Wikipedia:Teahouse

CiaPan, 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 frequently semi-protected, meaning the Teahouse pages cannot be edited by unregistered users (users with IP addresses), 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.

Draft deletions

Draft:Kundi Village.

So this draft doesn't have any actual sources, and is probably not wp:notable, but does notability apply to places? Can this draft be WP:CSDed? Should I take it to WP:MfD? Or should I just like it sit for 6 months? The creator/only editor is blocked. --pro-anti-air (talk) 18:52, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Pro-anti-air. Other editors can improve the draft whether or not the author is blocked, so it shouldn't be deleted until the 6 month mark passes. Notability doesn't apply because drafts are there for improvement. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 19:15, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

To clarify: Notability does indeed apply to all topics published in mainspace. Including places. It doesn't apply to a draft that hasn't been approved, however, because it's possible that it could be improved to the point of being acceptable. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:45, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

@Pro-anti-air The established notability requirements for settlements is in my opinion very liberal and is given at WP:GEOLAND. There is a recent essay on this topic which suggests a slightly more stringent requirement: WP:SETTLETHRESH. However, that draft seems to exceed what is required according to these criteria, so I'm not sure why User:Tarlby declined it. Obviously, it would benefit from more sources. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:06, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Liberal indeed! In my view, Wikipedia's notability requirements for biographies are far too lax, leaving us with articles about truly notable individuals who have had a huge impact on history, culture, science, etc. right next to COI-authored articles about obscure artists and youtube influencers just because they happened to get some regional press. I often find myself wishing that we had adopted the print encyclopedia guideline of having articles about people only after they're dead. ~Anachronist (talk) 13:27, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Maybe because the source doesn't match the article at all. --pro-anti-air (talk) 16:33, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

@Pro-anti-air That's weird. The URL was wrong and I have updated it [1]. The information from the new URL needs to be incorporated. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:29, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

 Done --pro-anti-air (talk) 17:41, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Should I resubmit it or just directly move it to mainspace? --pro-anti-air (talk) 20:01, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

If you moved it to mainspace, it would likely be speedy deleted because notability hasn't been established, seeing that only one source is cited. There are several assertions in the article that don't cite anything at all. It would be best to find more sources and submit for review. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:11, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Why do you believe that an article on a subject meeting WP:GEOLAND would be "speedy deleted" supposedly because "notability hasn't been established?" Although, I agree that the draft does need more work in the verifiability front. OutsideNormality (talk) 16:19, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Because it does not meet WP:GEOLAND, which specifically says such places are not inherently notable. Speedy deletion may be a bit ambitious, but it's unlikely to survive AFD, particularly in its present state. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:09, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Evolutionary computation: part of evolutionary biology?

To my suprise I read the article Evolutionary computation and discovered that it had been identified of interest to theWikipediaWikiProject_Evolutionary_biology and to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer science As identified in the article and in its sources, and known in the community of evolutionary computation practitioners, evolutionary computation is part of computer science but it is not part of evolutionary biology. I wanted to raise a query with the WikiProject Evolutionary Biology but it is described as "This WikiProject is believed to be inactive. Consider looking for related groups or ask for help at the Teahouse." Thus I am raising a query here. I have already raised a discussion point on the Talk page of the article, but I will not make any edits until I understand the viewpoints of these two WikiProjects regarding this article. Worramlaup21 (talk) 15:12, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Attaching the template of a WikiProject to an article's talk page is unlikely to have much effect. If the WikiProject is inactive, then put "very" in front of "unlikely." So don't worry about it. Just ignore it. 126.34.36.217 (talk) 06:42, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Many thanks for you reply but it doesn't answer my question. Maybe I should be more direct: how do I remove a computer science article (Evolutionary computation) from the WikiWikiProject Evolutionary Biology where it is currently rated of High Importance (my emphasis) but should not belong at all since it is a computer science article rather than an evolutionary biology article? Such a removal will require other changes: removal of link to Evolutionary biology portal and modifying categories to remove links to Evolutionary biology (since both lie outside the scope of this article). I know how to make these changes (I am a member of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer science) but don't want to do so if they will start an editing war. Worramlaup21 (talk) 07:51, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

@Worramlaup21: You could discuss this with User talk:Kevin Dewitt who added that rating. Or you could ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Evolutionary biology; but no one has replied there for a decade, so this project may be moribund. Or you could just edit to remove the line {{WikiProject Evolutionary biology|class=c|importance=High}}. And then use the same talk page to discuss if someone objects. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:25, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, will do. You have answered my query. Worramlaup21 (talk) 12:20, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

I see no issue with it being marked as an article of interest to WikiProject Evolutionary biology. See Evolutionary computation#Evolutionary algorithms and biology. Emac07 (talk) 06:46, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

That section of the Evolutionary computation article has problems to do with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:No original research so is not a good source. Since I have worked both in Evolutionary biology and Evolutionary computation I am aware of how practitioners in both fields view the other. I am editing other pages at the moment, but when I have time to return to the Evolutionary computation article I will edit it as already suggested above. Thank you for your response. I am closing my query here. I will follow responses to my edits on the Talk page of the Evolutionary computation when they have been made. Worramlaup21 (talk) 08:04, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Pseudoright

Hello teahouse. I had someone put my name in the "removals" potential tab related to the "Redirect autopatrol list" nearly 24 days ago now. I followed up once about it, but even that follow up was 8 days ago! No reply. I am hoping to not actually have my name removed from that list, as I do enjoy making redirects, but it has been a minor stress or annoyance to have it still just floating in there for so long. I don't want to do anything inappropriate, and would like to go through the proper channels. Is there any way I can bring attention to that to get it resolved soon hopefully? Iljhgtn (talk) 15:39, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Not getting a response is really worrisome as a newcomer. I have been creating some topics on the talk pages of certain articles, but until I don't tag somebody (which I don't like to), I feel like I'm talk into the void.

I wonder if there have been any technical feature requests for the veteran contributors for tracking the talk pages of a section of articles they specialise in. 182.48.219.237 (talk) 13:24, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Log in, please. This is entirely a volunteer driven effort- someone will respond to your inquires when they are able(both here and there). Please be patient. 331dot (talk) 13:29, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

My request to retain the pseudoright and have the drive-by "Removals" mentioned closed out has been pending now for over 27 days. Iljhgtn (talk) 13:38, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't want to make it feel like I'm complaining. I just feel that perhaps even the volunteers would find it more convenient to address talk page topics that way.

Apologies for not being clear enough. 182.48.219.237 (talk) 14:22, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Physical references

If there is only a physical version of something (like a music cd), can you reference a digital archive of it, or can you simply not reference it? 49.185.208.86 (talk) 22:27, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

A work of art such as a book or music CD is its own Reliable source for its explicit content (though not for any interpretation of that content). A reference citation (see Template:Cite AV media) can contain a CD's discographic information, just as it can a book's bibliographic information (see Template:Cite book). Note that neither reference entry needs to contain an external weblink (though it's good to have one where possible) since a book or CD should be obtainable via, for example, library services using the information in the reference.

Links to commercial sites selling a CD (whether in physical or streamed form) are discouraged, but see Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Vendor and e-commerce sources for where they might be used.

If I haven't understood your query correctly and this doesn't answer it, please clarify further. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.98.196 (talk) 23:14, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

The answer might depend on the purpose of the reference. 126.34.33.95 (talk) 02:39, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

I know about its existence, but I can't seem to cite them in the middle of an article. 49.199.152.70 (talk) 22:28, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Lotans way

Hi, I created this article. It is about an Israeli organization which rehabilitates at-risk youth through desert journeys using the Wilderness therapy system. Is it notable for the English Wikipedia? Thank you, _Dgw|Talk 10:32, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

@Dorian Gray Wild: The definition of notable depends on independent substantial and reliable references being available. Wikipedia, and moodle being user contributed are not reliable. One of the references does not even mention Lotans Way, so has not got substantial coverage. Are the conference papers submitted or written by the organisation? In which case they are not independent. But there are other references I cannot understand. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:12, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Graeme Bartlett, I used Israel Hayom (ref #1), Ministry of Defense (Israel) (ref #2), Walla (ref #6), Michael Biton (Member of Knesset, not an organization member) (ref #5) and Hevrat HaHadashot (last external link). I did not use moodle but a thesis from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem which examined the Lotans way's activity (ref #9). _Dgw|Talk 11:44, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

In the absence of further response, I would like to clarify that the sources I cited (Israel Hayom, Ministry of Defense, Walla, Michael Biton, and Channel 2 News) are independent and reliable, including an academic thesis from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. It demonstrated that the article was based on credible, in-depth sources rather than on non-independent organizational materials.

If the editor did not respond further, it would be reasonable to assume that the information I provided helped clarify the subject’s background. Consequently, there was a strong indication that the article met the English Wikipedia’s notability criteria, which required significant coverage from independent and reliable sources. Sometimes, lack of further comment suggested acceptance of the argument or at least no new objections raised.

Therefore, following the response I provided, the article could be considered notable on English Wikipedia due to its support from independent, verifiable, and reliable sources. _Dgw|Talk 23:23, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

If you are confident, then you could create the article, otherwise you can make Draft:Lotans Way instead of Lotans Way. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:21, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Paradoxical Notability Guidelines

Hello my fellow wikipedians. Hope you all are doing fine. Since past 5 to 6 months a topic is revolving around my mind. That is Notability guidelines of Indian politician and Indian police officers. On Wikipedia, the notability guidelines says that we can create page on any politician if they get elected into the state or national assembly. National Assembly seems good. While in case of police officers, even if he is a Director general of Police of a state (only one in a state), he can’t have Wikipedia page. Secondly if we talk about sources then there are many DGPs as well as MLAs (persons elected to state assembly) who doesn't have any coverage in Sources except for their Electoral victory results or Joining announcements. It seems Paradoxical to me that Wikipedia is warranting article only because someone is elected to state assembly ? I don’t know where should i raise this issue on Wikipedia ? Thanks TheSlumPanda (talk) 13:08, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

@TheSlumPanda It's not that you can't write an en-WP article about an Indian Director general of Police of a state. It's just that someone being Director general of Police of a state is not in itself reason enough to make an en-WP article. You need to find sources that shows this person passes the WP:GNG criteria. And you need to write the article according to WP:BLP, assuming the person is alive.

Let me give you an example. Kathy Barnette is an American politician. She has never won an election. But through the years, enough sources have appeared so she passes WP:GNG. Hope this helps some. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:21, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång Absolutely, I also support this, that being a Director general or being a member of any state assembly shouldn’t be enough for article. I am saying that there are many young 1st timer members of state assemblies which don’t have sources but they have articles only based on the electoral record, is this fair ? TheSlumPanda (talk) 15:39, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

"Fair" is a difficult question, and I don't have an informed opinion. But places where you can ask for input include

• Wikipedia talk:Notability
• Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)
• Wikipedia:Notability (people)/Subnational politicians
• Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics

Pick one place and see what happens, but you can WP:APPNOTE in other places. Off-topic, but this list reminded me of this joke: https://xkcd.com/2782/ Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:53, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the Joke and guidance. Lets see. Happy Editing TheSlumPanda (talk) 16:01, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @TheSlumPanda, and welcome to the Teahouse.

"Fair" to whom?

What is the relevance of "fair" to Wikipedia?

It is an unfortunate fact that some kinds of subject are under-represented in Wikipedia. This might be accidental , eg because not many Wikipedia editors happen to be interested in that kind of subject. But sometimes it is inevitable because the principle of verifiability says that there must be enough reliable independent sources available to base an article on, and subjects of that kind are rarely written about. (An example which often comes up is the "backstage" people in theatre, film, and music: the performers, writers, directors do get coverage, but the producers, designers, engineers, often do not, and people want to write articles about them and simply cannot find enough usable material).

Is this "fair"? Probably not; but it is an inevitable consequence of Wikipedia's policies. So it is clear from this that "fairness" in this sense is not part of Wikipedia's principles.

On another tack: when somebody talks about fairness in the context of Wikipedia have an article on this person but not on that person, I often suspect that the complainer believes that a Wikipedia article is in some way for the benefit its subject. But this is absolutely not true. As far as Wikipedia is concerned an article is in no way for the benefit of its subject (or for their detriment either). Of course, many people do benefit from there being a Wikipedia article about them (and some definitely do not), but this is not part of Wikipedia's purpose. ColinFine (talk) 18:35, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

In German judiciary speak there is a saying "Nur gleiches kann gleich behandelt werden", which amounts to: "Only like should be treated (a)like". Directors of police are what they are, members of assemblies are something different...but something different we have a policy or guideline about. Lectonar (talk) 11:43, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Questions about sources of an article

Emergency Support Services

This article relies primarily on sources from gov.bc. Will it be a problem? Cherry567 (talk) 19:05, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Cherry567, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Yes, I'm afraid it will be a problem.

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.

If you have few or no independent sources, then no article is possible. ColinFine (talk) 20:56, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. I added a Template requesting help Cherry567 (talk) 07:46, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Copypaste article to draftspace for rewrite?

I am looking to do a full rewrite of the uncited stub Dó paper, and I copy pasted the existing article to Draft:Dó_paper, attributing the copypaste and my changes as I'm making them - I plan to merge them when the draft is up to snuff. Is this acceptable?

(I first considered moving the original article to draftspace, but I am under the impression that that'd be worse, since its taking a live page down.) chickenpox4dinner (talk) 19:18, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

That should be totally fine. You can also check out Template:Under construction if you wish to edit the article directly. Cheers, GoldRomean (talk) 19:55, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

How to better present this

One of the more notable things about the Grimwild role-playing game recently has been that its author and designer has been missing (as reported by a number of websites, see citations), however currently that information on its article is somewhat buried, in the Publication History section; obviously a Wikipedia article needs not sound alarmist, but I do feel as though there might be a better way to work that information into the article - a paragraph up at the article start, or a new heading in the article body?

NullConstant (talk) 20:31, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Problem is, "Maxwell is missing" isn't really necessary to understanding "what Grimwild is". DS (talk) 21:28, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Two questions

My first question is one of my user page userboxes only has one userbox instead of 3. How do you fix that? My second question is can you start auto-archiving talk pages on article pages? Breck0530 (talk) 21:25, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Could you explain what exactly is wrong with your userboxes? For archiving, Help:Archiving a talk page might help. 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (need something? Ping me!) 22:09, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

The userboxes section on the fourth row there is only 1 userbox instead of 3 Breck0530 (talk) 22:10, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

The ninth and tenth userboxes each have a space in their code where the others have a colon. Try changing them and see what happens. {The poster formely known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.98.196 (talk) 22:25, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes, but if I remove it, the userbox the doesn't show anymore. The reason why is because this userbox was created from a person and it was used there. Breck0530 (talk) 22:35, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

"Try changing them and see what happens" is really not very helpful.

The difference is that one is a normal template in template space called Template:User FIFA World Cup (so "User" is part of its name), while User:UBX/FIFA Women's World Cup is in User UBX's userspace and is called "FIFA Women's World Cup", so there is no "User" in its name.

But I don't know why they are arranged that way. I suggest asking at Template talk:Userbox or at Wikipedia talk:User page design center/. ColinFine (talk) 22:56, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

"Not very helpful"? If the two changes had been made (as reportedly they were) and did not work (as reportedly they didn't), it would have been (and presumably was) trivial to reverse them to the status quo, having eliminated one plausible possibility. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.98.196 (talk) 15:04, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Now there is two instead of one... Breck0530 (talk) 15:15, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Article escaped deletion for 8 years?

I saw this page listed on the Open Tasks page: Sladkiy Son. It seems it was marked for deletion in 2007, but is still among us. Am I missing something? How should I proceed? Thanks

Littenberg (talk) 21:48, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

It probably was deleted. The current article seems to have been (re)created in 2018 (perhaps thus overcoming an original case of WP:Too soon), and is now quite extensively referenced (though I haven't checked the sources). I suggest you check them, and if they and the article seems to pass muster, delete the notice from its talk page. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.98.196 (talk) 22:21, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

It was deleted under the title Sweet Sleep. Log entry: " 04:48, 2 November 2007 Coredesat deleted page Sweet Sleep (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sweet Sleep) " Then it was recreated in 2018 and moved to the current title. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:47, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Interesting. Does this mean that when a new article is created with the same title as that of one previously deleted (11 years before in this case) the original deletion nomination template is automatically added to it? And is it in order to remove it after (a) a redirect and (b) acceptance of the renamed (moved) new article? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.98.196 (talk) 14:55, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

When an article is created at the same title as a previously deleted article, ideally the talk page should have a notice added to it like this one: {{Old AfD multi}}. I don't know if this can be done automatically. The information about deletion is permanently (?) recorded in the logs of that page title. Having that template doesn't mean that the new article should be deleted or moved. -- Reconrabbit 17:21, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Alas, my Russian is limited to "nyet", so I am unable to check the references. I will leave it to wiser heads to decide what to do. Littenberg (talk) 00:46, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Why doesn't this page exist

Why is there no Wikipedia page for Jacob Barnett in English? — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Deas (talk • contribs) 22:08, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

@John Deas There are four Jacob Barnetts with Wikidata entries but if you mean the US "child prodigy" then the answer may simply be that no-one has yet got round to writing an article in English: this is a volunteer project so editors work on whatever they want to. You could write the article, using one or more of the foreign-language versions for sources. See WP:Translation. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:23, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Autocomfirmed

So, when my account is 4 days old and has 10 edits, can I immediately edit semi-protected articles right away?

Froggyisamazin2015 (talk) 23:25, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes. Iljhgtn (talk) 23:40, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

I should emphasize that semi-protected articles tend to be watched closely, and nonconstructive edits tend to be reverted quite quickly. DS (talk) 01:22, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Good article

Hi! I’d like to make the Brisbane Christian College article a Good Article. Any ideas on what to add? SabrinaSwift (talk) 02:04, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

@SabrinaSwift: Are there any famous graduates? Are there any scandals or disasters related to the school reported in the news? More detail on the history of the campuses and opening of buildings is likely available in newspapers. Is there anything unique about the subjects offered or style of teaching? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:42, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Your best bet is to browse Portal:Schools/Good articles to see what information similar articles include. It will be important to keep the same style along with paragraphs to explain the topic and not bulleted lists. GGOTCC 20:50, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Ok thanks! SabrinaSwift (talk) 22:22, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Good luck! GGOTCC 22:25, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

My first contribution and edit...

Hey guys. I want to make my first edit but I am so overwhelmed.

I've been in tech since 1995. I am actually the Founder & CEO of a fintech company and know my way around the internet and computers, but god damn, trying to edit and give sources and all that is so overwhelming, I am afraid of doing it wrong.

How can I get someone to literally walk me through it 1:1 on a chat or screen share? Would someone offer to do that and take the time for me?

It's a very valid edit to an existing page about a city in California.

Thanks, Mike ME: www.scanlan.io SportBud77 (talk) 02:31, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

@SportBud77: See Help:editing, Help:Introduction to editing, and Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia. ~Rafael (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 03:41, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

There is no need to worry so much. You can make the edit and maybe it will be changed or reverted. If this happens, you will learn something. You can try it and see what happens. Osa Akwamarynowa (talk) 06:36, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

SportBud77, first of all, don't stress, you've already made your first (and second ) edits here, so congrats for that! If you want, get some practice, and c'mon over to my Talk page and say Hello, or use the Wikipedia:Sandbox or your own sandbox and make whatever edits you want there. And as Osa said, just go make the edit at the California city, it's just an online version, and could get undone again, so don't sweat it, just be bold and do it! Mathglot (talk) 07:06, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

I made the edit and it looked successful. But then it said it was automatically removed by a "CR Bot" or something right away. I clicked the link to file an appeal but that ended in a dead link saying page couldn't be found.

You can actually see my edit here under the History > 1990 - Present section: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Temecula,_California&oldid=1310237303

But if you look at the live article now, it never made it: Temecula, California

Having trouble understanding what went wrong in that case? SportBud77 (talk) 12:57, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

That was probably caused by the inclusion of an inline link to YouTube. We don't use inline links to external sites like that, in articles, and we only cite YouTube in some circumstances. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:04, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Lucira Jewelry

Can you please tell me is Lucira Jewelry noteable enough to be on wikipedia? Sayandutta29031995 (talk) 05:41, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

What are the three best sources for it that you know of? 126.34.42.88 (talk) 06:58, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

The company pays a marketing agency, and the agency pays you. Therefore you're a paid contributor. So it's not surprising that your drafts are deleted as promotional. (Anyone who thinks my comment is harsh should examine your talk page.) 126.34.42.88 (talk) 07:32, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Sayandutta29031995, I am an administrator so I can read deleted drafts. You claim that you are not here for promotional reasons and yet you submitted this drivel: Founded with a mission to transform the world of diamonds, Lucira is your go‑to destination for lab‑grown jewelry. Please never submit anything like that again to a neutral encyclopedia. Cullen328 (talk) 08:49, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes. I understand. Thank you. Sayandutta29031995 (talk) 09:10, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

@Sayandutta29031995 We spoke on #en-wikipedia-help a few times and I did state in very strong terms that this company didn't meet our criteria for inclusion. qcne (talk) 09:17, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

drivel XD 182.48.219.237 (talk) 16:06, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @007Sayan, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 10:48, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Mentorship

I’m extended confirmed (around 1k edits inc the last month) how can I become a mentor?? HQIQ (talk) 07:18, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello @HQIQ, glad you're interested in mentorship! You can go to this page to enroll. PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 11:13, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia need not advertise politicians

politicians of every country get an entire page dedicated to them! This got to be wrong. There is frustration amongst readers when they see every politicion of every country having Wikipedia pages. Weekepedia need be dedicated to people and science , youth, etc but not to have politicians be on here with dedicated pages to them! 2A00:23C5:840E:EE01:40E4:9FE6:596C:4FDD (talk) 07:22, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia with over seven million articles. We are not limited by the need to buy boxcars full of paper or barrels full of ink. Of course Wikipedia must include neutral, well-referenced articles about elected officials. Otherwise there would be a big hole in this encyclopedia. We even have a notability guideline WP:POLITICIAN. Politicians are people, and as for science, political science is a legitimate area of academic study. Cullen328 (talk) 07:51, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Elected officals! Pathetically YOU saying that! Elected officials are not Wikipedia "party members" and no need to have dedicated entire pages. Elected officals as you pathetically call them can have profiles on their party pages NOT on Wikipedia! keep Wikipedia free of politicians 2A00:23C5:840E:EE01:40E4:9FE6:596C:4FDD (talk) 09:37, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello, IP user.

It sounds as if you have the very common misconception that a Wikipedia article is somehow for the benefit of its subject: this is not so, as far as Wikipedia is concerned. (Of course, some people do benefit from having Wikipedia articles about them; but some people very definitely do not benefit from it and try to get articles about them deleted). An article is never owned or controlled by its subject, and sometimes says things very different from what they themselves would want it to say (see WP:PROUD).

This is why I always avoid using the phrase "XXX has an article": while we say this loosely, in a stricter sense nobody in the entire universe "has" an article. Rather, Wikipedia has articles about millions of people (and other subjects) which meet our criteria for notability.

If somebody meets those criteria (which are mostly about whether enough independent material has been published about them) then there may be a Wikipedia article about them. (Whether there actually is an article or not depends also on whether anybody has chosen to write one). If they do not meet the criteria, then there cannot be a Wikipedia article, whoever they are.

People who are office-holders or members of assemblies at regional or national level have usually had enough published about them to meet the criteria for notability, and so often get Wikipedia articles about them. People who have not (eg candidates, or office-holders at a local level) usually have not been written about adequately (though some mave been), so cannot be usually the subject of Wikipedia articles. ColinFine (talk) 10:59, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not advertise politicians. Period.
(For more information you may want to see WP:NPOL and WP:ADV as well as more general Wikipedia policies and guidelines linked there.) --CiaPan (talk) 11:23, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Advice around notability

Hi wikipedia I've been working on Draft:Australasian Student Architecture Congress, after attending one last year (2024) and being surprised by the lack of a wikipedia entry. It's my first wikipedia article, and I've learnt a lot about encyclopedic tone, wiki text, formatting and so on. Personally feeling it is a notable topic, it's frustrating to receive a second decline due to notability. I have provided four secondary, independent references. Suggestions? Oliver.ophb (talk) 09:40, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Do those sources show significant coverage? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:56, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

All of the secondary sources referenced cover the topic in at least 2 paragraphs, each referencing a number of other, mostly primary research. One is a conference paper entirely on the subject. I have referenced also a number of primary sources entirely on the subject, mostly media. All are independent, reputable outlets. Oliver.ophb (talk) 00:13, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

I had referenced more primary sources, but I have removed these in recent edits to improve independence of the subject, as although useful for factual information the removed references read as event listings. The remaining media references are reviews or other independent material. Oliver.ophb (talk) 00:17, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

TP Harassment

Editor: Strongwranglers is relentlessly commenting and deleting comments on my TP, when I reverted their unconstructive edits on the page Hamburger. Please see our discussion for the exchange. I do recent changes patrolling to revert vandals and other unconstructive edits and this person seems to have formed some form of personal vendetta for me and is stressing me out. What is the typical solution to ward off such editors? Thank you very much TH team for your steadfast support. Kvinnen (talk) 10:44, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

User talk:Goldstaupe#Please use the Talk page instead of making destructive edits.

Looks as though this is not their first time engaging in problematic behavior.

Thanks again. Kvinnen (talk) 10:49, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Please follow the process outlined at WP:DR. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:35, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Potential Sock

WP:SOCK

I recently discovered an unregistered user that had a similar activity to some previous accounts, which, as of now, are blocked. I have a suspicion that this may be a sock puppet account, and if I am correct, then this will be potentially a third or fourth time they have been blocked, since another (potentially their) account was just recently blocked. What should I do in this situation? EmperorChesser (talk) 11:50, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations describes what can be done in those cases. Lectonar (talk) 12:45, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Need Help for References- Delta Nu Zeta

I am trying to write articles for the missing pages of service sororities/fraternities. Delta Nu Zeta is a relatively new sorority (19 yrs old) and they do not have a national website because they are regional to Florida (UF and FSU), although they plan a gamma chapter in Pittsburgh soon. I have found pdfs of their constitution, but their self-made websites are all we really have in terms of references. After reaching out, they share most of their information on blogs or in facebook groups, which are not reliable source-wise. I can only find information on them through UF and FSU's websites, and on wix and wordpress sites, which are why my article is denied. Anyone have any recommendations on what do to get more reliable sources? Can I reference their PDF constitution in the article? Onepecan (talk) 14:50, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

See WP:LIBRARY for places where you can find, or get help finding, sources. You may also get help at your local public library (or your school or college library, if you are a student). Remember that paper sources, as well as those found online, can be used.

However, if sources cannot be found, it may be that the sorority is not eligible (at least, not yet) for an article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:53, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Onepecan, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Just because there are articles on some subjects of a particular type does not necessarily mean that there can be article+-s on all of them. The notability of each subject is determined separately, and it can easily happen that one fraternity (say) has been written about sufficiently to make it notable in Wikipedia's sense, but another has not.

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, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Please add image to Ram Pothineni

Hello Team, I’m unable to add image to Ram Pothineni. Can someone please add this File:Ram Pothineni.jpg

thanks in advance. 172.99.188.243 (talk) 15:36, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

 Done. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:40, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

The Wikimedia entry says the photograph is the author's own work, but the source actually seems to be this Instagram post (https://www.instagram.com/p/DKEfab3tL8n/?img_index=2).

How can we be sure that this image is not infringing copyright? 182.48.219.237 (talk) 14:20, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Note the VRT ticket template on the image page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:32, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Editing a page correctly.

Hello.

Trent College

I'm sure this is one of the most commonly asked questions, but here goes... I have added a new section to a page which I feel ought to be there. It has been moderated by an editor, and it seems there are a great deal of amends needed before it goes live. Mostly concerning citations and links. As I'm something of a novice, I wonder whether someone could point me in the right direction, as I'd really like to edit this correctly.

Thank you,

Magnus Magnuskshaw (talk) 15:43, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Did you read the edit summary where your edit was reverted (undone)?

It says that one of your sources was a blog, which is not considered reliable; the other was about a different school. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:00, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I was just reading that. It will be realtively easy to re-edit, so I'll give it a try. Thanks. Magnuskshaw (talk) 16:02, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Magnuskshaw, and welcome to the Teahouse. Please look at verifiability. Every piece of information you add to an article should be verifiable from a reliable published source; and in most cases it should be verifiable from a source wholly unconnected with the subject of the article - which means not only that the publisher is unconnected, but also that the source is not simply quoting the words of the subject or their associates. ColinFine (talk) 16:25, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Review thinks LLM, but it's all me baby...

Just submitted my first page for review and it was rejected with feedback saying it sounds like it was written by a LLM... I am a writer (copywriter) by profession and am reasonably well versed in SEO and AI seach-ability... I have in fact worked on training AI models myself. I can see a few points on my draft where my marketing hat has perhaps slipped back on and sound somewhat promotional, and I will of course edit these back out, but what am I to do about the fact my writing has flagged something that is incorrectly labelling it as AI? I'm wondering if the fact I have written webpage copy for the subject matter of my article might be part of the problem? Looking for advise as I try to 'up' my skillset around wiki-publishing! TIA Df2025 (talk) 16:07, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

• Comment If you have a material connection to the topic of the article (such as being employed by them as a marketer) you should not actually be making a Wikipedia page about them at all. I would suggest you have a look at WP:COI that details expectations. This makes the question of (mis)identification as AI somewhat moot. Simonm223 (talk) 16:10, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

  I did declare a conflict of interest - I'm wanting to up my skillset and have been working on wiki as a pet project. I chose my company as it's something I knew I could write about in detail and accurately (which I also believe is important for trying to get a article, once you've declare a conflict of interest, published). Df2025 (talk) 08:29, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Is this this is about Draft:Dealfront? It says it's about a "pipeline generation platform ... that provides sales intelligence and go-to-market solutions". Those are all good buzzwords, but they don't convey much meaning. Maproom (talk) 16:44, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

That's good to know - I suppose for those who work in sales this would carry more meaning, but I"ll try make the language more universal. thanks! Df2025 (talk) 08:31, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Df2025, and welcome to the Teahouse.

My first impression looking at Draft:Dealfront is that it looks like what LLM's often produce when they are told to produce Wikipedia articles. Running it through GPTZero, it says "We are highly confident this text is a mix of AI and human". It goes on to give a probability breakdown "5% AI generated; 95% Mixed; 0% Human"

This is not disputing what you say, but showing that the reviewer's response was not unreasonable.

What I will say is that your draft is not written in a way appropriate to Wikipedia.

It reads as what the company wants people to know about them; but that is not what a Wikipedia article should be. It contains non-neutral wording such as "Echobot's deep expertise" - such evaluative language should never occur in a Wikipedia article unless it is a direct quotation from a cited independent source.

One of the reasons why the already difficult task for new editors of writing a Wikipedia article is even harder with a conflict of interest is that once you have assembled the essential reliable independent secondary sources (see WP:42), you effectively have to forget everything you know about the subject, and write a summary of what those sources say (even if you disagree with what they say).

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 16:52, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the feedback and really insightful advice, I appreciate you taking the time.

I have spent the last 4/5 weeks reading more wiki pages (than ever!) and thought I was pretty well prepped, but the things you highlight have obviously shown that my preparation could have done with a little more! I will take a few more weeks to do some more reading and editing, and will attempt a re-write considering all these things... we'll see how I get on then! As a writer, I love the challenge of being able to put on different 'hats' in my writing style, but the wiki hat is a very new one to me! Thanks for all the advice : Df2025 (talk) 08:36, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

@Df2025 Good on you for looking at this as a learning exercise. As a professional writer you'll know that tone and style need to be appropriate to the context and purpose of your writing. Writing for a general-purpose encyclopaedia is different from writing for a newspaper, scientific journal, blog, or promotional copy. I'd go so far as to say that the neutral, impartial, and yes, sometimes dull tone of an encyclopaedia is the antithesis of promoting copywriting. In addition, large language models have been trained on a lot of material that's gone through SEO and marketing departments. Draft reviewers have already been overburdened by blatantly promotional drafts, and can be understandably too quick to decline new drafts with the LLM reason. Even if it's been written by humans, many of these drafts look like the marketing copy that we definitely don't want here.

If you want to embrace the challenge of learning to write in encyclopaedic style, I have a couple of suggestions. Look for existing articles on subjects that are not from your industry, and learn by making small improvements instead of trying ti write a while article from scratch. If you're working in subjects that are not related to your profession, it might be easier for you to put on your encyclopaedic "hat". And if you haven’t already, spend some time reading our Manual of Style and guide to writing better articles, and in particular: Wikipedia:Writing better articles § Tone and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view § Impartial tone. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 10:37, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Great advice, thank you - I'm trying to build up my editing skills and have deliberately seleected topics that are the opposite end of the scale to work for me! I'll absolutely keep going with that for the mean time. I'm keen to learn and keep developing so really appreciate you taking the time to point me in the right direction - thank you! Df2025 (talk) 08:53, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a lot of policy articles that people usually don't see until they do something wrong. IMO the best way to learn what not to do on Wikipedia is by reading the various policies that are linked to editors here on the Teahouse or WP:Helpdesk mgjertson (talk) (contribs) 19:46, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Draft feedback, newbie

Hi, I am a new Wikipedia contributor (this is only my second page creation). I’ve been working on a draft here: User:SueRostvold/De Lewellen.

I’ve gathered a ton of references, and I’d appreciate feedback on whether my draft looks neutral in tone, and if my citations and formatting are on the right track before I submit it.

Any and all feedback appreciated. (I can take it.) ;)

Thanks so much for your help!

SueRostvold (talk) 17:17, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

@SueRostvold Take a look at WP:Named references for how to re-use some citations that you currently have repeated multiple times (e.g. to "Punk in Austin"). I suggest you move your draft to Draft:De Lewellen and then submit it for a formal review as described at WP:Articles for creation. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:32, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Okay. I will do that before I submit. Thanks. SueRostvold (talk) 18:02, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Regarding the multiple references Mike, yes I knew it looked bad. But while working on the page it was helping me keep everything straight. But my plan was to fix before submitting. Thanks again for your input. SueRostvold (talk) 21:23, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

@SueRostvold Welcome to the Teahouse. I made a small tweak to your draft. If you like, you can move it to the Draft namespace yourself, or I can do it for you. After that, you can submit for AFC review.Thilio^{R O B O T🤖 talk} 17:46, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello, SueRostvold. Your draft had those irritating ** double asterisks scattered through it. They have since been removed and replaced by inappropriate use of italics. Those are indicative of content cranked out by Artificial Intelligence robots that are prone to hallucinations and falsification. We want content on Wikipedia that is written and verified by living, breathing human beings. Please read Wikipedia:Artificial intelligence for guidance. Cullen328 (talk) 17:47, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi Cullen328. Understood. Noted. I have found chatgpt useful in hunting sources for me. (That is allowed right?) I have done my best to verify all links before using. I will read the article you suggested for guidance. Thanks for pointing me in that direction. So much to learn. SueRostvold (talk) 18:05, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

I am not quite ready for AFC review. But thanks. Let me get back to you on this. I need to learn how to do some stuff myself. Thank you for your time. Appreciate it. SueRostvold (talk) 18:03, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi Thilio, thank you for the tweak. I appreciate you time. It I accidentally undo what you do, I apologize. I was going to work on cleaning up my links. I often work outside of wikipedia and then transfer to my draft. So if you changed, added or removed something and I don't know what, I might undo it accidentally. Hope I'm making sense. Thoughts on this? I went to history to try to see what you did but couldn't figure it out. - I know just enough to be dangerous on Wikipedia I guess. My goal is to not piss anyone off and follow the rules. Try not to get blocked again because I forgot a colon in my draft categories. Wish me luck. :) SueRostvold (talk) 18:15, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Sock question

I am in the process of making a report on a user for being a sock of a banned user with a very heavy history of abusing multiple accounts and socks. Do I file a new report for the suspected sock? Or do I add on the tail end of the banned users sock investigation? Thanks! PerpetuityGrat (talk) 17:49, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Comment You should add the new suspected sock to that same case rather than starting a separate report since the banned user already has an active sockpuppet investigation case or If there isn't a current SPI open then you can file a new one for the banned user and include the suspected account that way it keeps all the related evidence and accounts together in one place which makes it easier for checkusers and administrators to review.Thilio^{R O B O T🤖 talk} 18:09, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, guess I need clarification. The case is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/DisuseKid. Do I add to that page? Will it be flagged in the SPI page as new? --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 18:42, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes, add it to that page and it will be reviewed as part of the ongoing SPI case. Or I suggest you read this Sockpuppet investigations Thilio^{R O B O T🤖 talk} 19:10, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

launching a webpage

Can I submit a wikipedia page for a nonprofit organization if I am on the board? Roadbackfound (talk) 20:08, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Check is it actually notable enough for Wikipedia. Also remember about NPOV. Brickguy276 (talk) 20:10, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

For notability, see WP:Notability (organizations and companies). "NPOV" stands for "neutral point of view", meaning neutrality. See WP:NPOV. Notability and neutrality are important issues, but you'd face more besides. First, read and digest WP:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide, and the pages relevant to you to which it links, in particular WP:Paid-contribution disclosure. Secondly, the question above is your sole contribution (or anyway your sole contribution as "Roadbackfound") to Wikipedia so far. You'd be wise to acquire and hone your Wikipedia editing/augmenting skills by working on existing articles before launching a draft for a new article. -- Hoary (talk) 22:15, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

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

In addition to Brickguy's and Hoary's advice, I would point out that editing with a conflict of interest is permitted, but there are certain recommendations for how to proceed (see that link).

I also suggest that you stop thinking "a Wikipedia page for" your organization, and substitute "an encyclopaedia article about" it. This may seem nitpicky, but I think it will help you remember that such an article would not belong to your organization, would not be controlled by your organization, and would not necessarily say what you wanted it to say. See an article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing.

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 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. And that is even without a COI. ColinFine (talk) 10:46, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Colin, All of this is excellent advice thank you!! 2601:644:8580:F810:40F0:15AC:C85A:4012 (talk) 22:20, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

In addition to the wonderful advice from other editors, please remember that subjects don't "own" their page and can't control what goes on it. By the "launching a webpage" wording it seems you intend to use Wikipedia as webhosting. Don't do that mgjertson (talk) (contribs) 19:50, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Accuracy vs resolution

 Courtesy link: Draft talk:UnderstandingAccuracyvsResolution

I have over the years noticed that many people and engineers in particular get confused over how manufacturers state accuracy or what is known as Specsmanship. I wanted to submit an article that explains this subject and when I submitted it for AfC peer review it was rejected as not aligned with the purpose of wikipedia. Any thoughts? Edward Denigan (talk) 20:38, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello and welcome. Wikipedia is not a place to explain, it's a place to summarize- summarize what independent reliable sources say about a topic. You wrote a comparison and drew conclusions- that is original research. If you have sources that discuss this topic and make conclusions, you can write a draft that summarizes what those conclusions are. 331dot (talk) 20:48, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Pedagogical material such as a how-to guide is better suited for Wikiversity or Wikibooks. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 22:11, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Math

find two numbers that round 15.5 when rounded to nearest tenth. Out of the numbers 15.04 15.55 15.508 15.445 15.0 15.49 \ 47.197.149.166 (talk) 23:06, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Please do your own homework.

Welcome to Wikipedia. Your question appears to be a homework question. I apologize if this is a misinterpretation, but it is our aim here not to do people's homework for them. Letting someone else do your homework does not help you learn nearly as much as doing it yourself. Please attempt to solve the problem or answer the question yourself first. Blepbob (talk) 00:20, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

This Tea house (like the Help desk) is intended for questions about problems with editing and/or using Wikipedia. Factual questions should generally be asked at the appropriate Reference desk section, but Wikipedia will not do your homework for you, although if you explain where and why you are stuck, you may be referred to an appropriate article, or given general advice about how to proceed. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.98.196 (talk) 00:20, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Follow-up

Follow-up to New to Wikipedia and 1st article

Thanks to Anachronist for the feedback. ~Anachronist I was able to rewrite the article, and I researched proper third-party sources. I also adjusted the tone of the article. Hopefully, it will meet the criteria. I'm open to any new feedback. Draft:Joe Polish. Luichi luichi (talk) 23:35, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Luichi luichi. Your first two references were written by former Forbes contributors. Content written by Forbes contributors is not considered reliable on Wikipedia due to the lack of serious editorial control. Please see WP:FORBESCON for the community consensus. Your third reference is to an interview with Polish. Interviews do not establish notability on Wikipedia because, by definition, they are not independent sources. After checking three references that do not establish notability, I gave up. You should emphasize references to sources that establish notability. These sources must be reliable, they must be independent of the topic, and they must devote significant coverage to the topic. Joe Polish is the topic. Two out of three is not good enough. Cullen328 (talk) 07:09, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Openstreetmap

Hello. I am a frequent editor of the page Kolkata metro. I added this in the infobox:

{{Rapid transit OSM map
| frame-lat    = 22.5726
| frame-long   = 88.3639
| frame-width  = 300
| frame-height = 450
| zoom         = 11
}}

But the problem is it's not showing the whole map. Like, there is a gap between two sections of green line, orange line is truncated and yellow is not shown. However, when I opened openstreetmap and the relations, it shows all of that. But somehow this do not reflect in wikipedia. (But the proper ones were reflecting in wikipedia some days ago, don't know why it's not reflecting now). Can anyone help? AnkurPl 04:52, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @AnkurPl, and welcome to the Teahouse.

This is a question about a specialist area. I suggest you ask at Template talk:Rapid transit OSM map. ColinFine (talk) 10:58, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

trying to get first article published

Hi there! Started this a while ago and it's been rejected twice for not meeting notability guidelines. Would love to get it finished up and submitted again. The last piece of feedback I got was that it didn't have the three secondary sources required. Not entirely sure why it got rejected last time - any advice is appreciated. Thank you.

Draft:Gravy Analytics

E Billie (talk) 07:08, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

@E Billie: the reason why your draft was declined (not 'rejected', which is a terminal option) are given in the decline notice. Namely, the sources do not show that this company is notable according to the relevant guideline WP:NCORP.

The decline was back in March, and since then nothing has been done to this draft. Drafts are automatically deleted after six months from the last (human) edit, so you only have a couple of weeks before that happens. I suggest you edit the draft, addressing the reasons for the earlier decline, and then resubmit it for another review. DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:36, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Seeking review on a desired edit

I would like to add an event in 2025 in Canada#Events but I am inexperienced with writing wiki articles. Could someone take a look?

Sep 8 - Human remains of a missing woman were recovered and identified in her home in Maple Ridge, B.C. Her husband has been charged with indignity to human remains.

Cherry567 (talk) 07:43, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Like should I add their names? Are there other context that I should include or exclude? Any grammar mistakes? Any other issues I don't catch? Cherry567 (talk) 07:51, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Cherry567, and welcome to the Teahouse. I suggest you bring this up at Talk: 2025 in Canada and get consensus before adding it. To me, it doesn't sound significant enough to be added, but others may disagree. ColinFine (talk) 11:01, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

"Human remains of a missing woman" is a tautology; "Remains of a missing woman" will suffice. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:31, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Draft:Alan Pemberton

Re Draft Wikipedia Article about Colonel Alan Pemberton CVO MBE - Draft:Alan_Pemberton

A friend of mine asked me if I could help him as the first ever article he has been working on about a British Army officer in the Coldstream Guards and MI6 has been rejected ... so far. He thinks the officer is notable and so do I given Colonel Alan Brooke Pemberton CVO MBE was a significantly decorated WW2 war hero as evidenced by references to the Imperial War Museum and Yeoman of the Guard appointment (reserved for war heroes etc) and there was an extraordinary two page article written about Pemberton in the reputable New Statesman magazine. It appears that those who rejected my friend's draft article failed to do justice to or understand the importance of the aforementioned references. Furthermore, a specialist program about espionage aired by RTVE (Spain's equivalent to the BBC) has produced two programs about one of "Pemberton's People" (a spook called Bill Fairclough) and Alan Pemberton in MI6. RTVE have never before broadcast two programs based on one topic.

Are there any particular editors in Wikipedia you can recommend my friend contact who understand and are interested in military history and espionage and who could help my friend finalise the article to conform with Wikipedia's standards etc? He has spent many days of elapsed time drafting/researching the article. If not maybe you could help him edit the draft article keeping as much of its original content in place as possible and deal with the comments of Paul W (talk) on 21:12, 8 September 2025. Thanks in advance - Simon

PS The link to the extraordinary New Statesman article which is highly critical of MI6 is https://www.duncancampbell.org/menu/journalism/newstatesman/newstatesman-1980/salesman%20of%20the%20secret%20world.pdf and can be found via these links - https://www.duncancampbell.org/content/journalism and https://www.duncancampbell.org/content/new-statesman-1980. Why is it extraordinary? In the 1970s Duncan Campbell the author was charged under the Official Secrets Acts and tried at the Old Bailey (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ABC_trial) in the 1970s ... he was found guilty but not imprisoned. Simon1Norton2 (talk) 08:41, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

PS Being a Yeoman of the Guard is one of the highest accolades offered to British armed forces personnel for distinguished service so how can Colonel Alan Pemberton CVO MBE not be notable? Simon1Norton2 (talk) 09:12, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

The Legacy section is completely unsourced. A MBE is a indicator of notability, but there still need to be significant coverage in independent reliable sources; which may be hard for an intelligence officer(as by definition their role and activities are not always public). 331dot (talk) 09:15, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Many thanks for your comment - you are right about those involved in espionage but what else can one do? In any event I will advise my friend to put appropriate citations to the Legacy section and improve the wording there. Do you have any more specific comments? All the best - Simon Simon1Norton2 (talk) 09:27, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

"Are there any particular editors in Wikipedia you can recommend..."—Yes; they gather at our military history project. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:28, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Andy - Thanks so much for your reply. Who do you recommend I contact in your "Military History Project Group"? Having read about the Group this article about Colonel Alan Pemberton appears right up the Group's street and is a tad challenging because it involves espionage. My friend and I can provide all sorts of research and citations to support and improve the article - our difficulty is we don't speak Wiki language! Best wishes - Simon Simon1Norton2 (talk) 11:54, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

You should just post on the talk page of the project, and editors that follow it will see your message. 331dot (talk) 12:52, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Many thanks - will do when I have time. Best wishes - Simon Simon1Norton2 (talk) 13:01, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

@Simon1Norton2 Have you tried digging at https://archive.org/ ? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:02, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks - my pal has rewritten the article and will resubmit it Simon1Norton2 (talk) 11:53, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

One more thing you can try: go to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities and ask if anyone can help you find WP-good sources for Draft:Alan Pemberton. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:11, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks again - my pal has rewritten the article and will resubmit it Simon1Norton2 (talk) 11:53, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Copyright of Trump letter to Epstein

I have uploaded Donald Trump letter to Jeffrey Epstein to wikipedia under fair use, for the relevant article.

File:Donald Trump message in Jeffrey Epstein 50th birthday book.png

I am thinking what is the copyright status. (I have not uploaded to Commons, so it's a bit irrelevant, just for... fun I guess.)

I think it's still Donald Trump? But he recently claimed it's not made by him, so it's not his copyright... but that is not a waiver of copyright. Or is it?

(The pages were released by the subcommitee, but that doesn't make them work by government and in PD, right.) - Karel Bílek (talk). 09:45, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Jeffrey Epstein's 50th birthday greeting album says that Ghislaine Maxwell assembled the book, so wouldn't it be her copyright? 331dot (talk) 09:58, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Her copyright would only extend to the composition, i.e. if the image included the book covers or some other creative aspects of the assembly of the book (tbh it's pretty hard to imagine how that would apply). The image copyright belongs to the person who drew the image, and/or composed its text, and/or gave the copyright to someone else. If we don't know who that is, we can't know that they've waived copyright. Fair use is the appropriate claim. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:14, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

For my own curiosity- does that mean the House subcommittee(or the specific members) violated the copyright? 331dot (talk) 12:55, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Well, according to news sources, the book was "released" by the House committee. They only released it; they did not copy it. If that's the case, then there can be no question of copyright violation. (But that's just my inexpert opinion.) Mike Marchmont (talk) 13:14, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

request edits for VP-Expert page

Hello Teahouse!

I have a conflict of interest regarding the article VP-Expert. On the talk page I’ve made several request edit posts, but they haven't received replies. Thanks much! Bns1743 (talk) 14:26, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

There is a backlog, and few editors working on it. Please be patient. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:33, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

What Andy said, but you can also try to ask for input at related wikiprojects, perhaps you'll find someone who is interested in your subject. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:06, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

article

I want to upload the background of a poetry person among Somalis. It kept saying, 'Can't upload my article.' FITAAH HERSI (talk) 14:29, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Were you trying to upload a text file or document? We don't accept articles in that form. Please see WP:Your first article, and the links I just left on your talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:35, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

How long do people have to be on wikipedia to be eligible for administration?

. 72.2.155.10 (talk) 15:11, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Im saying specifically for a created account. Not an uncreated account. 72.2.155.10 (talk) 15:11, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello and welcome. There isn't a specific timeframe other than prospective admins need to be extended-confirmed(account is 30 days old with 500 edits), but generally admins are expected to have significant experience and can show they have a good understanding of relevant policies, as well as a good temparment for the project. Please see WP:RFA for more information, Note that admins have no higher status than any other editor, they just have tools that are irresponsible for the entire community to possess(like deleting articles). 331dot (talk) 15:15, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

ok 2405:201:3029:4034:18DB:2F24:46B0:98BF (talk) 15:31, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Joining

Why can't I open account 166.181.81.208 (talk) 15:40, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

What do you mean? 182.48.219.237 (talk) 16:12, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

What is the message that you see when you attempt to create an account? I see no blocks on your current IP address. 331dot (talk) 16:24, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Draft:Run 3

Draft:Run 3 how to provide sources for a game I love. 50.170.206.18 (talk) 16:15, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I fixed your link, the whole url is not needed.

Wikipedia is not a how-to guide or gaming guide. Wikipedia articles summarize what independent reliable sources choose to say about topics that meet our criteria for inclusion. For games, that is usually shown through citations to reviews written by professional game critics. If you have no sources, the game would not merit inclusion here.

If you just want to tell the world about this game, you should use social media. I see that you cite Fandom as a source- you may wish to focus your efforts in improving coverage of the game there. 331dot (talk) 16:23, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Not receiving email confirmation

I'm setting up my page but am not receiving the email to confirm my email address. Yes, I've confirmed it is correct. Jackie McCown (talk) 18:16, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Have you checked your spam/junk folder? ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 00:44, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Question About Requested Article turnaround time

Hello,

I submitted a Requested Article submission on September 2. I was wondering how long it would take until I heard a response from a Wikipedia editor about the status of that hypothetical new article. Thank you for your time, SteveTexas1964 (talk) 19:14, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

This question has been answered at the Help desk. Please do not ask questions at both venues as it wastes everybody's time. TSventon (talk) 19:25, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Tayo Fatunla: Article for Submission Rejected

 Courtesy link: Draft:Tayo fatunla

My article on Tayo Fatunla has been rejected for the second time because of notability issues. The revision was substantially different from the original. I endeavored to satisfy notability issues. I also attended to formatting and structural issues. Please take a look at my sources——and, indeed, the article whole article——and enlighten me on what more I might have to do to improve it so as to satisfy Wikipedia's metrics. Thank you. Bolekaja (talk) 19:17, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello. The draft was declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning in the draft process, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means that it may be resubmitted. You made no changes after the first decline, this is clear from the edit history. If you thought you made changes, you didn't. You should not resubmit a draft without addressing the concerns of the reviewer. 331dot (talk) 19:24, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Please address the issues, your draft is a complete mess see WP:REFB for help with formatting sources correctly and more general help at WP:YFA. Please also note that we don't use external links in the body of an article. Theroadislong (talk) 19:26, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Request for an early AfC review of Draft:Olatoun Gabi-Williams Borders

Hello again, and thank you so much for helping me move my draft to the Draft namespace earlier. My draft is now at Draft:Olatoun Gabi-Williams Borders.

I understand that AfC reviews can take some time, but if any reviewer happens to have a moment, I’d be very grateful for an early look. I just want to make sure the draft is on the right track and ready for publication.

Thank you very much for your time and guidance it’s truly appreciated! Olatoun Gabi-Williams Borders (talk) 21:13, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Olatoun Gabi-Williams Borders. I have declined your draft and marked it for deletion. You used an AI chatbot to write this draft, didn't even bother to check the references of which out of twenty eight - 22 were fake! qcne (talk) 21:22, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Also-Olatoun Gabi-Williams Borders there is no way to guarantee a speedy review. This is a volunteer driven process, where people do what they can, when they can. Everyone wants their draft to be reviewed quickly and would love to "jump the line", but the process would break down if drafts were reviewed on request. Did you have a particular need for a speedy review? 331dot (talk) 08:30, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Incorrect info in an info box for a deceased person

 Courtesy link: Barbara Avedon

Barbara Hammer Avedon was my mother. For some reason, Wikipedia has a picture of her writing partner Barbara Corday on her page and it won't let me change it because my mother is deceased. I can't post a message on the talk page because it claims her page is editable (it is, except for the info box). What do I do? Joshua Avedon Javedon (talk) 23:43, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello Joshua! The photo in the infobox has been uploaded claiming it is of Barbara Avedon, but with no details of its provenance. It may have been taken from this website, where it is identified as Avedon, but this is evidently mistaken as it is clearly the same person as presented here as being Barbara Corday.

Infoboxes are tricky to edit because their code is not where many people expect it to be (hint: click the 'Edit' link at the top of the article between 'Read' and 'View history'; the infobox code is right at the top): I have now removed the incorrect photo from the article – hopefully no-one will revert without reading my edit summary and coming here.

(You can create a discussion on the article's Talk page by clicking on the 'New section' tab, by the way.)

The photo you have uploaded could now be substituted – you have described it as "own work" which is a statement that you yourself took it. Can you confirm that is so? Note that (as you may know) one copyrighted image of a deceased person can be used on Wikipedia (only) in the article about them, but not two.

Others with more expertise may wish to comment on this matter, help to regularise the situation with the incorrectly described image file, and advise with supplying and correctly uploading another even more suitable image (ideally, to Wikimedia Commons with a suitable licence). Hope this helps. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.98.196 (talk) 00:49, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

The image currently present on your mother's page is in a different section, outside the infobox. Is this intended? Kingsacrificer (talk) 04:17, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Additionally, would you have any picture (that is your own work or freely available) of Barbara Corday since it seems your mother knew her. It would be helpful to add a picture of hers in her biography article page as well. Kingsacrificer (talk) 04:28, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

@Javedon: File:BarbaraAvedonAndCat.jpg is now in the infobox. It is also now attached to Barbara Avedon (Q18043643), which is why you can also see it at ar:باربرا_افيدون & arz:باربرا افيدون. Peaceray (talk) 06:03, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Pretty cool @Peaceray. I am new here so I didn't exactly know if I should move it into the infobox or not, as the image also features a pet.

I have spotted another issue, but I will take it up on the article's talk page. Hope you don't mind me tagging you there. Kingsacrificer (talk) 07:19, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

I think nobody would assume that the cat is the subject of the article, so the picture is fine. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:49, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

MOS:WEASEL

MOS:WEASEL

Hi, I've only recently started contributing to Wikipedia and I've just come across a weasel words template here. While I understand the MOS:WEASEL instructions, I was hoping someone could explain how I'd go about fixing up the section in the article I linked. I'm hoping for an example of where these words are used and how to fix it. Thanks! SnowyRiver28 (talk) 00:37, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

@SnowyRiver28 In this case, I think you have to go back to the version of the article when the tag was added. The IP who did that should ideally have given some indication on the talk page of what they saw as "weasel" but they didn't. I assume it was the It is thought that the killers had stacked all four bodies one on top of another, which immediately prompts the question "who thought that?" or "is this original research?". Looking a the article now, you may feel that such ambiguities no longer exist and the best course of action is just to remove the tag. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:02, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

A new article

I want to create a new article on Ahmed Makahiil Hussein, but my account is not autoconfirmed yet. How can I submit a draft? Mohamed ahmed qalqale (talk) 01:08, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

This creation of yours makes me wonder if you understand that all content must be attributed to reliable sources, independent of Ahmed Makahiil Hussein . I suggest that you first get accustomed to improving existing articles, of course providing reliable sources for what you write, before you attempt a new article. -- Hoary (talk) 02:36, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

At Draft:Ahmed Makahiil Hussein, after reading WP:Your first article, and following the process described at WP:AFC; but please note what Hoary says, above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:21, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Reliable or not

does this source is relaible or not. Mr.work-shy (talk) 01:22, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

That might depend on what it was used as a source for. (It's mostly a collection of photographs, some of which have been doctored ["photoshopped"] very crudely.) What assertions do you hope to attribute to it? -- Hoary (talk) 02:30, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Outlines on gradient text?

So I have made this userbox (at User:MatchaMint/MusicRox) and I want to make it have an outline on the top text so that it won't be hard to read. How do I do that? (⸝⸝⍢⸝⸝) ෆ Marie (talk) 04:05, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Please get rid of the non-linking characters at the head of your sig. They serve no useful purpose and the low contrast makes them inaccessible to many. Your user name is MatchaMint and that is not what your sig says. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:19, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Creating a non-free audio sample

Hey, fist time asking for help, I've been trying to find out how to create a non-free audio sample file for the Radiohead song Exit Music (For a Film) for a bit now, but I just can't figure out how to do it. The problem I'm having isn't creating the page for the sample, it's getting the sample itself. I'm on an Android phone if that helps. CheeseyHead (talk) 07:22, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps consult the Wikimedia Commons editors? I had asked a question in their IRC channel yesterday, and got a response within 30 minutes. Kingsacrificer (talk) 07:37, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Idk, you're supposed to post non-free stuff here. CheeseyHead (talk) 07:39, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. I didn't know that. Kingsacrificer (talk) 08:11, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

I use the free app WaveEditor on Android (other apps are available). If you cant get that to work, or prefer not to, ask at Help talk:Media (audio and video) or WP:VPT. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:12, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! But I'm still not sure how to get the audio file for the song. How do you do that? CheeseyHead (talk) 21:18, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Help with draft

Hi! I made a page and it's in a draft right now. I'm trying to see if someone can look it over and make sure it's ready to go. The sources are in order and the article is good. Draft:Alexander Ziwahatan LivingWellat50 (talk) 10:10, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

LivingWellat50 Hello. The whole url is not needed when linking, I fixed this for you.

You have submitted the draft for review and it is pending; asking for a review (or a pre-review review) will not speed the volunteer driven process, where drafts are reviewed in no particular order by people when they have time to. Please be patient. 331dot (talk) 10:24, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

I can say that he does not meet WP:NPOLITICIAN as he does not hold public office and has not won his election yet, this means that you need to show he is notable for something other than seeking public office, that he meets WP:BIO. 331dot (talk) 10:25, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Minor edits

A user kept doing an edit as minor after putting {{uw-minor}} on their talk page, what do I do?

A user made an edit (special:diff/1310533365) that I don't believe qualified as minor so I reverted it and informed about this with {{uw-minor}} on their talk page (special:diff/1310536404). However the user proceeded to do the exact same edit still marked as minor (special:diff/1310561755). What do I do? take this to the ANI or something? 🐲Jothefiredragon🔥talk🧨contributions✨log🐉 10:22, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

@Jothefiredragon: People don't always read a new message before making an edit. The next two edits after your user warning was the second minor edit and then [2] so don't take it further for now. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:13, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

I need help about edit warring and talk page.

Hello, I'm a relatively new user. I'm trying to add to the pages as much as I can. I need help with something. I added a paragraph about the history of pastırma to the pastırma page. I've included all the sources. My post appears to be accurate, and all the sources I've added are reliable. However, this paragraph is constantly being deleted by a user. The reasons they offer don't make sense to me, and I'm trying to understand the real reason. It happens like this: I add the paragraph, a user deletes it entirely, and the mods then revert it. Then, another user deletes the paragraph, citing my two-week ban from another page. I refuse and revert it (Does the fact that I was temporarily blocked from another page due to an edit war means that I cannot contribute to another page??). They revert it again and threaten to block me. This process doesn't happen in a day; it's been spread out over about two weeks. I haven't received a warning about this, but I'm wondering if I'm entering an edit war again, as I've reverted my edit three times. What should I do in this situation? I need help. I believe my paragraph complies with all the terms and conditions (if you disagree, please share your opinion). I don't want to get into an edit war and be temporarily blocked from this page. Also, should I start a thread about this on the talk page? If I do, I don't know how to explain it there. Can anyone guide me? Haydi123 (talk) 10:31, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello. Have you tried communicating with the editors that are reverting you to ask them to elaborate as to the reasons why they are doing so? Edit warring is not a solution, you are already blocked from one article for edit warring, if you do so more broadly you may be blocked from Wikipedia entirely. Edit summaries that call people a "gang" are a personal attack, please focus on the content. 331dot (talk) 11:06, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for your reply. My question was about whether this was an edit war. Since time had passed, I assumed it wouldn't be, but I received a warning about an edit war. I won't be editing this page for a while; I don't want to break the rules. I used the gang part metaphorically, and I didn't direct it at a single person. Will I have a problem with this? I'll try not to do it again. Thanks for the warning. Haydi123 (talk) 12:13, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

You wrote in Turkish on your user page, have you considered editing the Turkish Wikipedia? 331dot (talk) 11:08, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

I do some edits there too. Haydi123 (talk) 12:07, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Are you trying to say that I shouldn't edit English Wikipedia? Why? Haydi123 (talk) 12:15, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

@Haydi123: I would say that you being blocked from another article will not in itself cause you to be blocked from editing Pastirma, but the fact that you have already been blocked somewhere may indicate a certain tendency to get blocked; in other words, you may end up being blocked from Pastirma for the same reason as what got you blocked from Dolma. Also, edit summaries such as "I will continue to add as you delete" suggest that you may be approaching this with a mindset that could well get you into trouble with edit warring. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:50, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. We're discussing the issue with the person who deleted my edit. Thank you for warning me, too. Have a good day. Haydi123 (talk) 13:57, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Gambling

Changing National Coalition against Legalized Gambling name to Stop Predatory Gambling. Add info from stop predatory gambling page (merge them both)

I work for Stop Predatory Gambling. Our organization was founded 30 years ago, when it was named the National Coalition against legalized gambling. In 2008, our name changed to Stop Predatory Gambling. I created a page for stop predatory gambling but my editor said it could be merged with the national coalition page. We must have the page renamed to stop predatory gambling and just add our information from 2008 and on to this page. Please let me know if this is possible. Thanks. Caherniv (talk) 14:05, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

@Caherniv In Wikipedia terms, you are a paid editor and before you do anything else you need to disclose that on your user page, as described at the link. In view of this, you should not be editing the National Coalition Against Legalized Gambling article directly but should make suggestions for changes to it (including a possible move to a new title) on its talk page, perhaps using the edit request wizard to draw attention to your proposals. Note that Wikipedia article titles are based on the name most commonly used in its sources, although if the name changed in 2008, by now the new name should be firmly established. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:30, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Considering article rewrite

Hello, I'm somewhat new, and I have found an article that I have focusing a lot of attention on: Amino acid dating. I perceive that this article is generally lacking inline citations for quite a few of its claims (one of my first edits was to add {{more footnotes needed}}), and there are also gaps in the article's coverage that are mentioned in sources (for example, the article does not mention kinds of materials that the method is applied to, which according to sources are various kinds of biominerals including eggshell, mollusc shell, bones, and teeth). I also think it is a good candidate to try to get to wp:Good Article status as it is flagged as high importance in multiple wikiprojects. I have also read some essays that suggested a good way to bring an article up to GA is to fully audit its sources yourself and fully or partially rewrite the article (which, done right, forces you to read and understand all the sources, which would also fix the pervasive sourcing issues I perceive).

Therefore, I was thinking that I would go ahead and rewrite the article fully as a way to improve its quality. I have already begun the process of reading through the sources and planning the rewrite on my user page: User:jancabinet/amino acid dating. The article, based on its edit history, doesn't appear to have any other "custodians" at present, and since I began editing it a month ago I haven't been contacted by anyone who might have had the page watchlisted. My question for the people here is if that's enough- rewriting does seem a little dramatic and like it could make some people angry. Have I done my due diligence, or is there yet something I need to take care of before I can rewrite? Jancabinet (talk) 14:05, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

@Jancabinet On the "due diligence" question, are you familiar with how to get full page statistics, which for that article is Amino acid dating - Page History - XTools? That shows you which other editors might be most likely to be interested in your re-write and you can check whether they are still active and if so maybe get in touch via their talk pages. In general, I encourage you to be bold and go ahead with your changes. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:22, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Translations / footnotes

Hello, I am relatively new to Wikipedia but am currently in the process of translating three French Wikipedia pages to English. It has been fairly straightforward, except for the question of references - since these do not transfer automatically, I have had to copy the footnotes manually. Does anyone know a shortcut for this - or am I missing something? Thank you! Zara Elvidge (talk) 15:53, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

You may find some useful pointers at WP:Translate. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:44, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

help moving from sandbox to draft

Hello, I’m new to editing. I’ve written a biography draft in my Sandbox about Archie Givens Sr., who is recognized as Minnesota’s first African American millionaire and an important civic leader in housing, health care, and philanthropy.

My draft is here: User:NearNorth19/sandbox.

Could someone please help me move it into Draft:Archie Givens Sr. for review?

Thank you very much! NearNorth19 (talk) 15:53, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Now at Draft:Archie Givens Sr. -- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:40, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Getting userboxes working

Hey there, I have used the templates I found, but I cannot for the life of me get userboxes to show up. They remain as a long line of text. I am sure I am missing something in the parsing, but I am not sure how to fix it. Could anyone check my userpage and help me out? Plotlines (talk) 16:10, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

They appear to be working on your user page, for me, You may need to refresh your browser; or purge your cache. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:41, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi Plotlines, welcome to the Teahouse. Most of our documentation is for the source editor. You used VisualEditor which works differently. Somebody fixed it but see Help:VisualEditor#Editing templates for how to add templates with VisualEditor. However, it only works for pages starting with "Template:" like Template:User citizen Kentucky, not User:UBX/NFL-Colts. See the end of Help:VisualEditor#Getting started: the VisualEditor toolbar for how to switch to the source editor where all userboxes can be added regardless of namespace ("Template" or "User" in these examples). PrimeHunter (talk) 16:48, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

I don't normally use VisualEditor but found out that you can write User:UBX/NFL-Colts and press enter in the "Search for a template" field. VisualEdior can apparently not search for userspace templates but can add them if you give the exact name. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:55, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Issue With Twinkle.

I found out that the Twinkle logo’s are both associated with Police Man Gansonan image now associated with an online harassment and extortion group called the UTTP “UTube Troll Police.” They have a horrible reputation of manipulating children and bullying. It has come to my attention that they share the same clipart artist and we may need to change the logo because the UTTP has doxxed people they don’t like! Its Lido (talk) 17:59, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

You should raise this at Wikipedia talk:Twinkle. 331dot (talk) 18:09, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Protect Article Charlie Kirk

30 minutes ago (Redacted) shot republic Charlie Kirk and he is suspected deceased. Left people have infected the page with vandalism. The issue is serious please fix! Its Lido (talk) 19:32, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Its Lido. The article Charlie Kirk appears to have already been protected (continuously since 2012, in fact). I'm also not seeing vandalism in the page – were you referring to something specific? If you want to request a page be protected in the future, we use the page Requests for Page Protection to file those :) Happy editing, Perfect4th (talk) 19:41, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Page not showing up on google results?

Hi! I recently made a page for up&coming writer Sebastian Castillo but it isn't showing up on any google results or getting crawled by Google, not even when i search 'sebastian castillo wikipedia.' I think it is because it's been blocked from indexing. This line of code is in the page (not the editable source code, but when you hit View Page Source):

<meta name="robots" content="noindex,nofollow,max-image-preview:standard">

Does anybody know why it's been blocked from indexing or can fix it for me? Heromagnus1 (talk) 19:36, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

@Heromagnus1 google may take days to weeks to crawl and rank a new article you just need to wait.Thilio^{R O B O T🤖 talk} 19:42, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

yes that's what I initially assumed, but i actually made the page about 2 months ago, so I think something is blocking it from indexing. I've made pages before that haven't taken this long... any thoughts? Heromagnus1 (talk) 19:44, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

@Heromagnus1 The article was reviewed on 10 September 2025 at 12:15. Google will usually pick it up within a few days to a few weeks, so it’s just a matter of waiting.Thilio^{R O B O T🤖 talk} 19:54, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Oh, I see! So it can only get picked up after it gets reviewed?

In the future -- who does reviewing for pages? is there any way I can get an article reviewed more quickly? Heromagnus1 (talk) 20:02, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

a) Volunteers.

b) No. DS (talk) 20:05, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

For more information on who does the reviewing, see WP:NPP. FYI, there's a big backlog of articles needing review – 12.5 thousand, which is actually down significantly from 19,300 earlier this year. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 20:56, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Request for Feedback on Draft – John Graden

Hello! I’ve recently become autoconfirmed and have made over 10 citation-supported edits. I would appreciate guidance on moving my draft article about martial arts educator John Graden into mainspace.

He meets notability guidelines with independent coverage in The Wall Street Journal, Black Belt Magazine, Martial Arts World, and other sources.

Draft URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MATA-JG/sandbox

Thank you for your time and help! MATA-JG (talk) 15:29, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

MATA-JG Your edit history indicates no edits to your sandbox. Have you clicked "publish changes"? It is actually recommended that Article Wizard be used to create and submit a draft. It is also recommended that drafts be submitted for review, even if you are technically able to create articles directly, until you gain experience in having drafts accepted. 331dot (talk) 15:41, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

There is no draft there, no sandbox page, no draft by that name in draft space or mainspace.

Also, you have a conflict of interest, and every mainspace edit you have done has been reverted due to that. You shouldn't cite yourself on Wikipedia, or make substantive changes to mainspace articles with which you have a conflict of interest. Propose changes on the talk page instead. You may use Wikipedia:Edit Request Wizard to guide you through this. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:43, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Title: Request for Review: John Graden Article Draft

Hi editors,

I’ve created a sandbox draft of a biographical article on John Graden, a notable figure in the martial arts industry and publishing world. The draft has been written with a neutral point of view and includes multiple independent, reliable sources such as:

• The Wall Street Journal (3 articles)
• Black Belt Magazine
• Martial Arts World Magazine
• Appearances on the Dr. Oz Show, U.S. News & World Report, Publishers Weekly, and more

He is the founder of NAPMA and MATA, and has been credited with professionalizing martial arts instruction worldwide.

Here is the sandbox link:

👉 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MATA-JG/sandbox

Could someone please review this draft for notability and provide feedback or guidance for moving it to mainspace?

Thank you!

— MATA-JG MATA-JG (talk) 20:07, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Please do not create additional threads, just edit the existing thread above. 331dot (talk) 20:17, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

You have already submitted the draft, and it was declined. 331dot (talk) 20:18, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have moved the old thread down to keep everything in one place. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 20:20, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

There is absolutely nothing there to suggest that you are notable in Wikipedia terms, sorry. Theroadislong (talk) 20:34, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

For the reader browsing the archives long after the draft has been deleted: I declined the draft as, essentially, unedited ChatGPT output. User talk:MATA-JG#c-331dot-20250910203500-MATA-JG-20250910202100 is also relevant. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 20:53, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Unedited ChatGPT output qualifies for speedy deletion under WP:G15. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:57, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

New Page Patrol

How do I contact New Pages Patrol about allowing Google to access the page Fred Bendheim? Thanks 2600:4041:5BEE:6600:900F:CDD0:CE0C:6930 (talk) 23:11, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

You don't. New Pages Patrol is a volunteer driven process, with people doing what they can, when they can. The article will be indexed after 90 days of it has not been reviewed. Do you have a particular need for it to appear in search results quickly? Wikipedia has no control over how fast Google's algorithms work. 331dot (talk) 23:15, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

I can't decide whether to nominate it for deletion at WP:AFD or to move it back to draft space for further incubation (for some reason the creator submitted it for review and then moved it to mainspace the same day). It's a WP:BLP-violating article as it is, with many unsourced statements, and junk sources that don't confer notability on the subject.

I would say it isn't ready for mainspace if the subject is notable, and should not be patrolled. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:06, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

criteria for upgrade to class B

I recently requested a review for International Virtual Aviation Organisation's content assessment level, and it was put as C and a copy editing maintenance banner was added. I've cleaned up the copy editing properly and was wondering if it's suitable for class B, or if it still falls short due to the lack of secondary sources? Unfrotuantley not a ton of secondary sources are available for this topic as it's fairly niche — an issue which also affects VATSIM GeorgeHav (talk) 23:36, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

It's still class C due to cleanup problems, the main one being heavily reliance on primary sources. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:59, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough. I assume the fact that there isn't really that many secondary sources for this topic isn't justification to allow excusing that? GeorgeHav (talk) 00:16, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

@GeorgeHav: Lack of secondary sources suggests that the topic is not notable and is a candidate for deletion, actually. Or, over-reliance on primary sources suggests a violation of our policy on undue weight, which would require cleanup. In any case, a class C article is one that may have cleanup issues, and as long as it has cleanup issues (as indicated by the template) it is class C the way the assessment scale defines it. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:29, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Avoiding edit warring during discussion

Hello Teahouse, I hope you're all well!

A month ago, I noticed an omission in the history of my town and decided to become a wikipedia editor to correct it. Another editor critiqued my edit and gave some advice, so I adjusted accordingly and republished, but we keep going back and forth with me trying to improve the contribution and then reverting my changes. I opened a discussion on the talk page to reach a resolution. In the meantime, which version of the page should stay up? I don't want to engage in an edit war with repeated undo-ing.

Here is the page in question: Elmira, Ontario. Jbaribeau (talk) 01:09, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Killing of [victim] Vs Murder of [victim] Vs something else

I'm a bit confused about when it's appropriate to use certain titles. The flowchart from WP:DEATHS seems pretty straightforward, but I've been following the discussions on the talk pages of Killing of Iryna Zarutska and Shooting of Charlie Kirk, and things don't quite add up for me. According to WP:MURDEROF, it says: "Where reliable sources establish that a murder occurred, an article may be titled 'Murder of [Victim]' even if no suspect is identified or prosecuted." But doesn't that directly contradict WP:DEATHS, which suggests the title should only include "murder" if someone has actually been convicted? Emac07 (talk) 01:16, 11 September 2025 (UTC)