The Teahouse is frequentlysemi-protected, meaning the Teahouse pages cannot be edited byunregistered users, as well as accounts that are notconfirmed orautoconfirmed (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.Use this link to ask for help; a volunteer will reply to you there shortly.
I need to find the Worcester-born female artist whose brother was a sculptor of wild felines and whose work was admired by Whistler. Can someone help?I want to create a description of myself in real wikipedia. Not in the sandbox . How do I do it? Can somebody help meMykeljackson (talk)02:36, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make a user page follow what the user above commented, if you want to make an article about yourself then I’m afraid that isn’t possible, Wikipedia doesn’t allow (most of the time) articles about oneself, especially if they have no sources.Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk)13:24, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've been tempted to ask the same thing. If I one day become notable enough for a wikipedia article, perhaps I could be that mythical wikipedian that got an autobiography in mainspacemgjertson (talk) (contribs)19:41, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think if an individual is famous enough they should be able to edit their page (but not start it, someone else has to deem it notable), because if I had a Wikipedia page I would want to edit it with my own personal info which I have lived through, which might not be out in public knowledge.Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk)19:52, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@KeyolTranslater On the contrary, you provide an excellent example of why Wikipedia does NOT want people editing their own article. Everything in an article must be based on published references, so anything "not out in public knowledge" would be inappropriate content and should be removed.Madam Fatal (talk)20:33, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That’s a tricky question, especially as people in history have some such, I think if there is evidence you can prove (birth certificate, family testimonies and overall timeline correlation) then I think it’s ok. For example if my Wikipedia article said “Born on dd/mm/yy “ and it was incorrect or missing information and I added “Born on dd/mm/yyin London” and if I could prove it then I think that should be allowed, but is it a tricky subject I will give you that.Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk)11:05, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
birth certificate for most famous people their birth date is already known.
family testimonies they could also make stuff up to make you look better.
overall timeline correlation not sure what that means...
Either way, if there is enough evidence to add it onto that article throughreliable sources, then you wouldn't need the subject to write it themselves.
Usually the birth date is known but usually not the birthplace (unless they’ve mentioned it in a biography, interview etc.)
Overall timeline correlation meant that if I edited my page as a famous person and out my birthplace as Cambridge for example, and there is evidence to say I went to nursery in Cambridge then that’s timeline correlation (which I know is an assumption but I thought I might as well add it in).
(which I know is an assumption but I thought I might as well add it in) that's calledWP:OR. You probably need a longer answer for why the rule exists, perhaps you can take a look at theWP:ORSOURCE essay.
However I completely understand you and this was more of a general discussion as opposed to me actually having a wiki page, I’m not that relevant (yet) I wish you the best of luck! I hope you will make it someday.Wikieditor662 (talk)16:37, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am slightly confused about how to deal with user conduct issues (incivility, persistent personal attacks and accusations, false claims) in the early stages
When I look at the dispute resolution pages, as I have unfortunately had to in recent times thanks to being attacked by a particular individual multiple times on a page we both want to work on, I see most of them are about conduct disputes. It says to go to theAdministrator's Noticeboard for conduct issues, but on there it says: "This page is forurgent incidents andchronic, intractable behavioral problems."
But this is not urgent and the issues in conduct have primarily (though not exclusively) come through two 'tranches' of comments and incorrect reversions, as well as general rude, dismissive, and falsely accusatory conduct in a content dispute resolution process which is less important. So three overall, but two of them were linked. That is to say: what is the lower-end dispute resolution step AFTER the talk page but BEFORE the Admin's Noticeboard.
I have tried asking nicely for them to change their conduct because they were falsely accusing me of not providing sources (which was, and is, demonstrably and objectively false) and being generally rude + attacking me personally using personal insults. They just continued.
I left a message on their talk page but they just deleted it.
What next? I feel like I'm missing a step beforehand because it cannot be solved informally (as I have tried...) yet it feels it has not reached the point of it being "urgent" or "intractable".
Thank you in advance. I wont name and shame here because I don't want to drag the whole silly problem into here. I just want them to leave me alone, stop accusing me of false things (that often show they haven't actually read what I've put but have just deleted anything that I've done or disregarded my words), and stop deleting my stuff. In the most recent case, they accused me of this, that, or the other, then immediately agreed with my position in reply to someone else which...makes me extra confident their conduct is problematic.
For content disputes, you can get a third opinion viaWP:3O orWP:DRN. For edit warring, you can post a case atWP:AN3, and if these content dispute escalate into personal attacks or long-term behaviour issues, that's whereWP:ANI comes in.Athanelar (talk)22:20, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Athanelar,
Thank you. The issue in question is personal attacks, but not long-term issues, only a few incidents over, like, 4 days. And the attacks are, while personal and I would argue false, based on Wikipedia conduct (false accusations, attacking my contributions, a sort general rudeness that I notice has been called out on their talk page--and promptly deleted--multiple times before, not reading contributions and, in my personal view, not engaging in good-faith discussion, though I have tried my best not to say it). Is that ANI-worthy? I don't know. I can't really see much else when they just inta-revert anything on their talk page and, despite me asking, haven't gone to my talk page to raise the issues they have with me, as I have asked for multiple times to (A) get it off the talk page of the article and (B) to see if there is anything I actually can improve on.
If they're personally attacking you and refusing to productively engage with you on talk pages that's a communication behaviour issue, and yes, both of those are ANI-worthy.Athanelar (talk)22:29, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll make myself known here. There's been no "personal attacks" towards them, but during discussions on an article talk page they were informed of our policy that you shouldn't insert content without a reliable source and that you shouldn't insert preferred wording against consensus. They havetaken this as a personal attack and instead insulted several editors as being bad faith actors because we civilly disagreed with their viewpoint (just one example[1]).
I've actually gone so far as to point out that if anything it's the people they're accusing of being bad faith who are being very patient here because if it did go to ANI (as they basically keep insinuating) it'd probably be a very quickWP:BOOMERANG so should take the chance to stop assuming bad faith because of disagreement.Rambling Rambler (talk)22:37, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would refer to the comment above for what I am talking about: quite aggressively chasing through multiple topics (including false reversions, most recently on the Penny Mordaunt page, as he should see that The Express, while not a great source by (Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources), is not meant to be removed ipso facto!) and refusing, despite multiple pleas, to engage on my talk page, preferring to clog up things like this. I would encourage him to go through my talk page then to ANI if he feels I am so unscrupulous.
I have at times reacted with too much frustration and I have sought to correct this by strike-throughing when my comments were perhaps too abraisive. I am not perfect.
I will now construct info for ANI as it is clear Mr Rambler does not intend on engaging constructively. Thank for your support Athanelar. I think it is best to close and lock this thread now.LevatorScapulaeSyndrome (talk)22:40, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the case, give them enough rope and they'll hang themselves. Let them make their ANI case, have uninvolved editors judge everyone's behaviour, and they'll catch their boomerang if they need to. If there's unresolvable behavioural (not content) dispute here, ANI's the best place for it.Athanelar (talk)22:43, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Rambling Rambler I don't see any remark rising to the level of uncivil by LSS in that talk page comment that you linked. I've also scanned the dispute on the talk page and all I see is a squabble. But your response here does raise to me the specter of following.
@LevatorScapulaeSyndrome I don't think you're going to get far on ANI. ANI doesn't determine content dispute and, to succeed at ANI, it's best to be blameless, which will be difficult if you've been passionate or angry beforehand because that will likely have influenced your actions. Your first edit was sourced but the second source was twitter, which isn't a reliable source. Your second edit wasn't sourced at all (maybe you forgot to reinsert the first source). In any event, you seem to be trying to convince people of something and failing to persuade them or to prove your point. If I understand the dispute, this seems to be about whether the party can be said to have any MPs at the moment or whether those MP still belong to other parties? If it were me, I'd step away. The amount of time you've all spent arguing over a number on a page really doesn't seem worth it and the issue should resolve itself soon.MmeMaigret (talk)00:23, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mmemaigret it's not exactly "following" when at the same time they were commenting here they were pinging my talk page claiming I was "making false accusations" about them so it was the first thing I saw.Rambling Rambler (talk)00:46, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also I'd argue thatI think you have approached it in bad faith and have behaved uncivilly, so there is no 'end to the argument', rather, it is simply exhausted by two people poisoning the well by making false accusations based on their unwillingness to read a couple of comments and their links is anything but "civil".Rambling Rambler (talk)01:06, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dear MmeMaigret,
Thank you for your contribution.
I definitely understand where you are coming from. To be clear, the original source (Twitter) was the guy himself saying he was stepping down, it wasn't a secondary source, so you couldn't get more reliable, is my impression. Primary sources are allowed on Wikipedia, though I obviously wouldn't have cared if it was superceded by secondary sources in time. I would've welcomed it! With regard to the second edit, I was stupid and left out the source, but I stated where it was from and it would've been trivial to find it as it was even linked in the talk page at almost the same time. Do you not think (I ask this genuinely, not as a rhetorical question) it would be more appropriate to just enter the source rather than delete it all? It was also claimed that Novara is an "unreliable source" which is not something recognised on Wikipedia, especially when they have extensive sources on the British left and are very much among the premier reporters on Your Party.
I am not referring here to the more asinine dispute over the MPs which seems to be coming to a close, but his persistent harassment and uncivil attacks on me and, indeed, his following of my profile. I somehow doubt he happened upon this on his regular daily Teahouse checks, would you not agree? Now, granted, I did make a genuine mistake on the Penny Mordaunt article and I have fixed it since then, but it still indicates he is trawling my profile and 'following me about', though in that case I thanked him for his correction.He promptly deleted my attempted reconciliation on his talk page (which is fine in itself) with the very rude edit note that, for some reason, says it was "infantile passive aggressiveness"(!?) when I was actually just trying to patch things up and move on.He has deleted every attempt to communicate on his talk page with rude edit summaries, as he has with others in the past.
I frankly do not think what I have said in Rambler's highlighted comment is particularly uncivil, albeit it is admittedly a sign of frustration when I had provided multiple sources to which he and one other (whom I think has wisely disengaged from the whole thing now the dispute is resolving largely in a direction I argued for from the start...). I think, at the point where I have provided links and a coherent argument many times over and a user then angrily replies that I have no sources and no argument and makes it all very personal that I don't know what else I am meant to say, to be honest.
Where I have been imperfect in this whole pointless squabble I am unafraid to admit it, though I do not think I have done anything half as wrong as the other user considering they've followed me even to this page!!! If you read this Mx Rambler, I must politely ask to just--with all due respect--either take it to my talk page or just drop it and leave me in peace.
Finally, I would reiterate thatI have constantly tried to get Rambler to take this to my talk page and outline in full, with links etc, his (apologies if pronouns are wrong) issues with me. I have asked this multiple times, as I have tried to engage on his talk page, and he has refused to do so. All the while he is following me about and acting rather aggressively. It's making my experience of this site miserable, and, if I am to perhaps stretch slightly, making the whole thing stressful enough to induce silly mistakes like the one w/ Novara. I will adhere to your advice temporarily and not launch an ANI,but what I want to know @Mmemaigret is how can I get him to--in honesty--leave me alone or be willing to sort out his disagreements with me on my talk page maturely (as we are meant to do on Wikipedia) without that? I just want to move on from this. I wish I could block the user but obviously that's not how it works.
I thought your comment on his talk page seemed genuine but, if I read the time stamps correctly, you undid any goodwill with your reply on your talk page, and then he responded with a sarky/rude edit summary.
You can't force him to discuss on your talk page. Also, you tried that already. I would suggest you both cool it for a week and stay away from each other.
He can delete your comments from his talk page.
Try not to let it all get you down - there are problematic people on Wikipedia and, sometimes, you're the problematic person. You're learning what works and what doesn't work for the next time you're in a dispute.
Yes, I regret my reply there and I have since crossed it out becauseI acknowledge I was in the wrong, though I will note that at that point I had already asked without any snark many times over and I let my frustration get the better of me. That wasn't the start of the issue but was about 3/4 through it after he had behaved rudely for a few days beforehand (quite relentlessly, and even after the content dispute was effectively resolved as I wanted it).Because of that I will not do the ANI thing for at least a few weeks to see if it can resolve itself and so I can be clear that my own mistakes are not the causal factor in worsening the situation. I recognise he can delete comments but I was under the impression it's a faux pas if you're trying to resolve a dispute. I invited him to talk on my page if he didn't want his one clogged up as idc about my talk page, my profile, etc, as I have no ambitions of ever being a Wikipedia notable or whatever.
I have never initiated any interaction with him and I do not intend to do so. I just--God forbid--wanted to contribute to the Your Party page because it is of interest to me. Am I now excluded from it because it is 'his territory'? This feels fundamentally unfair, no? I will do so for 1 week upon your suggestion (I am very thankful for your honest advice) but I feel I have a right to do so. It feels, to me, that some editors are seeing certain articles as their 'fiefdom', as has been a long-recognised issue with Wikipedia for as long as I can remember. Wikipedia belongs to everyone, doesn't it?
--------
But, yes, I am keen to take your advice and I have made this thread in good faith, I hope it is appreciated.What does "stay away from him" mean in this context given it's a digital space? Do you just mean not contribute to the YP page? I cannot think of anything else.If that's your advice then I will follow it, because I just want to be left alone and to collaborate productively with people. I now feel I cannot do anything because someone is following me ready to pounce if I ever have an opinion, if I diverge from them on subjective Wikipedia policies (e.g., essays which aren't policy--e.g., there is nothing saying Novara is not a reliable source, and it seems eminently reasonable to me to say they are so on matters of Your Party), or if I dare tread on some unspoken 'patch of territory' that I'm not aware of. I feel I cannot even link to my contributions for fear some reason will be concocted to delete them all. I am fine with actual mistakes (as I fully admit I made on the Penny Mordaunt page) being deleted, but I'd still rather he not follow me around as if he's my supervisor!
As per your advice, I will not do the ANI. Despite my one (1) incorrect comment (against many by him...), I understand how it could've worsened things, andI hope that it is reasonable to say that if it continues after non-engagement on any of "his pages" (for that is how we must treat it, apparently...) for a couple of weeks that my one (1) comment, which I have since crossed through, would cease to be a contributory factor. Is that reasonable?
If I see continued engagement despite these proactive attempts to move on from this then I guess things change, but I hope that wont happen because, man, I really can't be bothered with it all, I just want to edit in peace and to work in a spirit of cooperation and friendliness with people. You can see on the article talk pages that he quite instantly begins making it personal, bringing up "my past" (as he interprets it), etc, and I don't want that.
Thank you for your advice and help. I genuinely appreciate it, and I'd always want you or anyone else to be honest even when I am in the wrong. God knows I'm not perfect.
@LevatorScapulaeSyndrome Regarding your statement "the original source (Twitter) was the guy himself saying he was stepping down, it wasn't a secondary source, so you couldn't get more reliable, is my impression" --- Your impression is actually incorrect.
Twitter is definitely regarded as "not at all reliable". People can, and do, make things up... And sometimes people say theywill do something but then they don't. Hence, secondary sources are vastly preferred, and you are extremely limited in what information you can use from primary sources. Not that it matters for sourcing, but did he actually step down?David10244 (talk)04:49, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit confused about what you mean to be honest because that's just how he formally announced it. "People make things up" I think it's doubtful that a politician with a national politician is going to be pranking people, right? I'm sorry, I'm unclear as to why a primary sources is not appropriate when it's published by them. From what I gather, primary sources are allowed for BLPs when they're self-published?
I don't understand here because I am of the impression what matters is the provenance of the source as a whole, and excluding a self-published primary sources because of the publishing location seems strange. Is there some sort of formal guidance on this? It makes absolutely zero sense to me, to be quite honest. It's his official account, this isn't just some rando on Twitter.
Thanks, I read through it. I get the overarching principle, but based on WP:ABOUTSELF it seems I was completely fine to use it, then. I think deleting it was wrong. I wont get hung up on it now there are secondary sources reporting it, but I'm glad to know for future reference.LevatorScapulaeSyndrome (talk)10:29, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Based on WP:ABOUTSELF it seems I was completely fine to use it, then. I think deleting it was wrong. I wont get hung up on it now there are secondary sources reporting it, but I'm glad to know for future reference.LevatorScapulaeSyndrome (talk)10:29, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The position that Wikipedia takes for a living person is to not include somethingunless we have sources for it. We are asking readers to trust the cited source rather than the editors working on the article. In the past, folks have put defamatory materials into Wikipedia articles either as pranks or mistakes without a source to back it up. Thestandard for content on living people is higher standard that what we have for, say, mountains or trains. While the situation describe above may have become frustrating in many ways, the best advice is probably just to move on rather than to further focus on the interpersonal conflict.Rjjiii (talk)03:24, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@~2025-34203-54 As Hoary says, you don't have to understand everything on this page. I started editing by reading articles at random, and I fixed misspellings when I saw them. As @ColinFine and others will tell you, creating anew article can be hard.David10244 (talk)05:42, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ColinFine, @Hoary Side note: The temporary account's ID is blue in their signature in the original question, but red in the replies. Similarly, clicking on the blue temporary ID takes me to their Ccontributions page, while clicking on the red links gives me (as expected) a "no such page" page. I think I understand temporary accounts, but this is a bit confusing...David10244 (talk)01:27, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's pretty simple,David10244. The temporary account (TA) has no user page; thus a link to the user page is red. The TA has a list of contributions; thus a link to the list of contributions is blue. The TA's signature starts "~2025-34203-54", i.e.[[Special:Contributions/~2025-34203-54|~2025-34203-54]]. --Hoary (talk)01:50, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The entire process is unnecessarily overwhelming as if it was written by programmers without the input of everyday (non programming) users. So you are not alone. There are clearly some very knowledgeable people on here, and then some who just want to attack and berate you, but it is the system that is incredibly dated. Grantwatch, Wix and more, have figured out how to vette people who know what they are doing, and put them within the system for hire, so new people don't have to learn such a convoluted, bizarre system just to get something in. You say "hire" on these threads and all you hear back is how you are a scam, they are a scam, asking that is a scam and on and on. So you are left trying to comprehend a system that is overly complicated, for no obvious reason, that perhaps has never been updated and is incredibly antiquated. It breeds separation of the "insiders" and the "outsiders" unfortunately, when it is totally unnecessary.SmoothLanding (talk)09:44, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SmoothLanding, the problem is that users who want an article written are usually hoping for a positive article about their company or themselves. They do not understand what it takes toqualify for a Wikipedia article, and they want a guarantee that if they pay, an article will appear (and remain on Wikipedia) that matches what they would like to see. No one can make that guarantee: most companies and people are not notable, and if theyare notable then anything they do may end up in the article about them - includingthings they don't want. Notability standards can also change and mean articles are removed.
Experienced editors may, if they choose, offer their services for pay. Experienced editors also know how futile it would be to try to write an article about 99% of the subjects that people are willing to pay for, and no one can ever promise that an article will remain live or that it will always be positive. There are lots of people whodo make those promises, but those are inevitablyscammers or inexperienced editors who think it must be easy to write a Wikipedia article. And that is why we warn people who want to hire an editor: it won't be an experienced, knowledgable user who offers their services, because those experienced users know they can't deliver what the hiring person wants. You are of course free to ignore this advice and hire someone if you want; we're just trying to help you avoid being scammed.Meadowlark (talk)12:17, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Meadowlark, I understand. But that is no different from Grantwatch. Nobody guarantees you will get the grant, and the agreement says that in fact. And if you don't have the criteria to fit the requirements in the beginning, evaluated initially, then an experienced grant writer or in this case, Wikipedia specialists, will reject it. That is just an initial checklist, no? If you can't meet it, then you can't go any further. It takes a shift in thinking. Lots of other kinds of entities do it with no problem. Nobody guarantees results on something that is not appropriate - and the entity, in this case Wikipedia, would better spend time monitoring that system, than his frustrating madness. As stands, legitimate entries are not making it in because of the utter madness of this process. That is worse to me, than spending some time revamping a broken system to work better. It can.SmoothLanding (talk)18:01, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't heard of Grantwatch until now: it seems to be a paid-for service with, as you say, no guarantee there will be a return to its users. I think that there is a reason that Wikipedia is in the top ten of Internet sites, although it does have a steep learning curve for those who wish to regularly add material. Most people just read what is written on the site and never make an edit themselves.Mike Turnbull (talk)18:19, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Turnbull, You are correct, it is a subscription service, but at the end of the process, the user expects to get money - a grant. And you are correct about using the site, as opposed to being an editor. That is the problem, contributing to it, and still, it could be quite different.SmoothLanding (talk)19:00, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A few "Wikipedia Articles about Wikipedia" are outdated. I assume they aren't updated because there haven't been any secondary sources on something like this website reaching 7 million articles.Wikipedia:Size of Wikipedia has a page count but is completely unsourced for instance. The article onWikipedia has far, far too many primary sources than what would be considered allowed, but the majority of sources about Wikipedia are from Wikipedia or Wikimedia. Confusing I know.
I come to you today to ask if editing the page ofSherlock (TV series) is merited to include criticism of the series, which is currently minimal (and even then largely restricted to the near-universally panned fourth season). It has been criticised by many YouTubers in video essays over its plot, storytelling processes, characterisation, and faithfulness to source material, most prominently by hbomberguyhere.
An additional question would be on the merit of including arguments from YouTube video essays - and video influencers in general - about a particular topic. I see that hbomberguy's criticism of Tommy Tallarico - and coverage featuring the criticism - is mentioned in his Wiki page. If someone can direct me to the guidelines for that as well? Thanking you in advance.Srambled089 (talk)09:04, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think thats the best source used if you want to talk about criticism, it's really not credible and would give undue weight to an unreported viewpoint. The Tallarico situation is different, that 'video essay' was discussing legal issues and misleading claims rather than just "I don't like this show"aesurias (talk)09:07, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, thanks for the speedy response. I agree with you that the video essay is a subjective opinion, as most critiques are. That said, to say it is just "I don't like this show" is not valid; having seen the video, it does a point-by-point breakdown on multiple issues such as characterisation, plot, narrative devices employed, fan reception, media coverage, faithfulness to the original, etc. - all aspects typically covered by any critique published by notable publications.
You might agree or disagree with the conclusions drawn in it, but it doesn't skimp on the technicality. Nor is it unreported; the critique's viewpoint has been covered (both in agreement and opposition of the critique's assertion) inInverse andPaste Magazine,here andhere.
Maybe labelling it 'criticism' was an error on my part. I am not petitioning toadd a 'Criticism' section to the page but to add a few lines about the opinions mentioned in the video essay in the critical response section already present there.
I also have some follow-up questions, if you (or other experienced contributors) are inclined to answer:
- Paste, in particular, is known to take editorial responsibility for all content published on the platform, including contributor/freelance content, and is generally considered a reliable source for music by Wikipedia editors. Does that mean the reliability can be taken to also extend to the related field of entertainment?
- Are there any policies, guidelines, or discussions about referencing video essays - or the arguments for/against - that you can direct me to, to expand my understanding of this topic? That would be really helpful to me as a newer editor learning how to meaningfully contribute to this rich, large crowd-source project.Srambled089 (talk)11:02, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Those two sources are much more convincing and should be the focus of a potential 'Reception' (not criticism) section. They also estalish credibility for the points made in the YouTube video.aesurias (talk)11:26, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I'll make the tentative edits to the section soonish. When and if you are able, please do take a look and see if the changes are fine and compliant with the broader community. Thanks!Srambled089 (talk)12:13, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm finally making the changes, and I wanted to run something by you.
I had originally planned adding the criticism by Hbomberguy, referenced by Inverse and Paste in the links above, in the current 'critical response' section but, in research, more links have popped up that hint at a lasting legacy of reaction and reference to the show, both positive and negative, as well as some news and developments about the show's future thatshould be more helpful. I'll link some of the reportage below:
- Co-creator Mark Gatiss has denied the possibility of the shows revival:here andhere
- This review of the season 3 finale, His Last Vow:here
- One of the show's producers talking about a possible future movie or series as continuation (superseded by the Gatiss interview, but of note nonetheless):here
- As a benchmark/reference for other Sherlock-based adaptations:here,
- Benedict Cumberbatch speaking about the show's return:here
My main question is this: do you recommend adding all this to critical reception, or to add the critical response to the reception section and the other details in respective sections while also adding a small section for continued public/media interest in the series?
Also, Collider as a publication has a lot of coverage about the show, and I'm not certain as to its notability and reliability as a source for Wikipedia as it is not mentioned on thePerennial Sources list; it does seem to have editorial control over even contributor pieces, however.Srambled089 (talk)20:14, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Having noted one reason for an article being disallowed, that being "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.” I have recently had one article brought to my attention that is in danger of breaching such rules. Perhaps one of you lovely people would be so kind as to take a look. There is also a considerable discrepancy between the UK and the German versions. I believe the English version is more factual. English:Florian Bollen - German:de:Florian Bollen.Montrose78 (talk)11:43, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Montrose78, and welcome to the Teahouse. Thank you for noticing this and pointing it out.
Unfortunately, we have thousands of articles which do not meet our current standards for sourcing. (Seeother stuff exists for why we will not accept that as an argument for accepting new undersourced articles).
If you find such an article, there are a few things you can do:
You can decide to improve the article, by looking for sources and adding them (and trimming unsourced material from the article); or if you conclude that sufficient sources to establishnotability do not exist, you can nominate the article fordeletion. Obviously, this is can be a lot of work, but it isby far the most valuable thing you can do about that article.
You cantag the article with tags such as{{more sources}} which give notice to readers and to those who are looking for tasks to help with that the article needs work. This is sometimes referred to as "drive-by tagging", and some editors disapprove; but I confess that I often do it myself. (If you're going to be doing this a lot, thetwinkle tool is helpful).
You can mention it on an appropriateWikiProject - some WikiProjects even maintain a list of articles needing work. Depending on how important the members of that WikiProject think this subject is, somebody may take on the task. (If you don't know which WikiProject to choose, look at the article's talk page: it will often have a box linking to one or more WikiProjects at the top).
You can mention it on a page such as this on, as you have done. The chance of somebody picking it up is probably small, but you've done something.
You can do nothing and move on. There is no demand that you "do something": all editors are free to work on exactly what they choose.
These messages appear at the top of Higherlife Foundation article, how do I fix the issues in order to clear them?
The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for companies and organizations. (November 2025)This article reads like a press release or a news article and may be largely based on routine coverage. (November 2025) Colette2204 (talk)12:09, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Essentially both of those notices are saying that the article doesn't have enoughgood sources demonstrating that the subject of the article meets thecorporate notability guidelines and that many of the current sources are what we calltrivial coverage
Thank you for your guidance, I am editing on behalf of Higherlife Foundation as part of work with Twine Connect (Pty) Ltd. I am following Wikipedia’s conflict of interest guidelines. Please give further clarity here regarding the COI.Colette2204 (talk)14:09, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply, I don't understand how I am in COI when it is declared that I am editing on behalf of Higherlife Foundation as part of work with Twine Connect (Pty) Ltd - my employer. Please help explain further?~2025-35086-01 (talk)10:37, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply, I don't understand how I am in COI when it is declared that I am editing on behalf of Higherlife Foundation as part of work with Twine Connect (Pty) Ltd - my employer. Please help explain further?Colette2204 (talk)10:41, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone with any relationship to the Foundation - business or personal - is in a conflict of interest when writing about them. Because the Foundation pays your employer, your employer has an obligation to the Foundation. Because your employer pays you to advertise for the Foundation, you have an obligation to both of them.
hello i am jakub bernat and i am an ordinary little boy and today i am writing this question towards wikipedia as i wish to explore further into the history and background surrounding the infamous war game that goes by the name of hearts of iron iv (hoi4 for short) made by the excellent team from paradox interactive. now without much talking lets get into the long awaited and much expected question we have all been waiting for... who is john paradox?~2025-34392-96 (talk)12:59, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is a page for asking for help with using Wikipedia, rather than for general information. We have an articleHearts of Iron IV: does that answer your question?
But if what you're looking for is a fannish discussion about some interesting unsolved questions within the game, then I'm afraid that there is nowhere in Wikipedia that is appropriate for that kind of convesatiopn.ColinFine (talk)13:22, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's kind of a running gag, a community name that popped up for a character in Victoria 3. Since it creates a company called John Paradox and Company with the CEO of Paradox named, it's likely a reference to Johan Andersson, who created Paradox a long time ago.CoffeeCrumbs (talk)16:35, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have a conflict of interest in this section. I am Laura Vanessa Nunes mother, the woman who died by suicide from the 148th floor of the Burj Khalifa on 16 November 2014. I would like to change 'On 18 May 2015, Dubai police disputed a report that a Portuguese tourist named Laura Vanessa Nunes fell to her death from the Burj Khalifa the prior 16 November, claiming that she fell from theJumeirah Lake Towers.' back to 'TheDaily Mail reported that on 16 November 2014, a Portuguese national who was in Dubai on a tourist visa, fell to her death from Burj Khalifa's "At the Top" observation deck on the 148th floor. However, on 18 May 2015, Dubai police disputed the report made by theDaily Mail on this incident and said that this incident took place inJumeirah Lakes Towers."
As it is worded now the date of her death is ambiguous, 'the prior 16 November'.
I also requested that the forensic report be added as it is official confirmation of Laura's death by the Government of Dubai, where it states her body was found on the 3rd floor of the Burj Khalifa. It was issued by the Government of Dubai. Because of my conflict of interest I cannot add this.
This is important as the Government of Dubai denies that she fell from the Burj Khalifa.
Don't you think that by using that by saying 'On 18 May 2015, Dubai police disputed a report that a Portuguese tourist named Laura Vanessa Nunes fell to her death from the Burj Khalifa the prior 16 November', the actual date of Laura's death becomes ambiguous, and that in search results her date of death is 18May 2015?
In that particular Daily Mail article they did research and viewed the forensic report which I sent to Rob Davies, into my daughter's death, issued by the Government of Dubai, whereby her body was found on the 3rd floor of the Burj Khalifa.~2025-34711-18 (talk)15:40, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you're saying about the Daily Mail, even though they viewed the forensic report into Laura's death.
1. As I have a conflict of interest, and I know that wikipedia likes facts and stands for the truth, I would like the truth to be told about my daughter's death. The Government of Dubai denies that Laura fell to her death from the Burj Khalifa. I have in my possession the forensic report stating that her body was found on the 3rd floor of the Burj Khalifa, issued by the Government of Dubai, and sent to me.
I would like to dispute the misinformation which is coming from Dubai, and that her death was officially confirmed by the Government of Dubai, when they issued the forensic report. Who can insert this? I can send you the report so that you can verify it. It is a very important document.
The Portuguese Government confirmed her death from the 148th floor of the Burj Khalifa, in terms of the FOI Act of Portugal with information given to them by the Dubai Police. This is official confirmation from Portugal, but not from Dubai.
2. In an article by Gulf News following the Daily Mail article, the Dubai Police stated that Laura fell to her death from her 14th-floor apartment at Jumeirah Lakes Towers. Laura had not been staying there. She had been staying in Room 309 Abidos Hotel Apartments Dubai. I have the invoices which the hotel sent to me and which the Dubai Police removed when they visited the hotel, again, nearly three months after her death. I can send you the invoices too.
I would like to dispute that Laura was living at Jumeirah Lakes Towers, and dispute that she fell from there. Who can insert the invoices and the information?
All I would like to see on Wikipedia and other sources,is the truth about my daughter's death.
I have just logged into my Wikipedia account and am not sure whether you received my latest requests so I'm adding them here again.
I understand what you're saying about the Daily Mail, even though they viewed the forensic report into Laura's death.
1. As I have a conflict of interest, and I know that wikipedia likes facts and stands for the truth, I would like the truth to be told about my daughter's death. The Government of Dubai denies that Laura fell to her death from the Burj Khalifa. I have in my possession the forensic report stating that her body was found on the 3rd floor of the Burj Khalifa, issued by the Government of Dubai, and sent to me.
I would like to dispute the misinformation which is coming from Dubai, and that her death was officially confirmed by the Government of Dubai, when they issued the forensic report. Who can insert this? I can send you the report so that you can verify it. It is a very important document.
The Portuguese Government confirmed her death from the 148th floor of the Burj Khalifa, in terms of the FOI Act of Portugal with information given to them by the Dubai Police. This is official confirmation from Portugal, but not from Dubai.
2. In an article by Gulf News following the Daily Mail article, the Dubai Police stated that Laura fell to her death from her 14th-floor apartment at Jumeirah Lakes Towers. Laura had not been staying there. She had been staying in Room 309 Abidos Hotel Apartments Dubai. I have the invoices which the hotel sent to me and which the Dubai Police removed when they visited the hotel, again, nearly three months after her death. I can send you the invoices too.
I would like to dispute that Laura was living at Jumeirah Lakes Towers, and dispute that she fell from there. Who can insert the invoices and the information?
All I would like to see on Wikipedia and other sources,is the truth about my daughter's death.
Hi all, I tried to submit an article about a well known figure in the music industry, and it was rejected because I'm not citing it correctly apparently. I also don't know why it rejected the links to news sources, and unlinked them, etc. My head hurts from tying to understand this. Part of the information comes from personal interviews with the subject, a former VP of Promotions for Epic Records, responsible for bringing the singer Sade to America, and pushing Michael Jackson's album Thriller to the top of the charts. The rest are from news sources, though there are more available. Clearly I'm doing it wrong. The information is solid. The citations, etc. are clearly not.
Hi @SmoothLanding. A cursory read of your draft: it is written entirely inappropriately for Wikipedia. It's written like a blog post, or an autobiography, or a magazine feature: not a neutral purely descriptive encyclopedic article. It genuinely needs a total re-write, from scratch. Please carefully have a read ofWikipedia:Neutral point of view andWikipedia:Words to avoid.
You're a brand new editor attempting to create an article as your first ever action on Wikipedia. Creating an srticle is by far one of the most complex and difficult tasks for any editor to undertake, let alone someone brand new.
The best advice to give you right now is for you to give up, get involved in editing existing articles and participating in discussions for a few weeks to get some clue as to how Wikipedia works, and approach the project with more information at a later date. If you don't knowhow to cite references you shouldn't be making an article yet.Athanelar (talk)19:38, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks. I'll read it again - the Neutral POV and words to avoid.
I don't understand the "avoid promotional citations" part as that was his position at Epic Records though. He was Vice President of Promotions in fact, like Barack Obama was President of the United States.
"Promotional citations" refers to the citing of material which was written or is included in the draft to promote (publicise, praise, advertise)the subject (Thompkins), rather than neutrally document him. It has nothing to do with his coincidentally having a job and job title involving promoting things. Wikipedia specifically forbids its being used toWP:Promote anything. Hope this helps. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195}~2025-31359-08 (talk)19:54, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@~2025-34345-83: To the unregistered user, not the original poster of this thread: Hello there. You have posted "Hi" on a few pages. Wikipedia is not like Twitter or Facebook. It is an encyclopedia, and discussions are for the purpose of improving the encyclopedia. Please don't continue to post chat-type messages on Wikipedia. ThanksDavid10244 (talk)05:44, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you (to whoever is doing it) for putting the notes on the editing page for this article, many asking for source references. It is helping me understand how to correct some of this.
Part of the reason that I wrote the entry was because there is so little formal information about this man anywhere, and no books written about his life other than his own book. I didn't reference it because I wan't sure it would be considered legitimate, though it is completely. Also on Wikipedia, there are several people taking credit for work I know he did because I followed his career since he launched Natalie Cole's career in the 1970s, and that needs to be corrected. So how is that dealt with? Keep in mind that the City of Houston would not have given this man his own day, and President Biden would not have given him an award, were he not real and his accomplishments not important. He is a stickler for accuracy and not claiming anything that he did not actually do.
That is part of the problem. He is an unsung hero. Much of the information was taken from a series of interviews I conducted with him, because that is the only source for it. Someone said before that I wrote it like a magazine article. I'll own that, since I did write for Upscale and other magazines and entertainment publications for years.
Also, I read the Phil Specter for a long time before writing this article, and tried to follow the tone of it, which apparently from some of the comments, I did not accomplish.
Part of the reason that I wrote the entry was because there is so little formal information about this man anywhere, and no books written about his life other than his own book. You're falling into a common fallacy here; if there's no published information about the man, that's exactly why thereshouldn't be a Wikipedia article about him. Wikipedia is a tertiary source, all we do is collate information which is already published in secondary sources. We do not publishoriginal information. Our role is not to broaden the available information about a subject, it's to concentrate and summarise it. Even if someone could be considered notable by their achievements, if there simply aren't anyreliable, independent, secondary sources to draw from, then we can't make an article.Athanelar (talk)14:45, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
None of that is true. He is well known, just not well documented in an historical, collected manner, which is what I'm thing to do..
I really need some thinking help in this, not just repeat of some rules that do not apply please.
This is him. The 6 foot 7 man in that photo with Michael Jackson, Sade, and Boy George .
But acccording to the constant repeated comments, this is not a source that would be allowed, right? That is the problem.
It would be very helpful if you folks who understand Wikipedia would actually help me address the REAL problem, not the perceived problem. He is exactly who I said he is. I am not an idiot. If you have a solution that pertains, that would be helpful. This test for "reliable" is the problem here, not his existence or importance. Can you help with that please? The problem is that he never cared about chronicling his journey, and a lot of other people have taken credit. It needs to be addressed and his story needs to be told. Isn't that actually the point?
And I truly hope this is not actually true, because it says much about Wikipedia and their definition of ''reliable.":
Hi again @SmoothLanding. I actually think that source is fine? It is a reliable source, it provides some significant coverage of him, and it has a little bit of independent analysis. It's not a really strong source - as it is mostly quoting the book - but it's not a terrible source.qcne(talk)19:40, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi qcne, Do you mind taking a look at the article now to see if I'm on the right track? I am trying to track down some other articles written at the time he was most active. I know the article is still heavy on the project listings. I can rewrite it to put it in the body if needed, but honestly, I thought it would make more sense to keep them listed like they are since he was always in promotions, just different phases of it, and he didn't have "colorful" like like Phil Specter - whose entry is long. His has a lot to do with his prison time, assaults, etc. TC's life was really about the work and catapulting some major musicians of our time into the spotlight.
He is well known, just not well documented in an historical, collected manner, which is what I'm thing to do.. Again, the point of Wikipedia is to summarise information which hasalready been published in secondary sources. If those secondary sources do not exist, there is no material for a Wikipedia article. As for him being 'well known,'fame does not necessarily mean someone is 'notable' in the Wikipedia sense of that word.
But acccording to the constant repeated comments, this is not a source that would be allowed, right? That is the problem. That source is a press release about the publishing of his book and largely consists of quotes from the man himself. Again, seethe golden rule for what a good source should contain.
The problem is that he never cared about chronicling his journey, and a lot of other people have taken credit. It needs to be addressed and his story needs to be told. Isn't that actually the point?
No, the point of Wikipedia is most certainly not to make sure somebody's story is told. We call thatpromotion. The point of Wikipedia, as I've said, is simply tosummarise information that has already been published about a subject. It isnot to publish new information where that information is lacking. You're explicitly saying that you're trying to create this article to 'tell' this man's story because nobody else has done it before; but if nobody else has done it before then there's nothing to make a Wiki article about, because a Wikipedia article shouldsummarise already-published information. I understand the frustration you're having, but if the information hasn't already been published in a reliable, independent, secondary source then you can't include it in a Wikipedia article, except for limited use of primary sources tocorroborate simple biographical data and the likes.
And I truly hope this is not actually true, because it says much about Wikipedia and their definition of "reliable.": You're simply fundamentally misunderstanding the purpose of an encyclopedia. Would you go to the publishers of a travel guide and argue they should include a small town with no tourist attractions? Would you go to the publishers of a business directory and argue they should include some random person's home address? Wikipedia is anencyclopedia. It has a particular purpose and function, and that purpose is to act as a tertiary source which summarises information available in secondary sources.Athanelar (talk)19:44, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply. Much has been illuminated with this process, including my rethinking of my donations to Wikipedia yearly, and my understanding of why less than 8% (or whatever the figure I can't remember right now) of users donate to the foundation, and why they are constantly begging for money.
I'm a volunteer editor the same as you, I have no connection with the Wikimedia foundation or any involvement with where their donation funding goes, so I'm not sure what you hope to achieve by telling me this.Athanelar (talk)20:07, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not directed to you specifically. Truly thinking about this experiment that Wikipedia actually is, and how it is working and not. Being in the workings of it is highlighting how it is not.
I will say this though. This is the actual definition of an encyclopedia.
with this line illuminating some things but is not its sole purpose:
" Articles onbreaking news are often accessed as sources for up-to-date information about those events.'"
Since Thompkins is nearly 80 years old, everything about him is historical in nature. So there won't be many current articles/data about him at this point, other than his book, and the way the world actually works now, through people who have found him and want to interview him through social media networks. That is reality, and does not reduce his importance or legitimacy.
Something about your examples seems to be thinking in terms of current events it seems, but that's not all Wikipedia is from their description, or should be.
Articles on breaking news are only a very small part of Wikipedia, SmoothLanding (and seeWP:NOTNEWS). Historical topics are in many ways Wikipedia's bread and butter. There's no requirement for "current articles/data" on a topic - contemporaneous sources are fine.Cordless Larry (talk)20:45, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I recently createdDraft:RentalReady, but it was declined with the note that it reads too much like an advertisement and lacks independent, reliable sources. I’d really appreciate any hints or tips on how to improve the draft so that it meets Wikipedia’s standards. Could anyone advise me how I can better structure the article to fit an encyclopedic tone? ThanksAxcont (talk)12:38, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@DollarStoreBaal44, that is not good advice. Adding negative information isn't the magic ingredient. What is needed is for the company to meet the criteria atWP:NCORP, with specific attention to what isnot useful in terms of demonstrating notability atWP:CORPTRIV. Please don't try to answer questions when you don't know the answers; it only confuses people and makes it harder for them to succeed.Meadowlark (talk)20:44, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's okay, I get that - it's naturally to want to help. At the moment you're very new and there's a lot of things you won't know, but the good news is that there are lots of other people here who can answer questions too! Spending time here is great for new editors, you'll very soon begin to learn which questions are common and what the answers are - andwhere the answers are, which is also very useful. Just leave any questions you aren't totally confident you know the answers to, and come back to see what other editors have said. :)Meadowlark (talk)02:10, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you write what the company wants people to know, then it will almost certainly come over as an ad. 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 inreliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establishnotability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources.
Very brief summary of how to do it:
Find several sources where people wholly unconnected with the company have chosen to write in some depth about the company, and been published in reliable publications. Ignore anything that emanates from the company or its representatives (including anything based on interviews or press releases). Ignore anything that isCORPTRIV. Check each proposed source againstall the criteria ingolden rule.
If you haven't got several such sources, give up and do something else.
If you have, set asideeverything that you personally know about the company, and write a neutral summary of what those independent sources say. If they leave out something you think is important: tough. If they say something the company does not like: tough.
My earnest advice to new editors is to not eventhink 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 asverifiability,neutral point of view,reliable, independent sources, andnotability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (theBold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to readyour 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 applies even where there isn't a conflict of interest.ColinFine (talk)14:42, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, westrongly discourage editors from creating or editing articles relating to subjects they have a connection to, especially in the case of corporations and organisations where this usually takes the form ofpaid editing. If you still wish to proceed, please thoroughly read everything below.
Warning against COI editing
First and foremost this is because conflict of interest editing often results in issues with theneutral point of view expected on Wikipedia, due to biases whether consciously or unconsciously. While you may notintend to be biased, the types of information you include or exclude from an article are likely to be skewed by your connection to the subject. It's also very common for conflicts of interest to result inpromotional writing such as advertisement-like articles for companies or resume-like articles for people. You may innocently intend to 'raise awareness' or 'correct misinformation' about the subject, but this isstill promotion, and promotion of any kind is not allowed on Wikipedia.
People with conflicts of interest tend to be very bad at gauging whether the thing they're writing about meetsWikipedia's notability guidelines. In order for a subject to have a Wikipedia article it needs to be 'notable,' which is a word that has a particular and slightly unintuitive meaning here on Wikipedia. There are a number of different criteria for notability depending on the subject, such asthe 'general' notability guidelines, theguidelines for notability of companies or organisations, thenotability of creative professionals etc.The vast majority of people and companies are not notable in the Wikipedia sense, and do not warrant a Wikipedia article about them. A good rule of thumb is that if a person or company is notable enough to justify a Wikipedia article, then soon enough somebody else will write it for them, and there's no need to do it yourself. So if you're here to write an article about yourself or someone or something connected to you, it's generally a good indicator that the subject does not yet meet Wikipedia's notability requirements. A special note is necessary here thatChatGPT and other AIs do not understand Wikipedia notability. It's very common for COI-writing newcomers to get themselves confused because they ask ChatGPT whether they should write an article about themselves/their company and it spits out a few trivial sources and claims that these sources constitute 'notability.' You need to thoroughly read the notability guidelines relating to the subject you want to write about and make sure you understand whether the available sources support the notability of the subject. Do not try to take shortcuts by asking an AI, it will likely be wrong.
It's very common that articles written by those connected to the subject end up being writtenbackwards. This means that you first write the article with everything you know about the subject due to your connection to it, and then try to find sources to confirm the information you've written.This is the wrong way to write a Wikipedia article. As an encyclopedia, the purpose of Wikipedia is to summarise theexisting information available about a subject inreliable, independent secondary sources. The goal is not topresent new information or tosynthesise multiple existing sources to provide new conclusions. When writing an article you mustfirst search for sources relating to the subject (appropriate sources, those meeting thegolden rule) andonly include information in the article which is written in the sources. You may well know information about the subject which is not available in any of the existing sources, but youmust not include this kind of 'original research' in your article. It is understandably frustrating to want to provide certain information and not be able to, but that is the limitation of writing for an encyclopedia, and precisely why we strongly discourage people from writing about subjects they are connected to.If the existing sources don't say it, you can't put it in an article.
You should also keep in mind that having an article about yourself, your company etc isnot always a good thing. You (or the person or company you're writing on behalf of) do not own the article, and cannot control what is in it. If you're writing about this company because you're an employee and your boss or colleagues have asked you to do it, then please thoroughly readWP:BOSS and report the information therein back to them.
If after reading all of that, you still think you can go ahead and beat the odds and create this article, then follow the steps below.
Writing a COI article
First, and most important, you need to disclose your conflict of interest. There are instructions on how to do this atWP:COI If your conflict of interest involves being paid to create this article, you should follow the instructions atWP:PAID to disclose that also.
Next, heed what I said above about not writing an article backwards. You need toforget everything you know about the subject of the article, which is obviously the most difficult part. Search Google and elsewhere for sourcesfirst. Remember that those sources need to bereliable, independent and secondary. Avoidtrivial coverage such as listicles, especially when writing about companies as this type ofday-to-day corporate coverage is very common. The sources you use need to actually prove the subject's notability (according to the most relevant guidelines) as I discussed above, which passing/trivial coverage does not. If you use ChatGPT or another AI to find sources for you (which you shouldn't), youmust double-check the sources yourself andverify that they actually say what the AI claims they do, because source-to-text inconsistencies are extremely common when using LLMs to search for sources.
Once that's done, you can extract information from the sources and write your article. For guidance on that, followHelp:Your first article and feel free to ask any more specific questions here at the Teahouse.
Hi! I'm requesting help to publish a Wikipedia article about M. Sai Deep — an Indian motorcycle racer and EV influencer with significant media coverage in Indian and U.S. outlets. I have a full article draft with citations from major sources like The Hans India, Hybiz TV, and BIF Today. He's the founder of MSD Racing – NorCal and co-founder of the World SBK Mahi Racing Team India.
I also can't find such a draft. I wonder if you've been creating it outside Wikipedia?
If so, I strongly recommend that you create a draft usingarticles for creation, and paste your text in there, and then submit it for review.
Having said that, My earnest advice to new editors is to not eventhink 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 asverifiability,neutral point of view,reliable, independent sources, andnotability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (theBold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to readyour 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)16:20, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, and welcome to the Teahouse.
Making a new article is one of the most challenging things to do on Wikipedia, even for experienced editors. It requires a robust understanding of policies and guidelines likenotability andneutral point of view, as well as technical skills likefinding and citing sources and formatting your article in accordance with themanual of style. It's not something we recommend new editors try to do right away.
I would strongly advise that you first spend a while (at least a couple of weeks) participating in discussions here at the Teahouse and at noticeboards, asking questions, and editing already-existing articles to build the knowledge and skills I've mentioned above, and then come back to the article creation process later.
Can any reviewer help this article has not not been approved for the past 3 months last time it was decline and i updated all details ca anyone assist me please.
You submitted the draft for review again on 22 October 2025. The notice currently at the top of the page says"This may take 2 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 2,869 pending submissions waiting for review."
One of the main reasons for this process is that editors who haven't followed the guidelines often believe that they have. The process has to be set up to prevent those cases.TooManyFingers (talk)01:32, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
HiLouisetarp. I fixed the Wikimedia Commons description on the file page with[2].w: is to link the English Wikipdia when the image is at Wikimedia Commons. The caption shown in the article is from the article itself and can be changed by editing the article like I did in[3].PrimeHunter (talk)21:29, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
SeeWP:Verifiability for an overview of verifiability guidelines.
Other than that there's essentially two ways that these things are verified. First, if an article is submitted as a draft via theArticles for Creation process, then the person reviewing the draft will check the sources and verify that they actually align with the article.
Otherwise, if someone creates a new article directly, then the article is not indexed on search engines until it's been checked by anew page patroller, who [should] check the same thing.
@Athanelar, unfortunately that's only true for articles which have been created since we set up those processes.
@Davidbellpixel, unfortunately there are thousands and thousands of older articles, some of which have never been reviewed, and are in dire need of attention - either adding sources, removing unsourced content, or in some cases deleting the article entirely.
Although I've made a couple of minor edits in the past, I'm unable to edit the misspelling of my own name in the "references" list at the bottom ofMurray Mednick. If you click on the link, you can see that my first name is Don, not JonDMSCCA (talk)20:22, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, in that case{{Db-g7}} likely applies, which statesIf requested in good faith and provided that the only substantial content of the page was added by its author.For redirects created as a result of a page move, the mover must also have been the only substantive contributor to the pages before the move. Emphasis mine, since it's relevant.Athanelar (talk)01:39, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if this discussed in a guide I haven't seen yet, but what is the policy regarding missing internal Wikipedia links? The red ones likethis. A lot of them are people (at least in the physics topics I normally help with), and many are distinct topics that just don't have articles for. Is there any reason why I shouldn't remove them? Maybe this is a topic specific thing as well. I don't want to continue removing them if there is a reason why they should exist. Thanks for clarification!Ajheindel (talk)01:03, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:REDLINK sort of details when and why you should leave a red link, or when to remove it. If it could reasonably become an standalone article, it's fine to leave it. If it's questionable or very unlikely to become one, I would likely remove it. When making the choice to leave alone or remove—be bold, but don't be reckless.// hekatlys [talk]01:24, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ajheindel The reason to keep those links is that many editors (myself included) use them to find a topic to write an article about. The more redlinks to an article, the more obvious it is that an article is needed for that subject. However if a link will obviously never get an article it's best to remove it.Ultraodan (talk)01:25, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ajheindel I don't think we should be asking less experienced editors to try to make a judgement as to whether a link is highly unlikely to ever get an article. Another way to think about this is that removing such a link is probably "not an improvement", which is a good reason to just leave it alone.Fabrickator (talk)08:24, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone has a reputable websites that Wikipedia recognizes as good references for Wikipedia page approval? I am not talking about PRs.ZackOugh (talk)04:49, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At the time of writing, there are 7,093,247 articles on this Wikipedia. All but a handful of them cite reliable sources. So yes, we have "reputable websites that Wikipedia recognizes as good references".
I know a page in Finnish and wanted an English version of this on Wiki... It says only a senior editor can execute the translation program on Wiki:fi:Pasi Heikkurinen.
@FaithInCosmos: Wikipedia articles in different languages do not need be simple translations of each other. The Finnish article isn't really that great. You could use the sources present and write a new article in english instead of translating the old.MKFI (talk)13:12, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@FaithInCosmos: My question is what is your motivation? If you want to be able to include a link to "the article about Pasi Heikkurinen", then you can use an interwiki link preferably using the "interlanguage link" template, e.g.Pasi_Heikkurinen [fi] (i.e. {{interlanguage link|Pasi_Heikkurinen|fi}}). The user can view using the "translate" feature in their browser.
Of course, that's going to be a machine translation and you don't have the opportunity to tweak it, but it doesn't force you to take responsibility for the resulting translation (which is implicitly the case if you were to create a new article using the machine translation feature, e.g. having valid citations from reliable sources). When you just link to it, then it'snot your problem.Fabrickator (talk)15:00, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, i was wondering how i can update an image on a page? i noticed specifically that the page ofTiletamine is using a weird way to show its chemical structure that despite being aArylcyclohexylamine it is displayed extremely different to every single other Arylcyclohexylamine on the page, it actually lead to my own confusion regarding if it was a arylcyclohexylamine or not before i had to double check, rather than being able to recognize from the image alone
Tiletamine Arylcyclohexylamine
i understand that likely i may just not be able to do such an update due to being knew, but thank you in advance for any help3Dmeo (talk)10:58, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@3Dmeo The image you added here is one way to show the structure of tiletamine. The alternative used currently in the article's chembox is equally valid and recognisable by organic chemists as the same compound. It differs only by having a more 3D perspective in which the cyclohexanone ring is shown in achair conformation. Choice of what to use is a matter of opinion and you might be best to raise the idea of any proposed change atTalk:Tiletamine.Mike Turnbull (talk)11:37, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Michael D. Turnbull yes i agree it isn't inaccurate the issue is its the only one out of all of them to be displayed this way, and im unsure why. if you have a look atArylcyclohexylamine you will notice out of 114 of them only Tiletamine uses this method, i assume its because the original image was first uploaded in 2008 and possibly back then this choice of visual representation was more common .
i assumed i guess that i could propose the change by having my image set up to be ready for change, and im somewhat asking how to do that as i do understand that i wouldn't be able to just get it fully changed myself with out any review.
are you saying the best way to get this changed to mine would be to message there and post my image there?
We encourage editors (even new ones) tobe bold, so it is perfectly acceptable to replace the image now and see if anyone objects byreverting you edit. I doubt they would do so. Look at the source code of the chembox and you'll notice that files are added in a sightly different way to how they are done in the body text of the article but I'm sure you'll be able to figure it out based on the exisiting code. Contact me via my talk page if you run into any problems.Mike Turnbull (talk)11:50, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
yes i noticed they are all SVG files, im working on changing mine to that now, although struggling with optimization. is there any guide on how for how to use it on a page?
@*B$&6790 You have submitted it for review and an experienced editor will get to it at some point, although the process is heavily backlogged. I'm not a reviewer but at a brief glance it looks fine, so you may be lucky and get it accepted quickly.Mike Turnbull (talk)12:33, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Every editor should support and promote Wikipedia on social media, esp. With current promotion of Grokpedia on Twitter/X
One of the most valuable factors is the community of editors working together on articles and to fill gaps in public knowledge. We must never all that to be replaced by whatever AI BS nonsense Grokpedia is.ProfessorKaiFlai (talk)13:44, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you're referring to this: "~~~~" this symbol automatically inserts your signature and the timestamp of your edit. As you can see by how it did so in the middle of your comment.Athanelar (talk)14:10, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, how are you? Sorry, because I asked this on the case ofBen Aldridge some days ago, but I am again asking, mainly due to not understanding how you purge a page. I mean, I didn't have a look (sorry) because I didn't know it was "usual". Now, I see thatOmer Yengo turned 71 yesterday, and it remains at 70. How can I learn to purge the birthday age? Thanks.CoryGlee14:27, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have restored the rejection notice toDraft:Dominic Spadaro. Should you ever go further with it, that rejection notice is an important piece of information for reviewers, and you should not remove it.
I'm afraid that you have done what many new editors here do: plunged straight into trying to do the most difficult task there is. If you wanted to build a house or a car, would youstart by trying to build a house or a car, or would you first learn the essential skills and knowledge?
The draft was rejected because it was nothing like a Wikipedia article. Most particularly (though this is not the only problem) it contains no citations to sources.
A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what several people wholly unconnected with the subject have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, and not much else. It follows that writing an articlestarts with finding sources which meet all the criteria inWP:42. Doing anything else (and writing so much as a single word of a draft) before finding the sources, is likely to be a waste of time and effort.
My earnest advice to new editors is to not eventhink 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 asverifiability,neutral point of view,reliable, independent sources, andnotability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (theBold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to readyour 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)16:04, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse.
You've indicated that you want to write an article aboutyourself.
First of all, westrongly discourage editors from creating or editing articles relating to subjects they have a connection to. If you still wish to proceed, please thoroughly read everything below.
Warning against COI editing
First and foremost this is because conflict of interest editing often results in issues with theneutral point of view expected on Wikipedia, due to biases whether consciously or unconsciously. While you may notintend to be biased, the types of information you include or exclude from an article are likely to be skewed by your connection to the subject. It's also very common for conflicts of interest to result inpromotional writing such as advertisement-like articles for companies or resume-like articles for people. You may innocently intend to 'raise awareness' or 'correct misinformation' about the subject, but this isstill promotion, and promotion of any kind is not allowed on Wikipedia.
People with conflicts of interest tend to be very bad at gauging whether the thing they're writing about meetsWikipedia's notability guidelines. In order for a subject to have a Wikipedia article it needs to be 'notable,' which is a word that has a particular and slightly unintuitive meaning here on Wikipedia. There are a number of different criteria for notability depending on the subject, such asthe 'general' notability guidelines, theguidelines for notability of companies or organisations, thenotability of creative professionals etc.The vast majority of people and companies are not notable in the Wikipedia sense, and do not warrant a Wikipedia article about them. A good rule of thumb is that if a person or company is notable enough to justify a Wikipedia article, then soon enough somebody else will write it for them, and there's no need to do it yourself. So if you're here to write an article about yourself or someone or something connected to you, it's generally a good indicator that the subject does not yet meet Wikipedia's notability requirements. A special note is necessary here thatChatGPT and other AIs do not understand Wikipedia notability. It's very common for COI-writing newcomers to get themselves confused because they ask ChatGPT whether they should write an article about themselves/their company and it spits out a few trivial sources and claims that these sources constitute 'notability.' You need to thoroughly read the notability guidelines relating to the subject you want to write about and make sure you understand whether the available sources support the notability of the subject. Do not try to take shortcuts by asking an AI, it will likely be wrong.
It's very common that articles written by those connected to the subject end up being writtenbackwards. This means that you first write the article with everything you know about the subject due to your connection to it, and then try to find sources to confirm the information you've written.This is the wrong way to write a Wikipedia article. As an encyclopedia, the purpose of Wikipedia is to summarise theexisting information available about a subject inreliable, independent secondary sources. The goal is not topresent new information or tosynthesise multiple existing sources to provide new conclusions. When writing an article you mustfirst search for sources relating to the subject (appropriate sources, those meeting thegolden rule) andonly include information in the article which is written in the sources. You may well know information about the subject which is not available in any of the existing sources, but youmust not include this kind of 'original research' in your article. It is understandably frustrating to want to provide certain information and not be able to, but that is the limitation of writing for an encyclopedia, and precisely why we strongly discourage people from writing about subjects they are connected to.If the existing sources don't say it, you can't put it in an article.
You should also keep in mind that having an article about yourself, your company etc isnot always a good thing. You (or the person or company you're writing on behalf of) do not own the article, and cannot control what is in it.
If after reading all of that, you still think you can go ahead and beat the odds and create this article, then follow the steps below.
Writing a COI article
First, and most important, you need to disclose your conflict of interest. There are instructions on how to do this atWP:COI If your conflict of interest involves being paid to create this article, you should follow the instructions atWP:PAID to disclose that also.
Next, heed what I said above about not writing an article backwards. You need toforget everything you know about yourself, which is obviously the most difficult part. Search Google and elsewhere for sourcesfirst. Remember that those sources need to bereliable, independent and secondary. Avoidtrivial coverage such as listicles, especially when writing about companies as this type ofday-to-day corporate coverage is very common. The sources you use need to actually prove the subject's notability (according to the most relevant guidelines) as I discussed above, which passing/trivial coverage does not. If you use ChatGPT or another AI to find sources for you (which you shouldn't), youmust double-check the sources yourself andverify that they actually say what the AI claims they do, because source-to-text inconsistencies are extremely common when using LLMs to search for sources.
Once that's done, you can extract information from the sources and write your article. For guidance on that, followHelp:Your first article and feel free to ask any more specific questions here at the Teahouse.
Wikipedia uses language incorrectly when it names the notices like the one you received at the top of the draft. Everybody knows that in a case like this, the words "declined" and "rejected" are functionally equivalent; however, Wikipedia treats the two words as if they have quite different meanings.
Your draft was not "declined", but "rejected". The main difference is that a rejected article has no realistic chance of ever being accepted, and there's no point in trying to improve it. This can happen because the topic itself is unsuitable for Wikipedia.TooManyFingers (talk)22:34, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In answer to your question,GPTzero says "We are highly confident this text was rewritten by AI, an AI paraphraser or AI bypasser"
However my primary concern would be that it has no cited sources. Without citing sources, a Wikipedia article is of very little value, because a reader has no way of verifying whether anything at all in it is correct.ColinFine (talk)16:12, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have been editing here for a little while and it is a little embarrassing to admit that I have not managed to learn to "@" someone on source editor mode. I always do "User:ABCD" for users whom I want to notify but I do not know if they are "pinged". I'd appreciate it if one of you is able to help me figure this out. Thank you all for your help.Kvinnen (talk)16:56, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, but am I missing something? If this was a case where it was clearly a dynamic ip, I'd have gone to AIV immediately. If I treat them as separate accounts, each needs to be warned, and maybe a SPI requested...
Yes, that seems to be a downside of the new temporary accounts system. However, unless the vandals are very devious, each device they use will retain its temporary account number for~ 9 months 90 days.Mike Turnbull (talk)18:18, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to wait for more feedback. Maybe someone can provide examples on how they've addressed similar situations or seen them addressed. --Hipal (talk)18:29, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To my understanding, admins are aware that they often need to check the IP behind TAs, and would block it especially if you posted this explanation at WP:AIV. I do believe TAs only stay the same for 90 days though, according toWP:Temporary accounts.Perfect4th (talk)18:30, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Hipal When temporary accounts were introduced, so was a new user right,Temporary account IP viewer, which can help patrollers identify IP vandalism. For privacy reasons an agreement needs to be "signed" (through a user preference) and there are clear conditions on when these tools can be used, but as an experienced editor and rollbacker you may be a good candidate for this right.ClaudineChionh(she/her ·talk ·email ·global)04:08, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, this annoys me a bit. The whole idea of the temporary accounts was to ensure privacy of non-registered editors. But the checkuser right is very carefully controlled, taken extremely seriously, granted only to about 50 people I believe - it is seen as such a serious privacy issue that it is not automatically granted to admins. Meanwhile the temporary account IP viewer right has been given to 300 non-admins, and is semi-automatic for all admins, meaning about 1100 people have the right at the moment. The current situation doesn't exactly smack of dedicated attention to privacy for those who choose not to register an account.Elemimele (talk)17:44, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Previously, any reader could see the IP address of non-account holders and geolocate it, so that's millions down to 1100, which should help the privacy issue.Mike Turnbull (talk)18:25, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the information and discussion. I'm going spend time getting used to the changes due to the temporary accounts. It's going to take time adjusting to not being able to immediately see obvious conflicts of interest, block evasion, and edit warring. --Hipal (talk)22:42, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What are Non-governmental Organizations (or NGOs)? The WP articleNGO says: "they are generally defined as nonprofit entities that are independent of government management or direction".
The English-language Wikipedia includes many biographical articles about people who have founded NGOs. Frequently, the organizations they've started are what are generally termedcharities, but in many other cases that term wouldn't be applied.
Correcting my error. To avoid confusion, the article about Planned Parenthood's founder in WP is titledMargaret Sanger. Higgins was her maiden name; she used Sanger as her surname when she founded Planned Parenthood.Joel Russ (talk)19:29, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've been away from Wikipedia after many years of editing, but searching seems to have changed. I've been using "Recent changes" to find new edits on pages of interest. I am having a problem about the difference between AND and OR in these searches. I want to see both edits I make and recent edits to pages on my watch list, but when I list these two options, I get nothing. I suppose this is because I'm not on my own watchlist. And yet, in other cases were I list two subjects to search for, I get all the articles in either subject. What should I do differently.Rick Norwood (talk)20:47, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to do what you described, and I don't get it either. I do know for certain that it isn't possible to add your "contributions" page to your watch list.
My suggestion is to just do the three actions separately: [your contributions], [recent changes], and [your watch list], rather than wrestling with a combination that fails.TooManyFingers (talk)21:45, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Checking two options in the same category, like "changes by you" and "changes by others", combines them as OR. Checking two options in different categories, like "changes by you" and "On Watchlist", combines them as AND.jlwoodwa (talk)21:50, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary accounts are more anonymous than IP's but not more than registered accounts unless you have left trails in the edits you made while logged in to the account.PrimeHunter (talk)21:43, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @OverLooked40, and welcome to the Teahouse.
English Wikipedia is one of 357 Wikipedias, all written in different languages, or different versions of languages.Simple English Wikipedia is another one of these, intended to be written in a simpler version of English.
Like each Wikipedia, it has its own policies and procedures, which may be different from English Wikipedia.
As with any pair of different-language Wikipedias, there is not necessarily any correspondence between articles on the same subject in English and Simple English Wikipedias: there might be, if editors have chosen to do it that way, but there need not be.ColinFine (talk)21:21, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For future cases, another discussioncould be had and consensus could change. In this case, it likely would not go anywhere though due to the fact that the two are separate entities and based on how recent the discussion is.✶Quxyz✶ (talk)12:36, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The two pages are about different topics. The serviceAudacy used to be Radio.com, and the companyAudacy, Inc. used to be Entercom. They were completely separate from each other until 2017, when Entercom acquired CBS Radio, the owner of Radio.com.Helpful Raccoon (talk)04:47, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What do i do if a draft appears to be largely AI generated?
2. A few parts of it has that border around it when you copy and paste something
3. The references are put under the ref list rather than in the article.
4. I ran it through 3 AI detectors: GPTzero, Quillbot, and Grammarly’s AI detector, all of them saying that over half of it was AI generated. (54-100%)
5. Most of what appears to bold, italic, headings, etc. aren’t formatted correctly. (Most of them double ** on both sides.)
6. They use slashes to separate things other than breaks in thought.
@Henihhi28alt, you don't really need to do anything - youcan apply an {{AI-generated}} tag to drafts like this if you want to, but the AI usage in this case is blatantly obvious and reviewers will easily see it.
@Versions111, I've removed all but the AI-gen tag because it's only a draft and the tags you placed are things reviewers automatically look for. Tags are usually best placed on articles, where input from other editors is much more desirable and more urgent (since drafts may never be published and aren't be a mainspace problem - we want people improving mainspace articles rather than drafts as a priority). In order to get through AfC, notability, sourcing, etc, will be assessed.Meadowlark (talk)07:39, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Opinions on tone / content of article I overhauled a while ago
I largely rewrote this article a few months ago, but now, I'm not thrilled with how it reads. I'm considering rewriting / reformatting it again into a more concise footprint without diving into such detail on each author's theory. Opinions / suggestions / edits of your own are welcome. Thanks!Trombonist04 (talk)03:43, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure exactly how to explain what I mean, but to me the tone reads as a little repetitive, even if the info differs in each paragraph. I think compacting some of it and reducing the amount of "Evans says/Evans believes" etc. could make the article read as more "encyclopedic".
Another thing that would help is more sourcing -- many sentences and paragraphs are unsourced. Even just using the same sources (if they support what you're saying) is fine, you don't necessarily need new ones.
Question, though, about sourcing: is it better to reference the same single paper after each subsequent sentence/paragraph, or just once at the end of its use? I kept citing the single Evans paper throughout the 'original proposal' section and I feel it looks clunky. But if that's proper, I'm happy to keep it / do it the same way for other sections.Trombonist04 (talk)12:55, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You should do it in a way that is clear to readers where each important fact has come from. If you come up with an elegant but clear way of giving readers that information while minimizing clutter, good.TooManyFingers (talk)22:19, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I recently came across a few Wikipedia pages with a lot of gore on them. Is there a way to get them taken down, or does that not violate wikipedia’s guidelines. Images of gore, and illegal acts can be very traumatic for some users, and they normalize violence. I have never edited anything on Wikipedia, so I don’t know how to submit a page deletion request.I don’t know what reporting mechanisms Wikipedia uses, but hopefully the police in the countries that the photos originate from will be contacted. I am sending this message from my IPad, So if I need a reply suited to mobile view, it would be great to have that. Here are the links to the pageshttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&search=Blood+sport&wprov=acrw1_9https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&search=Cockfighting&wprov=acrw1_0thank you so much, and I look forward to hearing a response soon.~2025-35285-24 (talk)06:11, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia isn't much censored. You can't censor what I see of it; I can't censor what you see of it. But either of us can remove particular images, or even all images, from his or her own sight. Please seeOptions to hide an image. --Hoary (talk)07:20, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Continuing my thread onDraft:Real Story Group (tl:dr; my original article was deleted because of notability issues; I'm trying to fix that).
So I followedColinFine's advice, started from scratch, and wrote a short and to the point new version of the article, purely focussed on getting the right references. Now someone added this comment right in the article draft:
Comment: Draft should be completed before submitting.João
What does that mean? The draft was finished when I submitted. The only two edits I've made after submitting were very minor word order changes. Also the page explicitly states "you can continue editing"? Does he mean it's too short now?
[Edit Conflict] The obvious first step is for you to contact that commenter on his talk page and ask him (politely) to clarify and enlarge on his comment.
Having glanced at your draft myself (though I amnot a reviewer), I can see what João probably means. The draft's main text comprisessolely a 90-word lede, which gives a few facts about what the subject company does and what its founder says about it. This is not what a Wikipedia article is supposed to do.
To demonstrate the fundamental requirement of the subject'sNotability, the article should summarise what independent third parties have published about itand its significance,at some length inReliable sources. The lede should be a brief overview of this (more extensive) material. As it is, your draft merely documents the existence and area of activities of the company, without showing how it is in any way different from doubtless many other "run-of-the-mill" companies in the same field.
Wikipedia is not a directory, and does not need to have an article about every company that exists – probably 99.9% of companies do not merit an article. It may be thatthis onedoes, but the draft does not yet show that. Hope this helps. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195}~2025-31359-08 (talk)15:26, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello everyone, and thank you in advance for your help.My draft Draft:Lino Guerreiro was declined at Articles for Creation with the comment that it appears to be autobiographical and may not demonstrate sufficient notability.I would like to clarify that I have a Conflict of Interest, as I am the subject of the draft, and therefore I should not directly publish or promote the article myself.However, I believe the subject meets Wikipedia’s general notability guidelines (WP:GNG) and possibly the music notability guideline (WP:MUSICBIO), based on multiple independent, reliable secondary sources that provide significant coverage, including:Diário de Notícias – national Portuguese newspaper (coverage of the Prémio Carlos Paredes)Est Républicain – French regional newspaper (jury participation)Levante-EMV – Spanish newspaper (concert programme)XMusic – independent interview with substantial biographical informationUNC Charlotte news and performances by international ensemblesAdditional independent sources and institutional referencesBecause of my COI, I am not seeking to publish the article myself, but I would appreciate if an experienced, neutral editor could:Review the draft for neutrality, sourcing, and suitability;Advise whether the subject meets notability standards;If appropriate, consider moving the draft into mainspace or rewriting it independently.Here is the draft link:Draft:Lino GuerreiroThank you very much for your time and assistance!Linoguerreiro (talk)13:40, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. If you're writing about yourself, just say so instead of referring to yourself as "the subject".
To get a review, you need to click the "resubmit" button on your draft. This is assuming you have addressed the concerns raised by the prior review.331dot (talk)13:43, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A question, you are claiming that the image of you is your personal work and that you hold the copyright. Is that the case? Typically copyright belongs to the photographer, not the subject.331dot (talk)13:44, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your messages, 331dot.
1. About the Conflict of Interest:
Yes, I am writing about myself, and I acknowledge the Conflict of Interest.
I will adjust the wording in the draft to state this more directly.
Once that is done, I will use the “resubmit” button so the draft can be formally reviewed again.
2. About the image:
Yes, the portrait was taken by me personally.
I am the original photographer and therefore the copyright holder.
I released the image under a free license (currently CC0) so that it can be freely used on Wikipedia.
FYI, when people say it's a bad idea to write autobiographies on Wikipedia, that includes writing them as drafts. Below is my thorough advice against this sort of thing.
Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse.
You've indicated that you want to write an article aboutyourself.
First of all, westrongly discourage editors from creating or editing articles relating to subjects they have a connection to. If you still wish to proceed, please thoroughly read everything below.
Warning against COI editing
First and foremost this is because conflict of interest editing often results in issues with theneutral point of view expected on Wikipedia, due to biases whether consciously or unconsciously. While you may notintend to be biased, the types of information you include or exclude from an article are likely to be skewed by your connection to the subject. It's also very common for conflicts of interest to result inpromotional writing such as advertisement-like articles for companies or resume-like articles for people. You may innocently intend to 'raise awareness' or 'correct misinformation' about the subject, but this isstill promotion, and promotion of any kind is not allowed on Wikipedia.
People with conflicts of interest tend to be very bad at gauging whether the thing they're writing about meetsWikipedia's notability guidelines. In order for a subject to have a Wikipedia article it needs to be 'notable,' which is a word that has a particular and slightly unintuitive meaning here on Wikipedia. There are a number of different criteria for notability depending on the subject, such asthe 'general' notability guidelines, theguidelines for notability of companies or organisations, thenotability of creative professionals etc.The vast majority of people and companies are not notable in the Wikipedia sense, and do not warrant a Wikipedia article about them. A good rule of thumb is that if a person or company is notable enough to justify a Wikipedia article, then soon enough somebody else will write it for them, and there's no need to do it yourself. So if you're here to write an article about yourself or someone or something connected to you, it's generally a good indicator that the subject does not yet meet Wikipedia's notability requirements. A special note is necessary here thatChatGPT and other AIs do not understand Wikipedia notability. It's very common for COI-writing newcomers to get themselves confused because they ask ChatGPT whether they should write an article about themselves/their company and it spits out a few trivial sources and claims that these sources constitute 'notability.' You need to thoroughly read the notability guidelines relating to the subject you want to write about and make sure you understand whether the available sources support the notability of the subject. Do not try to take shortcuts by asking an AI, it will likely be wrong.
It's very common that articles written by those connected to the subject end up being writtenbackwards. This means that you first write the article with everything you know about the subject due to your connection to it, and then try to find sources to confirm the information you've written.This is the wrong way to write a Wikipedia article. As an encyclopedia, the purpose of Wikipedia is to summarise theexisting information available about a subject inreliable, independent secondary sources. The goal is not topresent new information or tosynthesise multiple existing sources to provide new conclusions. When writing an article you mustfirst search for sources relating to the subject (appropriate sources, those meeting thegolden rule) andonly include information in the article which is written in the sources. You may well know information about the subject which is not available in any of the existing sources, but youmust not include this kind of 'original research' in your article. It is understandably frustrating to want to provide certain information and not be able to, but that is the limitation of writing for an encyclopedia, and precisely why we strongly discourage people from writing about subjects they are connected to.If the existing sources don't say it, you can't put it in an article.
You should also keep in mind that having an article about yourself, your company etc isnot always a good thing. You (or the person or company you're writing on behalf of) do not own the article, and cannot control what is in it.
If after reading all of that, you still think you can go ahead and beat the odds and create this article, then follow the steps below.
Writing a COI article
First, and most important, you need to disclose your conflict of interest. There are instructions on how to do this atWP:COI If your conflict of interest involves being paid to create this article, you should follow the instructions atWP:PAID to disclose that also.
Next, heed what I said above about not writing an article backwards. You need toforget everything you know about yourself, which is obviously the most difficult part. Search Google and elsewhere for sourcesfirst. Remember that those sources need to bereliable, independent and secondary. Avoidtrivial coverage such as listicles, especially when writing about companies as this type ofday-to-day corporate coverage is very common. The sources you use need to actually prove the subject's notability (according to the most relevant guidelines) as I discussed above, which passing/trivial coverage does not. If you use ChatGPT or another AI to find sources for you (which you shouldn't), youmust double-check the sources yourself andverify that they actually say what the AI claims they do, because source-to-text inconsistencies are extremely common when using LLMs to search for sources.
Once that's done, you can extract information from the sources and write your article. For guidance on that, followHelp:Your first article and feel free to ask any more specific questions here at the Teahouse.
i have created an article of personality on wikipedia sandbox.there is no option to send it from sandbox to main page as visible to everyone.kindly guide i have created it with many difficulties.Khidmat1234 (talk)14:26, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Making a new article is one of the most challenging things to do on Wikipedia, even for experienced editors. It requires a robust understanding of policies and guidelines likenotability andneutral point of view, as well as technical skills likefinding and citing sources and formatting your article in accordance with themanual of style. It's not something we recommend new editors try to do right away.
I would strongly advise that you first spend a while (at least a couple of weeks) participating in discussions here at the Teahouse and at noticeboards, asking questions, and editing already-existing articles to build the knowledge and skills I've mentioned above, and then come back to the article creation process later.
@Khidmat1234 Since you took the photo of Kazmi and his grandson, you need to readthis guidance. It is not clear to me from your draft whether Kazmi is still alive (you saywas a Kashmiri scholar...) but in any case should also readour policy on biographies. You are going to have to add citations to already-published sources to back up all your statements.Mike Turnbull (talk)16:59, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is someone persistently asks to create new article about podcast of steve comisar .But it doesn't have notable amt of source to support it..what can and can't do??Spbvj (talk)17:02, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'mangry. I'm a long-time editor. At least since 2009. I have 500+ edits. I've created articles before. I'm an expert in Computer Science, Math and Economics. Now, when I create an article, some bureaucrat-wannabe comes back much later and says "You're attempt to create an article has been denied, for blah-blah-blah reasons. We'll auto-delete your work, but if you want to appeal please submit your TPS form in triplicate to ...".
WTF. I'm not writing trash. I'm adding significant works. On an existing article, I'm allowed to add or delete as much text as I want, but creating a new article is banned effectively?? For this latest change, the Wikipedia style is for each probability distribution to have its own page, so because I followed the style and created a page, my work gets deleted?!
How the fuck do I get permission to create an article again? I'mangry. This delete-first approach is driving me away from wanting to work on this project which I've been proud of.Mdnahas (talk)17:14, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I assume this isDraft:Random_Group_Formation_Distribution? If so, the likely problem is that you have only one source (okay, you've got two, but the second source is for a different distribution). The difficulty for an AfC reviewer is that they need to distinguish between a clever idea that's appeared in a single piece of primary literature but never achieved wider traction (not notable), and an idea that's widely adopted, and is recognised in the field (notable). More citations to other authors would help the reviewer see the concept as notable. In terms of distributions, there is obviously an infinite number of possible distributions, so although each notable distribution gets its own article, not all distributions are notable enough to get an article. An expert such as yourself is best placed to argue the case for notability, but the argument needs to be made.Elemimele (talk)17:29, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't think this distribution deserved its own page, but I did think it deserved inclusion with the others onMaximum entropy probability distribution. Each of those had its own page, so I created a page for it. If there's a better way to do this, I'm happy to do it. But getting a reply "You did wrong. Delete!" isnot the best reply to a fellow volunteer who took the time to write.Do you have a recommended way to include this distribution on the Maximum Entropy Probability Distribution page?Mdnahas (talk)21:13, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If that is the article concerned, another issue is wording such as "Many real-world samples seem to follow a...", which expresses a view in Wikipedia's voice. That should be avoided.Cordless Larry (talk)17:36, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Mdnahas, It looks like the last two pages you created were in Draftspace and were submitted to theWP:Articles for Creation process. Volunteers assess those drafts before they are moved moved into Mainspace. Anyone is welcome to use the Articles for Creation process, but experienced editors can also create articles directly in mainspace. There is the new page review process which will apply even to articles made in mainspace and reviewers might find issues with a particular article and move it to Draftspace, but you wouldn't be banned from creating new articles without some discussion or right to appeal. What happens when you try to create articles in mainspace?Mgp28 (talk)17:33, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
yes, Mgp28 is absolutely correct. You should be able to move the article into mainspace yourself. If you do, there is a possibility someone will send it to AfD (they can't redraftify it as it's come from draft space - that would be move-warring), but at least that way it will be debated by the wider community, you get to say why you think it's a valid article, and you aren't dependent on a single AfC reviewer.Elemimele (talk)17:50, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Tenshi Hinanawi: seeWP:DRAFTNO reasons 6 (and 7). If an editor takes a draft (these articles were written in draft-space) and moves it into mainspace they are, in effect, asserting that it belongs in mainspace, so it shouldn't be unilaterally restored to draft by someone else. It should instead be debated, with AfD as the likely venue.Elemimele (talk)23:04, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As somebody who describes themselves as a 'long-time editor' you should know that subject matter expertise does not necessarily make one an expert in Wikipedia procedure, nor does somebody need to be a subject matter expert in order to decline your article based on not meeting Wikipedia's notabiity guidelines (which you implyhere when you say to the reviewer thatyour page does not list you as an expert)
A valid point. This is one of a class of maximum entropy probability distributions. This individual distribution may not match Wikipedia's definition of "notable" but the class certainly does. Just like a single species of ant may not be "notable" but it should be in the list of ants. And someone who is looking through the page of maximum entropy probability distributions may want to find this one. As an expert, I can say that is likely. I wanted to add it to the list on the maximum entropy probability distributions page. In that list, each distribution had its own page. So, I created a page for it.Do you think this should not be in wikipedia? Should it be somewhere else? My anger is that the response was "You did wrong. Delete." not "You did wrong. Can I help fix this?". There is a world of difference.Mdnahas (talk)21:13, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if anyone has succinctly explained it to you yet, but no human made the decision to delete your draft because it was unsuitable; that's not what happens when a draft is declined. Your draft was seemingly automatically deleted because it was over six months since it had last been edited.Athanelar (talk)21:35, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of guidelines like "distributions get their own article", if a distribution is better added to another article, I see no problem with that. We should be driven by what best serves our readers.Elemimele (talk)23:07, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a wonderful idea, YourLocalZakkFromSomewhere. You do not need approval to start reviving a WikiProject, all you have to do is get started. I encourage you to add your name to the list of members atWikiProject Bowling and maybe tidy up the project page a bit. I will warn you to temper your expectations, however. WikiProjects are generally pretty quiet - I myself have been working at revivingWikiProject Nova Scotia, and it has been a slow process. I like to look at WikiProjects with the mindset of "if you built it, they will come." Good luck!MediaKyle (talk)21:34, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I have updated Draft:Giacomo Billi with multiple independent and reliable sources (business press, independent Romanian media, etc.), and I kindly request feedback to see if it now meets Wikipedia’s notability guidelines.Any help or advice from experienced editors would be greatly appreciated.Thank you!~2025-35444-21 (talk)20:52, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PostmasterCJ, my calendar says that this month is November 2025 and I assume that yours does too. Because Wikipedia editors do not have access to functional crystal balls or time machines, we should not be using an image file dated January, 2026 since it is obviously in error and cannot be trusted.Cullen328 (talk)06:46, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
InMOS:ERA, it states to use either BCE/CE or BC/AD. But how do you chose which one to use on an article? And does it make any difference which one you use? (asking cause an edit war is happening onPeshitta and i dont understand whos right)microTato(🗯️)(✍🏻)01:33, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's no standard on which to use when, only that it should be kept consistent within an article and shouldn't be changed from one to the other without consensus.Athanelar (talk)02:13, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This means if there is any kind of fight, then whoever is on the side of keeping it the way it was before the fight started is immediately the winner. Period. (Not because that's better, but because that's how fights are settled on this topic.)TooManyFingers (talk)02:55, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticedCategory:Irish plumbers is filled with Irish hurlers. All mention they are a plumber in the infobox, but only one of them has a reference for this! Am I missing something, or do hurlers automatically become plumbers when they retire from sports??~2025-35265-35 (talk)04:02, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm only guessing when I say maybe it's because Irish plumbers who aren't prominent in sports don't usually have an infobox with "occupation=" sitting there waiting to be filled, and that it's difficult to become notable purely by plumbing prowess.
No clue, mate. If the category "plumbers" was under "sports", I might think it was another word for hurler.
The only other thing I can think, is that someone copied the categories from one article to the next and the subject of the source article was also a plumber.MmeMaigret (talk)11:35, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously I'm not the editor you mentioned, but the fact that other similar occupation categories also have disproportionately large numbers of sports figures in them, and that they've often been added without a reference, makes me think a) one problem with infoboxes is that they make editors want to fill as many slots as possible, b) maybe there's been a sort of fad among the frequent editors of Irish team sports, and c) I think said editors are inclined not to question each other's (lack of) sources.
We need to change the template for tables, I spent ages making one, wanted to delete a row which was dormant, and ended up deleting the whole table that took me half an house to make, and I’m thoroughly annoyed, who decided to put the “delete” button when you edit a column or row, of course people are going to think that the “delete” means to delete the row- not the whole flipping table.
I hear that you are upset and annoyed that a button misled you (I guess this was in the Visual editor, which I don't use?)
I wonder if you had already saved ("Publish") the draft or article before you picked that button? If so, you can go back in the history ad pick up the earlier version. (Since you're not logged in, and this temporary account has no previous edits, we can't tell which page you're working on).
Questions about the software and its user interface are much more likely to be seen by people who work on that if you post them atWP:VPT than here, where most people are interested in editing rather than in developing the software.ColinFine (talk)12:17, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly I didn’t press publish. I’m KeyolTranslater btw. Just on an alternate device. The page hasn’t been deleted, just the table which I did take a while compiling, yes it was visual editor, which I find easier to use, but I think that delete button should be elsewhere or not misleading. Will tell the people over at VPT~2025-35521-36 (talk)12:35, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
VisualEditor has a curved undo arrow at the top left but it's too late now if you aren't still in the edit window.Ctrl+z may also work. If you want to delete a column then click the column and then an arrow above the column to get a menu which includes "Delete column". You clicked "Delete" next to a table image with two rows and columns and the text "Table".PrimeHunter (talk)12:40, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Question about requirements for adding a verified holder of a Scottish feudal barony to a list
I am the current holder of the barony of cononsyth in Angus, a Scottish feudal barony which is recognised as an incorporeal heritable dignity. My acquisition of the barony was independently covered in AngusWorld, a UK news outlet, here: "I paid £104,000 to become a Naron - now I’ve launched my own luxury wine"(AngusWorld, 19 September 2025)https://www.anguscountyworld.co.uk/business/i-paid-ps104000-to-become-a-baron-now-ive-launched-my-own-wine-5326091
Before making any edits, I want to ask:
1. Is this level of independent sourcing sufficient to be included as the current holder in a list such as "baronage of Scotland" or a list of Scottish feudal barons?
2. Are there any additional requirements for listing verified current holders of Scottish feudal baronies?
3. Should the barony itself have its own article first, or is inclusion in a list acceptable.
I am not requesting a biography or promotional article- only to understand the requirements for appearing in a baronial holder list.Grlmas (talk)14:28, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Grlmas. Welcome to the Teahouse, and thank you for asking first.
I would advise more caution than @Athanelar for two reasons.
First, adding information about oneself is regarded as aconflict of interest - the usual recommendation is not to edit the article directly, but to raise anedit request on the article's talk page.
Secondly, as far as I can tell, the source is written by you, which means that it is notindependent. Wikipedia has a strong preference for independent, secondary sources. It's true that uncontroversial factual information can be verified fromprimary sources; but when this is combined with your COI, I would advise caution.
I don't think OP wrote the article, it's just written in first person in the headline. The byline is 'James Craig' whereas the purchaser is named differently in the first line of the article.Athanelar (talk)18:50, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Above:My acquisition of the barony was independently covered in AngusWorld, a UK news outlet, here: "I paid £104,000 to become a Naron - now I’ve launched my own luxury wine" (AngusWorld, 19 September 2025) As the very title suggests, this is not independent of its subject: instead, it's based on what he says. Also, it reads rather like his plug for his "luxury wine" (whatever that might mean). ¶ I think I understand from the articleBaronage of Scotland what a "baronage" was centuries ago, and what it now isn't; but what it nowis, I fail to understand. And so the article's "List of Baronies" looks to me like a list of unencyclopedic trivia. --Hoary (talk)21:48, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am compiling a note on a vocalist of the Hindustani Classical music, for Wikipedia.
I am providing references to published sources. I have two queries.1. I have a digitised compilation of all published news reports in pdf format, stored on a google drive. Can a link be provided to this drive in the references section?2. the drive also contains recordings of her concerts on All India Radio. Can a link to the drive be provided in the references section. Thank you.Prachi Khandeparkar (talk)15:19, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of linking to a compilation, it would be best if you just provided the information about the sources themselves so someone could (theoretically) locate them themselves- like publication, publication date, title, author, page numbers, etc. You don't need to post them online somewhere.331dot (talk)15:40, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you!
I will be providing the citations.
However, several newspaper reports are from Marathi newspapers, for which archives don't exist and information about whether they are "reliable sources" also does not exist as far as i know.
I made a draft called ''Start Survey'', made yesterday, it was declined because there was no links, and I couldn't find no links about Start Survey, just videos. They told me if I could'nt edit/fix the draft, it would be deleted becasue it would be considered ''Abandoned''~2025-35392-81 (talk)16:05, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Making a new article is one of the most challenging things to do on Wikipedia, even for experienced editors. It requires a robust understanding of policies and guidelines likenotability andneutral point of view, as well as technical skills likefinding and citing sources and formatting your article in accordance with themanual of style. It's not something we recommend new editors try to do right away.
I would strongly advise that you first spend a while (at least a couple of weeks) participating in discussions here at the Teahouse and at noticeboards, asking questions, and editing already-existing articles to build the knowledge and skills I've mentioned above, and then come back to the article creation process later.
Sorry for all the draft related stuff, but is there any things that could be improved for this draft? Does it look like it’s article worthy or no?rave (talk)16:47, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You can’t make money on Wikipedia, it’s an encyclopedia. If you saw that you can make money then it’s a scam or misinformation and likely dangerousrave (talk)17:54, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It has come tomy attention by the userBill L. Hal the issue of potential use of AI upscaling in portraits of Greek politicians (after their death). Examples include the infobox portraits of the following:Andreas Papandreou,Konstantinos Karamanlis,Georgios Papadopoulos,Panayiotis Kanellopoulos, andChristos Sartzetakis. Unfortunately, I have very little understanding about this issue, in terms of detection, interpretation and implementation of the current guidelines.Wikipedia:AI guidelines is rather vague and looks underdeveloped policy-wise. The following statement:AI upscaling might be an appropriate use of AI, depending on context can mean anything provided the subject is not alive since there is not explanation on how to decide on what counts as relevant context. It appears that it needs clear examples for us to better understand what is ok and what is not ok. Has this issue been raised up previously and what is the current consensus. If things are murky, what is the appropriate forum to request clarification or if necessary request for adoption of a new policy. Your input is most helpful. Thank you in advance. A.Cython (talk)18:08, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi everyone. I’m working on a draft for Moebius Syndrome Awareness Day, and I’d really appreciate some guidance. The earlier version was declined because I used AI too much in the beginning. Since then, I’ve completely rewritten the entire article by hand and rebuilt the references using verified news stories and materials from 2011 through 2025.I’m still learning how Wikipedia prefers things to be written, so I’m hoping someone with experience can take a look and let me know what it still needs or how I can get it into the right shape.Here’s the draft:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Moebius_Syndrome_Awareness_DayThank you to anyone willing to take a few minutes to look it over.MoebiusTim (talk)18:13, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion there's no such thing as "using AI too much" - because usingany AI, even a little bit, is already a problem. It's true there are features of AI that are technically OK, but those aren't the features people mostly want to use. And the errors that AI makes are often ones that the AI users don't even know how to find, let alone correct.
Monty Python's "Hungarian Phrasebook" sketch was (in part) funny because of how ridiculously and obviously wrong the phrases were. AI is wrong just as badly as that phrasebook, but instead of being funny, the false material is hidden so some people have a hard time finding it.TooManyFingers (talk)22:37, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Some people have wandering IPs and banning a single IP address isn't enough to stop them vandalising. If vandalism comes from within a particular range, then blocking the whole range solves the issue.Athanelar (talk)18:59, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a header, with a button which will allow you to submit for review.
If you cite non-English sources, it is helpful to readers and reviewers to include a translation of the title.{{cite web}} has a parametertrans-title= which you can use.ColinFine (talk)19:42, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Confused cantaloupe. Yes, you can use non-English sources if there are not better English sources.
You still need to make sure that the sources (or at least most of them) are reliably published and independent of the subject, as explained atWP:42. Looking at them quickly with Google Translate, it seems to me that they are all almost entirely about her marriage and family, and so most of the article is unsourced. This is not acceptable for a new article in English Wikipedia.ColinFine (talk)19:37, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Stephen the fly is a long term companion on my Talk page. I'm looking after him for a friend. If he annoys you, then I'm happy. -WalterEgo01:40, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am considering a short article about a modest peak nearby a reasonably well known area. The peak itself only reaches 8800' elevation with a 1400' climb (hike). It is at a "gateway" to the Rockies, Estes Park, which serves probably a million visitors into Rocky Mountain National Park each summer. The surrounding peaks are distant but much more notable; at 12-14k ft elevation. However the peak in question is a piece of the history of attracting the attention of the US President to drive the creation of the national park. A photo taken in 1909 from the summit is a striking landscape and was included in a published book that help build the case for the area being established as a national park. There is another landmark mountain ridge with is nearby, is not dramatically high in elevation, and has a wiki page. Because the town of Estes Park is so striking itself, with the high peaks framing it, this peak I am considering documenting is not known though it is very prominent from the roadsite view sites. Plus it is in the national forest so there is a trail to it's remarkable summit.
What is the name of the peak? I looked on Google Maps and one contender may be Lily Mountain, but without the name it's difficult to confirm whether or not an article would be warranted.aesurias (talk)02:01, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PerWP:GEONATURAL,Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist [...] The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article.
However, as you're a very new editor I wouldn't advise trying to make a new article at this time. It's a very complex task which is challenging even for experienced editors. Hang around and edit other articles for a while first.Athanelar (talk)03:32, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I recently resubmitted a draft article:Draft:51Talk.
It was previously declined, but I have made significant improvements based on the reviewer's feedback. I specifically focused on removing subjective language to ensure an objective tone, and added citations from professional media reviews to demonstrate notability.
First things first, I have re-added the declined review and comments that you scrubbed from the page. They say "Do not remove this line" because you aren't meant to remove them.
You still have an undeclared conflict of interest -- seehere. It appears multiple of you at the "51Talk Team" are working on the same account(s) as well as using temporary accounts.
-Previously,we created the Wikipedia page for 51Talk Chinese
I sincerely apologize for the frustration caused. I am new to Wikipedia editing and misunderstood the protocol regarding draft cleanup. I promise I will never remove reviewer comments or decline notices again.
Regarding the Conflict of Interest (COI):
I have now officially added the{{paid}} tag to my User Page to fully disclose my employment with 51Talk.
Regarding the account sharing concern: I confirm that I (Sam15176) am the sole individual operating this account. The previous use of "we" and "Team" in my comments was a mistake in language habit representing the company, but I assure you this account is not shared.
I am here to follow the rules. I will wait for further instructions before making any more edits to the draft.
Hello, @Sam15176. As well as Athenalar's warning, I want to add my own: My earnest advice to new editors is to not eventhink 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 asverifiability,neutral point of view,reliable, independent sources, andnotability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (theBold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to readyour 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)11:06, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, westrongly discourage editors from creating or editing articles relating to subjects they have a connection to, especially in the case of corporations and organisations where this usually takes the form ofpaid editing. If you still wish to proceed, please thoroughly read everything below.
Warning against COI editing
First and foremost this is because conflict of interest editing often results in issues with theneutral point of view expected on Wikipedia, due to biases whether consciously or unconsciously. While you may notintend to be biased, the types of information you include or exclude from an article are likely to be skewed by your connection to the subject. It's also very common for conflicts of interest to result inpromotional writing such as advertisement-like articles for companies or resume-like articles for people. You may innocently intend to 'raise awareness' or 'correct misinformation' about the subject, but this isstill promotion, and promotion of any kind is not allowed on Wikipedia.
People with conflicts of interest tend to be very bad at gauging whether the thing they're writing about meetsWikipedia's notability guidelines. In order for a subject to have a Wikipedia article it needs to be 'notable,' which is a word that has a particular and slightly unintuitive meaning here on Wikipedia. There are a number of different criteria for notability depending on the subject, such asthe 'general' notability guidelines, theguidelines for notability of companies or organisations, thenotability of creative professionals etc.The vast majority of people and companies are not notable in the Wikipedia sense, and do not warrant a Wikipedia article about them. A good rule of thumb is that if a person or company is notable enough to justify a Wikipedia article, then soon enough somebody else will write it for them, and there's no need to do it yourself. So if you're here to write an article about yourself or someone or something connected to you, it's generally a good indicator that the subject does not yet meet Wikipedia's notability requirements. A special note is necessary here thatChatGPT and other AIs do not understand Wikipedia notability. It's very common for COI-writing newcomers to get themselves confused because they ask ChatGPT whether they should write an article about themselves/their company and it spits out a few trivial sources and claims that these sources constitute 'notability.' You need to thoroughly read the notability guidelines relating to the subject you want to write about and make sure you understand whether the available sources support the notability of the subject. Do not try to take shortcuts by asking an AI, it will likely be wrong.
It's very common that articles written by those connected to the subject end up being writtenbackwards. This means that you first write the article with everything you know about the subject due to your connection to it, and then try to find sources to confirm the information you've written.This is the wrong way to write a Wikipedia article. As an encyclopedia, the purpose of Wikipedia is to summarise theexisting information available about a subject inreliable, independent secondary sources. The goal is not topresent new information or tosynthesise multiple existing sources to provide new conclusions. When writing an article you mustfirst search for sources relating to the subject (appropriate sources, those meeting thegolden rule) andonly include information in the article which is written in the sources. You may well know information about the subject which is not available in any of the existing sources, but youmust not include this kind of 'original research' in your article. It is understandably frustrating to want to provide certain information and not be able to, but that is the limitation of writing for an encyclopedia, and precisely why we strongly discourage people from writing about subjects they are connected to.If the existing sources don't say it, you can't put it in an article.
You should also keep in mind that having an article about yourself, your company etc isnot always a good thing. You (or the person or company you're writing on behalf of) do not own the article, and cannot control what is in it. If you're writing about this company because you're an employee and your boss or colleagues have asked you to do it, then please thoroughly readWP:BOSS and report the information therein back to them.
If after reading all of that, you still think you can go ahead and beat the odds and create this article, then follow the steps below.
Writing a COI article
First, and most important, you need to disclose your conflict of interest. There are instructions on how to do this atWP:COI If your conflict of interest involves being paid to create this article, you should follow the instructions atWP:PAID to disclose that also.
Next, heed what I said above about not writing an article backwards. You need toforget everything you know about the subject of the article, which is obviously the most difficult part. Search Google and elsewhere for sourcesfirst. Remember that those sources need to bereliable, independent and secondary. Avoidtrivial coverage such as listicles, especially when writing about companies as this type ofday-to-day corporate coverage is very common. The sources you use need to actually prove the subject's notability (according to the most relevant guidelines) as I discussed above, which passing/trivial coverage does not. If you use ChatGPT or another AI to find sources for you (which you shouldn't), youmust double-check the sources yourself andverify that they actually say what the AI claims they do, because source-to-text inconsistencies are extremely common when using LLMs to search for sources.
Once that's done, you can extract information from the sources and write your article. For guidance on that, followHelp:Your first article and feel free to ask any more specific questions here at the Teahouse.
I like mountain biking and there's only 7 main MTB parks on the eastern seaboard of Australia, and I have been to all of them. I would love to document them for Wikipedia in next coming years however I have noticed none of them even have an article on Wikipedia. Even the world class Blue Derby[5] isn't listed on Wiki. I am assuming it's general lack of interest from editors and not that it doesn't deserve to be on Wiki. I have noticed a German[6] and Singaporean[7] MTB park is listed on Wikipedia so that gives me confidence. The issue is that whenever there's competitive races or mentions by the park, it's usually the local newspapers[8] and MTB magazines. They are independent but are they significant enough to make the article accepted? Or am I wasting my time building articles for the 7 main MTB parks, and I rather be told about this early, than later after building them all. I already submitted one draft of one major aussie MTB park[9] and hope it at least fulfils wiki minimal standards.JaredMcKenzie (talk)09:07, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @JaredMcKenzie: it all depends on whether you can find multiple (3+) sources that satisfy theWP:GNG standard. My guess (and it is only that) would be that these sort of facilities are unlikely to attract a lot of media attention in their own right, unless there is something genuinely remarkable about them; otherwise any coverage is likely to be of events etc. taking place there, with the venue receiving at best passing mentions. --DoubleGrazing (talk)10:29, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing Yep, your guess is half right and that is/or was my key concern. Blue Derby for example has IMBA Gold-Level Ride Center status[10], multiple local articles about it hosting the Enduro World Series. Yet if you visit Wikipedia's 2023 Enduro article[11], it lazily links Derby to the entire town ofDerby instead of specifically an article for the actual venue, where Iassume nobody has taken the time to make it yet. However I think maybe I misread the "significant" criteria. I originally thought it needed "significant" media covering it like international level stuff. But is local newspapers sufficient enough as long as the MTB park and its history is the central main focus of their reports? All 7 parks are being mentioned fully in-depth by MTB magazines and mostly local newspapers. It's just not famous enough to also get big sports media like ESPN and Fox Sports covering it due to lack of big corporate sponsorships and TV coverage. I only got minimal experiences in making new articles (onlypublished one so far) so like to know - in myDraft:Kiwarrak Mountain Bike Park[12] - would these 4 sources count as satisfying the WP:GNG standard? They're the very best I can find. Sources -[13][14][15][16]JaredMcKenzie (talk)11:08, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@JaredMcKenzie: you seem to have linked the same source twice. Also, Bicycle NSW is a primary source, so that one wouldn't count.
The problem with hyperlocal publications is that their news threshold is very low – if the village vicar's cat has kittens, they'll report it. I think you'd need at least one major regional (ideally national) outlet providingsignificant coverage, to demonstrate that the subject is of interest to a wider audience. --DoubleGrazing (talk)11:20, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
From what I understand, this isn't the level of cats being born to a small family. It's of interest to many mountain bikers in my country. Many would travel hours just to ride those parks. However I have no interest in putting more time on a lost cause. Is it recommended that I unsubmit my draft for Kiwarrak Mountain Bike Park as the best sources I have are these local newspapers plus dedicated MTB magazines[17], that are independent reliable sources that support real objective facts about its history and details of the park?JaredMcKenzie (talk)11:34, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not telling you not to write about these subjects, and I certainly wouldn't tell you to withdraw a draft that you've already submitted. As I've not seen your draft or its sources, my comments here were hypothetical. --DoubleGrazing (talk)12:01, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is it recommended that I unsubmit my draft for Kiwarrak Mountain Bike I'd advise the opposite, really. Wait for a reviewer to look over that draft and let you know if it's notable. If it is, you can proceed with working kn the others. If not, you have your answer.Athanelar (talk)12:02, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Athanelar Ok, I will wait. In the meantime out of curiosity, I have one last question - I also submitted a different draft that I worked on for a while. Similar issues. It's Adaptive Mountain Biking[18] where it's about the discipline of mountain biking that's adapted for disabled people. I was concerned that it is not mainstream and only of primary interest to disabled athletes. But do articles need to be world famous to be accepted? I created this in mostly on moral fairness as it's important to a niche group of disabled adrenaline seekers. Just to understand, will my sources here altogether be deemed acceptable enough to pass WP:GNG? They are MTB magazines, dedicated cycling organisations and only a few national or international media -[19][20][21][22][23]JaredMcKenzie (talk)12:20, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On concept alone I think adaptive mountain biking is a great article subject. We have articles likeWheelchair basketball for example. I can't speak to the quality of your sources without csrrying out a source review, which I'll leave for the article reviewer to do.WP:42 contains a good 'golden rule' about source quality.Athanelar (talk)12:28, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
H everyone, I’d really appreciate some guidance. I’ve been revising the articleTim Willasey-Wilsey and received helpful feedback from a reviewer who flagged issues and guided me to relevant notability pages.They suggested moving to draft so have pinged them to ask for help with that as there was an earlier issue with a redirect, I've made a few missteps so the redirect previously caused an issue, and I don't want to repeat that mistake.However,I’d really like to keep working on it now in Draft space. I 'd like to keep learning how to do this and improving the article . I think there is still a a case to build notability – former UK diplomat (significant honour,CMG award), Visiting Professor in War Studies at King’s College London, with reviews and citations in national newspapers, journals, and parliamentary sources but I need to improve the sources and I’d be so grateful for help identifying really strong secondary sources or advice from relevant WikiProjects. Could you suggest the correct ones , maybe Politics, International relations,Military history or Biography and maybe especially Politics & Government.Thanks so much for your time and help!15700cathy (talk)11:40, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to edit a page on Wikipedia's Alpharetta Georgia page and I don't think I did it right. I tried to add a famous person to the website and it's in the wrong alphabetical order. How can I fix it. It's on the notable people section.~2025-35724-15 (talk)14:25, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there! I was trying to find topics to create articles about but I couldn’t seem to figure out what could be created because there are articles about them already, video games, space (didn’t know what could be considered) I didn’t know. Is there any suggestions of articles that should be on the namespace or could be considered to be added to article namespace?rave (talk)15:24, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You could take a look atWP:Article requests to see articles that people have suggested for creation. However, I'd probably suggest you proceed with caution, given that the only article you've created so far is currently being discussed at AfD.Athanelar (talk)15:36, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You can find lots of articles that have been requested atRequested articles.
But remember that creating new articles is not the only way to contribute to Wikipedia, nor necessarily the best way. We have thousands of articles that need some TLC. You can find some at thetask center.
I am just asking if it is okay to add themusic publisher on the credits section of a song article? I saw some of the credits inTidal are disclosed the music publishers of the song.
Courtesy link: Higherlife Foundation
Done I have renamed the file.Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);Talk to Andy;Andy's edits12:13, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I responded to the{{Help me}} tag on the temp account's talk page. Happy Editing --IAmChaos22:45, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
_watch_dial_made_by_Derek_Pratt_and_rejected_by_him_due_to_imperfections.jpg){kind=link}
![[2]](/mt/?noimg=&dark=on&url=https%3a%2f%2fcommons.wikimedia.org%2fw%2findex.php%3ftitle%3dFile%3aAn_engine-turned_(guilloch%25C3%25A9)_watch_dial_made_by_Derek_Pratt_and_rejected_by_him_due_to_imperfections.jpg%26amp%3bdiff%3dprev%26amp%3boldid%3d1118582391){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}