowed. 1973. Actually, I started it in 1972, but no source to prove that. Still, so much earlier than others mentioned. By about 10 years or more. Then there's all the stuff maybe for another time: some agreed upon definition of "Performance Poetry." Something to distinguish it from "Performance Art," happening almost at the same time and for some reason always using text, SLAM - the 80's, Spoken Word, the Oral Tradition. The "term of art" in its day was a Seventies thing, still around here and there but supplant ed by SLAM etc Spoken Word. The Beats ( '50s , '60s ) waved their arms around, shouted etc and only very briefly worked with jazz musicians - but continued to READ from a page.

None of it seems to matter. Almost like it's better just not to have an article Performance Poetry if it's going to be so off and no one able to work on it. As it is now, it gives the impression that it's undefinable, been around for thousands of years and mostly has to do with one woman: Hedwig Gorski in the Eighties. I've collected a ton of sources putting the use of the terms "Performance Poetry," and " Performance Poet" long before the Eighties. Marty Watt (talk) 04:32, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi. I have added {{edit COI}} to your requests on Talk:Performance poetry. That way they'll go into the category that has people looking at it. Those requests do take a good bit of time to get answered right now as there's a large backlog, but this way it's at least drawn to the attention of a wider audience. Packrat3860 (talk) 05:14, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you so so much Marty Watt (talk) 05:39, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

Confused? I was told that ARCHIVED reviews etc sources were fine, perfectly okay, official? I am supplying the sources with where they are kept (some: Philadelphia Free Library) or I can just send the copies of them direct - dates page numbers. Why would my place in the history etc tha dates depend on what is easiest to look up? Marty Watt (talk) 21:48, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

I'm not 100% sure if I'm answering your real question, but I'll try: Archives are fine, libraries are fine, but no matter what kind your sources are, you must give the exact way that any random person will be able to find it. Page numbers and all the other specifics are your job to provide so that no one can go on a wild goose chase. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 03:41, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you so much. So, why did some write this : "You've provided references to three sources (and you've mentioned the existence of others). Of the three, the one that both (i) is likely to be easiest to find and (ii) has the most promising title is Alan M. Kriegsman, “Watt’s It All About, Marty?”, The Washington Post, January 23, 1976, pp. C1, C11. Easiest of the three to find ... but for most editors, not particularly easy to find. So what you need is an editor who's at least moderately interested in performance poetry, who knows enough about it not to be tripped up by terminology, competing claims, etc, who's willing (i) to search for the whereabouts of half-century-old issues of the Post, and (ii) to overcome the hurdles needed to view the article via (I'd guess) microfiche in some research library. -- "  ???? Especially : "to search for the whereabouts of half-century-old issues of the Post" Is there really something wrong older sources? I'd think once the sources are complete with dates, pages etc - everything and anything possible - a source a week old is no easier than a source 100 years old. NONE were any harder because of age for me. Where is this concept coming from? Why is the assumption that a person would not have all the documents necessary - every bit of information? Is that how it always is?

And this is exactly what I've been trying to ask. "So what you need is an editor who's at least moderately interested in performance poetry, who knows enough about it not to be tripped up by terminology, competing claims, etc . . . " My question wound up being: what to do when there is no such thing. "at least moderately interested in performance poetry . . . ." Just about no one is even moderately interested in Performance Poetry - or Poetry. But is that the point? If there's an interest level cut off, just tell me. If so, why does Wikipedia even have a "Performance Poetry" article? The article itself reads like it was together by someone completely clueless about it. But somehow that all worked out whenever the article got put on Wikipedia. Article has some sort of sign on it from Wikipedia saying that it's a mess. Whole thing is so confusing. I can see where people of any interest i "Performance Poetry" can be seen as weirdos - and full of strange delusions. I just need to know if that makes the whole thing not worth bothering about. General idea is that I invented it back in 1972 when I was 20 - see: like I said delusional weirdo, but I retired from it around 1987 - yea, even I got tired of the delusional weirdos that really were a part of it. I'm 74 years old now, have the time to check out what got written about that time, and now there's an internet and Wikipedia. The Performance Poetry article just struck me as so strange. I've had my own article "Marty Watt" on Wikipedia for many years: all about my status etc in the beginning of "Performance Poetry," and films I was in etc, rock bands . . . . Marty Watt Marty Watt (talk) 07:45, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

Regarding sources, there is nothing inherently wrong with sources that are difficult to find. You're just being advised as a matter of practicality that it may take some time for a volunteer to find it. For COI edit requests generally the reviewing editor is going to want to see the source themselves. If the source in question is an AP report from this morning that's available online then I can get my hands on it to verify pretty much instantly. If it's a back issue of a newspaper or an out of print book then it will have to wait until I can get to the library (or maybe longer if I have to request it through ILL or something). That doesn't make it a bad source, in fact a lot of the most readily available sources are not the highest quality, but it means it will take someone time.

Regarding one happens if there are not sufficient volunteers to improve the page, the simple if unsatisfying answer is that it simply does not get improved. There are many low quality articles on Wikipedia whether it's for lack of sources or lack of willing volunteers or lack of consensus (among the editors or among the scholarly sources). Some of them will improve, slowly, with time. Many of them will not. If you think that an article is so bad that it makes the encyclopedia worse than not having an article at all, you could open a discussion proposing that the article be deleted entirely. But in for this particular article I can pretty confidently say that such a discussion about this article in particular would be quickly closed in favor of keeping and improving the current article. We have good sources here, and we have good leads on where we can find more, so the preferred strategy is to just keep chipping away at it.

For both of these it may help to consider some classic Wikipedia words of wisdom, which is that there is no deadline. It's a volunteer project that is not perfect now and never will be. It is frustrating I'm sure to feel like you haven't gotten much response from your call to improve this article, but in the grand scheme of things the amount of time this has been waiting is pretty short. You will get some interest and some answers and the wiki will hopefully improve, if slowly.

This frustration is also, unfortunately, why editing topics closely related to ones own personal and professional life is discouraged. It's reasonable that to you your "place in history" is pretty important. But on Wikipedia that doesn't necessarily make things move any quicker. You're dependent on somebody unrelated to the topic and in all likelihood not an expert taking an interest in it. You may decide that your effort will be better spent in a medium that lets you drive improvement on the basis of your personal expertise and connection to the topic, in which case we'll be sorry to see you go but we'll understand. You are also a volunteer, and under no obligation to continue to bang your head against what feels like a wall. Packrat3860 (talk) 14:10, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply.

In the case of the one edit I was able to get made, it seems that the easiest to find was chosen not the one with the earliest date. Like I said, seems, I don't really know why one was chosen and the others not. I just wasn't clear on whether there was a strategy I should apply. I just figured that a few sources would help give my request more validity. Could be that the Washington Post was more recognizable than the Philadelphia Evening Bulletin which has been out of business but archived on microfilm. I'm not sure there's any way around the delay of getting the source. I'm not making any decision to send longer to verify ones instead of ones that can be verified faster.

Thing is - I shouldn't be involved anyway: Conflict Of Interest. First thing I asked about earlier on in this. People here told me to continue anyway but in allowed ways. I've always said in postings that I don't want to cause anybody and trouble.

Other thing is - like I said and kind of you too: just not much interest in this subject, sometimes, articles just wallow. Even so: probably best to have things arranged best as possible just in case someone stumbles on the edit request. Might be exactly what I'm trying to get clear here. That way I can just leave it and wait for whatever happens.

Ha ha "It's reasonable that to you your "place in history" is pretty important. " Wasn't all that important to me while I was doing it. I was just doing it. Only thought about once I was old enough to have time and found out there was Wikipedia with stuff involving me. Only important in as much as someone wants to find me for some reason - people write books about this stuff, universities put together events - and it could help me feed all these feral cats here.

"You may decide that your effort will be better spent in a medium that lets you drive improvement on the basis of your personal expertise and connection to the topic. . . . " Do you mean might have been better if I had been in a more reasonable artform? Or that I could switch my attention here on Wikipedia to something with a bit more of a pulse?

"why editing topics closely related to ones own personal and professional life is discouraged." Yea, like I said that was the first thing I asked about awhile ago now. Doesn't seem that if it was somebody with no Conflict Of Interest would be getting any farther. Is it that someone with no COI would be able to just go ahead and edit the article themselves? If that's the case, maybe the answer is for me to locate a person like that?

Ha ha ha ha I like this phrasing: "You are also a volunteer, and under no obligation to continue to bang your head against what feels like a wall."

I think I was just asking what really is reasonable. Took a lot of questions from me to here about this Treehouse here. Just checking if there's a stone left unturned. And like I said what is the best state to leave the edit request in so it seems workable for anyone who stumbles on it over time. Marty Watt (talk) 15:14, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

Do you mean might have been better if I had been in a more reasonable artform? Or that I could switch my attention here on Wikipedia to something with a bit more of a pulse?

I mean that Wikipedia is not the only place to to tell your story, so to speak. If Wikipedia is not working for you, you could write a book or a blog or an entry on a different wiki or some other alternative outlet.

Is it that someone with no COI would be able to just go ahead and edit the article themselves? If that's the case, maybe the answer is for me to locate a person like that?

Someone who doesn't have a COI is welcome to boldly make the change themselves. In essence, the {{edit coi}} template is a way to request that an uninvolved editor do exactly that.

what is the best state to leave the edit request in so it seems workable for anyone who stumbles on it over time.

If you have a proposed specific change (i.e. the sentence that says "X" should be changed to "Y", see WP:CHANGEXY) you can use {{edit coi}} to make an edit request and find an uninvolved editor to review and approve it. If you have sources but don't have a specific change you want to request, you can use {{refideas}} to suggest that another editor use them to expand/update/revise the article. If you just know something is wrong but you don't have the source on hand to back it up, your best bet is probably to open a discussion on the talk page (although since this leaves the other editor with most of the work this may be particularly difficult to get traction on).

I hope that helps clear up your options a bit. Packrat3860 (talk) 05:57, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for considerate reply.

• "I mean that Wikipedia is not the only place to to tell your story, so to speak. If Wikipedia is not working for you, you could write a book or a blog or an entry on a different wiki or some other . . . ."
• Nah, I'm just trying to do the minimum of today's world. There's Wikipedia, everyone uses Wikipedia, even "Ai"s scour Wikipedia. If a person searches the web for "Performance Poets" etc, my name doesn't come up because it's not on Wikipedia. If I or anyone asks "Who is Marty Watt," then the internet / Google says "Marty Watt was the inventor of Performance Poetry in 1972 . . . . etc Marty Watt defined Performance Poetry blah blah blah . . . . " it's just this weird article on Wikipedia that is the difference. I have no burning desire to tell my story. Ha ha ha. I had years on stage to do that. This is just like getting my phone number listed right. I'm not "off" mentally, I don't think that Wikipedia is any place to "tell my story." What a concept ! Looked like I was making some progress with a mentor, collecting all my sources etc and finding some in archives, getting their locations etc page numbers. But all I got was my name spelled wrong - since fixed . . . . HA HA HA - just checked, somehow even the weird mention of me has been removed entirely from the article. I can't find ANY history of it being removed? Now going backwards. Last I heard of it - now gone. Quote from recent addition to this article about Marty Watt: "connected to the term performance poetry in 1976 through his physical expression of recited poetic works."
• What a bizarre bunch of words, strange phrasing: "connected to the term performance poetry in 1976 through his physical expression of recited poetic works." What could these words possibly mean? Gone now anyway.
• I would have thought there would be a record of its removal in some "history?"

Marty Watt (talk) 06:53, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

This is a link to the edit that removed mention of you from the article https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Performance_poetry&diff=prev&oldid=1379489322 Packrat3860 (talk) 06:58, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

WOW! I had nothing to do with it. Some mentor did it. Now, I get a reputation for trying to "namedrop." This is insane. Mentor put it in, never ran it by me, misspelled my name - that got fixed by others ,and this bizarre verbiage. "Marty Watts was associated with the term in 1976 through his physical expression of recited poetic works." Too sadly sadly funny. How would I need my name dropped. And they mistakenly placed me as some kind of "1976" character. I started in '72 - mainstream documented in '73 . . . . '76 just happens to be a huge piece in The Washington Post. Marty Watt (talk) 08:27, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

My Name Removed That My Mentor Put On An Article?

Marty Watt here Marty Watt my name was removed from the Wikipedia article about "Performance Poetry" because of how my mentor put it on there. Not me, conflict of interest. Removal says due to how badly written and obviously just an attempt to " name-drop" Marty Watt.

Yep, My Mentor. Took months for the mentor to do even this little bit - then spelled my name wrong "Watts" instead of Watt, Teahouse here fixed that. And then the most bizarre description of me as a Performance Poet who did Performance Poetry: something like "was associated with the term" ???? "due to his histrionic gestures and energy," something like that. My stuff all sourced and cited etc - this mention had some link to The Washington Post's big article on me, 1976, Alan. M. Kriegsman Pulitzer winning critic. Too funny, " name-drop. " Funnier is that all findable documents, dates, sources have always placed me as the originator in 1972 of "Performance Poetry," meaning poetry of THAT term - not ie: "performing poet," or "poets who performed" etc. There was a specific term at that time and ever since. It meant something pretty specific. Marty Watt (talk) 23:31, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

Courtesy ping: FULBERT Courtesy ping: Athanelar ^{In solidarity,} 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 ^{(They/them • Talk • Contribs)} 23:40, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

do people need any sources NOW? Would it help anything? Marty Watt (talk) 01:53, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Start a discussion on the article talk page (and ping the editor). Mme Maigret (talk) 07:45, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Mmemaigret, the article talk page is Talk:Performance poetry. Marty Watt started two discussions there on 30 September. There's been no response to either. Each (non-) discussion is headed by a template saying The requested edits backlog is very high. Please be extremely patient. There are currently [X] requests waiting for review (wherein X is currently 1025). None of the sources that Marty Watt cites comes with a link. (Of course articles can cite sources that are only available via microfiche or similar, but perhaps rather few editors have the patience needed to visit and search within reference libraries.) See #No Pressure Talk above. -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 08:26, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

@Hoary I've downloaded a copy of the article. Mme Maigret (talk) 09:33, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Oh! Is it that there must be a link that goes directly to a source? One click? Is there any place where I can somehow get the sources and store them somewhere for editors to get to them in one click? I have the sources etc, dates and all that. I'm not lazy, not asking for any special treatment, or trying to have an attitude. I think I was told that the sources have to come from some legitimate place not my own privately held collection? Marty Watt (talk) 11:30, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Plenty of links to articles, not sure all the time where to put them or even if to put them. I think I might not put the whole link thing together if if's just on "talk." Ha ha ha it's not that I'm just saying stuff I think about myself without sources, with no links. Just make it clear what people would need.

I just cannot get clear on this issue. Sources on microfilm etc archives are real, usable or not? Or is it that they are moved to some 2nd level status? Not complaining just want to know. Months now, and no one has answered my questions about editor's patience issues. I wouldn't be bothering anyone if I knew I didn't have sources, I sincerely thought I did, didn't know the archives type editors patience status disqualification. If someone would just make that clear, I'd understand and realize that I never had a point dealing with this anyway. I hate coming off as a clueless bozo who expects things to just be believed without sources. Marty Watt (talk) 11:22, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

They are usable sources, but as a practical matter if you are counting on an unpaid volunteer to go to the library and look at a microfilm to verify an article change it is going to take a much longer time to happen. MrOllie (talk) 11:51, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

"Go TO the library?" Whew. I figured a request online. So, the thing would be to have someone else I find to just edit it. Can't be me, conflict of interest. But what an interesting concept - can't be done, history based on ease of sourcing. Oh well. I have the photo copies etc from the sources. Do the sources RELLY have to at least once be verified? How about a separate Wikipedia verifying department? Verified and then given an official certificate of authenticity? Still loving the image: "Go TO the library." Marty Watt (talk) 12:58, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

"Go TO the library?" Whew. I figured a request online. If there is an online/digitized version, you should be linking to that rather than asking about microfilm archives.

have someone else I find to just edit it. If you find someone and they edit at your direction they would inherit your conflict of interest.

Do the sources RELLY have to at least once be verified? Yes. No one with any sense is going to make an edit based on a source they have never read.

How about a separate Wikipedia verifying department? Verified and then given an official certificate of authenticity? They'd still be volunteers and the same issue would still present itself. Perhaps you are under the assumption that Wikipedia is paying people to run or work on the encyclopedia - that is not how this works. Everybody here (with some very small exceptions that do not apply in this case) is an unpaid volunteer. MrOllie (talk) 13:21, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

If there is an online/digitized version, you should be linking to that rather than asking about microfilm archives.

• Nah, I meant access the archives via online, that's how I did it.

If you find someone and they edit at your direction they would inherit your conflict of interest.

• That's exactly why I asked.

Yes. No one with any sense is going to make an edit based on a source they have never read.

• Again why I asked. Trying to follow ALL rules - never doing anything without checking first.

Perhaps you are under the assumption that Wikipedia is paying people to run or work on the encyclopedia - that is not how this works. Everybody here (with some very small exceptions that do not apply in this case) is an unpaid volunteer.

• This is why I'm here, asking questions, checking everything first. "Perhaps you are under the assumption . . . . " What am I missing here? Are questions here in The Teahouse a rude ignorant attitude of mine? I've followed all suggestions given to me over time by the volunteers over months. All it got me was an inserted mention from my mentor with my name misspelled and so strangely written that it was removed by another volunteer. Since then, I've only been here asking questions, making sure nothing next wastes anyone's time. What am I missing here? Best I get is not only are sources in archives not actually worth anything, nor is asking about them like a rude ignorant person - an "RIP," referring to letting the archived sources to rest in peace. Asking here, at least, I've learned that. Didn't know that at first. Like I said, even a dimwit like me knows that there has to be sources. I asked other places and was told that archives were officially fine, but here - trying not to waste people's time - I've learned that common decency - considerateness would keep a person from trying to use them. Truth I just have to learn to live with is that I have no sources. That's okay. I just was ridiculously under the impression that I did. I would never have even started with Wikipedia and that article if someone made that clear to me months ago.

Marty Watt (talk) 18:48, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Marty Watt, to MrOllie's comment If there is an online/digitized version [of the source(s) that you're citing] , you should be linking to that rather than asking about microfilm archives, you've responded Nah, I meant access the archives via online, that's how I did it. That sounds promising. But the sources you list for the edit requests you posted at Talk:Performance poetry still don't have links. Adding links is likely to increase the probability that editors will attend to your requests. -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 22:08, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

No online easy one click access to any source. I really would have used those. Interesting to imagine why someone wouldn't.just a mean troublemaker? I guess you get them. I've been asking and asking in so many variations about the archive issue. I meant "online" as that I didn't go to a library, just sent the archives an eMail request. Usually, next day had the document. I have my own copies of the docs. but only of use to editors as evidence that I'm kind of "real." Maybe worth taking a chance on getting the sources from some archives.

I have no idea what "links" I should put on anything anywhere that would help. I'm certainly not trying to keep anything back. Kind of what the Teahouse was for. Help me to get these things on best format possible for any editor who eventually comes across my request.

I really didn't want or cause my

reviews to be in archives. I really do wish they were online somewhere to be easily accessed. I do have some of the originals with me.

There are I think 3 I list -

The Washington Post is the most spectacular rave article by a Pulitzer winning writer - 1976 - putting me way earlier than anyone else IF the strict definition and words "Performance Poetry" " Performance Poetry" are used. But the Philadelphia Evening Bulletin review is earlier - 1973, putting me even earlier. I started in 1972 but there's no source for that. I also thought that a few would show I wasn't some one off anomaly - I really was a big presence in this new way of doing poetry in clubs and theaters. There are many more reviews, posters, advertisements etc. Marty Watt (talk) 00:25, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

If you know the exact date and page number for those things, that would be great. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 03:06, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

yes, entirely, the exact archives they are located in, page numbers, dates, the sources have the dates on them to validate , confirm. I have the copies from the archives and the originals. Even WAY more sources that validate just the words "Performance Poetry," and " Performance Poetry" on dates much earlier than those mentioned in the article. The first use of the exact words "Performance Poetry" in 1972, by Patti Smith and Victor Bockris at the Chelsea Hotel an interview, months before Patti Smith ran into me actually DOING. "Performance Poetry." Just saying.

THANKS. Marty Watt (talk) 04:15, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

Can you tell me where to put all the stuff: link etc if there is one, location of archive, exact date, reviewer's name, name of newspaper, page number.

Earliest Source, 1973, Philadelphia Evening Bulletin

The Bulletin kept changing its mast head

Philadelphia Evening Bulletin, Philadelphia Bulletin

This Review it is The Evening Bulletin

Philadelphia Free Library

The Overall Website

https://libwww.freelibrary.org/locations/departments/newspapers-and-microfilm-center

erefNEWS AT freelibrary.org

Joe Adcock

“Poet, 20, Recites at Manning Street Theater”

name as printed in the article "WATTS," real name is "WATT"

Philadelphia "The Evening Bulletin"

publication date: Tuesday, March 20, 1973

PAGE 20, G

I don't see any call number

____________________________________

The Washington Post

January 23, 1976

PAGE C1

Reviewer Alan M. Kriegsman

Article about Marty Watt

Findable In: ProQuest Historical Papers

or Newspapers dot com Marty Watt (talk) 22:48, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

All of this is about the article on "Performance Poetry" NOT the article on ME. "Marty Watt."

The TALK area of "Performance Poetry" has all kinds of links, page numbers etc for the sources Talk:Performance poetry Marty Watt (talk) 22:57, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

Performance Poetry Article My Name Spelled Wrong Again

Yea, it's me again: Marty Watt. NOT "Matty" Watt as it has just been spelled in the "Performance Poetry" Article. Performance poetry#cite ref-News-1 6-1 It's at the bottom of the 1970s part. Jeez, the 1970s part is something to behold. Mostly about The Beats (not Performance Poets, never Performance Poetry) who were a thing of the Fifties and somewhat of the Sixties and Hedwig Gorski - who the article says only graduated from college in the seventies - nothing else till the eighties. I've researched before, there is zero documentation other than herself anywhere even IN the Eighties of her doing anything like "Performance Poetry." But there she is with The Beats in the part of the article called "The 70s." The Beats ranted and raved and waved their arms around, but they were still reading poetry written FOR the page from the page. They're TWO attempts to work with Jazz musicians ended quickly with the Jazz musicians quitting or walking off the stage.

This is the second time my name has been spelt wrong: first time it was "Watts." It was misspelled by my mentor who also added a truly bizarre sentence about me being "associated with the term " I guess "Performance Poetry." All of it so weird that it was removed as too badly written and an obvious attempt to "namedrop" Marty Watt.

All I did was write poems to be performed from memory for a live audience, I did perform a LOT in the 1970s and 1980s. LOTS of reviews in mainstream press - all documented ready to be sources. page numbers, dates . . . . Very few if any others were doing "Performance Poetry" in the '70s - Patti Smith did briefly after seeing me but then went into punk rock stardom. By the late 70s there was Rap / Hip Hop etc - and a long time after that something called SLAM. Much documentation about "Performance Poetry" is confusing because later writers - academic journals use term loosely "Performance Poets" about people in the Fifties , Sixties that, when checked into, nothing like that can be found. Energetic poets, some made and played tapes of themselves chanting or something.

I can't seem to get myself in the list of "Performance Poets" either. I think there's a link to that on the "Performance Poetry" article. The big three, there are MANY more . And all the stuff I have documented of the term "Performance Poetry" being used throughout the Seventies. Joe Adcock, “Poet, 20, Recites At Manning Street Theater,” Philadelphia Bulletin, March 20, 1973, p. 18G. at the Philadelphia Free Library Microfilm archives Matt Damsker, “Solo Psychodrama,” Evening Bulletin, November 13, 1975, p. 53. at the Philadelphia Free Library Microfilm archives Alan M. Kriegsman, “Watt’s It All About, Marty?”, The Washington Post, January 23, 1976, pp. C1, C11.via ProQuest Historical Papers. Marty Watt (talk) 08:28, 17 October 2026 (UTC) Marty Watt (talk) 08:29, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

@Marty Watt:

• I fixed the spelling of your name before you posted this message so your title is misleading.
• The issues that you raised are issues with the article. They need to be raised on the talk page with one topic per heading.
• But honestly, I think you need to step back.
• Wikipedia is made up of volunteers:

• I have restructured the page to make it easier so that others can come to it in the future and edit it.
• What can you do? Wait.
• People will edit the page if they're interested. That's how Wikipedia works. We're not a company. I can't think of another encyclopedia where you can demand changes to articles.
• Your primary interest also appears to be what that page says about you and you'll find that's the opposite motivation for most volunteers who you're relying on to fix the page.

• Also, it helps in most things if you thank people for what they've done as that usually encourages them to do more.

Mme Maigret (talk) 08:48, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for what you've done. I WAS just waiting when the misspelling thing came up. Second time this has happened. First it was my last name with an "s" on the end. Teahouse fixed that. But the strange thing my mentor wrote - only that I was "associated with the term" got it all removed anyway - as badly written and an attempt to "namedrop" my name. I dunno, it was just so weird.

I do know that it's all volunteers. Mostly, I've just been asking on TeaHouse how best to put things so that it is easy on any editor that stumbles across the request.

I added (again) some bio etc context to explain my concerns about the dates etc being wrong. It's just plain weird that I was so early and mostly alone with the concept "Performance Poetry" in the '70s, didn't plan it that way. Coes off as bragging or something.

Can't follow this? I have a conflict of interest - I know, that's why I rely on editors. I'm actually very interested in lots of stuff in the article but THAT seemed really rude and presumptuous for me to go on about. I kept my issues with what was about me. Never occurred to me - since I wasn't even in the article till days ago - that someone else would eventually fix the things about me? There are tons of other things in the article I could make suggestions about but I can't edit them myself - conflict of interest. "Your primary interest also appears to be what that page says about you and you'll find that's the opposite motivation for most volunteers who you're relying on to fix the page."

Again, thank you. How do I take this down since you've fixed what it was about? Again - I can help a lot about other things on the article if that was a good thing? Marty Watt (talk) 09:10, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

@Marty Watt If you have suggestions re: an article with which you have a conflict of interest, you can leave an "edit request" on the talk page. See WP:Edit request for the details of that in general, and the WP:Edit request wizard to help you with making one if you want to.

Please remember to keep it brief and in a "Change X to Y" format if you do want to make a request. Athanelar (talk) 12:37, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

No one ever on that TALK page for years. That's where I'd be doing everything if anybody was ever there. Managed to get my misspelled name (twice) here. Thanks. Marty Watt (talk) 19:45, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

If you post a formal edit request by following the instructions at WP:COIREQ, then it gets added to a queue and will receive a response. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:49, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

If you use {{edit COI}} to propose a fix someone will see it reasonably soon. Median wait time is inside of a month and even the requests waiting the longest have only waited a few months. Packrat3860 (talk) 19:50, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

Anyway to see where a request is in a queue? In an { edit COI } is there a place to put sources etc? I was told that sources that are in archives will probably be passed over by editors. So, after months waiting, won't matter, editor will just move on instead of spending time on archives? Marty Watt (talk) 20:06, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

Requests aren't dealt with in the order they're made (perhaps my choice of the word queue was misleading in that regard), but you can see the current list of conflict-of-interest edit requests at Category:Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests. They do all eventually get processed. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:19, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

Oh, they're all in ONE place. What about what people told me - that my requests will get passed over because the sources are in archives, too much time and trouble? Marty Watt (talk) 20:53, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

It might take a little longer than a simpler request, but all do eventually get processed. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:33, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

So it IS a thing. People say a few months before anyone even sees my edit request - but then starts the passing it over because it requires an archive validation. Maybe a year or so. When passed over by an editor, does the request maintain some position in the queue, or go to the back of the line again?

Thanks for the reply !!!!!! Marty Watt (talk) 16:50, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

It isn't a queue where whoever is at the front gets helped next. Think of it as like a big "help wanted" bulletin board. The more work it's going to be for someone to solve your problem, the longer you might have to wait until someone comes along who wants to volunteer for that. It doesn't make your request invalid, so nobody should close your request simply because the sources are hard to find. Someone will find them eventually. It's just that making that job easier for a volunteer helps you get helped quicker. Packrat3860 (talk) 17:25, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

THANKS. Trying so hard to think of ways to make the job as easy as totally possible for any editor. It's just the sources are in archives - I list which archives and where, page numbers, dates, name of reviewers. Two are in one archive, one in another - The Washington Post (1974-); Jan 23, 1976; ProQuest Historical Newspapers: The Washington Post pg. C1 "Watt's It All About, Marty?" By Alan M Kriegsman - IF that is an "archive." Marty Watt (talk) 17:55, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Need help to acquire photo for article

Hello, I recently worked on the article Shubhalakshmi Panse. I wish to add a photo of her, to make the article visually better. I read that we need to use license free images on Wiki. So I tried to search on google with the filter for CC license. But couldn't find any image in that category. Can anyone help me acquire a photo of Ms. Panse? JoyWeaver (talk) 04:34, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

@JoyWeaver Not license free, but one with an acceptable license:. Which excludes pretty much any random pic of a living person you find online, unless you're very lucky. The "answer" is that very often there isn't a pic of a living person we can use, so we have to do without. I checked Youtube for "free" videos (you can filter for "Creative commons"), but no luck. If you want, you can try to contact the article subject directly and point them to Wikipedia:A picture of you. Some article subjects like the idea. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:47, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for checking on Youtube as well. Sure let me try to ask the subject for a picture. JoyWeaver (talk) 11:04, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

@JoyWeaver It's a real problem to casually ask subjects for a picture, because subjects have not studied the requirements and will most often send something they have no right to be sending. Making them read Wikipedia:A picture of you is the way, not just asking them - and if you know they won't do that, then you're stuck. (I guess the way in that case might be for you to read it, and start a cumbersome conversation about it rather than a direct picture request.) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:10, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

You can also take her photo yourself. Mme Maigret (talk) 21:13, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

Yes I agree, that asking them for a picture is a tough option. I could not find her LinkedIn page, where someone can message. I don't know how to do that without revealing my identify, as I don't have dummy gmail ids. I read something about burner, is that an option? I don't know them personally, so can't click their photo myself. Is there a way I can ask other Wikipedians to contact her? JoyWeaver (talk) 03:23, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

You can try https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Permission_requests. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 03:37, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

The only licensed image I find is from "getty image: Bloomberg", so should I request them via this link? It seems a little complex for me to go via this route, as I am not aware of licenses etc. I liked the idea of asking the subject itself, so it there a similar forum to contact the subject? JoyWeaver (talk) 05:44, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

Looking again, this doesn't seem to made for "please ask the subject for a pic", so maybe it doesn't help here. If you try to contact her, perhaps Wikipedia:Example requests for permission can give you some inspiration. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:20, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi JoyWeaver. Pretty much anything you find attributed to Getty will typically mean it will be licensed in a way that's too restrictive for either Wikipedia or Commons because Getty is in the business of selling licenses to use its images (i.e., images created by others who have asked Getty to help them make money); moreover, such images are almost never allowed to be uploaded locally for use as non-free content per Wikipedia's non-free content use policy because of non-free content use criterion #2. Whenever Getty is involved, it usually means Getty and the image copyright holder is trying to make money; so, asking them to release their image under a free-enough license would kind of be like asking them to shoot themselves in the foot. Getty, of course, is more than happy to sell individual licenses to people/organizations wanting to use one of their images, but only with some serious restrictions in place.

Anyway, given that Shubhalakshmi Panse is alive, a non-free image of her will almost certainly not be allowed per WP:FREER; so, you're going to have to hope someone either creates or has already created something free enough for Wikipedia/Commons purposes. Some people have had luck contacting individuals or their representatives for such an image, but (I guess) there's always risk of a little quid pro quo: they might want you to start editing on their behalf or otherwise be their "Wikipedia representative" in exchange. Most of the time, it's just luck when such an image is found; either someone takes their photo and posts it online under a free enough license or they're at some government function/event where they photo is taken by an official government photographer for a country where such works are considered to be within the public domain. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:33, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

Her Linkedin page is the first thing that comes up in search results when I google her. Mme Maigret (talk) 07:48, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

yes can you message her asking her for her photo along with Wikipedia:A picture of you? I dont have a anonymous linkedin profile to send her a request myself. JoyWeaver (talk) 12:10, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Crop photo

Hi, I would like to crop the photo of Katherine Heiny to show more of her and less of the background. Can someone point me in the direction of the instructions. Thank you. ~2026-44470-60 (talk) 05:26, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

You need to do so on Wikimedia Commons: see c:COM:CROPTOOL. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 08:45, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

Alternatively, rather than cropping the image at Commons, you can arrange to display a "detail", a portion, of it in an article. To help others who like me are bad at reading documentation, I've put some examples of this at User:Maproom/cropping. Maproom (talk) 21:17, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

@Maproom Thanks, I've just done it. Blackballnz (talk) 08:29, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

The problem with that method is that while you have made the image better on this, the English-language Wikipedia, the improvement is not available to any other project. If you crop the image on Wikimedia Commons, it will improve it on Wikidata, and on any other Wikipedia that is using it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 09:17, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

There are times (for example when cropping out other people to show just one) when cutting the original would be wrong, and for those the "detail" function is best. But when the problem is just a lot of non-relevant background, Andy's point is right. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:33, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

Even when cutting the original is wrong, a cropped version can be uploaded—including by using the tool I recommended—to Commons, as a derivative image. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 18:20, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing @TooManyFingers Thanks, I'll have another look at it. ~2026-44470-60 (talk) 00:11, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

I've cropped it on Commons. Mme Maigret (talk) 07:08, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

New Article

I want to write a new article about Air Vice Marshal Ian Lawson, primarily about his military career but also about his civil and early life. I note his name is already included in existing wikipedia articles, for example, a list of former commandants of royal air force college Cranwell. I have never written on wikipedia and would like some help with starting. For example, do i create a page linked to the list of Cranwell commandants and work from there, or create a page and then create the link his name on the Cranwell article? I note that most biographic articles about military personnel have a standard format. Where can i pick up the template for this format? Knottyperson (talk) 13:06, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

You can start here for general help with creating the article. To copy the template from another article, just click 'edit source' on (the other article) and copy the relevant template from there. DS (talk) 13:37, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

thanks - I'll develop in a sandbox version first (I assume it is an easy exercise to move from a sandbox to a full article when I've done some practicing) Knottyperson (talk) 13:41, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

Yes. Best to have someone else check it for quality first, though. DS (talk) 14:59, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

@Knottyperson We usually put drafts in a special WP:namespace. As we already have three Ian Lawson, I suggest you use Draft:Ian D. N. Lawson, which you can create by clicking on that redlink. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:03, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Knottyperson, and welcome to the Teahouse, and to 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) 16:19, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

I agree with the sentiment that if you want to write a new article, the first thing to do is spend some time editing existing articles. Things often end badly when people jump into the deep end of the Wikipedia pool without first learning how to swim. Spend a month or two figuring out how things work and how to edit and assembling sources for your project and THEN move to starting a new piece. Happy editing! —tim /// Carrite (talk) 22:06, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

The links get create after the article is published. Mme Maigret (talk) 07:14, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Asynchronous Procedure Call

Hello, i am a new to editing and would like to improve to Asynchronous procedure call. The page says it relies on a single source, and the implementation section is only two sentences about windows.

I have these Microsoft pages open:

• https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/sync/asynchronous-procedure-calls
• https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/api/processthreadsapi/nf-processthreadsapi-queueuserapc
• https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-hardware/drivers/kernel/types-of-apcs

From these i have added couple of points that each thread has its own APC queue, that an application queues one with QueueUserAPC, that a regular user-mode APC runs only while the thread is alertable (SleepEx, SignalObjectAndWait, MsgWaitForMultipleObjectsEx, WaitForMultipleObjectsEx, or WaitForSingleObjectEx), and that ReadFileEx, WriteFileEx, SetWaitableTimer, and SetWaitableTimerEx use an APC as the completion callback.

Is implementations the right section for this, under a Microsoft Windows heading?

TheNookAuthor (talk) 17:06, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

You may be lucky and get a response from someone here who is knowledgeable about the internals of Microsoft Windows (which is not me). You are more likely to get a response by posting your question on Talk:Asynchronous procedure call and/or one of the relevant projects. Go to Talk:Asynchronous procedure call and post your question there (use the "Add Topic" at the top right), and then look at the projects and do the same for one or more of them, e.g. WT:SOFTWARE. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:37, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

In relation to your question about where to put it the info, my advice would be the same - ie add a topic on the talk page. But in relation to the "single source" template, your edits don't address this issue – Microsoft only counts as 1 source no matter how many different pages you cite. Mme Maigret (talk) 07:21, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Can someone help in draftying these articles?

Hi. I have come across a series of articles where the articles have been moved from the draftspace to the mainspace without much content being added or relevant in such a way that is not yet ready for the mainspace. Is there a way, I can start a discussion on it and get them moved back to the draftspace or can someone help in reviewing it and decide?

1. Visakhapatnam Zilla Praja Parishad
2. Guntur Zilla Praja Parishad
3. Prakasam Zilla Praja Parishad
4. Kadapa Zilla Praja Parishad
5. Prakasam Zilla Praja Parishad
6. Nellore Zilla Praja Parishad
7. Kurnool Zilla Praja Parishad
8. Prakasam Zilla Praja Parishad
9. Chittoor Zilla Praja Parishad
10. Krishna Zilla Praja Parishad
11. Srikakulam Zilla Praja Parishad
12. West Godavari Zilla Praja Parishad
13. East Godavari Zilla Praja Parishad
14. Vizianagaram Zilla Praja Parishad 456legendtalk 04:17, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

Also, this user frequently creates template articles, where an existing article is taken as a base for a new article but the new article is not updated appropriately and is left with pieces of the existing article. I was involved in rescuing multiple such articles with empty and copy pasted information. Can refer to 2023 Andhra Pradesh Legislative Council election and 2025 Andhra Pradesh Legislative Council election. 456legendtalk 04:24, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

I clicked on one of these and read in a template: This article may incorporate text from a large language model, which is prohibited in Wikipedia articles. This surprised me. LLM slop gets many things wrong, but tends towards a soporific kind of syntactic slickness. By contrast, East Godavari Zilla Praja Parishad tells us: Zilla Parishad is one of the 28 district-level tier of local government body in the state of Andhra Pradesh. It has 27 Zilla Parishad Territorial Constituency (ZPTC). -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 08:42, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

@Hoary Right. Only @Catfurball can answer this, as they were the one who added the LLM template. Nevertheless, I feel these articles need to be moved to the draftspace. What procedure should I follow and where should I initiate a discussion for this? Or is there someone who can assist or guide me on this? 456legendtalk 10:11, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

If you are in doubt about LLM text, the AI noticeboard WP:AINB can help. (Please forgive us the mess, we are transitioning to a new noticeboard structure and are in an awkward inbetween place right now.) You can also look at WP:AISIGNS for points to look for to confirm or deny LLM. M kuhner (talk) 03:42, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

@Hoary look what I have found, LLM content on Guntur Zilla Praja Parishad 456legendtalk 00:27, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

@456legend: You could move them to draft space since they are not ready for main space, but then the creator will undo you and move them back to main space. And if this happens you might have to report this editor, since these articles are poorly created. Catfurball (talk) 15:22, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

@Catfurball Hey, thanks for the reply. They will certainly revert them back, based on their recent behaviour on 2026 Andhra Pradesh urban local bodies elections. I have reported them on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Sandeep kumar 83 for this. Would wait to see the outcome for now. 456legendtalk 15:45, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi 456legend. Unless the draftification is the result of a community consensus (e.g., an AfD outcome), it's non-binding, and anyone can move the page back to the mainspace as explained in WP:DRAFTONCE. In such a case, your options are then to improve the article yourself, tag it with appropriate maintenance templates if you think it can be improved but don't want to or know how to do so yourself, or nominate the article for deletion via WP:AFD. The only reason you should be going to ANI is if you feel there are behavioral issues that need to be addressed. You also might want to read WP:ANIADVICE so that you get a better idea as to what you might be getting yourself into. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:16, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

For the specific case of an article believed to be LLM, AINB might be a simpler route than ANI. M kuhner (talk) 06:24, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

How to make a portfolio for myself?

Hello, I am new to wikipedia. i wanna learn how to make my own article

Dennmi (talk) 04:21, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Dennmi, Welcome to the Wikipedia community!

I recommend that you start with some basic edits first and then gradually move to creating new articles on notable topics. There is a lot of stuff to be done and every small bit counts, and it would be better if you are aware of content policies and guidelines before creating new pages. A lot of learning happens as you edit

One good way to start is to click on your profile icon on the upper right-hand corner, go to preferences, and in the "User profile" tab, enable "Display newcomer homepage" (these options will be at bottom of a page). Once you save the preferences, you will see automated suggestions for articles that need editing. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you face difficulties Ar1201u1 (talk) 04:47, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

Dennmi, by a portfolio for yourself and your own article, perhaps you mean an article about yourself. If you do hope to make an article about yourself, first read Wikipedia:Autobiographies. (Tl;dr? It's very simple: Don't attempt to create an autobiography.) -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 05:13, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

I think they meant portfolio of article, but yes, they should follow what you said if that was the intention Ar1201u1 (talk) 05:25, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

I read it as a user/profile page or an article with them as the subject. Mme Maigret (talk) 07:28, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Dennmi, and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia.

I would echo what the others have said, and add the following:

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.

Like the others, I'm not sure quite which meaning of "portfolio" you intend. I'm guessing it's "a collection of your work".

Forgive me if this comes across as suspicious, but I wonder whether you are intending to develop a portfolio in order to offer your services as an editor for pay? That's what artists often have in mind when they talk about their portfolio. If that is the case, then I would advise you that you have a long and difficult journey, and I would be surprised if you can make it pay.

Paid editing is permitted, but under some restrictions (see that link for details). Most of the people offering to create Wikipedia articles for pay are, frankly, scammers, who either don't know or don't care about Wikipedia's policies. If you become one of the good ones, great: but you'll need to be very conversant with Wikipedia's policies and procedures, and honest with your customers about the likely results of your efforts. (Since most people, companies, and organisations, in the world do not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, most people cannot "get a page in Wikipedia" however much they pay).

I hope that my warnings do not put you off become a participant and contributor in this (in my view) most wonderful example of a collaborative project for the benefit of all humanity. Happy editing! ColinFine (talk) 10:48, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

Is my draft ready for AfC? I have a COI

Hello. I have a declared conflict of interest: I am the subject of my draft at User:Gheliou/sandbox, and nobody is paying me to write it. I have not submitted it, and I will not move it to mainspace myself.

My concern is notability (WP:BIO). My sources are:

• A CBC News article and a PocketGamer.biz article where I am quoted as studio manager
• Press releases and trade-press items on a studio opening I led
• Two interviews or profiles published by Nova Scotia government business agencies

I have no feature-length, journalist-written profile yet. Two questions:

1. Would these sources count toward notability, or should I wait for more (or more recent ones)?
2. Are the government-agency interviews acceptable for the basic facts I used them for (birthplace, one quote about the industry)?

Thank you for any guidance. ~~~~ Gheliou (talk) 09:08, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

Please don't use LLMs to communicate with us. Half the URLs don't work in the sources, another sign of LLM use. LLM use is forbidden on English Wikipedia, except for a couple very specific exceptions, neither of which is applicable here.

In any case, the sources do not establish notability. An interview with you is not independent coverage of you. None of the other sources, as far as I can tell, do anything other than mention you in passing; not a single one entails significant coverage about you.

Checking myself, I'm not finding alternate sources that demonstrate your notability, by Wikipedia's definition. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 09:31, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. Fair point about notability. On the use of LLM, I was too afraid of breaking formatting rules I'm not familiar with. 2 links were oddly shaped indeed.

Not arguing in either case. Comments appreciated. Gheliou (talk) 09:53, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

You'll find that people are very willing to forgive beginner mistakes in formatting, spelling, and grammar. However, they are much less willing to forgive LLM text. So, be bold and make human mistakes: it will be fine. (Speaking as someone one of whose early edits turned an entire noticeboard purple!) M kuhner (talk) 01:35, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Without looking at your page, I'd say no. The only source that might count as reliable and independent is the CBS source and you've said it's not in-depth. (Interviews, profile page, and press releases don't count.) Since you need two in-depth sources and you don't have them, you don't meet the requirements for WP:Notability. Mme Maigret (talk) 07:31, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Follow-up to 'Proper template usage'

Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_1307#Proper template usage

Hello. My Teahouse inquiry was unfortunately arhived, so I'm following that up here. Headquarter8302 (talk) 10:00, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

You said "I've seen that some pages use a plain table or a simple description list to describe such information". Can you give examples? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 12:27, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

Here: USB flash drive#Technology. As of publishing this, it's a standard wikitable. Headquarter8302 (talk) 16:14, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. I know of no template for this. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 16:21, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

@Headquarter8302 Am I right in thinking that you mean the kind of pictures and diagrams in which the parts under discussion are labelled, there are arrows pointing at where the action happens, and all that type of thing? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:25, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

Sort of. I don't know the exact specifics of what format to use, I'm simply wondering if there's an official template to be used that can replace the wikitable in the aforementioned article section Headquarter8302 (talk) 00:47, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

I think maybe you should visit Wikipedia:Graphics Lab and see the samples of some of what's possible at . TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 06:44, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Review

Hello,

I have written a draft and plan to submit it for review. If I wish to make some changes after submitting it and before the review begins, is that possible ?

Thanks for your answer ! Dédé25lib (talk) 17:51, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

You can continue to edit your draft after submitting it, yes. ^{In solidarity,} 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 ^{(They/them • Talk • Contribs)} 18:02, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

In fact we recommend doing so if you can come up with improvements. The review will be conducted on the state of the article at the point the reviewer selects it.

However, don't do something halfway and leave it in a broken state (like putting in a bunch of claims and leaving the sources to add the next day) or you might get a review on the broken version. M kuhner (talk) 01:28, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Regarding obvious interpretation of literature (Insects)

Hi, I am currently working on the Colobopsis imitans article. In paper A, their species associations are mentioned. Let’s say it is said that they associate with species B and C as an example. A year later, paper D (taxonomic revision) is published and in this paper species B is split into lets says 3 different species. I can, from this information look at with which species C. imitans was associated, and where (the 3 species are geographically in different areas) and point the obvious conclusions that C. imitans is associated with those new three species even if they were considerd as one species at the time of the publication and hence 2 species were not mentioned as associating with them. Hence I am asking if I can add these obvious conclusions into wikipedia without there being any source that makes these obvious conclusions. I’m not sure if this counts as Original Research, since almost all myrmecologists would probably reach the same conclusion. If this counts as original research, can i publish my conclusions of those papers on somewhere else, and then cite that on wikipedia? I am a published myrmecologists with citations and am currently collaborating on a new species description (unrelated) too. See @faddaf on Naturalist for my ORCID and more info. And hence, I believe my small notes publication would be reliable enough to be cited in wikipedia. My interpretation of the literature would be conservative in its assumptions to avoid overconfident conclusions. Thank you for the help.

Another question is that if I am allowed to point out uncertainty of information, justified by the context of literature but not by any paper alone. Faddaff (talk) 06:44, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

I just want to note that if you are a published myrmecologist and you're citing your own paper/publication you realistically have a conflict of interest and are strongly discouraged from making such a change directly per WP:COI.

I don't know enough about biology and classification to have a well formed opinion on whether such a conclusion is below the bar of WP:SYNTH, but I would be careful about using such a justification if I thought there was any significant chance of it being challenged. Packrat3860 (talk) 06:54, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

WP:SELFCITE (part of the COI guideline you cite) says): "Using material you have written or published is allowed within reason..."

Caveats apply, but there is no "strongly discouraged".

WP:EXPERT is an essay, not a policy, but has more advice. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 10:29, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

I thought the guideline at the top would still apply. COI editors are strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly, and can propose changes on article talk pages instead. So you can cite your own publication but you should propose changes on the talk page rather than editing the article directly. Is that not the case? Packrat3860 (talk) 12:39, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

No; which is why SELFCITE is included as an explicit exception to that summary. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 12:52, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

I see. I think that segment could stand to make the exception a little more obvious then. The other subheadings in that section aren't necessarily exceptions (although now I want to go back and read them more closely). Point 7 under "Advice for expert editors" in WP:EXPERT puts it more clearly with Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline does allow an editor to include information from their own publications in Wikipedia articles and to cite them.

Thank you for clarifying. Packrat3860 (talk) 13:12, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

No you can't, because this is not obvious at all. You may know from your own personal experience that it's true, but we're not allowed to use personal knowledge here. Imagine this situation: There are four different species, A, B, C and D. But species B,C and D are very similar and in 1990 people thought they were all the same, and called it "E". Species A associates with B only, not with C and D. In 1990, someone observes this association and describes it, saying A associates with "E". They may or may not have noticed that there were also individuals of species "E" that didn't seem to be associating with A, but they saw some were, so they said the "two" species associate. Now in 2000, someone notices that E is in fact three different species. Your logic would now mean that we claim an association between A and all of B, C and D because they are all E. But the fatal flaw is that there never was a global association of A with all of E. We just didn't have the classification to see the detail. So we have to wait until someone checks that A really associates with all interpretations of the new "E", i.e. all three subdivisions. This illustration may be way off the mark for the specific example you're thinking of, but it illustrates why SYNTH is dangerous. What you can do is say that A was shown to associate with a species that was subsequently divided into three species, because that's true and reflects the literature. Elemimele (talk) 12:46, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

You seem to have misunderstood my point because I made an oversimplification. The taxonomic revision of the host species concerned Eastern mediterranean Crematogaster scutellaris group ants. These ants are ecologically extremely similar. Only one species is always found in one site never 2:

It is an interesting fact that the species of the Crematogaster scutellaris complex, which are highly aggressive and territorial [17,30], tend to ecologically exclude one another. We have already observed this pattern in the distribution of C. scutellaris and C. schmidti in the Northwest Balkans [30] and do not know any convincing case in which more than one species of the C. scutellaris complex were detected at one locality. No ecological or phenotypic differences between the species of the C. scutellaris complex are known, and the taxa appear to occupy similar thermophilous woodland habitats [10,17]. Based on the more northern distribution of C. schmidti, we suspect a lower thermophily than in C. ariadnae sp. n., C. graeca sp. n., and C. ionia. Concerning the speciation of the latter three, the separation of their ranges by the deep waters of the Aegean Sea over millions of years suggests speciation through geographic isolation: C. ariadnae sp. n. on Crete, C. graeca sp. n. on the southernmost area of the Balkan mainland, and C. ionia in Anatolia. Similarly, the speciation of C. scutellaris and C. schmidti was probably also initiated by separation into a western and an eastern refugium (source)

Since they spatially completely exclude each other, an association recorded in Crete with the old concept of the species only has one possibility, that is whichever species lives in Crete. Moreover, In many scientific papers scientists are aware those species were undescribed and hence note them as for example Crematogaster ionia sp1 or Crematogaster cf. ionia. In these cases, we can be certain that these were placeholders for those non-described cryptic species.

After posting this comment I dived a little into literature and found direct evidence, directly stated for all of suspected species except Crematogaster ionia (the real ionia, after the revision) and Crematogaster graeca. However, Data of association from the Ege region of Türkiye exists for a Crematogaster species there(in the literature), it can only be ionia, since only ionia is found there, as these species are geographically separated. This is very certain information that I plan to write inside a unofficial casual text that Ill publish somewhere.

For C. graeca I for now couldnt find anything. If I cant find anything for the localities of this species (Exact coordinates matching in another paper describing an association), I will state inside of that personal publication that similar associations with local Colobopsis is expected for this species, although not directly recorded giving justification of course. Also Camponotus lateralis is associated with C. graeca with the same manner recorded directly in the literature, C. lateralis is also associated with the same manner with all the species mentioned here so it is likely this species associates with other Camponotine ants in the same manner just like all the other species mentioned here.

I'll write a casual text on this and publish it on somewhere unoffical like inaturalist Journal page, where people can also add their thoughts there. I am not planning to Own any page on wikipedia, and if someone for example in the talk page debates my editing with appropriate literature review, I will go along with the majority consensus reached there, among peers (people involved with myrmecology in any way) no matter what I myself think.

You are free to dispute this in any way, I am open to talking here, and I wouldn't do anything that I think is against wikipedia rules. Faddaff (talk) 13:32, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

Well in the ege region schmidti is also found but schmidti and ionia existed before the revision and can't be easily confused. Faddaff (talk) 13:35, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

The association described was between ionia and Colobopsis not any Crematogaster Faddaff (talk) 13:45, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

@Faddaff This is getting very technical for the Teahouse and is unlikely to be seen by WP insect experts. I suggest you summarise what's here on Talk:Colobopsis imitans and then ask those interested to take a look by posting a link at WT:WikiProject Insects. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:01, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

Mike's right, and I'm sorry I misunderstood the geographical side of it. But basically, if you're having to do a detailed argument of why something is the case, you should probably be aiming to publish that as primary literature rather than draw it as a conclusion here. We're a tertiary source, and we're already stretching a bit of a point on a lot of specialised biological articles when we overly-rely on primary literature. But yes the insect people will give you a more informed response. Elemimele (talk) 16:26, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for everyone's input. I'll follow Mike's advice and focus on writing that text.

I'm not sure if I'm supposed to close the discussion somewhere when it has finished, I don't see an option for it.

Goodbye. Faddaff (talk) 18:26, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

No need, Faddaff. It's possible to put a "Resolved" label at the bottom, but most people don't bother. The thread will be archived in due course, and until it is others will be able to read it and may learn useful things from it. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-41275-62 (talk) 00:35, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Is Suggestion Bot working?

About 3 days ago, I used the SuggestBot to give me edit suggestions on my talk page, but they haven't shown up. It said it would pop up within minutes but it has been quite a lot of minutes so I am just wondering whether I did something wrong or it's just down. Thanks, PixelsRCool (talk) 13:56, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

Per User:SuggestBot#Current status (permalink): SuggestBot will be down for maintenance over the next few days as we have to make updates to its infrastructure...it may or may not post suggestions if you ask for them, and it won't post to our subscribers. Its updates of the Community Portal will not be affected. SuggestBot does not seem to have made suggestions since July 2026, when Nettrom last updated "Current status", as previously noted at User talk:SuggestBot#No suggestions (permalink) a week ago. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 14:15, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

User talk:SuggestBot#c-Nettrom-20260811124500-Ost316-20260804205700 for my own reference -- Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 22:16, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

Television sources for a biography

Hello, I’m Dave Nassaney, also known as Caregiver Dave. I’m asking about a possible biography of myself, so I want to disclose that conflict of interest.

My television appearances are listed at https://caregiverdave.com/in-the-media/ and continue on page 2.

How can I determine which broadcasts qualify as significant independent coverage under Wikipedia’s notability guidelines? I understand that interviews and independent reporting may be treated differently.

No draft has been submitted. ChatGPT helped organize the source links and phrase this question. I’m seeking guidance on evaluating the original sources before a human editor writes any article. Thank you. DaveNassaney (talk) 15:21, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi @DaveNassaney. Thanks for disclosing your ChatGPT usage. We actually prohibit the usage of chatbots like ChatGPT in the writing of article content, and we highly discourage you using it to research sources. See WP:NOLLM.

As for your query: an article on Wikipedia is only possible if the subject meets our criteria for inclusion, in this case it would be Wikipedia:Notability (people). Interviews do not count towards this criteria. We would instead be looking for (as a rule of thumb) about three independent sources that discuss/analyse/critique your life based very specifically not on press releases, full interviews, or from unreliable sources like social media.

If you can't find three sources that each meet the golden rule, an article would likely not be possible at this time. qcne (talk) 15:26, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

Tangentially related, about we highly discourage you using it [LLMs] to research sources. I don't think that's what WP:NOLLM is about; is there any existing concensus on this? I have been under the impression that it is fair-game and even to some extent encouraged as they can be more effective than Google in the age of SEOs. LkL-70547 (talk) 01:04, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it's encouraged, but rather accepted where used by experienced editors whom we trust aren't going to let it creep into copyediting and even writing their article. Giovanni Guasconti (a word with me) 03:04, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

I think some of the grumpiness you may encounter around it comes from seeing people misuse LLMs thinking that it's allowed as long as it's in some way related to the sources.

If you use an LLM for a query like Please search the web for sources covering the founding of $COMPANY, don't include official press releases or the company website and then you read those sources and decide whether or not to include them and write the copy and the edit summary and so on I don't think anybody is going to object (or probably even know). I have done that before on occasion, especially when the "AI Overview" of my search engine is hinting at a source I haven't been able to find yet.

But there's a lot of folks who have clearly written some initial copy, plugged it into an LLM and said "please add sources" and then uncritically dumped the output into Wikipedia (without checking whether those sources exist or if the LLM has decided to "help" by rewriting parts of the copy or what have you). Then when someone asks if this was written by an LLM they say "oh I just used it for sources". In such cases it is simpler to suggest that they rewrite without using an LLM in any way. Packrat3860 (talk) 13:27, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Definitely so. I use it to find sources too sometimes, especially in more niche topics (like the Holz Hausen firewood stack), but I wouldn’t really recommend it to newer editors since the latter approach you explained often occurs and then their work ends up at AINB. Giovanni Guasconti (a word with me) 14:21, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi, Dave.

qcne has summed it up pretty well. We have a great essay here called WP:Popularity does not guarantee notability which applies quite well to your situation. There are a lot of people who find themselves confused at why we don't consider them notable despite them having had a bajillion media appearances, being featured in this and that publication and so on. The thing which makes you notable here is that some outlet completely independent of you and with no input from yourself has decided to take notice of you and write about you in-depth. In other words, you need to be the kind of person who is so interesting that people start writing biographies about you without your input. That may seem like a rather high bar, and it certainly is. The vast majority of people on the planet don't qualify for an article here. After all, if appearing on TV a lot of times made you notable, we'd need an article for every weather anchor on the planet. Athanelar (talk) 15:55, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

I don't think you just being in a broadcast would count as significant coverage, similarly being on a podcast. If someone makes a TV program, film, or documentary about you that would go towards showing that you're notable because someone considered you worthy of coverage. But for example, actors don't just qualify for a WP article by being prolific. They need need sig cov like everyone else. Mme Maigret (talk) 07:38, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

I did a Google search on Dave Nassaney, also known as Caregiver Dave; he is not notable and if an article would be created it would be nominated for deletion. Catfurball (talk) 17:44, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

Bias in articles of fictional characters

I have been doing the suggested edits that are labeled as "revise tone" for fictional characters. Many of the bias found by the bot is in the category about the abilities of the characters. Should I change the tone of those parts? FlameOutsideOfStaff (talk) 18:20, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello, FlameOutsideOfStaff. Articles about fictional characters written by fans can often violate the Neutral point of view and are sometimes written from an inappropriate in universe perspective. You should try to correct such problems and only include content that neutrally summarizes the sources. You can find additional advice at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction. Cullen328 (talk) 23:00, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

Also see WP:FANCRUFT which is an essay about this kind of issue. Athanelar (talk) 23:22, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

Source advice for a possible biography of Sean Murphy (author)

Hello. I work with Sean Murphy and 1455 Literary Arts on publicity, so I have a conflict of interest.

I’m seeking advice before preparing a possible biography of Sean Murphy, the author and cultural critic who founded 1455 Literary Arts. His work includes the memoir ''Please Talk About Me When I’m Gone'', the story collection ''This Kind of Man'', and the poetry collections ''The Blackened Blues'', ''Rhapsodies in Blue'', ''Kinds of Blue'', and ''Red, White, and Blues''.

I would appreciate guidance on the general notability guideline and the creative-professional criteria, particularly coverage of a writer’s collective body of work.

These are three sources I’d like help assessing first:

• Midwest Book Review, Small Press Bookwatch, August 2024 — the ''This Kind of Man'' entry contains a synopsis, a short critique, and a biographical note.
• [https://www.washingtonindependentreviewofbooks.com/features/how-sean-murphy-sees-story Sarah Trembath, “How Sean Murphy Sees Story,” Washington Independent Review of Books, September 24, 2024] — an interview with discussion and evaluation of the fiction by the interviewer. I understand that Murphy’s own answers are primary material.
• [https://www.mvtimes.com/2015/05/06/noepe-writers-in-residence-share-their-latest-at-the-west-tisbury-library/ Jack Shea, “Noepe writers in residence share their latest at the West Tisbury library,” The Martha’s Vineyard Times, May 6, 2015] — a group-event report with literary commentary on Murphy and mentions of his memoir and novel.

The User:AshtonElo/sandbox contains the fuller candidate list, including:

• An Identity Theory interview with introductory criticism of ''This Kind of Man''.
• Northern Virginia Magazine coverage of his literary organizing and 1455’s festival.
• Other book reviews, interviews, and podcast appearances.
• Commentary on ''Red, White, and Blues'' by Ron Charles and Greg Olear.
• Supporting award and publication records.

The notes identify limitations, including Olear’s disclosed friendship and past working relationship with Murphy, interview answers that are primary material, and sources whose editorial reliability needs assessment. Author-supplied listings and the Kirkus Indie review are identified separately.

There is also a separate inventory of Wikipedia articles citing Murphy’s music criticism. Examples include [[Lizard (song)]], [[Village of the Pharoahs]], [[A Passion Play]], and [[2112 (song)]]. These cite his writing about other subjects. I’m unsure whether that source-use context is relevant to the creative-professional criteria.

My questions are:

• Does the combined coverage provide a reasonable basis for an Articles for Creation draft, or is stronger independent secondary coverage needed first?
• Which sources contribute meaningful evidence, and which have insufficient reliability, independence, or depth?
• How should reviews of his works be weighed alongside coverage of him personally, and does the use of his criticism add anything relevant?

Thank you for your guidance. AshtonElo (talk) 19:00, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

• Midwest Book Review, Small Press Bookwatch, August 2024. Says little, and unsigned.
• Sarah Trembath, “How Sean Murphy Sees Story,” Washington Independent Review of Books, September 24, 2024 You say "an interview with discussion and evaluation of the fiction by the interviewer. I understand that Murphy’s own answers are primary material", but Trembath's contributions are enthusiastic rather than informative.
• Jack Shea, “Noepe writers in residence share their latest at the West Tisbury library,” The Martha’s Vineyard Times, May 6, 2015: Two short paragraphs on Murphy, within an article about an event involving ten writers.
• Does the combined coverage provide a reasonable basis for an Articles for Creation draft[?] I can't see how it does. [I]s stronger independent secondary coverage needed first? Yes.

-- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 22:24, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

Also, please don't use an LLM to communicate (WP:LLMCOMM) or to write or copyedit an article or draft (WP:LLM). Giovanni Guasconti (a word with me) 03:50, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Are there any in-depth reviews of his work in reputable sources? Mme Maigret (talk) 07:40, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Article proposal

We should make an article about controversial YouTubers that got banned Jason1110TS (talk) 21:29, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

Youtube has a vast number of "Youtubers". The huge majority are not "notable". If you can demonstrate that a "Youtuber" (whether or not banned from Youtube) who doesn't have an article is notable, then you can create a draft about that person. (Urging other people to create an article is seldom successful.) -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 21:48, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

Don't you think a Medium or Substack article might be better? Mme Maigret (talk) 07:41, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

To make a Wikipedia article, the literal topic "Controversial YouTubers that got banned" - in those exact words - has to be already the topic of major coverage in several different sources. We can't make an article by seeing that there are quite a few of those people and putting them together ourselves to create something. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 19:05, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Follow-up to Wikipediholism test

Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_1307#Wikipediholism test

I have not got my answer. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 02:50, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

You don't need to do anything involving commons.js. The page Wikipedia:Wikipediholism test links to an automated version of the test here where you select your answers and it tallies up your score as you go. Athanelar (talk) 04:08, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

The Buffalo Sports Curse

I've already made one wiki article but this one I think is going to be tougher. I would like to know if anybody could help. I'm not sure how but I'm pretty busy most of the time so we can't communicate easily. I'm not sure if I'm doing this correctly because I'm new. Also I'm not keen on waiting the some 7-10 days until my first wiki article is either approved or not so yeah. Bspstheman (talk) 02:53, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

OK, so you're new enough to not know if you're doing it right and busy most of the time and it's a tough article and you don't want to do it alone ... and you don't want to wait either ...

If it's all those things at once, - which you yourself just said that it is - then this is insane and just forget it. If you come back another time when you're not busy and you don't mind waiting - that could work. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 04:04, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

I mean I guess but I feel like I might just do it for pleasure because what I meant by busy is I do this LATE. And I am fine with waiting as long as I know something is going to happen. It's like sending fan mail and 4 years later unprompted the letter comes back. by then you will have forgotten about it. Do you get what I mean? Bspstheman (talk) 04:49, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Late as in behind schedule, or late as in late at night? If you're in Buffalo, your "late night" is not so late in LA or lots of other places. And 3 AM at your place is 7 AM in London, if I got it right. Besides, there's no need for Wikipedia editors to work at the same time. But: working with others on an article is likely to be pretty slow, anything can happen (and it usually does), and if one of you gets impatient then the other one is going to bail.

Unfortunately, almost all of the "guaranteed success" articles already got written years ago. The closest thing to guaranteed success is having three monster-sized sources where every one of them goes on and on in great detail with their opinions about the Buffalo Sports Curse, and bonus points if their article is literally called "The Buffalo Sports Curse".

I sincerely hope it turns out great. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 06:03, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Thanks Bspstheman (talk) 12:57, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi Bspstheman. You can create a WP:DRAFT and submit it to Wikipedia:Articles for creation for review when you think its ready. Creating a draft will allow you to do things at your own pace and others will pretty much leave you be as long as you don't start violating any main Wikipedia policies and guidelines. The only other thing you will have to make sure of is that you work on in enough so that it doesn't get tagged for speedy deletion as an abandon draft; so, if you work on improving it at least once every six months, you should be OK. You can invest as much time/energy as you want in the draft, but you might want to first assess whether the subject you want to create an article about is actually Wikipedia:Notable because a lack of Wikipedia notability is something that can't really be WP:OVERCOME. If you're looking for help with the draft, perhaps try asking on the talk page of a relevant Wikipedia:WikiProject: one of its members might even be able to help you assessing the subject's Wikipedia notability. FWIW, creating an article in the WP:MAINSPACE is allowed (unless there are some technical restrictions in place preventing you from doing so), but it immediately places the page under higher scrutiny. Once something has been added to the mainspace, it's there for anyone to edit (for better of worse), and it's also there for someone to tag/propose/nominate for WP:DELETION if they feel it has issues that simple can't be overcome. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:05, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

thanks, I'll do that soon. Bspstheman (talk) 12:56, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

At Wikipedia:There is no deadline it says some other things that might be reassuring. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:45, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

You haven't made one wiki article yet. You created a draft on Juan Pedro Franco in your sandbox. I've added a button there that allows you to request it be reviewed as explained by Marchjuly in his comment above. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 22:10, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

WP:OR

I'm a bit confused about the Original Research policy. Does this policy mean that the observation of objects physically (and subsequently noticing facts about them) is original research?

For example (made up), is saying "there are 150 spaces at this car park" (which came from a car park sign) considered original research?

Another example (also made up), is just saying "there is a car park" also original research?

Thanks. Jacksonvil (talk|contribs) 04:12, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

The policy means that we can't state facts in Wikipedia's voice that aren't attested in reliable sources or readily observable to anybody reading the article.

If there was a photo of the site showing the existence of a car park, you could probably say there's a car park. To say "there's 150 spaces" you'd need a source. If there's a photo in the article of the sign saying that there's 150 spaces, you could say "According to the sign at the car park, there are 150 spaces." You probably couldn't say "There are 150 spaces" and leave it at that.

But the policy's really more for cases like "Well, I know that John Doe was born in 1974 because I went and asked him and he told me himself" or "I know the molecular structure of Unobtanium because I was on the research team that first observed it" or "The phonology of this language is like this and I know because I'm a linguist and I observed this language." The real point of NOR is "we can't take you at your word, no matter how certain you are; this information needs to be published somewhere reliable before we can use it."

There's also a very common form of original research called WP:SYNTH, which is where somebody takes one or more sources and combines or extrapolates them to infer new information which is not explicitly stated in the sources. There's a couple of examples given at that link if you're not sure exactly what that means. Even if the claim that the person creates via their synthesis is logically possible or even factually correct, it's still inappropriate because the claim is the result of the original thinking of the editor rather than being explicitly stated in the sources. Athanelar (talk) 04:25, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for that! That was really helpful. Really good explanation. Jacksonvil (talk|contribs) 04:36, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

See also {{Cite sign}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 11:25, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Further to Athanelar's really good summary - especially regarding the "Unobtainium" paragraph: Wikipedia is not some kind of formal legal process, and the existence of a rule like this does not oblige Wikipedia to pursue every possible case. The rule is there to catch actual bad cases in such a way that those bad cases "don't have a leg to stand on", and is therefore a strict and absolute rule. But its judicious non-application to cases where it isn't actually needed seems to me to be part of how it works. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 04:40, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

When is template 'Personal attack removed' appropriate?

{{Personal attack removed}}

I noticed this comment on a talk page Talk:Helium-3#Disgusting, unsightly typo which seems egregious to me but I'm not sure if it qualifies for removal. Thanks!! TAF International (talk) 06:17, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Hi TAF International. That comment was made in November 2014 by an unregistered account. The original post actually contained some profanity, but another unregistered account removed that word about a week later (could've been the same person). The post probably should've been archived along time ago, but for some reason it wasn't (maybe because it remains unsigned) by the page's archiving setup. Marking it with {{personal attack removed}} at this stage seems (at least to me) pointless and maybe overkill: calling someone in particular illiterate is not good, but this seem to be referring to Wikipedia as a whole. The post should probably just be manually archived (after being Template:Unsigned comment). If an admin wants to go back and revision delete the profanity, then that's up to them. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:34, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

I've cleaned up that talk page and removed the section in question, which was clearly made in bad faith. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 10:47, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Regarding Approval of Draft

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.

---

Link - Draft:Somasekhar Sundaresan

I wrote everything from scratch again and again, then converted it to code and submitted. Still it was rejected. What should I do? Excuzi (talk) 11:04, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

How did you "convert it to code"? Athanelar (talk) 11:06, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

I used Gemini, but I made sure none of the texutal content, even punctuation or citations or anything at all was altered from what I wrote myself. I just gave it content and told it to convert it to code without making any changes at all. Excuzi (talk) 11:10, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

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

I need help to make the Estonian 2026 education strike page, any tips?

Hello, Creator of 2026 Estonian education workers' strike here, I need some help to expand the page about the one-hour strike, any tips on expanding the page?

Oh yeah here is the questions answered:

Q1: Why not use images?

A1: Well. sadly ERR images are copyrighted. including articles image. (from what I searched)

Q2: Why do you want to expand it?

A2: Well to include more information about this information.

If you have any questions please ask me or any tips. If you want you can edit the page to include more information.

Thank you. - AWorldWithout (talk) 12:21, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @AWorldWithout, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Irrespective of how important this event might be for teachers in Estonia, I think it very unlikely that it meets the requirements in WP:EVENTCRITERIA. I'm pretty sure that your current sources are not sufficient to do so. Remember that Wikipedia is not a news organ.

Note that unless you begin by finding several sources that each meet all the criteria in the golden rule, you are probably wasting your time in trying to create an article. ColinFine (talk) 14:36, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

it was metonied on alot on news things. I know wikipedia is not a news organ, it is an Event. which because strikes are techinally notable if it is menoited by least several sources (either news one or trusted ones) there is alot of Estonian (I think) news article about the strike. im still new, but I made sure it is notable by at least sources, that's probably why im editing the page to add more information (or sources) AWorldWithout (talk) 15:14, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

A one-hour strike is an important symbolic act, and may have an important influence on Estonia's policies on education, but a one-hour strike is only a method of communication by the teachers. The message they sent is an important one, but the actual literal event was "for an hour there was no instruction". That is a very boring "event".

I am not Estonian, but I think the real Wikipedia article that Estonian teachers must be hoping for is a future one called "Estonia's education reform of 2027". This strike will belong as a sentence in that article, as part of explaining how it happened. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:19, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Another way I could have said it: This strike proves that Estonians are arguing about education. Unless there is violence or other very major events connected with the argument, we should not try to write an article until the argument has been settled and the final results can be analyzed. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:30, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

be carefull so you Don't getlocked Out ~2026-56021-92 (talk) 01:30, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Finding a way to make two separate articles out of one

Hi. I looked at the article on Prathyangira Devi, and noticed that She has been conflated with Narasimhi Devi. These are two different lion-headed goddesses in the Hindu pantheon, but both have different iconographies and mythological origins.

Is there I way I can recommend making two different articles (which I have the research materials for) or to just go ahead and edit the original, provide references, and just start a second article on Narasimhi.

Most places just copy paste what is on the current page as is, and that is not borne out by archeological research or an analysis of ancient texts. Checkingthefacts11 (talk) 12:33, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

@Checkingthefacts11 The question is; do you have reliable sources identifying the two as separate deities? I notice in your contribution history that, for example, when editing Jyestha (goddess) you said you Added in scriptural reference from Skanda Purana... you should be aware that scripture is not considered a reliable source in and of itself, we need to cite interpretations of that scripture, because otherwise we'd be relying on our own interpretations, which is not allowed.

Please also be mindful of your biases and remember that Wikipedia is not written from any particular point of view. Articles about deities should not be written from the point of view of a worshipper. 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. Athanelar (talk) 13:20, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Request for guidance on a biographical article about a Marathi writer and lyricist

Hello,

I am a Marathi screenwriter, lyricist and poet from India. I would like to understand whether my work and career meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for a biographical article.

I have published Marathi ghazal collections and have credits in Marathi films. I have also found some newspaper coverage, literary references and a radio interview relating to my work.

Since I am the subject of the proposed article, I want to follow Wikipedia's conflict-of-interest guidelines and avoid creating a promotional page.

Could an experienced editor please advise me on whether my available independent sources may be sufficient, and how I should proceed?

Thank you. ~2026-55396-92 (talk) 14:39, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-55396-92 Please don't use AI to talk to us.

This editor's advice: go on about your life as if you had never heard of Wikipedia. There is nothing to be gained by having an article here, because 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. Athanelar (talk) 15:05, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Editing

Quick question: Can you collaborate on article editing? Sabres Jayce (talk) 14:48, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Of course! Every article here is a collaborative effort. If you look at the history of any article you'll see multiple editors have contributed to each one. Athanelar (talk) 15:06, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

@Sabres Jayce, did you perhaps mean “can you collaborate on articles by teaming up with another editor and submitting work on the article jointly?” Augnablik (talk) 15:33, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

When you write a Wikipedia article by yourself, it is still never yours - you can't supervise it or own it, and anyone is always able to see it and change it for any reason. Normally when someone is writing by themselves we don't interfere, but that is only to avoid being rude or appearing rude. Being able to collaborate on Wikipedia is built into the system and is totally expected.

• BUT it is very strictly forbidden for @Sabres Jayce to be shared. Every person must have their own individual account and must never use anyone else's account even temporarily.

TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:59, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Make a non-self sponsored page

How do I make a page like this for my company without it being declined as "self-promotion"? Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center. Mitchell2526 (talk) 15:30, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

The first step is to ask yourself why you wabt an article about your company. The vast majority of the time, the answer is something like "Because other similar companies have articles" or "to raise awareness about what we do" or "to make sure people can find the info we want them to find." All of these are considered promotional here and if those are your intentions then the answer is that you should not write an article about yourself. Athanelar (talk) 15:53, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Mitchell2526, and welcome to the Teahouse.

In all probability, you don't: see WP:BOSS.

Most companies and organisations in the world do not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability: this has nothing to do with how important or worthy they are: it has everything to do with whether several people who have no connection with them and have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the organisation, have chosen to write in some depth about the organisation.

It follows that the only possible way for you to create such an article is to find several sources that each meet all the conditions in golden rule.

If you can find these, then it is possible to proceed. You would next need to effectively forget every single thing you know, think, or believe about your company, and write a summary of what those independent sources said about it. Even if they leave out things that you think are important. Even if they are critical or nasty about it. Even if they bring up matters that you really really really don't want people to be reminded of. (Actually, if there are such matters, it's probably more likely that your company is notable than if there aren't.) Even if they are wrong, according to your personal knowledge.

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) 15:55, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Is there a way to send a draft to an editor and have it checked before submitting for approval to avoid a self promotion punishment? Mitchell2526 (talk) 16:20, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

@Mitchell2526 the way to do that is to submit a draft article via WP:Articles for creation, which you already have experience with. qcne (talk) 16:32, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Question about draft notability

Hello, could someone advise whether the independent sources in my draft are sufficient to establish notability under Wikipedia's biography guidelines?

Draft:Ali Mohammed Mahdi

Thank you. AliMohammedPhoto (talk) 16:06, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi @AliMohammedPhoto. That was an easy decline. None of your sources provide independent critique or discussion of this person. They're all very clearly paid-for promotional pieces. qcne (talk) 16:09, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

@AliMohammedPhoto: Please note that if you know, work for, or are Ali Mohammed Mahdi, you have a conflict of interest and need to follow the the guidelines at WP:COI. If you are being paid to create an article for him, see WP:PAIDEDIT. ^{In solidarity,} 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 ^{(They/them • Talk • Contribs)} 16:12, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. I am the subject of the draft and understand the conflict-of-interest guidelines. I am seeking independent advice on the sources and will follow Wikipedia’s guidance. AliMohammedPhoto (talk) 16:14, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @AliMohammedPhoto, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Have you read autobiography, which explains why we very very strongly discourage anybody from writing about themselves in Wikipedia. Your chances of success - especially as an inexperienced editor - are so tiny that it is almost guaranteed that you are entirely wasting your time and effort in trying to create an article about yourself. My advice is to forget that Wikipedia exists, and go on with your work. If you are, or become notable (in Wikipedia's special sense) then sooner or later somebody unconnected with you will create an article about you. ColinFine (talk) 17:50, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello ColinFine,

Thank you for taking the time to share your advice and explain Wikipedia’s guidelines. I appreciate your honesty and understand your concerns about conflict of interest and writing about oneself. I will take your advice into consideration and focus on my professional work while ensuring that any future article about me is supported by independent, reliable sources.

Thank you again for your time and guidance. AliMohammedPhoto (talk) 17:54, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

@AliMohammedPhoto What is your connection to @Sarbastazeez, another Iraqi sports photographer, who also submitted an autobiographical draft today and asked the exact same question you did? qcne (talk) 17:56, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello Qcne,

Thank you for asking. I do not have any personal or professional connection with Sarbastazeez, and I was not aware of their draft or question before you mentioned it. I submitted my draft and asked my question independently.

Thank you for checking. AliMohammedPhoto (talk) 18:02, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

@AliMohammedPhoto

Your question:

Hello, could someone advise whether the independent sources in my draft are sufficient to establish notability under Wikipedia's biography guidelines?

Their question:

Could someone advise whether the independent sources in my draft are sufficient to establish notability under Wikipedia’s biography guidelines?

Both of you are Iraqi sports photographers. Both of you submitted autobiographical drafts today. Both of you used mostly the same source publications of which most followed the same structure.

Please don't insult our intelligence. qcne (talk) 18:09, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

@AliMohammedPhoto: To be clear, you're not in trouble. If you are transparent with us about what is going on here, we can help. Please disclose whatever connection you have with User:Sarbastazeez. Thank you. ^{In solidarity,} 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 ^{(They/them • Talk • Contribs)} 18:44, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello John,

Thank you for reaching out and for clarifying. I want to be transparent: I have no personal, professional, or financial connection with User:Sarbastazeez, other than any interactions that may have taken place on Wikipedia, if applicable.

I am happy to clarify any specific concerns or answer further questions. I want to follow Wikipedia’s policies and contribute constructively.

Thank you for your time. AliMohammedPhoto (talk) 18:48, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

@AliMohammedPhoto Are you communicating with us via a chatbot like ChatGPT? qcne (talk) 18:54, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Question about draft notability 2

Could someone advise whether the independent sources in my draft are sufficient to establish notability under Wikipedia’s biography guidelines?

Draft:Sarbast Azeez. Sarbastazeez (talk) 17:30, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Sarbastazeez. You have submitted your draft for review: that is, for a reviewer to look at the sources and decide whether they are adequate. We do not do pre-reviews.

Have you read autobiography, which explains why it is that almost nobody ever manages to successfully create an article about themselves in Wikipedia.

As I said to AliMohammedPhoto just above, My advice is to forget that Wikipedia exists, and go on with your work. If you are, or become notable (in Wikipedia's special sense) then sooner or later somebody unconnected with you will create an article about you. ColinFine (talk) 17:53, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Based on your explanation, I understand that the rejection was not due to the quality of the articles. For your information, my sources include internationally recognized and reputable media outlets. You are welcome to verify them yourself.

However, I still do not fully understand the reason for the rejection, and some aspects of the decision remain unclear to me. My sources come from respected media organizations with professional international standards, which is why I find the outcome difficult to understand.

I sincerely hope that the Wikipedia reviewing team will ensure a fair, transparent, and impartial assessment of my draft. I respect Wikipedia’s policies and the work of its volunteers, and I would appreciate a clearer explanation of the specific issues that led to the rejection.

Kind regards,

Sarbast Azeez Sarbastazeez (talk) 22:49, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Sarbastazeez. No, your sources do not establish any notability and I have declined your draft. What is your connection to Wikipedia:Teahouse#Question_about_draft_notability? qcne (talk) 17:54, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Let me be frank with you: my work has been featured by several reputable, high-quality international channels—not just one. You are welcome to verify this through the sources. Furthermore, I do not use any artificial intelligence tools; I can prove this to you by sharing my screen if you wish. I simply hope to receive the full recognition I deserve. My work has appeared on outlets such as Rudaw (Kurdistan)—which is widely recognized as a professional, international-standard channel—as well as Kurdistan 24, and various Qatari, Jordanian, and Iraqi channels. I trust that your esteemed team will ensure I am given fair credit. Sarbastazeez (talk) 23:24, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

You have already received fair credit here. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 02:13, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

Can you please answer qcne's question?

Your work may well have appeared in all sorts of places, and I congratulate you on that success. What you need, however, are sources completely independent from you who have chosen to write in-depth about your life and/or work and then had this writing accepted by a reputable publisher. Interviews with you are not considered to be independent - anything you have had any input into is not independent. Having your photo featured somewhere without any discussion about your life and work is not significant coverage. Can you point to a source you believe meets all three criteria in WP:42? Three sources like that usually means an article is possible; if those sources do not exist, the article cannot exist either. Meadowlark (talk) 02:28, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

Sarbastazeez, if a publication uses one of your photos in an article, that contributes nothing to your notability. Any such article is neither independent nor significant coverage of you as a person. So, which of your references are reliable, fully independent of you and devote significant coverage to you as a person? Cullen328 (talk) 05:32, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

I was the first photographer from the Kurdistan Region to arrive in Qatar—a fact you can transparently verify by searching for my name, Arabi Sarbast Aziz. My work has been featured by the media outlet Rudaw (an independent Kurdish channel), Kurdistan 24 (a government-affiliated channel), the Qatari newspaper *Al-Watan*, and numerous other websites. Best regards. Sarbastazeez (talk) 11:09, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

@Sarbastazeez you do not meet our criteria for inclusion, and my decline of the draft still stands. qcne (talk) 11:35, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

    https://magazine.imn.iq/ryadh/9977-سربست-عزيز-عدسة-بدأت-من-الشغف-ووصلت-إلى-كأس-العالم.html

        https://www.rudawarabia.net/arabic/categories/sport/1367993

   

https://alsabaah.iq/index.php?newsid=137404 Sarbastazeez (talk) 11:27, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

You can verify the sources included in my draft; they are credible. I kindly ask for an impartial review—I deserve that much. Please take the time to read them carefully; I have provided eight highly reputable sources. Sarbastazeez (talk) 11:41, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

I have reviewed them. They do not meet our criteria for independence. You still have not explained how you came to submit this draft and ask this question at the same time another Iraqi sports photographer also submitted an autobiographical draft and asked exactly the same question. qcne (talk) 11:47, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

I do not know anyone; I simply submitted my draft and provided my information. I did not include any unverified or unknown details. I respect Wikipedia’s policies, but for context, I should mention that I was ranked as the second-best photographer in Iraq by certain archival/memory-documentation platforms. Sarbastazeez (talk) 11:51, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

Best of luck with your career, you do not meet our criteria for inclusion at this time. qcne (talk) 11:55, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

To be honest, I am a media professional who has been working in the field since 2010. I have won numerous awards and covered many tournaments, yet I do not know why my application to join the best site in the world was not accepted. It is truly, deeply painful. Best regards. Sarbastazeez (talk) 12:01, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

You seem to gravely misunderstand what is done here. Wikipedia is not a platform where people "apply" to join and tell about themselves, like social media platforms are. Wikipedia is not interested in what someone says about themselves, we want to know what others say about them. This is usually very difficult for someone to do about themselves, especially without prior Wikipedia editing experience, and almost no one succeeds at it. By "almost no one" I mean that the number of successful autobiographies in the last 14-15 years can probably be counted on one hand(out of tens of thousands of attempts). Are you the rare person who can succeed where almost everyone else fails? It is possible, but the odds are overwhelmingly against it. Please read our autobiography policy carefully.

If Arabic is your primary language, you may want to consider editing the Arabic Wikipedia instead. Each Wikipedia is separate, with their own policies, and your content may be acceptable there. 331dot (talk) 12:08, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

Qcne's decline was correct. I think there's a language barrier here you're having trouble with. People keep trying to tell you that what is needed for an article about a subject is reliable, independent sources that are about you, not articles by you. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:12, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

RE: Incorrect Data on Page

I am new to this and not sure how to approach the discrepancy in the Article Henry Newton (Canadian politician) 1731 - 1802

His second marriage to Anne Stuart is correct; however, she is the daughter of Gilbert Stuart Sr. 1724-1793.

Anne's brother is the painter Gilbert Charles Stuart 1755-1828

Thank you for helping with this. Gramz History (talk) 18:44, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

How do you know this? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 19:13, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Done. I found sources at the article on Gilbert Stuart Newton, son of Henry Newton (Canadian politician). The son's article cites his entry in volume 40 of the 1894 edition of the Dictionary of National Biography in addition to Eaton, Arthur Wentworth Hamilton (January 1915). "Rhode Island Settlers on the French lands in Nova Scotia in 1760 and 1761". Americana. New York, NY: National Americana Society. p. 41 – via Internet Archive.. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 19:58, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

I need to have my Wikipedia page improved

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

---

Hello Wikipedia friends--

I've long had a professional page and we are longtime supporters. My article needs serious updating and improvement. In the last year or so, I've received emails from persons saying they are Wiki editors, but I've found in researching them that they are scammers. May I ask for your help and any vetted referrals you might offer? I wish to engage someone with professional / or high-level volunteer experience with this.

Many thanks,

Marguerite Feitlowitz

Mfmushroom (talk) 19:21, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

@Mfmushroom: Welcome to The Teahouse.

I wouldn't pay any money at all, as no article is ever going to be locked into a particular revision. You may want to leave an edit request so that a willing volunteer can incorporate changes for you; please make sure to add those to Talk:Marguerite Feitlowitz and be ready to share reliable sources, especially if this is new information that is to be added. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:33, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

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

Barnstars

Hello other editors, I'd like to ask a few simple questions out of curiosity. I was shown that senior editors have different types of rewards and barnstars. I'd like to know how a new editor can earn these barnstars. 刘宸宁 (talk) 19:50, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @刘宸宁, and welcome to the Teahouse.

There is no such thing as a "senior editor". Some editors have more experience than others, but we are all learning, and there is no ranking. (Not even administrators: they are the janitors of Wikipedia, who have requested and been granted access to certain tools (like the keys to the cleaning cupboard) so that they can perform their janitorial functions, but they have no higher status).

Barnstars are awarded by individual editors to individual editors who think they merit them: that's all. There is no status attached to being awarded a barnstar, and the way to earn one is to edit in a way that attracts another editor's attention in a good way, so that that other editor chooses to give recognition. ColinFine (talk) 20:43, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

But @ColinFine,you are one of the very Wikipedians I’ve long thought of as a perfect example of a senior editor! 😂 Augnablik (talk) 04:41, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

In short, the awards are unofficial and there is no system. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 02:27, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

.I understand clearly 刘宸宁 (talk) 02:35, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

how to donate to wikipedia

i want to donate ~2026-55377-20 (talk) 21:26, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you.

Please go to Wikimedia:Donate ColinFine (talk) 22:02, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Experienced, unbiased editor needed for Cass Review

Request for editor of cass review

Hi all I made a bit of a mess on the Cass Review, edit warred like a fool, and now the edit war is continuing. Could an experienced editor, preferably without strong convictions on the subject, please hop on and help me fix the mess I made? Editing-dude144 (talk) 21:30, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

How would that be different from just leaving the article alone and letting yourself lose the edit war? Why not just do that? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 02:09, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

its not about winning anything, I felt responsible and the article didn't have many other editors before I posted this.

Now it does. Editing-dude144 (talk) 14:31, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

If retired before

If retired before but then months or over a year later, returned is that allowed if not creating drama? And not using template saying retired Cwater1 (talk) 02:33, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

If you more or less abandoned Wikipedia for any length of time, and your leaving did not involve any controversy or anger on Wikipedia (i.e. you didn't get banned or anything), and you didn't show any "retired" template, then welcome back, there's nothing special you need to do. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 03:00, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

I guess I have obsession or interest in contributing Wikipedia again. I was gone from June 2025 to August 2026. Many articles are long overdue of improvements and expansion as recently been doing. Cwater1 (talk) 03:10, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

As long as your edits are good and you treat everyone well, come back whenever you feel like it. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 03:25, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

The presence or absence of a "Retired" template is not relevant. Just like classic rock bands, Wikipedia editors can come out of retirement whenever they so choose. Cullen328 (talk) 05:14, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

My only thought about the template was "if you did have one but you're back, you should take it down". TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 07:31, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

I probably won't use the template in future even if take long hiatus again to avoid confusions. Cwater1 (talk) 15:06, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

Is a linkedin profile a relevant citation for a listed job title (CIA Directorate of Operations)?

On the article for the Directorate of Operations (CIA) Aaron Wegert is listed as the Deputy Director of the CIA for Operations, yet it states that a citation is needed. His LinkedIn profile lists "Deputy Director for Operations at Central Intelligence Agency" as his role within the CIA and based on his activity on there, it appears that he interacts regularly and contributes to the comments and posts made by official and known members/former members of the acting intelligence apparatus.

It also states that he "Transitioned from clandestine service to overt status under President Trump in mid-2025” and prior to that, he was a postdoctoral researcher in artificial intelligence and cybersecurity/cyber warfare at the University of Colorado Colorado Springs (UCCS).

It appears that he became the Deputy Director of the CIA for Operations in July 2025, having transitioned to overt status around that time. Drum.Hell.Her (talk) 03:48, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

LinkedIn is most certainly not a reliable source as it is user generated content. See WP:UGC. Packrat3860 (talk) 04:36, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

Drum.Hell.Her, the very next section of that policy is called Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves. See WP:SELFSOURCE. This explicitly creates an exception that applies here. An independent source would be preferable, though. Cullen328 (talk) 05:08, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

Not disputing that, but I have come across several LinkedIn profiles over the years where someone is claiming to be associated with an organisation, but isn't. The problem is that individuals can add pretty much anything they want to their employment history, and AFAIK LinkedIn doesn't in any way try to verify those. (In fact, quite the opposite: I once spent months and months trying to get LinkedIn to remove someone from our company profile who had nothing to do with us; their stance was basically "prove to us that this person isn't working for you", which I'm not sure is even possible.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:26, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! I read the guidelines outlawing social media and self-published sources after I'd asked this question on teahouse :S Drum.Hell.Her (talk) 06:06, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

@Drum.Hell.Her: His LinkedIn profile fails point 1 and 2 at WP:SELFSOURCE. I didn't find other sources so I have removed it. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:45, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

Sorry if that response was brusque. There's nothing wrong with double checking and this is the perfect place to ask questions like that ^-^ Packrat3860 (talk) 14:41, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

Request my draft for review

Hello other editors, my draft is almost complete, and I need to correct some grammatical errors. I request you to please check my draft once so I can understand if there are any errors. Yesterday I received a warning for a large language module in my draft. I'm a little confused here because I don't use AI-generated . But I only used Google translation app to translate the Chinese text into English, and I rewrote their text, sometimes it was misspelled. So if I'm doing something wrong, please help me with the correct guidance , and I request the editor to please check my draft once and give their statement.

Draft:Three Ancestral Lineages of Yunnan 刘宸宁 (talk) 04:26, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

刘宸宁, at the foot of Draft:Three Ancestral Lineages of Yunnan, we read "I will complete this page later." Good. Complete it, submit it, and then read any comments or suggestions that it gets. -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 05:30, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

Hoary Okay, thanks for the encouragement, but I'm confused about the LLM warning. If the other editor thinks it's LLM based, but I'm not using an AI generator, how can we convince the other editor that this draft isn't LLM-based? If they don't believe it, I'll have to rewrite it again. 刘宸宁 (talk) 05:46, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

That's a very reasonable question, 刘宸宁. It's rather a topical one for me, as just a week ago Rosiestep asked me about the appearance of LLM assistance in what I'd added to the article Bas Aarts. As you'll see there, I denied having had any such assistance. Rosiestep was persuaded by my denial, but I have to say that I find it unimpressive: if I had received LLM assistance, I could have lied and written the same denial. It was Suðurhafsljósæta who wrote about the appearance of your use of an LLM. Normally I'd suggest doing what I did: asking them straight up for evidence of LLM assistance; however, I see that you've posted an invitation to something related but different; I'd give Suðurhafsljósæta time to respond to that before asking questions or making requests. -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 06:43, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

Hoary Okay I understand, I'll wait for it but I am currently busy with my personal work, I'll fix the error in the draft at night. 刘宸宁 (talk) 06:55, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi all, just noting that I've replied to 刘宸宁 on their talk page. :) Suðurhafsljósæta (talk) 08:40, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

okay i'll look into it 刘宸宁 (talk) 12:05, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

I see you said I only used Google translation app to translate the Chinese text into English. Please note that Google Translate does employ Gemini nowadays, so your texts would indeed be considered AI-generated. We vastly prefer you to simply write with your own words. LkL-70547 (talk) 16:47, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

@LkL-70547 I'm really sorry, I think Google Translate isn't a web AI. I'm using Google Translate for the translation part .

Another editor pointed this out earlier: "You're using Google Translate, so many of your sentences don't sound right, so I'm translating them first, then rewriting the parts that need it most."

But I have to review my article. If any part seems odd, let me know on my talk page.

Another editor told me, saying he's an expert in English, and he'll fix the mistakes in my draft. 刘宸宁 (talk) 17:11, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

It does utilize AI now. It didn't in the past. Unfortunately I don't know which translators (if any) are non-AI these days. Regardless, for English Wikipedia we do require that you be proficient enough to communicate in English yourself - it doesn't need to be perfect. If you don't feel capable of editing without the use of translation tools it's better to edit projects in your native language instead. They often need editors far more than English WP does. ChompyTheGogoat [ Bleat | Munched ] 20:14, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

@ChompyTheGogoat I'm sorry about that, but I'm not using an AI generator, and I've already mentioned here that I'm only using Google Translate for translation, then I'll rewrite it.

I have not any intension for breaking the Wikipedia policy and thanks for the giving the advice and I'll focus to write english myself .

I received the same comment from another editor, and they suggested using the Wikipedia Chinese platform, but I explained it to them, and they accepted my vision – I want to provide Chinese sources from the Wikipedia English platform, and I received the Barnstar.

You can see our conversation here. istalk 刘宸宁 (talk) 20:39, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

I do understand that you aren't generating the content from scratch, but because it utilizes the same technology it can be prone to the same errors, which is the reason it's generally not allowed (and presumably why your draft was flagged). If you do manually review and revise it top to bottom that is permitted, just be sure that everything is properly cited to WP: RELIABLESOURCES. Other language projects may also have different standards, so sometimes articles (or parts of them) that are allowed there may not qualify for inclusion on English WP. Translations can be tricky because of this, regardless of whether they're done manually or automated. Having an experienced editor assist you will certainly help though. ChompyTheGogoat [ Bleat | Munched ] 20:47, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice.

You're right, I'll read it again and fix the mistake on the draft page. 刘宸宁 (talk) 02:51, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

Unable to remove templates after non-admin closure

I have non-admin closed the discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/15 (software engineer) (3rd nomination) but I am unable to remove the templates. Please advise. Abayomi2003 (talk) 08:21, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

Comment: User edit count is 10 before involving in AfD discussion: 1 to userspace; 9 to WP space; 0 to mainspace. I have undone this user's closure of AfD. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk / Uploads} 09:09, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

And also stale by 18 months. ChompyTheGogoat [ Bleat | Munched ] 20:10, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

How can I get an article draft URL for it to be undeleted?

My user page link is: https://w.wiki/bz2b

I am not sure how to get a draft undeleted. when trying to contact an administrator requests the draft URL and I am not sure how to retrieve it since it is deleted.

Any help, will be welcome.

Thanks a lot,

Susana

Susana Manogil Campoy (talk) 10:12, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Susana Manogil Campoy: I assume you mean your deleted sandbox draft, User:Susana Manogil Campoy/sandbox? You don't need the URL, you just need that page title, inside double square brackets, ie. [[User:Susana Manogil Campoy/sandbox]]. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:25, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

Adding friction to AFD process for articles affected by WP:BIAS

Hi! I've been working on rescuing articles that have been AFD'd lately and finding that there is a heavy amount of bias involved in what gets nominated. I look for articles that are non-western in focus, or are about women, and so often these are extremely notable subjects that the nominator has failed to research appropriately. It's so frustrating. Has there ever been a move to add a condition to the AFD process such as "is the article's subject from a category often affected by bias?" I'm currently working on rescuing Mary Mgonja, a Tanzanian plant scientist. I've rescued Leyla Soleymani and Mabathoana High School and I'm upset by how casually these articles are dismissed without the slightest bit of work. I'm not alone in noticing this of course, but I would like to see action to make it less easy to list articles for deletion that fall into underrepresented categories. If anyone is working on this, I would like to help. Thank you for reading. H0n0r (talk) 11:25, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that different notability standards should pertain to subjects "affected by bias", in other words, for Wikipedia to apply a counter-bias of some kind? If an article on, say, a female social media influencer from an African country gets taken to AfD, is that evidence of bias on the part of the nominator? And if the community then agrees to delete the said article, is that the community also being biased? Or could it be simply that there are many articles in Wikipedia on social media influencers of various origins and demographics that do not meet our notability criteria, and some of them almost certainly deserve to be deleted? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:55, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

That is not what I'm suggesting. I am suggesting that AfD nominators have biases that are unchecked. I am pointing out that women and other subjects affected by bias are over-nominated in a casual way. Research backs me up here (see Gender bias on Wikipedia "A 2021 study found that, in April 2017, 41% of biographies nominated for deletion were women despite only 17% of published biographies being women.") and I'm wondering what is being done about it? H0n0r (talk) 15:40, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

Rereading what I wrote, I realize I was answering only the first part of your question. I don't know where you came up with 'female social media influencer from an African country', but yes, I'm saying article nominators are provably biased, and that the community working on AfD appears to be also, and that this seems to just... continue. Wikipedia's multiple deletion of Donna Strickland prior to her Nobel win continues to get press coverage and nothing changes. I'm asking if anyone is working on changes, and if so where, and can I help? H0n0r (talk) 15:49, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

This is a misrepresentation of what happened. The draft was speedily deleted because the entire draft was a copy-and-past copyright infringement. This is a legal requirement, which would have been done for any draft submitted in such a way. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 08:29, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

@CoffeeCrumbs I think your response was meant for a different question? H0n0r (talk) 11:55, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

You write "I look for articles that are non-western in focus, or are about women . . .". That in itself means you are not selecting a random sample. How do you know that there is not an equal proportion of (by your criteria) unfairly nominated articles in areas that do not fit into those categories?

You may, of course, be right, but your methodology does not seem to warrant blanket accusations of (presumably anti non-Western and anti-women) bias.

I'm sure most editors are not consciously applying biases, but we are all only human and a volunteer crowdsourced project is never going to operate to perfect standards. How would your proposal actually be effected? Who would decide which categories are underrepresented, and judge whether nominated articles had not been properly assessed, beyond what is already done?

Remember also that proof of Notability requires Reliable sources, and the World is such that Reliable sources themselves have biases, particularly of omission – we can only work with what there is. I myself am particularly interested in science and scientists, and despair over the poor cover that the media devotes to scientists of all sexes and ethnicities. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-41275-62 (talk) 13:45, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi, you might be new here. Here's Gender bias on Wikipedia and Racial bias on Wikipedia. H0n0r (talk) 15:53, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

Actually, I've been here for over 24 years (from quite soon after Wikipedia was launched), but have always deliberately chosen not to have a User account.

I am well aware that there are general gender and ethnic imbalances (resulting in biases) in both the editorial makeup and the coverage of Wikipedia. I think these stem from biases in very-long-established cultural expectations (leading for example to a deficit in female editorial volunteers) and in the published Reliable sources we are (rightly) constrained to use. I do not think these biases are consciously maintained by any significant number of Wikipedia editors, and while biases may be inherent in sources generally, this ought not to change the way in which Reliable sources are searched for and used, and articles in general edited and assessed.

In particular, I am a little doubtful that the specific issue that you raise, discriminatory lack of care in dealing with AfD candidates, is real, but until someone chooses to perform a statistically valid survey we cannot know either way. That is all I have to say on the matter. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-41275-62 (talk) 14:07, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

@H0n0r When you say "notable", it seems you might mean it in a way that's not only different, but in fact almost directly contrary to what it means on Wikipedia. I wouldn't call that your fault, because Wikipedia uses the word in a non-standard way.

Here's my ultra-short summary of the difference: Wikipedia rejects the idea of deserving coverage. Only those who already had lots of coverage are notable here. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 15:30, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

Right, this is semantics to what I'm actually bringing up. Leyla Soleymani and Mary Mgonja have had lots of coverage. The nominators simply didn't look for it. H0n0r (talk) 15:37, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

WP:BEFORE and WP:DILIGENCE describe what nominators are expected to do as part of the AfD process. If you have suggestions about how to beef up these requirements, I suggest you make them on its talk page. You are probably correct that many AfD discussions start without adequate checks and I suspect that is not related to any specific type of article. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:09, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! This is just the sort of thing I was hoping for. Thank you very much. H0n0r (talk) 17:01, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

I suspect that WP:BEFORE and WP:DILIGENCE are often inadequately applied, and disproportionately so, and that the disproportion is related to the demonstrated bias that @H0n0r has already linked to here.

H0n0r, I am currently working in different areas of Wikipedia from you and don't have any good leads on other Wikipedians who might be trying to correct this bias, but I am interested in any constructive responses you find here. I'm honestly aghast at the pushback you've had so far. Suðurhafsljósæta (talk) 17:02, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you @Suðurhafsljósæta. I've never nominated an article for deletion. I'm wondering, are there boxes to check as there are when uploading a file to commons, affirming that one has done one's due diligence? Looking at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, it appears to be a very simple (way too simple) process. Surely there should be a way to slow this down and make nominators jump a few 'Before' hurdles? H0n0r (talk) 20:49, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

How to move out of my sandbox

I have been working on an article (User:BFP1/sandbox) in my sandbox, which will be titled Loach & Clarke. Brass Founders. I have been using templates which are useful, but they make editing difficult for me (eg moving and deleting images) compared with the old text editing. Can this be accessed when needed? However, although it is obvious the article needs tidying up, I would like to move it into Wikipedia 'proper'. The Wikipedia instructions do not seem to relate to my layout. Therefore, I would appreciate help in the move. BFP1 (talk) 11:41, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

@BFP1 I see that you have now moved this to Loach & Clarke. Brass Founders. I think that WP:Precision suggests a better title would be just "Loach & Clarke". The full stop in the title is very unusual. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:22, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

That kind of full stop was ordinary in centuries past, but is now probably best described as an affectation. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:47, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

@BFP1 I don't see references talking about this company, or explaining why it is Wikinotable. David10244 (talk) 17:47, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

everyone!!!!! plz make more info 4 provinces of tarragona bc i am the only one editing villages in tarragona!!!!1

plz BulgarianinCatalunya (talk) 12:26, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedians will do what they wish, @BulgarianinCatalunya. To find users that may want to help you, I'd suggest reaching out to members of WikiProject Catelonia (a "semi-active" WikiProject) or WikiProject Spain. Phoenix ‣ _Talk // ^{Contributions} 14:55, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

ok thank you :thumbsup: BulgarianinCatalunya (talk) 15:41, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

Advice on sources for a Partridge Homes article disclosed conflict of interest

Hello, I’m new to Wikipedia. I am a director of Partridge Homes, an estate and lettings agency, and have disclosed my connection on my user page.

Before creating a draft through Articles for Creation, I would appreciate advice on whether the following sources provide sufficient coverage under Wikipedia’s company notability guidelines:

• https://www.lettingagenttoday.co.uk/breaking-news/2026/05/family-agency-in-talks-to-manage-third-lettings-book/
• https://www.thebusinessdesk.com/westmidlands/news/2111991-record-rental-growth-for-west-midlands-letting-agent-despite-national-downturn
• https://www.propertywire.com/news/west-midlands-lettings-firm-adds-block-management-service/
• https://thenegotiator.co.uk/news/agencies-people-news/partridge-homes-prepares-for-block-management-launch/

Some of these articles cover the same announcements. I’m unsure whether they offer sufficient independent coverage or would be considered routine business news.

Would these sources support a draft, or would more substantial reporting be needed? Thank you for your guidance.

PropertyPerson (talk) 13:21, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

Unfortunately, these are fairly WP:CORPTRIV. Also mostly not independent since the facts are stated mostly in the form of quoting someone from Partridge Homes. And even if they were better sources, the last two have no byline and are written in a manner that looks more like a press release than independent reporting. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 13:59, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

@PropertyPerson You need sources that talk about the company, explaining why it is Wikinotable. This looks like a company doing ordinary company things. David10244 (talk) 17:49, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

DRV process

Hello, Dare2Leap here.

I am new to the DRV process and after reading WP:BFDI, I thought that I'd create a DRV, since the article was similar in topic and BFDI was undeleted after new sources were presented. But I got messages saying that "DRV is not AfD round 2". I asked for explanation, but didn't receive a response, and I couldn't find the policy for it. It was posted despite the proposal text being similar to BFDI. So can anyone here explain this? I also have a draft named Draft:Hermitcraft under AfC and I wonder if that is the cause. I am sorry in advance for any inconvenience that I caused.

Thanks. |)are2|_eap (Talk) 15:37, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

@Dare2Leap I'm looking at your DRV now, and specifically at your "three best sources";

You've championed the La Repubblica source, but it offers literally nothing in the way of SIGCOV about Hermitcraft as an organisation, a server, etc. It's literally just a local interest piece about how they're building an Italian village on the server. Myself and others have explained the kind of sources you need at length, it's disheartening to see that you come back with yet more low quality sources like this.

You should be aware of WP:BIKESHED. Consider all the time you're spending trying to push this draft through, and consider how much you could've contributed to the encyclopedia using that time if you weren't stuck on this one thing. At some point it's more sensible to WP:DROPTHESTICK.

Of the two dotesports articles you gave as your "best" sources, too; the first one is literally just a listicle. You seem to be fixated on the wordcount because of WP:100WORDS but you would first of all do well to heed that that is an essay, and secondly note that it says On examination, the 100 words may be judged to be not significant (e.g. rambling, off topic, not actually secondary source material covering the topic), but if there are less than 100 words, do not offer it as a possible GNG source.. The point of this essay is that anything below 100 words is probably not sigcov, not that everything above 100 words is sigcov.

Just from these two sources alone I'm really concerned that after all this time and debate you still don't seem to be familiar at all with the kinds of sources we need to demonstrate notability. Given that and the number of declines already on the draft, I am going to go ahead and reject your draft. Please take this time and effort to edit something else and become more familiar with our standards for articles. Athanelar (talk) 16:26, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

@Athanelar I am sorry for the discomfort that I caused; I did not mean to. User:Whipmywillows said on the video game wikiproject talk page that the Dot Esports article seem to be contributing a lot here. I have started another draft, Antimatter Dimensions, and it got accepted by User:Sulfurboy. I did my best here considering the limited coverage relative to its cultural impact. I have also done a lot of other things during that time, including getting OWID data visualization onto articles and updating 2026 Ebola epidemic statistics. So don't just judge me by one thing only, that is one of my request. Also, I did not just submit three sources, I also submitted seven more that have the potential to be notable. This has become a headache for me, but I will return if I have the time and nee sources have arrived. Thanks. |)are2|_eap (Talk) 17:02, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

You're not being judged by one thing - not yet anyway. If someone does a lot of small things right, but they also do one big important wrong thing over and over and over - even after many patient explanations - that person is eventually going to get judged for it unless they really change it. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:32, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

@Dare2Leap Causing discomfort is not the real problem. The problem is forcing others to waste their time fixing the mistake you kept repeating after you already knew not to do it. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:41, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers I likely (saying likely because I do not want to say "I DO NOT KNOW IT" as if I was the one above all else or the ruling authority) do not know it, but If I did, once again I am sorry. I will return if I have the time, and I will try alternate methods, like getting the Minecraft server to WP:GA status or editing the Hermitcraft/Minecraft wiki. I am also sorry for any uncivil actions that I did if any. Thanks. |)are2|_eap (Talk) 17:50, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

Not knowing about something, after being clearly told many times - you see that this is potentially a big problem for you, right? "I'm not listening" or "I can't read" would not be good things to say about yourself. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 18:15, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

What do I do now? What about taking a break? I don't do well with differences in opinion, and I am obsessed with Wikipedia right now and it's negatively impacting my life after being involved in so many discussions and declines and rejects. I often get the urge to edit other articles because I did not get what I wanted. I want to reduce my involvement here, but I can't (for now), because then I get a notification saying that my draft whatever was declined/rejected or someone left a talk page message. |)are2|_eap (Talk) 18:33, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

If you feel you need to take a break, do so. You can place the {{wikibreak}} template on your userpage to inform other users if you feel the need to do so. Otherwise, editing other articles is exactly what you should be doing. Creating new articles is the hardest thing to do on Wikipedia, and when you're specifically trying to create new articles about things you're very passionate about, it's easy for a lot of enthusiasm and ego to get tied up in that and cause you to do things or behave in ways that you don't necessarily want to do. I encourage you to edit in topic areas that you're less passionate about. Athanelar (talk) 18:37, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

About receiving decline messages: When an article gets declined, you are allowed to give up trying to fix it. If you really do give up, meaning that you will never touch that article again, then you are free to ignore the decline messages and just pretend that article never happened. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 21:51, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

@Dare2Leap Your message - the one beginning with "What do I do now?" - is in my opinion very encouraging evidence that you are a good person who sincerely wants to do the right thing but is having a private emotional struggle about also wanting to achieve big important goals quickly.

Wikipedia is slow. Wikipedia will never ever accept "Just let me put this up even though it's poor quality - I'll fix it tomorrow, I promise", because Wikipedia is the opposite: "Do it right, take a year if you need to, but it must be done right".

If a business builds things, they might do it for the lowest price, they might be the fastest, they might be the best - but never all three at the same time, only two. Wikipedia is done for free, and we try to be good, but we will never be fast. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 02:11, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

My draft was completed and I want to move on main page

Hello other editors, my draft is now complete and I'd like to submit it to the main page. If any active editors, please check my draft once and help me move it forward on main page. This was my first draft, and I was having difficulty finding references. With someone blessing, I've written the article in its basic form, and now other editors can add additional information to this draft.

I hope my article will be on the main page, and if you notice anything strange, please ask me on my talk page so we can discuss what can be done to fix it. Draft:Three Ancestral Lineages of Yunnan. 刘宸宁 (talk) 17:51, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

Your draft has been reviewed and "declined"; that means it needs more work before it can be considered for publication. Please see the feedback left at the top of the draft page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 18:51, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing Yes, I already got the message that my page has been declined.

So I want other editors to tell me which part is wrong, that's why I commented on Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk, let's see what others suggest about my page and One person will help me to correct the English grammar, but he was busy right now, so he will correct it on my page soon. 刘宸宁 (talk) 19:06, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

The decline notice already gives all the information you could possibly be asking for. Their explanation is already very specific, and I don't even see a way to make any of it clearer - something which I tend to complain too much about. So it's better to use that than to ask here, unless there's some very specific part that you didn't understand. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 21:42, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

Just in case: There's a box, and the first words in the box are "This draft reads like ..."

Everything inside that box - that's exactly the stuff you came here to ask about. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 23:47, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, I mean, I was confused because it was written as a policy pattern, so I was just confused about what I needed to change. I might understand better if someone explained it in personally. 刘宸宁 (talk) 02:57, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

It may have looked like what is often called a "form letter", but in fact that box was written just for you to explain why the draft was declined. Those are the reviewer's actual comments to you personally, not a template. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 04:11, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

I'll have to read it again.

My mistake, it looks like a template so I didn't think I needed to read it.

But anyway, you told me that, thanks for pointing out the mistake. 刘宸宁 (talk) 04:32, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

Looking for an independent editor: George "Hound Dog" Lorenz (Buffalo disc jockey)

Hello. I'm the grandson of George "Hound Dog" Lorenz (1919 to 1972), a Buffalo, New York disc jockey who played rhythm and blues and early rock and roll on WJJL, WKBW, WINE and WBLK from the late 1940s until his death. He has no Wikipedia article. Because of my family conflict of interest I don't want to write it myself, and I'd appreciate advice on the best way to find an independent editor who might be interested.

Independent sources I'm aware of:

• Encyclopaedia Britannica: https://www.britannica.com/biography/George-Lorenz
• New York State Broadcasters Association Hall of Fame: https://halloffame.nysbroadcasters.org/post/george-hound-dog-lorenz
• People Today magazine, March 1957 (profile calling him the "Granddaddy of Rock 'n' Roll")
• Record World, June 10, 1972: "George Lorenz Dead" (p. 2) and Kal Rudman's "Money Music" column (p. 21): https://www.worldradiohistory.com/Archive-All-Music/Record-World/70s/72/Record-World-1972-06-10.pdf

Our family also keeps an archive of his recordings, clippings and letters at hounddoglorenz.com, and I'm happy to share scans of any of the printed sources with whoever takes this on. The editor would have full independence over the content.

Thank you for any guidance. Jeffsur (talk) 19:44, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

Family archives are very hard to use as sources because they're private property and not available for public access; Wikipedia would be forced to more or less pretend that that material doesn't exist. I don't know the specifics of how it's done or where, but donating that archive to some institution might enable it to be used. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 20:26, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

I failed to mention the other half of the reason: Sources used on Wikipedia must be available for any reader to go and confirm firsthand for themselves; they can't belong to individuals who could deny access or pass away, and it wouldn't be safe to provide the world with your home address anyway. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 22:49, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

There's also a potential larger issue: Near the end of your message, you wrote The editor would have full independence over the content. But in fact nobody could have needed family permission for that independence, since no one can own or control an article on Wikipedia; everything that we publish is already-published material, and article subjects and their families have no say in what does or doesn't get put in.

I say all this because there's a common misconception that a family member might act as a sort of curator or supervisor or caretaker of the article, but in fact caretaking an article - even unofficially - is prohibited, and everyone except family is always allowed to make changes to it, while family members and other associates are required to stay at arm's length and can only submit requests for editing rather than doing it themselves. (This is because family members are always biased in wanting to make the article turn out a certain way.)

Sorry for writing too much. I don't want well-meaning people to get into a situation they never wanted. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 05:53, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

Stub in need of more citations

Is it reasonable to put a 'Needs more citations' label on a stub? I am only asking because I notice many stubs with very few citations (some only have one) and I just wasn't sure if this was acceptable. I know it is a stub but my personal opinion is a stub should still be required to meet some sort of citation requirement. Tacotyler (talk) 20:46, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

Template:More citations needed#When to use says: Some editors understand this template to be redundant when it is used on articles clearly marked as stubs, since by definition stubs are unlikely to contain enough material to need a long list of sources. So not quite firm one way or another, but maybe this falls under a "not broken, no need to fix" situation? Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 01:27, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

Should I update a Wikipedia file redirect?

I am reading through the wiki articles in which the pre-restoration Anne of Cleve’s portrait is used (and update them if necessary) and notice that the general AnneCleves.jpg redirect to the old version thttps://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:AnneCleves.jpg&redirect=no

should we update it? I’m wondering what the intent of the editor is. If it’s to redirect to her portrait in general, then this redirection is out of date (and we should update it). But what if someone uses it INTENDING to link to the old portrait specifically? Then I will mess up their work

i need some advice from someone with more experience Cherry567 (talk) 20:52, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

Is the editor still around, the one whose work you don't want to mess up? If they've edited somewhat recently, then it would be a good idea to just ask them. But if they haven't done anything for years, that's different. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 21:37, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

My drafts are "stained" by AI-generated text. What now?

Recently, I've used AI-generated text in many of my edits. I didn't understand the proper guidelines and thought it was okay as long as I reviewed the content.

Anyways, I'm not doing that anymore. The AI-based edits have been reverted, and since a few days ago I'm doing it the proper way.

My thing is: I have some drafts which used a considerable amount of AI. I can't say exactly how much, because I really don't remember, but it's enough for them to be deservedly flagged.

I don't know what to do about it, really. It feels like it would be easier to just turn the drafts into blank pages and start over. The idea of fixing the current articles little by little, trying to make them "transition from improper to proper" frankly sounds both stressful and inefficient.

But I don't know if I'm allowed to do that. Maybe someone will think I'm trying to "hide my past actions", and I don't want that.

What should I do?

Thanks in advance.

SIPE ILUMINARI (talk) 02:36, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

The slang name for this on Wikipedia, naming the correct approach in this case, is WP:TNT. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 02:57, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

That's actually funny lol

I'll do it. Thanks

SIPE ILUMINARI (talk) 03:05, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

It feels like it would be easier to just turn the drafts into blank pages and start over.

Not to be pithy but that's probably a good start? It's unfortunate but it's the easiest path forward. Just delete the draft and re-do it. If you know the sources it'll be over before you know it. Packrat3860 (talk) 02:58, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

Oh, I'll do it then.

I just got scared to do that without consulting someone.

Thanks. I'm actually motivated to do it right this time.

SIPE ILUMINARI (talk) 03:04, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

We don’t like TooManyFinger-slop like that. Please actually write the articles yourself. CuteLittleBlobs (talk) 00:16, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Creating a Draft with a dead citation link

So I'm working on an article draft for an album, the issue is the album was originally released on streaming services on March 14, 2025. However, the album was released on April 18, 2025, with three additional songs on it. Both versions were available on Spotify for some time and now only the April 18 release is available, and the March 14 release was removed from Spotify.

The dead link issue is that the pre save link for original March 14 release was cited on the artist's Wikipedia article, however that link is dead, I had actually fixed the citation link on the artists Wikipedia page. However, I realized I need to cite the original release date of the album on the article for the album. I went to the revision history of the artists article to find the link and tried to see if it was archived in the Wayback Machine, but it was never archived.

not sure how I should go about citing the original release date of the album.

thank you MariaIsmene (talk) 03:31, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello MariaIsmene! Are there no other potentially Reliable sources of the original version's release date, such as in music magazines that might have reviewed it? They do not have to be linked to, or even online at all if the appropriate bibliographical details are given. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-41275-62 (talk) 14:16, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

Well sort of, the only source that I could find was Genius Lyrics, which is deemed unreliable by Wikipedia. She's a small artist so it's gonna be tricky to find a review of her album. MariaIsmene (talk) 16:36, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

Apple Music shows the release date as March 14, but Spotify Shows it as April 18. These two dates are obviously conflicting, but I'm not sure which is considered the official release date. MariaIsmene (talk) 01:33, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Citations

I need to find citations for the TV show "Galactic Agency" Can you find them for me? I don't want to risk getting blocked again. Wee Willie Mitchell (talk) 07:17, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

@Wee Willie Mitchell, see Help:Find sources. The most important part about becoming an editor is learning to find and use proper sources. StarryGrandma (talk) 07:35, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

Okay, but can you find sources and citations for me to put into the article? Wee Willie Mitchell (talk) 07:43, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

(Their whole point was "That's your job, do it yourself".) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 07:57, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

Alright. Keep 'ya head on! Wee Willie Mitchell (talk) 08:04, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

A suggestion, Wee Willie Mitchell. Just forget about Draft:Galactic Agency. The next time you feel a pang of desire to create an article, start by looking for the reliable, independent, secondary, information-rich sources with which to create the article and make it informative. If you can't find such sources, stop: ignore the pangs, and think of something else. And of course remember that very many articles that already exist are seriously defective: consider working on the improvement of one or two of these. -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 08:19, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

Thanks Hoary, but I just can't give up. I need to try and try again. I want to be Julie Chabrol (the creator) proud, and let her know that the show has it's fans. And that page is where the fans can get together. Wee Willie Mitchell (talk) 08:48, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

That's very much not the purpose of a Wikipedia article. Athanelar (talk) 09:08, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

It very much is. It's a place where fans can learn more about the show and share their ideas for the page on it's talk section. Wee Willie Mitchell (talk) 09:23, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

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. We should absolutely avoid ever writing from a fan's perspective, or trying to make somebody proud with what we've written; that sort of thing is promotional. It's also absolutely not true that that page is where the fans can get together. No space on Wikipedia is appropriate for a fan get-together, see WP:NOTFORUM and WP:NOTSOCIAL. If you want somewhere for fans to get together and celebrate this media, Wikipedia is not the place. Athanelar (talk) 09:56, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

That's what I was referring to. Wee Willie Mitchell (talk) 10:04, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

Except that no, it isn't. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 00:43, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Temporary account ending

Hi, I wondered what makes a temporary account suddenly end. I thought they were supposed to last for 90 days but that hasn't been my experience. I prefer to use a temporary account to reduce the likelihood of becoming over-involved or protective of my edits. I edit from copyedit-required lists or on random patrol. What can make a temporary account suddenly end without explanation, in the absence of any communication or obvious misstep? ~2026-55567-51 (talk) 08:19, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

You will get a new TA if you edit from a different device, a different browser (or browser profile), of if you clear cookies. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 08:43, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't knowingly do any of those things. I use more than one page of Chrome on a mobile (android) in order to refer to articles while editing (two slightly different Chrome icons), but have used those interchangeably all along so I don't know if that would be it. I've never understood why there are two types of Chrome on my mobile but it is useful. Maybe cookies automatically clear sometimes. ~2026-55567-51 (talk) 09:07, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

Depending on browser settings, cookies may be set to automatically clear either when you close the browser or after X amount of days. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Thriller Night!} 18:05, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. That may be it. ~2026-55567-51 (talk) 06:35, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

How do you edit an article containing templates

I am very grateful to the editors who tidied up my new article 'Loach & Clarke'. I found it impossible to do the traditional editing in the presence of templates. In the History it shows that the other editors were able to use traditional procedures that I am familiar with, but seem unable access. How is it done? Also, I have added an important reference, No 3 (https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=nnc1.ar00134260&seq=140). How can this be modified so some relevant description can be added, and that it goes straight to the web site like the other references? BFP1 (talk) 11:17, 17 October 2026 (UTC) The reference seems to be going to the web site in this message but not in the article.

@BFP1: WP:TEMPLATE may help, and Help:Referencing for beginners for help with references specifically. Athanelar (talk) 12:34, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. I have managed to use Cite to improve the reference title and allowing it to go directly to the web site. However, I still do not know how to edit without a nearby template being activated and intruding eg when I type <ref. What am I doing wrong? BFP1 (talk) 14:19, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

Would the pen sign (on the top RHS) which indicates 'switch editor) be relevant? BFP1 (talk) 15:21, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

Which editor are you using? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 14:43, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

I can't remember now but there are only 2 options 'visual' and 'source'. What would the previous editors have used? BFP1 (talk) 15:29, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

My question is which are you using now? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 15:32, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

How do I make a wiki article

So I’m trying to make an article about Planetballs, but I don’t really know how to make an article at all. I’m new to editing Wikipedia so I don’t really know a lot.

I also don’t know how to add images and I kinda wanna do that too. Sevenare (talk) 14:03, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

(Planetballs is countryballs but with planets.) Sevenare (talk) 14:05, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi Sevenare, and welcome to Wikipedia and the Teahouse!

Writing an article, especially for a newcomer, is quite difficult. It requires a firm understanding of our policies, and articles that do not abide by them may be deleted.

A guide to creating an article is available at the page Wikipedia:Your first article. I used it when writing my first article, and it was quite helpful.

Before you write anything, it's critically important that you establish notability (i.e. whether Planetballs is important enough for a Wikipedia article). This is typically done by citing significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources. If Planetballs is not notable, then a Wikipedia article can not be written about it.

The advice I often see given to newcomers looking to write an article is to wait. Spend a few weeks or months finding your way around Wikipedia, editing existing articles and communicating with editors to develop a better understanding of the way it works, then come back to thinking about writing an article. The Wikipedia:Task Center is a good place to start. Don't hesitate to let us (or me!) know if you have any further questions. crtbob@talk:~$ ls contribs 14:32, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

I know that you know this, crtbob - just maybe clarifying one part of what you said: It's not exactly whether Planetballs is important enough, because two people could argue about that and never agree. It does sort of involve being important, but instead of arguing we just see if reporters for reliable publications have used it as the topic of major articles. If they haven't written major things about Planetballs, then we won't write about it either. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:57, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying this. "Important" was probably oversimplification on my part. crtbob@talk:~$ ls contribs 09:31, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

i want to be experienced at editing

i just want to Eduardofromportugal (talk) 15:30, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

Great, what's stopping you? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 15:47, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

notices Eduardofromportugal (talk) 23:34, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

@Eduardofromportugal: Go to Wikipedia:Task_Center for some things you can do to get more Wikipedia experience. RudolfRed (talk) 17:01, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

Atomesus draft: unrelated earlier submissions, and are the sources enough?

Hello. I'm new to Wikipedia and I work for Atomesus AI Pvt. Ltd.; my paid/COI relationship is disclosed on my user page. I have written a neutral userspace draft at User:Ethos6/sandbox and have not submitted it.

I noticed that several earlier drafts on this topic were declined or deleted, including one created by a sockpuppet of Amansharma111. To our knowledge, nobody at the company created or authorised those accounts, and we don't know who did. This is our only account, and I will make at most one disclosed AfC submission.

I'm aware that the current sources are mostly syndicated press releases, which may not satisfy WP:NCORP. Could an experienced editor tell me whether the draft is worth submitting now, or whether we should wait until independent coverage exists? Thank you. Ethos6 (talk) 18:01, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

@Ethos6 Please take a look at WP:PAIDADVICE. Athanelar (talk) 18:05, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, Athanelar, I've read it. I understand the point: an article has to be built on what independent sources have published, not on what the company says about itself, and that coverage doesn't exist yet. One correction to my post above: after posting here, I did submit the draft at User:Ethos6/sandbox for AfC review. I'll leave it to the reviewer's judgement, and if editors here think it's premature, I'm happy to withdraw it and wait for independent coverage. I won't resubmit or create any other drafts on this topic. Ethos6 (talk) 18:08, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

Update: I've withdrawn the AfC submission. The draft will stay in my sandbox, and I'll only consider submitting it again if independent, in-depth coverage is published. Thanks again for the guidance. Ethos6 (talk) 18:10, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

Unedited drafts are deleted after 6 months; you may wish to make a local copy. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 20:34, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

But personal sandboxes aren't automatically deleted, surely? ColinFine (talk) 18:01, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, ColinFine and Andy. The draft is in my personal sandbox at User:Ethos6/sandbox. Could you clarify whether the six-month deletion criterion applies to this page? Ethos6 (talk) 18:34, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Why is my article so bad?

I dont really know what I did wrong, I just want to make my cartoon a bit more popular. I dont know what the hell to edit now! TomsonCartoonsWiki (talk) 19:00, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi @TomsonCartoonsWiki. You have a misconception about Wikipedia. We do not exist to promote or advertise your cartoon. Our articles are only neutral summaries of what reliable, mostly secondary sources state about a subject. If multiple mainstream newspapers or magazines talked about your cartoon, then an article may be possible in the future. qcne (talk) 19:14, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

But, I kind of wasn't trying to advertise, I was just making a article and hoping other people would ATLEAST notice it in someway. TomsonCartoonsWiki (talk) 19:25, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

That's still not permitted on Wikipedia, sorry. qcne (talk) 19:27, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

"I just want to make my cartoon a bit more popular... hoping other people would ATLEAST notice it in someway"—that is the very meaning of advertising. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 20:32, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia's most important rule about writing articles is that you can only try writing one after the topic has already had major coverage in reliable media (reliable means no blogs, no social media, and no places where the public is allowed to edit). (It also means that interviews and announcements don't count as major.) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 23:20, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

Editing incorrect information for golf tournament winner

Hi! I'm hoping an independent editor can review a COI edit request I posted on September 27 at Talk:Canadian Open (golf), section "Scotty Fraser low amateur."

The request asks that the article note Scotty Fraser as the low amateur of the 1955 Canadian Open. He's my father, so I've disclosed the conflict of interest and won't edit the article directly.

The source is Golf Canada's 2025 RBC Canadian Open Media Guide (p. 92), which lists "32 Fraser, Scotty (a) 71 69 69 74 283" — the (a) denoting amateur, and he finished as the lowest-placed amateur in the field.

It's been sitting in the COI queue unanswered for a couple of weeks, so I wanted to ask here. Happy to provide anything else that's needed. Thanks! ~2026-52177-83 (talk) 21:34, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

Question about my pending draft on AUDPC and AUDPS

Hello! I am looking for some guidance on my pending draft: Draft:AUDPC & AUDPS.

This topic covers the Area Under the Disease Progress Curve (AUDPC) and Area Under the Disease Progress Stairs (AUDPS), which are quantitative parameters widely used in plant pathology and phytopathology to measure disease progress over time. Surprisingly, Wikipedia does not currently have an article on these concepts.

I originally submitted the draft in early September. It was declined twice due to the fact that the text appeared to be generated by an LLM. While I fully wrote it myself, I had used an LLM to polish the grammar and style, which likely triggered the rejection.

Since the last rejection, I have removed all LLM phrasing, keeping just to my original writing. I re-submitted it, but it has been waiting for the review since then.

AUDPC and AUDPS parameters are frequently used by researchers and students in plant biology and phytopathology. Could a host take a look at the current version to see if it meets Wikipedia's standards? Any advice on how to successfully move this forward would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you.

Ikocico (talk) 22:13, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

It will be easier for you and better for the article if you stop trying to fix it, and instead delete the entire thing all at once and start over from nothing. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 23:11, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

The reason: "Phrasing" is a completely false description of the problem. LLM phrasing is not bad in itself. LLM gives worthless content. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 04:52, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Could a host take a look at the current version to see if it meets Wikipedia's standards? Any advice on how to successfully move this forward would be greatly appreciated. The main thing you can do at this point is wait. Drafts are not reviewed in any particular order, so the wait can be long. Teahouse hosts can point out any major stumbling blocks, but generally, they will leave the evaluation of a draft to the Articles for Creation (AfC) reviewers. Since you have responded to previous declines by reverting to an initial version entirely of your own words, you can wait to see what the reviewers say about the rest of the draft—and if the draft's sources show the subject meets the criteria for a standalone article (notability). Honestly, the sourcing is more influential than polish[ed] grammar and style—after all, we have an entire guild of editors who love polishing up prose, but no amount of editing will help if the subject fails the notability criteria.

While you are waiting, perhaps it may be a good idea to improve existing articles. This has several benefits:

• more reward for your effort than writing an article: adding to an existing article just requires a reliable source (and a refusal to use LLMs!), and it's more likely to stay up than a draft
• still helps readers
• helps better incorporate your eventual article into Wikipedia, as other articles will link to it (see WP:Build the web)

  AUDPS is not mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia

  AUDPC is, but only at Spot blotch (wheat) with little context for lay readers and Glossary of phytopathology, where neither it nor "disease progress curve" are even defined.

  Disease progress doesn't even have its own article (let alone measures for it, as you say above)—it redirects to Plant disease epidemiology, where the phrase is mentioned one (1) times.

If you would like, you can leave a note under a previous reviewer's comment that you have done as the decline notices instruct. Such a note will not prevent subsequent declines, but it may show reviewers that you are responding to feedback and engaging in the draft review process in good faith. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 16:19, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

J Jaye Gold

I just reworked an article that was previously declined after applying to the best of my understanding the suggestions I received in the Teahouse. Can you take a look and see if I'm going in the right directions? Thanks a bunch!

Draft:Justin Gold#J Jaye Gold (Justin Gold)

~2026-52671-69 (talk) 23:14, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

Which sources fit this description: "a major biography written without doing an interview"? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 23:29, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

Sarbast Azeez

Hello Wikipedia editors,

I kindly ask you to review my draft, Draft:Sarbast Azeez, when possible. I would greatly appreciate your time and consideration.

Thank you for your efforts and for helping improve Wikipedia.

Best regards,

Sarbast Azeez Sarbastazeez (talk) 23:38, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

@Sarbastazeez: As it says at the top of Draft:Sarbast_Azeez, please be patient. There are many drafts that need review. You got feedback just a couple of days ago and made only small changes since then. RudolfRed (talk) 01:21, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Could you take a quick look at your account to see if it’s worth it or not? Sarbastazeez (talk) 01:24, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Sarbastazeez, I took the time to review your draft and explain the problems that you face in my response to your earlier question. You have failed to to present any real evidence that you are a notable person and you also do not seem to understand Wikipedia's standards. 99.9% of people who try to write autobiographies on Wikipedia fail. The vast majority of working photographers are not notable and therefore ineligible for Wikipedia biographies. What makes you different? Cullen328 (talk) 03:24, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

You are absolutely right; everything you’ve said is pure gold. I respect your decision, and I respect Wikipedia’s policies. Sarbastazeez (talk) 11:58, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Tea house icon

I honestly want an icon for the Tea house in the GNOME/Nuvola/HumanIcons theme. Here’s what I want as an SVG: Teacup/Utah teapot (Make either, but make both! The more, the merrier!) And in pastel colors with some small amounts of dark colors. Oh, and it’s a fairy-styled house that also has an Alice in Wonderland theme! Reply if so! CuteLittleBlobs (talk) 00:14, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello, CuteLittleBlobs. Feel free to create this image yourself. Or perhaps a volunteer at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab can assist you. Cullen328 (talk) 03:14, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

wow ~2026-56021-92 (talk) 18:32, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

graphic labs - read blueprint ~2026-56021-92 (talk) 18:35, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Is it rude to rely on the bot?

I have noticed that when I add a cleanup tag like {{bsn}} or {{unreferenced}} that User:AnomieBOT will come through afterwards and add a date to them. From this I assume that I'm supposed to date these. I am creating some meaningful strain if I prefer to just write the short version and let the bot add the dates? Packrat3860 (talk) 01:36, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello, Packrat3860. You are doing nothing wrong and the bot will "happily" do the job it was created to do. Cullen328 (talk) 03:10, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

@Packrat3860: Relying on the bot is fine and our servers can easily handle it. The only small problem is users seeing an extra edit in the page history. Many tags are coded to automatically add the date when substituted like {{subst:unreferenced}}. Check that it works with the used tag. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:28, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Strike s you have to understand the contract

strikes solidatery contract pros con s do or don't ratified notions motions grievances much more ~2026-56021-92 (talk) 01:47, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

I am sorry but your confusing style of writing makes it impossible to offer any advice other than to do your best to write more clearly and to try asking an actual question. Cullen328 (talk) 03:08, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

What exactly is the problem with original research in Wikipedia?

I'm guessing it's because it hasn't been established in reliable sources and not factually correct at first or something like that. Gaming Fan 23 (talk) 03:18, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

It comes down to "How can we successfully figure out who to trust?"

I can come here as a real expert who legitimately wants to contribute. I can also come here as a crank or a shyster, present fake credentials, and insert my "supposed expert" material that is actually worthless. Wikipedia has no way to reliably tell the difference between people who show up to do those two things, until it's too late. We have no way to examine the supposedly certified credentials of all kinds of experts from all over the world in various kinds of jurisdictions. So ... we refuse the direct opinion of experts. Instead, we wait until the material gets published in secondary sources that have good trust records and good reputations to maintain. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 04:45, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Gaming Fan 23, and welcome to the Teahouse.

There's another dimension here, beside what TooManyFingers said.

• Suppose you put some information in an article which you absolutely know is correct; but it hasn't been published, so you can't give a useful source.
• Next week person A uses that information for some purpose. That's fine.
• The following week, person Z changes it (maybe they have more up to date information. Maybe they think you got it wrong. Maybe they've been reading a conspiracy theorist and genuinely think that you've written What They Want You To Think. Maybe they're vandalising for laughs) - after all, Wikipedia is the encyclopaedia anyone can edit.
• The week after that, person B uses the information, and it's different from A got. Even if it's important to them to get it right and they want to check, they've no way of doing so.

ColinFine (talk) 18:21, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Sandbox

Hello everyone! I just joined the wikipedia and I am ready to contribute to this amazing website!

I had a question that how do I use the sandbox? I can't find it anywhere and I am on laptop so please give me instructions based on that. Thank you for your amazing support!

ThePixelPanda26 (talk) 04:09, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi! Welcome to Wikipedia. You can find the sandbox here. Please note that it is cleared every hour, so anything you want to keep should go in your user sandbox. Happy editing! PixelsRCool (talk) 04:24, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

@ThePixelPanda26: There is a "Sandbox" link to a personal sandbox in a menu on a user icon at the top right. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:15, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @ThePixelPanda26, and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia.

I might be a suspicious old soul, but when a new user asks about the Sandbox, I immediately suspect that they are planning to create a new article. If that wasn't in your mind, then the next paragraph isn't aimed at you.

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) 18:24, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Suggestions for how I can show the source.

Hello editors, I'd like some suggestions from editors on how I can provide sources. I have a lot of sources, and I can contribute here on the Wikipedia platform. But I don't want to engage in historical debate; instead, I can provide references so that other senior editors can check the sources and add them to the main page. I need time for editing, and I have so many sources, I can't edit them one by one. I've heard that subpages also have options for you and other editors to check your sources, but I'm not sure if this subpage works the same way. If there are other types of options, it's more appropriate to provide sources and have other editors check and edit. Please let me know. 刘宸宁 (talk) 04:45, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

This is just not how it works at all. And nobody is asking you to engage in historical debate.

Of course you can edit things one by one. If you think you can't, it simply means you're doing bad work because you rush. Don't rush - there is no deadline.

In other words, no, this is not a good proposal and not a possibility. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 05:00, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers No, no, I mean, I'll work on my draft soon, but the point is, I can't focus on one tropic; I need time to improve the draft.

What I'm saying is that I want to write a source list so other editors can check it and decide which sources to include on the main page. This means I just want to write the references, and other senior editors can check them, and it would be great if they can edit based on the sources provided. 刘宸宁 (talk) 05:07, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

You do not need time to improve the draft, because there is no deadline. It does not matter how long it might take; if you intend to write an article, then every single reference, one by one, is your job. We do not have a group of slaves waiting in a back room to assign to you; you are a volunteer, and ALL the rest of us are volunteers too. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 05:34, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers I understand what you're saying, but the only question I don't understand is how to create a reference list.

Sorry to bother you with this unusual question,But I want to know if I can create a subpage to add sources and I think this will help editors find new things and use them in editing. 刘宸宁 (Liu Chenning) 05:49, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

In an article you're writing, you don't create a reference list. You just add each reference in the place where it belongs, and they are compiled into a list automatically.

But do you mean a different kind of list, outside of articles? I don't quite understand your purpose; are you saying you have a list of sources you'd like to recommend? If so, who do you think has been wanting those sources?

And what "subpage" are you referring to? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 06:27, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not talking about my draft, it was separate from Tropics.

I'm asking about creating a source list in a subpage like the one for Multiple Sources where I mentioned it. If other editors want to add something new, they can check out my subpage where I mentioned it several types of refrence and sources. 刘宸宁 (Liu Chenning) 06:36, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

@刘宸宁 Are you saying you have a list of books to recommend and that you want to add this extra list of books into an article you're working on? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 06:36, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Yes, but not in my working draft, I want to create a separate page for the list of several books. 刘宸宁 (Liu Chenning) 06:39, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

You can't make an article like that, unless this whole list of books (all together as a whole list, not separately) has already been the topic of major coverage itself.

There is no such thing as a subpage to an article.

Is a literature list allowed in your user space? I'm not sure. But this list isn't going to be "a real Wikipedia page", if you know what I mean. It won't be something the general public reading Wikipedia can find. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 07:05, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Are all the books on the same topic as the article you're working on? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 07:08, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

@刘宸宁 Sorry to ask again, but I think this is a very relevant question: Who are the people that requested source books from you? Or if nobody requested them, then who do you think wants them? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 08:01, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers Sorry for the late reply, but I'm not saying that should publish article source lists on main page and no one has asked me about request source books yet.

What I mean is that I want to list different types of sources on my personal page, like the various sources where I want to cite them.

I'm working on the Asian minority community. Many of their sources are no longer on Wikipedia. I'm learning how to edit pages, and that's time-consuming. Instead, I want to create a personal page that mentions the tropics and which books are needed. Another editor can check my personal page and add it to the main page. I have a bundle of books of different types for article . many minority communities don't have Wikipedia pages that's why I want to do this for that purpose. 刘宸宁 (Liu Chenning) 08:32, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Add it to the main page means add it to the big front page of the whole Wikipedia. Is that what you intended? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 08:37, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Noo

for example :-

.A tropic from a important article page(only tropic not other sentence from article)

.write about references and an explanation of why the book is important to the article

I will do this work on my personal page. 刘宸宁 (Liu Chenning) 08:46, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Another editor is not going to do that. You would be doing all of it by yourself. You are volunteering to do it by yourself. You can't "volunteer someone else" to help you, they are busy with their own things. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 08:41, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

The books you're talking about - are you 100% certain that Wikipedia calls them reliable sources? That is another thing you would have to check by yourself - there is no one to do it for you. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 08:45, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that another editor should do this. It'll be stored on my personal page, and ,I'll offer an idea that other editors can add to the main page. This is a kind of suggestion for a new idea not a request. 刘宸宁 (Liu Chenning) 08:52, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

When you say "the main page", it really means "the front page of Wikipedia", every time. People are not going to start understanding what you mean by that, so you'll need to choose different words.

(I know you don't mean that because you told me, but everyone who wasn't in this discussion is going to stay confused.)

So, what exact page are you saying other editors could add to? And what kind of things would they add? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:28, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

you can check it up ,down conversation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse#c-Packrat3860-20261018135200-刘宸宁-20261018083700 i am talking about this type of thing only.

My explanation is not good I am sorry about this .

For your question, I'll focus on minority communities in Southeast Asia, China, and Northeast India. This section provides limited information and few references about them, but these regions are interconnected, so other countries may help provide more information about different communities.

Other things editors can add include "inline citations and references" (such as book titles, authors, and page numbers) and use standard formatting templates to support the facts in those articles. 刘宸宁 (Liu Chenning) 16:56, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

If I may make a WP:BOLD suggestion, this conversation has been going back and forth a while, and a combination of a language barrier and this being a somewhat strange request is making it very difficult to give a straightforward answer. Given that what Liu Chenning is talking about is a page in userspace, would it be alright to suggest that they just do it and come back and discuss? If what they make is not an acceptable use of userspace then we can fix it or remove it if it's really not salvageable. But it's a lot easier to give a clear answer as to whether something is gonna work when you have the thing in front of you to discuss. Packrat3860 (talk) 17:50, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Yes, my example may be confusing because I can't explain the tropic properly if I talk for a long time, but so first I will make it this thing then I will show it here, then other editors will decide whether this kind of thing can stay or not. 刘宸宁 (Liu Chenning) 18:04, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers I understand you may be confused and have a lot of questions about my purpose.

But what I'm doing will help many editors.

What I mean , I'm creating an independent source repository on my personal user subpage to document academic books about underrepresented Asian minority communities. My goal is to organize these reliable sources with short notes about which specific articles might benefit from them. This is intended as a passive resource library, so that any volunteer editor working on these minority topics can easily find and use verified the sources. 刘宸宁 (Liu Chenning) 09:10, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

If you have sources to suggest for a particular page you can use the {{Refideas}} template on the talk page as a way to make it known to other editors. Packrat3860 (talk) 07:22, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion, it will help me to indicate where to add a specific reference to the main page. See my comment - 08:32, 18 October 2026 (UTC).

You will understand better what I mean. 刘宸宁 (Liu Chenning) 08:37, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Userspace gets more latitude and can be used for todo lists and drafts and such. But it's worth noting that they are not technically yours (see WP:UPOWN) and are still generally expected to serve the purpose of building the encyclopedia. I'm assuming good faith and maybe a bit of a language barrier here, so I'll say up front I think a list of sources you would like to use in main space (with your notes on how you plan to use them) is probably acceptable. However a couple notes of caution.

First, I would not expect many people to go sifting through userspace for source suggestions. If it's a to-do list for you that's not a problem. But if you want someone else to take action on it then you need to open up discussion on the talk page of the article(s) in question or relevant wiki project pages.

Second, if it starts to look a bit too much like a personal library and not suited for use in building the encyclopedia, someone may ask you to remove it or possibly remove it without asking. If that happens I think you'll probably need to accept that suggestion, so if this is important information to you make sure this page is not your only copy. Packrat3860 (talk) 13:52, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for this suggestion, it will help me. 刘宸宁 (Liu Chenning) 14:45, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Note: When you write "the main page", that means "the front page of the whole Wikipedia". Is that what you wanted to say? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 06:33, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello, 刘宸宁. We use reliable sources to verify content on Wikipedia, and we do so by creating references to those sources. Please read Referencing for beginners, and try it. If you have doubts about the reliability of a source, check if the source has been discussed as a perennial source. If not, you can discuss it at the Reliable sources noticeboard, but only in the context of specific content. Cullen328 (talk) 05:03, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

@Cullen328yess Thank for the suggestion, I check other main page refrence and I found some more refrence needed to include it in the main page. that's I got idea, can we make one list of refrence which refrence require the most.

that's why I am questioning here can we do this type of thing. 刘宸宁 (talk) 05:14, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

刘宸宁, the best place to suggest improvements to a specific article is the talk page for that article, whether or not it is on the main page. Articles shown on the main page have almost always received a lot of attention. Cullen328 (talk) 05:49, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Okay 刘宸宁 (Liu Chenning) 05:51, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Translation assistance

Hi folks. I'm looking to use this source from the Munich Film Festival for a page I'm trying to bring up to GA, but don't speak German, and given that it's a direct quotation I'm not very comfortable quoting it based on something like Google Translate, or even quoting it indirectly in that manner absent some verification of its contents or direct translation from someone who does. Is there anywhere here where I could get that assistance? Alternatively, do you know of where on the German wiki I might go to make a similar request?

Many thanks in advance, CSGinger14 (talk) 05:12, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

It's fairly short and seems not to be problematic to translate. Give me a few minutes (well that's optimistic, but a short time). TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 05:38, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

@CSGinger14 There's a part here that appears to be a direct quotation from the movie itself. I'm uncomfortable with the idea of back-translating it and misrepresenting the original quotation; not sure the best way to handle that. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 06:41, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers That, unfortunately, was the part that I'd hoped to include. Would you guess it might be better to simply forego it entirely? I was kind of excited to have a bit more direct commentary from the director himself, but do recognize if that kind of translation is only supposed to be done in certain contexts. Many thanks for your help in any case.

Best,

CSGinger14 (talk) CSGinger14 (talk) 06:47, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Is there an original of this quotation somewhere in an English context? I don't think even a professional translator would be 100% OK with being asked to translate back to the original language, especially with a topic like this where the terminology is politically and racially specific. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 06:54, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

i.e. in my opinion this is not difficult, but impossible to do. Or not responsibly anyway. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 06:57, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers In fact I have. It's fairly similar to what google offered, but meaningfully different to the extent that I feel justified in my reasoning for the original request. In this case I'd probably agree, but more broadly I think there's a line a bit further out than the one you'd draw, though I respect your view on the matter and appreciate the effort irregardless.

Let me know if you ever need something similar done in French/Swahili. Would be happy to see what I can do.

All the best,

CSGinger14 (talk) 07:23, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Of course you can, and I started translating too, until I realized that it was racially-charged or racially-sensitive statements about politics from someone known for bold, provocative, and uncompromisingly-specific points of view. I would insist that unless you knew him well enough to faithfully and accurately reconstruct the way he would have said it in English, it's far too easy to give what seems like a reasonable account of it while distorting what he meant. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 07:53, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers Wait sorry my bad I misremembered the top of your first reply. Presumed you asked “have you found” not “is there”. Did not mean to come off as hostile in any way.

Best,

CSGinger14 (talk) 08:03, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Oh wait - do you mean that you did find an English original? I thought you meant you decided to translate this yourself anyway, and that was the topic of my response!

You're absolutely not hostile and I knew that already. I hope my weird off-topic response wasn't as bad as I think it might have been. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 08:33, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Yep, managed to find several spliced versions of it. It was the general director’s statement, so was published in several outlets (though somewhat difficult to find). Thanks again for your help, and trust me, I do see your point given its context.

Best,

CSGinger14 (talk) 12:00, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Why am i not able to create articles?

Dear admin, i have been on this account for nearly a week now and have more then 10 edits. Yet i am not granted rights to create any articles or edit protected pages. Muniyammal.Bhanumathi (talk) 05:53, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello there! You need to have made your first edit (not register your account) for more then 4 days to get the autoconfirmed permission, you can then create articles. I see that you have only made your first edit 3 days ago, so you will have to wait 1 more day.

More information: WP:AUTOCONFIRMED. Jacksonvil (talk|contribs) 06:15, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

@Muniyammal.Bhanumathi If you aren't autoconfirmed you can make it in the draftspace and send it for review when it's ready. Strongshorts (talk) 06:19, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

How to add my Biography in Wikipedia?

I am Jothi Rajendra Cholan, I have been doing Social service since 2015, and being part of Youth Wing in BJP Ruling Govt in India.

you can find further more my profile in my website www.jothirajendracholan.com

I would like to publish my biography on Wikipedia, please advise me. Jothi Rajendra Cholan (talk) 07:58, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place to "publish your biography" in the sense you're probably thinking of. Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. Athanelar (talk) 08:23, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

See also

• WP:BOSS
• Our FAQ for article subjects
• List of political editing incidents on Wikipedia
• Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing
• Wikipedia:Help available for editors with conflicts of interest
• Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide
• Wikipedia:Public relations and marketing 🔥Jothefiredragon🐲talk🐉contrib(s)✨log🌟mail🎉global🎊 08:27, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

See WP:BIODD, WP:BLPDD and Wikipedia:Everything you need to know § Writing articles. Rajdhani Fan Person (talk) 08:27, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Comment: User recreated their CV after being CSD-ed just now. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk / Uploads} 11:27, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Source assessment for a possible article about DJ Angel X

Hello, I’m Angel X, a DJ and music producer associated with ballroom music, originally from Brooklyn and based in Atlanta. I’m interested in whether the published coverage of my work would support a Wikipedia article.

I am the proposed subject, so I want to disclose my conflict of interest and ask for guidance before proceeding. These are some of the sources:

• XLR8R — “Strictly Ballroom,” 2011:

https://xlr8r.com/features/strictly-ballroom-after-decades-in-the-shadow-of-vogue-dancing-and-culture-ballroom-beats-come-to-the-fore/

• Red Bull Music Academy — “Everything You Always Wanted To Know About Vogue and Ballroom,” 2012:https://daily.redbullmusicacademy.com/2012/02/vogue-ballroom-vivian-host/

• XLR8R — Review of MikeQ’s “Let It All Out,” 2011:

https://xlr8r.com/reviews/let-it-all-out/

• DJ Mag — Lady Shaka’s “E Tu” remix release, 2024:

https://djmag.com/news/lady-shaka-shares-e-tu-remix-ep-featuring-karan-caru-and-angel-x-listen

Would these sources provide sufficient coverage under Wikipedia’s biographical or music notability guidelines, or would more substantial independent coverage be needed? I would appreciate advice on the appropriate next step.

Thank you. ~2026-56054-32 (talk) 09:05, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Please don't use AI to talk to other editors.

To justify an article about you, sources about you must not merely be "coverage of your work". They need to meet all of the requirements at WP:42 Or otherwise demonstrate that you meet one of the specific requirements at WP:NMUSIC. Athanelar (talk) 09:14, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Why are you telling about me AI? That has nothing to do with me. Iconangelx (talk) 09:33, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Because your initial comment was clearly AI generated. Athanelar (talk) 09:36, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Prove it then Iconangelx (talk) 09:41, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

You don't need proof because you already know it's true. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:31, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I do need proof, bozo, because I didn’t use AI. Why would I need AI to type a simple request? If you’re going to make an accusation, back it up. Otherwise, go find somebody else to play with. Iconangelx (talk) 16:34, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

@Iconangelx, AI detectors aside, very few people write with em dashes since they're uncommon on modern keyboards. What's more, LLMs often write in a very characteristic tone that also refers to Wikipedia guidelines without linking to them or mentioning specific sections. It's exactly the tone of your message.

On a rather more important note, DO NOT attack other editors. It will get you blocked or banned for good reason per WP:NOPERSONALATTACKS. Giovanni Guasconti (a word with me) 17:23, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Bro, y’all are so focused on this AI BS that you’ve completely missed the actual point of my post. Say whatever makes you feel better at the end of the day. This conversation is over. I’ll figure it out myself. Iconangelx (talk) 17:34, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

You're the one who got aggressive after I politely asked you not to use AI to talk to other editors. If your ego's such an issue that you can't take being politely corrected, you're not likely to have any success here. Athanelar (talk) 18:15, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

I put the request through some Ai detectors and it averages 61.55% Ai SillG (Hi! Want to talk?) 16:44, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Ok, you want a cookie for that? Iconangelx (talk) 16:46, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

As posted above, Wikipedia expects editors to remain WP:CIVIL during discussion. If you can't do that you will find your contributions won't be welcome. Packrat3860 (talk) 18:00, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

I think the sources here most likely would not meet the requirement of significant coverage per vasic notability for biographies. The first source has some depth (although still not a whole lot to work with) but the other three sources only appear to mention you in passing. The folks at WP:WPMUSIC might be best to ask for notability criteria specific to music artists. Packrat3860 (talk) 18:10, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for providing a REAL response Iconangelx (talk) 18:17, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Iconangelx, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Please read autobiography to understand how massively unlikely it is that you will succeed in writing about yourself where so many hundreds of people have not.

Even if you succeed in finding the necessary sources that meet WP:42 (for most people in the world - even including many public figures - such sources simply don't exist), you would then have the almost impossible task of effectively forgetting every single thing you know about yourself, and writing a neutral summary of what those independent sources said. Even if they left things out. Even if they talked about things you would rather that people were not reminded of. Even if they were wrong.

Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources.

My advice to you is to forget about Wikipedia, and put your effort into promoting yourself in places where this is permitted.

By the way, now you have publicly raised this issue, it is quite likely that you will be approached by scammers. Do not pay anybody to edit Wikipedia for you. ColinFine (talk) 18:46, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Concern about featured articles

I recently read an article here about gender bias on wiki and because I've been editing here a lot lately and finding it pretty good, my initial thought was that this is an overreaction. But then I came to the home page and saw a featured article that seemed to be about a female painter but was actually about a picture she'd painted of her breasts. Out of interest I looked back at the featured articles since April and found that although there were one or two general articles about women more recently, for most of that time the only articles about women were about contemporary singers and/or their songs. One artist was featured twice.

In recent days in featured articles we have had: "Imagery of sexuality, violence, and death predominated, most notably in a corset of translucent plastic with real worms encased inside. Models bared their breasts and flashed obscene gestures on the runway" in an article about designer McQueen

and today: "movie actors, whose marriage was so brief that the press speculated about Gloria's virginity. Because it contained suggestive dialog and the female cast wore revealing clothes, the production was considered highly risqué at the time." in an article about a play called the Demi-Virgin.

Lined up for the days to come, it seems we have: The London Monster was the name given to an attacker of women in London between 1788 and 1790. The Monster's modus operandi was to verbally abuse women with lewd and suggestive comments, then attack them with a knife.

Shortly followed by: Thuggee was a phenomenon of highway robbery in the Indian subcontinent that saw gangs of Thugs murder and rob travellers, often by strangling (not specifically women, though)

and a fews days later, complete with bare-breasted cover image, we will have: Eyebrow Talk was a Chinese monthly literary magazine published in 18 issues from 1914 to 1916. ...

Supposedly about a women's magazine:

The magazine often ran romance stories aimed at women, but contained sexually explicit depictions of women in its advertising, covers, and pictures, some sourced from European erotic postcards.

Perhaps a bit of rearrangement of the queue would be a good idea. These are all good and interesting articles and I will enjoy reading them in time, and I'm not trying to cancel or censor anything, but I think a theme is emerging where women are concerned in featured articles and it isn't one that will protect us from criticism such as the article linked to at the top.

I don't know which talk page would have been appropriate or timely enough for this and I don't want to enter into discussion or take it anywhere else. I just wanted to mention it here in case others agree and want to do something about it. (The thing that I would imagine is a good thing to do would be to find articles featuring women that are not about their sexuality, their bodies, or physical attacks on them, and are not about contemporary music or in particularly male-gaze orientated areas, and bring them forward in the queue.) ~2026-55567-51 (talk) 09:46, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

That queue very often gets onto a temporary theme, or at least a number of closely-related things together. This is just another group of thematically-somewhat-related items. It seems to me that the people who decide what goes there find an interesting item that reminds them of other ones, or they might intentionally search for related items.

You noticed this particular one exactly because it's not a usual one for Wikipedia. We are not going to hide those topics or pretend they don't exist, because that kind of pretending is irresponsible. It would also be irresponsible to have a long consistent pattern of focusing on those topics while not including any of the other kinds of articles you mentioned, but that is obviously not the case.

My main point, though, is in two parts: 1) it's valid and good to present these items and wrong to pretend they don't exist; 2) for "others agree and want to do something about it", wanting more of the kind of articles you recommend is a very good thing and deserves promotion and action, but wanting certain other articles suppressed is not a valid point of view and not going to happen. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 15:50, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Disputes Without Active Participation

What should be done when an edit dispute arises over content that raises serious concerns, a discussion is opened to address the issue, but the other editor involved in the dispute does not meaningfully participate in the discussion? Should the problematic content be left in place indefinitely?

Additionally, one of the discussion participants described allegations raised by a particular group as one-sided and vulgar. How should inappropriate remarks of this kind be addressed in Wikipedia discussions? Hybxhh (talk) 10:01, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

@Hybxhh: WP:APPNOTE may be of some help. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:05, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

About your second point, when a participant in a discussion described certain allegations as one-sided and vulgar, that really depends on the context - it's something that nobody could really answer until they see the whole discussion. Sometimes that might be an unfair comment, but other times it could just be true; that part of the discussion could also be quite important, or not important at all. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 14:47, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

But I think one useful thing in responding to the person who says "one-sided" and "vulgar" is to state your response as your own opinion and not say anything bad about the person; for example "I think that's an unfair statement" is better than "That's an unfair statement", and saying "You're being unfair" is worse than both of the others. (And of course saying "You're a lying pig!" would prove them exactly right - not a good plan.) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 14:58, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Also, in general, disputes on Wikipedia are often extremely slow, and there can be very long pauses with no action. We intentionally give people a lot of extra time to respond, and we're intentionally slow to blame anyone for anything unless the whole situation is obvious. And when the situation is not so obvious, we know it's often because there's been a misunderstanding, or because all sides have done wrong. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 15:29, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers: Then how should situations be handled when problematic content is left unaddressed? Also, what would generally be considered a reasonable amount of time to allow for a response? It seems that situations in which content remains uncorrected for months simply because the other party to the dispute has not participated should not be allowed to persist indefinitely. Hybxhh (talk) 15:35, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

You're right, and to some extent it's a systemic problem of Wikipedia with no easy solution. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 15:56, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Oh Hybxhh (talk) 16:41, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

I'm not saying there's no solution, just this might be why no one has given any simple answers. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:15, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Bad and innappropriate articles

What should i do if i encounter an arricle which has bad and innapropriate things, how do i report the editors because i need to wait 4 days to do so, how should i tell the editors? ThePixelPanda26 (talk) 10:10, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi @ThePixelPanda26. It depends on what you mean by "bad an inappropriate things". Could you let us know what article you've seen that you think has an issue? qcne (talk) 10:15, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

If you believe an article should be deleted you can start a Discussion for Deletion or in egregious cases Tag it for Speedy Deletion. Thanks, Strongshorts (talk) 10:51, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

@ThePixelPanda26 You may also benefit from reading WP:NOTCENSORED. Shantavira|^{feed me} 11:52, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Problem with a minted coin.

How can I report an error in a mint press. I have a one euro coin with a big problem. How can I send you photos of this coin. Please let me know.

~2026-55565-03 (talk) 10:56, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello, we can only assist you with issues related to Wikipedia; I suggest you ask your government's treasury or other agency. 331dot (talk) 11:00, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Illya Rytov swimmer

Subject: Request for advice on Wikipedia biography eligibility — Illia Rytov

Hello!

My name is Illia Rytov, and I am a Ukrainian deaf swimmer.

At the 2025 Summer Deaflympics in Tokyo, I achieved the following results:

- Bronze medal in the men's 200 m butterfly.

- Gold medal in the men's 4 × 200 m freestyle relay as part of the Ukrainian team.

- Silver medal in the men's 4 × 100 m medley relay as part of the Ukrainian team.

I have also been awarded the Order of Merit, Third Class, by the President of Ukraine.

I would like to ask whether my sporting achievements and state award meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for a standalone biography.

I can provide official competition results and documentation of the award. Could an experienced editor please help me assess the available independent, reliable sources and advise me on the next steps?

Thank you for your time and assistance! ~2026-55747-41 (talk) 12:09, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi, and welcome to the Teahouse!

On Wikipedia, notability is proven by coverage in typically at least 3 reliable, published and independent sources. You can read the complete guideline here. A quick Google search on my end didn't reveal much coverage, but perhaps you'll have better luck.

On a separate note, please don't use large language models (i.e. chatbots such as ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude, etc) to write your draft or write on talk pages like here. Such use is strictly banned by WP:LLM and WP:LLMTALK.

Happy editing! Giovanni Guasconti (a word with me) 15:21, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Whoopi Goldberg article - edit request

In the Whoopi Goldberg article, I want the film Made in America added to the lead section. ~2026-55913-97 (talk) 15:57, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Courtesy links: Talk:Whoopi Goldberg#Made in America (permalink) and Talk:Whoopi Goldberg#Semi-protected edit request on 12 October 2026 (permalink) Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 16:34, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

The request on the talk page has been declined as it would require discussion (which is out-of-scope here at the Teahouse). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Thriller Night!} 17:22, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Strike s you have to understand the contract

strikes solidatery contract pros con s do or don't ratified notions motions grievances much more bi laws grievance committee negiougating contracts ~2026-56021-92 (talk) 18:28, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Did you have a question about using or editing Wikipedia? RudolfRed (talk) 18:35, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

How many citations and links do I need to get a Wikipedia page into the mainstream?

How many citations and links would you recommend in order to get a Wikipedia page into the mainstream? Wee Willie Mitchell (talk) 19:23, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

The answer is at WP:42. The reason nobody can say how many is that "how many" isn't the right question. You don't need many at all, but every single one of them has to cover everything in WP:42 all by itself. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 19:28, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

That just redirects me to Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything. Wee Willie Mitchell (talk) 19:38, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Yes, that was the correct redirect. qcne (talk) 19:52, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

oh... sorry Wee Willie Mitchell (talk) 19:56, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Come close for this one. Is 4 citations and 3 links good enough for a Wikipedia page at first? I mean, I've seen quite a few pages with 4 citations and 3 links. Wee Willie Mitchell (talk) 19:40, 18 October 2026 (UTC)