Wikipedia:Teahouse

I was trying to locate citations for Raymond E. Johns Jr. and I stumbled across this source, from which the entire "Assignments" section is copied near word for word. It is not cited as a source. Is this a copyright violation?? If not, how would one add a citation in a way that shows it verifies the section in full? Would it be better written in prose rather than a list in this case? TXstockman5 (talk) 19:35, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Considering all materials made by the US government is in the public domain, it is not a copyright violation. I added the proper attribution to the Air Force in the article. The section would be better written as prose. Be bold and fix it. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 20:09, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Thank your for the confirmation. I have rewritten the section as prose. Is it appropriate to remove the maintenance tag for this article now, or should the sections for ranks and awards also be converted from tables to prose? TXstockman5 (talk) 21:38, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am the furthest thing from a military expert, but to me, the section on promotion dates seems like it should be entirely deleted. It's just a boring useless list of dates, because it tells nothing important about Johns's career. And I only say this because it "sticks out like a sore thumb" among the quality stuff in the rest of the article. (I mean, it's nicely and correctly made, it just happens to be about useless trivia.) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 05:10, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I too am not a military expert, but I'm finding similar tables on other high ranking military officer articles, but not all, (see Stanley A. McChrystal and John R. Allen). It was not difficult to find a reference for it so I added that to the section. Personally, I'm on the fence whether it should be included or removed, and I don't have the experience on these types of articles yet to make an informed argument one way or the other. TXstockman5 (talk) 19:13, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

My draft got rejected, stating that the draft has information that are refered using LLM(Chatgpt). Can you guide me, or help me in writing my own article. Manju M J (talk) 04:07, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you wrote the article with an LLM, you'll need to rewrite the entire thing, on your own this time, before resubmitting. ^{In solidarity,} 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 ^{(They/them • Talk • Contribs)} 04:14, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Click every source. Does it work? (Hint: not all of them do.) Does it support the statement in the article? Are there statements in the article which aren't supported by any source? Fix all of these problems. (I hope this slow process will show you why LLM is a bad idea. It's actually easier to write a good article yourself than fix an LLM article.)

Unusually for an article of this type by a beginner, I think there is some hope you can show notability here and successfully make an article. But not with LLM! They do not actually understand sourcing and make far too many mistakes. They also tend to give your article the sound of an advertisement, which we don't want. Use your own words, please. Your English does not have to be perfect.

You will also need to remove anything that praises the company, unless you are quoting or paraphrasing an independent source that praises them in this way. Neutral words only, please.

I will also mention that writing a new article is one of the hardest tasks on Wikipedia, and it's best to get experience with smaller jobs first. If the first thing you do when you get a hammer and some nails is build a house, it will probably fall down. M kuhner (talk) 04:51, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your response, but all the source links I have are archives, and these links works well on wayback machines and, when i extract those links and publish, few links are not re-directing Manju M J (talk) 06:49, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Manju M J The links as listed in your citations need to lead to a valid web page (which can be in a Web archive) when they are clicked. Is that the case now? David10244 (talk) 02:30, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

And to get it published on the main page, WP:DYK is the simplest process. It will have to be big and new enough and comply with policy including sourcing. Also there must be something interesting to say on the topic. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:26, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Without the extra space between the closing rooster brackets. It sometimes gets automatically added to text after publishing. What does it mean and how can I stop it from being added? ~ Hogshine (talk) 16:39, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Hogshine There's a rather technical explanation at Template:!. I think that the visual editor sometimes adds this where it isn't needed and you can try to remove it in the source editor, previewing to check whether its absence makes any difference, before you save/publish. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:20, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Should have figured out it's a template. Thanks for the reply, I think I‌ get it now. ~ Hogshine (talk) 17:24, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Hogshine: For future reference, you can use {{tl}} to refer to a template without it actually doing something. No need to mess with inserting spaces to prevent the template from working.

So What does "{{tl|!}}" mean? will produce What does "{{!}}" mean?. Bazza 7 (talk) 08:17, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That's incredibly useful to know, many thanks! ~ Hogshine (talk) 08:21, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Another approach, useful for all kinds of Wiki markup and not just templates, is to put <nowiki> ... </nowiki> tags around the thing you would like to discuss. I learned this at the Teahouse and it has been amazingly useful. M kuhner (talk) 17:03, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Noob question, but what is the regard toward necroposting here? I've seen talk page discussions from years ago that would really help the article. What should I do about these? ⇖ /.°°.\ ⇗ ^{(They/Them/Their)} 00:39, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia discussions generally move much slower than social media discussions. In my opinion, there's nothing wrong with responding to an old talk page discussion. I just wouldn't expect the original poster to respond (although someone probably will, depending on the article). That's just me, though. ^{In solidarity,} 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 ^{(They/them • Talk • Contribs)} 01:13, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I will keep this in mind. ⇖ /.°°.\ ⇗ ^{(They/Them/Their)} 01:16, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not sure necroposting exists on Wikipedia. If you came from fandom like me, necroposting seems to be a large thing there, but not on Wikipedia. Just make sure the discussion is appropriate and productive for the topic and you’re A-OK. Agar!! - Talk with me, im sad and lonely :( 17:02, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there. I want to write an article about a notable person who currently has a page up since 2006 that is nothing but a redirect to the most notable TV show they created, along with some categories that pertain to them. Do I just write the article and erase the REDIRECT? PaulieZiegfeld (talk) 20:15, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Would you, PaulieZiegfeld, be able to demonstrate in your proposed article that this person is "notable" as defined by and for Wikipedia? If so, then edit the page that's currently a redirect, so that it becomes the article (and of course is no longer a redirect). -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 21:56, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Right that's what I figured. I didn't know if there was anything else I needed to do as I've never edited a page that was just a living as a redirect and categories. And yes the person is for sure notable by Wiki standards. Thank you. PaulieZiegfeld (talk) 19:24, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @PaulieZiegfeld, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Another approach, if you're less confident, is to create the new article as a draft. Then, when you think it is good to go, you can either submit it for review, or request that it be moved over the redirect. ColinFine (talk) 15:02, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much. I think I can direct edit, but I appreciate the options as well. PaulieZiegfeld (talk) 19:26, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still learning Wikipedia editing and would appreciate some guidance.

If I come across a statement in an article that seems plausible but doesn't have a source, how do I decide whether to add a "citation needed" tag or remove the statement instead? Are there any general guidelines or examples of when one approach is preferred over the other?

Thanks in advance for your advice! Diablo in action for (talk) 04:17, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi and welcome! Here is what should happen if you come across an unsourced statement:

1. If it's unlikely to be true or controversial (especially on a BLP) it may be best to remove it. If it was added recently, you can leave a message to the Talk page of whoever added it to let them know what you've done - most editors use Twinkle for this.
2. If you think it's a reasonable claim, the best thing to do is look for a source yourself and add it as a citation.
3. If you can't find one but think it's reasonable to leave in, add the tag and the next editor who sees it can try to find something.

In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 05:29, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe backwards is better: If you have good reason to strongly doubt a certain claim, and it's uncited, feel free to delete the claim. But if that is not the case, try other things. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 03:34, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I had multiple edits on my acc, like changing the wording of some articles, and I even sent warnings on talk pages, but my talk page still isnt created, and I didnt even get welcomed. Whats the deal? is Wikipedia not popular anymore? That1ElioFan (talk) 09:32, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Consider yourself welcomed. Wikipedia is a volunteer project, where people do what they can, when they can. In order to welcome you, someone would need to see your edits and decide to welcome you. It's not automatic or guaranteed.

Is this your first account? You've done some advanced things, and it's unusual to have users that expected a formal welcome. 331dot (talk) 09:42, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Re: first account question. The editor has had a Miraheze account for 2 months with 229 edits. So they can be new to Wikipedia, but not MediaWiki. I have a problem with these types of questions, categorically, because it implies that people are incapable of reading guidelines or how-tos. Editors insulted me at SPI for no reason than "feels". And it's not an experience I would wish on anyone. Let's assume good faith and not bite the newcomers. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 10:04, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly a fair comment, but as I said, it's unusual for new users to expect a welcome. The tone also struck me as snarky. 331dot (talk) 14:47, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Most active editors' talk pages (or their archives) have welcome messages on them, I wouldn't consider it unusual to know about them (I was certainly wondering the same thing before I got mine) jolielover♥talk 14:58, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes happens!! I was welcomed a great deal later. We even have a template for it: belated welcome! jolielover♥talk 14:25, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@That1ElioFan: wdym? Your talk page is created the second you create an account. ~2026-36903-48 (talk) 19:25, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@~2026-36903-48 Not really, no. A talk page is created when someone decides to add content to it (such as a message or talk header). For example, I can see that your temporary account does not have a talk page (yet). —In solidarity with Wiki Workers United · ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email) 04:03, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@ClaudineChionh: I meant your user talk is created the second you register into an account, not a temporary account. Oh well, you fact checked me anyways. ~2026-36903-48 (talk) 04:11, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I mean create. ~2026-36903-48 (talk) 04:13, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't. It sometimes is on other language editions (an automatic welcome message), but English Wikipedia doesn't have that, so when your talk page is created depends on when a human sees it and decides to. jolielover♥talk 04:17, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@~2026-36903-48 As jolieliver says, you are not correct here in the English Wikipedia. Your Talk page is not created as soon as you make an account. David10244 (talk) 02:42, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

American (USA) here, but I frequently contribute to things relating to List of Canadian voice actors (e.g. Winx Club, Arthur, and Caillou). I am not sure if there is a Wikiproject for that (specifically Canadian voice actors and not Canada itself). Because I know a lot about the subject by watching those three shows. How would I be a list of contributors for that topic? An Unexpected NTSC Composite-Component VCR (talk) 16:54, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem like there is. Unfortunately, many current WikiProjects already struggle to have active members contributing, so it's unlikely such a niche topic would ultimately stay afloat. I suppose you could have a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers, might be the most-ontopic thing. jolielover♥talk 16:56, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

thank you. That is on-topic. But when I signed for participant for that, is it fine if I, from the USA, signed and specified i would do and edit articles relating to Canadian (Quebec) voice actors? An Unexpected NTSC Composite-Component VCR (talk) 17:03, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, absolutely fine! jolielover♥talk 17:15, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There's no nationality requirement on editing any given topic here. The only thing to be aware of is MOS:ENGVAR and MOS:TIES as it relates to Canadian topics, so for unquestionably Canadian things, use spellings like "colour". Sesquilinear (talk) 19:09, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I normally use American English (my native language) because of my nationality, but I'll use Canadian English when I do edit. I think I've learned Canadian English by watching the shows mentioned. So when I edit about them I'll switch to Canadian English. That okay? An Unexpected NTSC Composite-Component VCR (talk) 19:28, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Totally fine. If you slip up (most of us do from time to time) be assured, someone will fix your spellings. I am frequently amazed how quickly that happens! M kuhner (talk) 20:22, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the best way to become part of "the group that edits those articles" is to start editing those articles and see what happens. And here's a real live Canadian assuring you that your knowledge of where and how to find good source material, and of how to get those ideas onto Wikipedia, is what counts - not which side of the border you live on, whether you prefer your catalogues in colour, or whether you know that a real quart has 40 ounces. :) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 03:55, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. My knowledge of where to find source material does count. And if I do edit, that means there might be a spun-off Wikiproject for Canadian voice actors since I frequently do that topic (mostly the Québec/Montreal English ones). As you said it doesn't matter which side of the border I live on (for me, the US), which is true for me an editor. An Unexpected NTSC Composite-Component VCR (talk) 12:22, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What does c/e stand for or mean in edit summaries and is it possible to indefinitely block an IP Address from editing wikipedia? ~2026-36903-48 (talk) 19:19, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

CE stands for copy edit. Theroadislong (talk) 19:20, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Theroadislong: okay but is it possible to indefinitely block an IP address from editing wikipedia? ~2026-36903-48 (talk) 19:22, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Theroadislong (talk) 19:23, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Possible, but it's rare because most IP addresses these days change far too often for that to be worth it. Sesquilinear (talk) 20:38, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Who do you ask about the IP address? In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 00:07, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@~2026-36903-48 Do you think there is a Temporary Account (TA) that needs to be blocked? Or, do you know of an account name where you think the IP address behind it needs to be blocked? If so, why? David10244 (talk) 02:46, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've got a draft in development at User:Stuartyeates/Signs_of_a_Nation_exhibition_panel_of_the_Treaty_of_Waitangi_English_text_altered_by_Te_Waka_Hourua which is a museum object. I'm not sure what infobox to use. I've looked through Wikipedia:List_of_infoboxes but nothing seems to fit. {{Infobox artwork}} was the closest, but seems to assume an object created in one go, rather than a two-phase creation. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:53, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

{{Infobox artifact}} is perhaps an alternative? But two-phase objects are so rare, relatively speaking, there may not be a perfect fit. M kuhner (talk) 00:13, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Not every article needs or is required to have an infobox. If no infobox fits, consider not adding one. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 06:53, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, I'm back! Just had a quick question about importance tagging. The source of my confusion is around the article Children & Families of Iowa; when I use WikiProject Iowa's page, the results seem to say that it is of Top Importance, and yet, when I go to the Talk page for the article, it says it is "Low‑importance." Why is this? EHynnek (talk) 00:56, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The displayed value on the article Talk page is produced by this line: {{WikiProject United States|importance=low|IA=yes|IA-importance=Top}} . Note that there are two "importance" values, a US one and an IA one. Apparently in that case US gets displayed? At the WikiProject Iowa page, I presume the IA importance is correctly detected causing the article to sort into Top Importance. I couldn't immediately find another Iowa page with the double tags to compare.

Here is the Template:WikiProject United States info page, for what it's worth. I don't immediately see anything wrong with this use of it, but I'm far from a template guru.

So that's "how" it happens; for "why" you will probably have to ask the WikiProject. M kuhner (talk) 01:37, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see; that makes sense! I will ask the WikiProject. I appreciate your time! Best, EHynnek (talk) 14:04, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The importance-levels aren't super serious, usually just one person setting them. They are generally more reliable with highly-viewed articles, where other people have a look and can challenge the level. I personally don't see why this is top-importance, so I rated it lower, to mid. jolielover♥talk 14:23, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Fixed indenting) David10244 (talk) 02:51, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I was making edits to this raw milk article—it incorrectly dismisses potential nutritional benefits to leaving milk unpasteurized that I wanted to integrate into the introduction. I spent a couple hours researching and adding to it, just to have it refreshed to the old version and get a notice that I've been flagged by admin or something. Check the version history or something, what did I do? Lwightmanresearch (talk) 03:17, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You were reported to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents by a brand new editor who does not seem to know what they are doing. Your edits to the article were reverted by a completely different editor because you did not provide reliable sources. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:22, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Is this https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0362028X22128449?via%3Dihub#bb0045 not a reliable source to support the statements that "It remains uncertain whether nutritional differences as outlined translate into clinically significant health benefits. That said, meta-analysis has shown that pasteurization may slightly reduce concentration levels and/or bioavailability of several heat-sensitive nutrients found in raw milk. These include vitamin B1 (thiamine), vitamin B2 (riboflavin), vitamin B6 (pyridoxal), vitamin B9 (folate), vitamin B12 (cobalamin), vitamin C, and vitamin E, although raw milk only contains B2 and B12 in substantial amounts."? Lwightmanresearch (talk) 03:37, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't read any of what you wrote. @PhilKnight reverted your edit with the edit summary that you didn't provide adequate sourcing. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:40, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In any event, while the source does say that, you are mischaracterizing it. From the abstract: "The effect of pasteurization on milk's nutritive value was minimal because many of these vitamins are naturally found in relatively low levels. ... Overall, these findings should be interpreted with caution given the poor quality of reported methodology in many of the included studies." voorts (talk/contributions) 03:44, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Mm-hm, I addressed this: “… although raw milk only contains B2 and B12 in substantial amounts.” Lwightmanresearch (talk) 03:47, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the parts that I italicized. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:51, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

“It remains uncertain whether nutritional differences as outlined translate into clinically significant health benefits” sounds pretty minimal and cautious to me. Lwightmanresearch (talk) 03:54, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

But we can restore the old version and make it sound even more skeptical, if needed so. Lwightmanresearch (talk) 03:55, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No. We can follow Wikipedia's neutrality policy and reliable sourcing guidelien for medicine. I suggest you avoid editing about controversial topics until you better understand Wikipedia's rules. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:58, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. There’s nothing controversial, though, about the fact that complex water-soluble molecules (like B vitamins) degrade and oxidize when exposed to high levels of thermal energy such as during the process of pasteurization. Lwightmanresearch (talk) 04:07, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Lwightmanresearch Looking at the full text of what you originally added, I fully agree with it being reverted.

That said, meta-analysis has shown that pasteurization may slightly reduce concentration levels and/or bioavailability of several heat-sensitive nutrients found in raw milk. is obviously overly credulous compared to the statement quoted above from the study's abstract that The effect of pasteurization on milk's nutritive value was minimal. It may be strictly "true" to say that "there is some evidence," but to cherrypick that presentation without the broader context that the overall effect is minimal is obviously not neutral, and especially to present this in the lead, with (as you expressly said) the stated goal that [the article] incorrectly dismisses potential nutritional benefits to leaving milk unpasteurized. It is generally always a bad idea to set out with the goal to correct some perceived shortcoming in the "opinion" of a Wikipedia article. Athanelar (talk) 04:20, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It’s never going to be pseudoscience that raw milk is more nourishing than pasteurized milk in terms of bioavailability and nutrient concentration, even if it’s a “minimal” difference. And again, the words “slightly reduce,” “uncertain,” etc would indicate that the overall effect of pasteurization on nutrition is “minimal.” Anyways, I’d welcome anyone to show me how it’s done. Address the biochemical side effects of pasteurization in your own non-controversial way, since I seemed to have failed attempting it myself. The article will simply have a gap without it. Lwightmanresearch (talk) 04:44, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It is absolutely pseudoscience to say that raw milk is more nourishing, until there is positive reproducible proof of it accepted by mainstream science. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 03:27, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am done attempting to explain a basic biochemical concept that most ordinary people don’t seem to understand. The skepticism towards raw milk seems to stem from the risk of pathogen introduction (and I completely endorse this concern), but bacterial risk and plain nutritional profile are two different topics. Additionally, underlying scientific principles don’t change based on “mainstream” attention. If it was pseudoscience it wouldn’t be controversial. Pseudoscience is more like “the earth is flat.” Lwightmanresearch (talk) 04:03, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is not necessarily whether what you're saying is true: it's whether you're giving it due weight. When the journal you're linking to literally says that the nutritional benefit is minimal, it's obviously skewed to still focus on the fact that there is some nutritional benefit. You're highlighting the details that benefit your point of view and downplaying those which don't. Athanelar (talk) 06:24, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It is uncontroversial that pasteurized milk is just as good, or at least so close that it does not matter. What you're doing is trying to twist something that doesn't matter so you can falsely make it appear important. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 06:40, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

All informational points I contributed to the article were attributable to the source I provided… Lwightmanresearch (talk) 03:45, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment above. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:45, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is a conglomeration of what reliable sources say about a subject, which means we can't insert our own analysis, interpret or synthesise anything - that falls under the Wikipedia:No original research policy. All our readers should be able to click through and verify what's been written. In this case, it would be good to read up on the WP:MEDRS link that Voorts provided since we're talking about medical claims, especially that that state they are not reliable in their own abstract.

Honestly, writing neutrally about controversial topics is difficult and not something we'd usually suggest new editors do straight off the bat. Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) In solidarity 04:11, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Lwightmanresearch Did you make sure that the supposed (minimal) changes in the nutritive value of unpasteurized milk was balanced, in the article, by an equally prominent statement about the dangers of, and deaths caused by, unpasteurized milk? (Louis Pasteur is credited with saving millions of lives.) David10244 (talk) 02:59, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Editing Maria Antonia of Austria and found this Youtube video [2] as a source in the last section. Already by seeing the thumbnail, I don't have high hopes and I'm wondering if it should be removed. Should I be watching those types of videos first or removing them as sources right away? Though I've used YouTube as a source when appropriate before. OliviaRigby (talk) 04:36, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't seem appropriate, I've removed it. However, the video description does link to the sources the YouTuber used, and they seem to be much more appropriate for the page. Those sources should be used instead of the video. jolielover♥talk 04:42, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. I was sure that video wasn't appropriate but glad this one did their research (hopefully!). I never would've found those sources down there, so thank you. I would be happy if they were good to use. OliviaRigby (talk) 04:48, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I put a note in the talk page (with the links) for future reference. Maybe I'll come back to it later. jolielover♥talk 04:49, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

OliviaRigby, the general principle that your question helps bring forward is that just because a source is not appropriate for use as a reference on Wikipedia does not mean that the source is without any value. Many blogs and user generated websites and yes, YouTube videos may contain both accurate information, and also hints and clues about how to search for better sources. Cullen328 (talk) 06:07, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

i find it quite interesting that in the Main_Page's news section it does not have the news about small plane crash that occurred in Beijing. Morris (talk with this worm) 08:31, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Which accident is this? If it is the same one currently in Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#June_26, seems like it doesn't have a page. If it meets our general notability criteria, you can be bold and create a page, and then nominate at the link above. However, I personally do not recommend doing this. Such events rarely have lasting significance & sustained coverage. Read Wikipedia:Notability (events) for more information. jolielover♥talk 08:38, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I was talking about this one. On your second point, I guess you are right. This incident got some notability, though. Morris (talk with this worm) 08:54, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In the U.S. alone, there are about 1,100 general aviation accidents a year per AOPA, about 20% fatal. If we cover just the ones with fatalities, that would be one Main page crash mention every two days, without considering other countries. Mathglot (talk) 15:11, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

fair enough. Morris (talk with this worm) 07:46, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

How would one go about proposing to promote a guideline to a policy, such as WP:CWW? Is there a standard process? FaviFake (talk) 11:19, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@FaviFake WP:VPR and WP:VPP. Perchance ! ⠀⠀⠀⠀ .n 12:32, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

FaviFake, I suggest that you read Wikipedia:Avoid instruction creep. Cullen328 (talk) 16:16, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328 That page says: The longer, more detailed, and more complicated you make the instructions, the less likely anyone is to read or follow them. How is that related to promoting a guideline? FaviFake (talk) 21:07, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

FaviFake, the tone of the essay indicates that experienced editors are reluctant to create new policies when guidelines and essays are as effective and less prescriptive. If you did not find the essay useful, I apologize for suggesting it. Cullen328 (talk) 23:18, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm new to Wikipedia and just wrote my first article — Draft:Paul Henri (actor). I came across Paul Henri, an actor, director and entrepreneur, while researching Australian short films and noticed he didn't have a Wikipedia page despite having real credits on Netflix, Showtime UK and a James Cameron National Geographic film. I've cited 8 sources including the Sydney Morning Herald and FilmInk. I have 19 edits but I only started editing on June 25 so I think I need to wait until tomorrow to move it myself. Is there anyone who could move it to mainspace for me or confirm my account? Really appreciate any help! Sarahmc2 (talk) 12:19, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Sarahmc2 You have submitted the draft for review, so it is now in the group that will be looked at by experienced editors. I can tell you that it is an immediate "fail" as it is a biography of a living person but has many parts uncited, including all the "Early life" section. Please read the policy and add citations, or remove the parts you can't source reliably. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:35, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As predicted, it has been declined, for that reason and because you appeared to use a chatbot to write parts See WP:NOLLM. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:38, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I want to be clear that I am not being paid to write this article and have no connection to the subject whatsoever. I have nothing to gain from writing this except experience writing my first Wikipedia article. I did use an AI tool to help with some of the formatting and structure which I now understand isn't permitted, I'll rewrite it manually. I appreciate the guidance and everyone's patience with a new editor. Thank you and sorry for the mistake, maybe I'll start with a historical bridge or landmark on my next attempt as I get how because it's a human it can seem odd. Thank Sarahmc2 (talk) 07:24, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Sarahmc2 Firstly, I've declined your article at this time: I don't think it's currently fit for mainspace; both because of what Mike Turnbull has said, and also because of the reasons I gave in my decline notice.

Secondly, while I hate to call anybody a liar, it's not exactly common for someone to "come across" a frankly entirely unremarkable creative professional and suddenly be struck by a determination to get that person a Wikipedia article as soon as possible. It is much more common for such creative professionals to try to pay people or recruit people they're connected to to write such articles for them, though. If you are connected in any way to Henri, or are being paid by him to create this article, please just be transparent about that fact. Obfuscating it will do neither you nor your article any favours. Athanelar (talk) 12:38, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Okay got it. Thank you for being direct, I completely understand the skepticism and I'm not offended by it, I can see why it looks odd. But I genuinely am not connected to Paul Henri and am not being paid. I'm a fan of Australian independent cinema and stumbled across his work through the Flickerfest program. I was excited to write my first Wikipedia article about someone I found interesting. I now understand I made mistakes, like using AI assistance and not fully understanding the notability requirements. I'm not trying to fight the decline, I just wanted to be transparent that there's no paid relationship here. I'll take the feedback on board and either improve the article properly or most likey leave it if the subject genuinely doesn't meet the criteria. Thanks for your advice Sarahmc2 (talk) 07:32, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your transparency! Writing an article is one of Wikipedia's hardest tasks, it's not an easy thing to take on as a beginner editor: but Help:Your first article might help if you want to write about something else. Athanelar (talk) 08:39, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I uploaded the book cover of a book, but I was failed to write a correct name for that, it shows the name screenshot. How to change it, pls guide. See, File:Screenshot 2026 0628 175859.png. Wanderer (talk) 12:36, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

See Help:Files#Renaming files. Deor (talk) 13:49, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@IAmTheOnlyUnknownWandererInIndia: Forgot to ping, drat it. Deor (talk) 14:02, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@IAmTheOnlyUnknownWandererInIndia Done. DS (talk) 12:06, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed that temp account ~2026-37093-41 is creating dozens of blank drafts about various acquisitions of companies (it's definitely clogging the new drafts feed). Is this allowed? Thanks. ^{In solidarity,} 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 ^{(They/them • Talk • Contribs)} 16:22, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked the user pending an explanation. 331dot (talk) 16:45, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Should the drafts be deleted or left alone for now? ^{In solidarity,} 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 ^{(They/them • Talk • Contribs)} 16:54, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Leave them. All drafts get removed after a period of inactivity. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:03, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, I was just wondering if they should be speedy deleted. Thanks! ^{In solidarity,} 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 ^{(They/them • Talk • Contribs)} 02:17, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone,

Trevor Bumbarger (talk) 22:14, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You can use WP:requested articles, but many articles listed there never get articles. Note: now that you've posted this request, you may get scammers trying to sell you their services as a Wikipedia editor. This is always a WP:SCAM. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 22:21, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Trevor Bumbarger Your question's underlying premise is in error- Wikipedia does not have "pages for" a topic, that they control or that benefits them. Wikipedia has articles about topics, typically written by independent editors wholly unconnected with the topic.

I would suggest that you read about why a Wikipedia article is not necessarily desirable. 331dot (talk) 22:25, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Trevor Bumbarger, you've posed the question more thoughtfully at User talk:Chocmilk03. What SomeoneDreaming and 331dot write above remains valid; but if you still want to pursue the creation of an article (and I strongly suggest that you don't), then bear in mind that its viability would depend in part on the meaning of your having been "featured" in the press, etc. (This strangely modish word might mean "discussed in depth", but all too often it's just a grandiose synonym for "mentioned".) -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 22:46, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've been on the news and magazine Trevor Bumbarger (talk) 23:06, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please link the articles you are mentioned in. Are they from reliable sources? Do they provide significant coverage of you? Are there at least three sources that meet these requirements? If so, you might meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. ^{In solidarity,} 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 ^{(They/them • Talk • Contribs)} 01:36, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.qcnews.com/news/u-s/north-carolina/cabarrus-county/concord/concord-man-with-autism-writes-songs-to-come-out-of-his-shell/

https://www.wsoctv.com/news/local/never-give-up-volunteer-gives-back-kids-with-disabilities-concord-nonprofit/QN3UIOKSINHOVOA4GDLGX6U2UM/

https://boldjourney.com/meet-trevor-bumbarger/

https://hyperfollow.com/TrevorBumbargerTheFinalJourney?utm_source=ig&utm_medium=social&utm_content=link_in_bio&fbclid=PAb21jcASueW9leHRuA2FlbQIxMQBzcnRjBmFwcF9pZA81NjcwNjczNDMzNTI0MjcAAad30Xv2dSFQUPDViXVdpqD5IEM0uaBzdvQJab0c42kfl5g1Itkn0S8FNYR_uw_aem_BUFbM14WiqROYGyjFeWG3A Trevor Bumbarger (talk) 03:01, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, the first 2, WJZY and WSOC-TV, helps with WP:N. There's some reporting in there, not just interview. They're a bit local, but local is not nothing. The other 2 are not independent of subject. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 04:47, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be enough to make a site on Wikipedia? Trevor Bumbarger (talk) 13:30, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

or can I still not make one? Trevor Bumbarger (talk) 21:01, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Can I submit a new page for review for an organization if the existing page has errors? ~2026-37068-57 (talk) 22:44, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @~2026-37068-57, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Basically, No. If there is an existing article on a subject, then a new draft on the same subject will not be accepted.

Are you connected with the organization? If you are, then you should read about editing with a conflict of interest; and if you are in any way paid by or in connection with the subject (including as an intern or volunteer), you are regarded as a paid editor, and you must make a formal declaration of that fact (see the link).

So, what I would suggest is:

• Create an account. (Not essential, but if you have a COI or are a Paid editor, it allows you to have a user page, which is the best place to make your declaration. Your user name must not suggest that it edits on behalf of an organisation (so, not "[name of Org]", or "Media at [name of Org]", though "John from [name of Org]" would be acceptable).
• Submit several edit requests for specific changes to the article. Specify the changes as precisely as possible, and remember to cite a reliable published source - preferably one independent of the organisation - for any information you wish to add.

A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what the majority of people who are wholly unconnected with the subject have independently chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, (see Golden rule) and not much else. What you know (or anybody else knows) about the subject is not relevant except where it can be verified from a reliable published source. If you try and put into the article what the organisation wants people to know, that will be promotional, and not accepted. ColinFine (talk) 23:02, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone,

I've done 730 edits on Wikipedia and I think I've made my first person angry.

I'm having problems with the article on Samuel Leeds. He is a controversial figure and I knew that this time would come. I have seem the other editors posts on both the article's talk page and my talk page.

I would really appreciate someone with more experience than me looking over the article pre and post edit and letting me know their opinion . The other editors removing of embarrassing information about Samuel's tenure as owner of Ribbesford House, the removal of Companies House and The Daily Telegraph as sources and the added puffery in the new "Philanthropic Work" section is something that I will contest when I have the time.

But firstly, at the start of the article I have added that Samuel's date of birth is 11 April 1991. The reference, Companies House, only says that his date of birth is April 1991. I used Samuel's Instagram page to reference that his date of birth is the 11th. Is this acceptable? I was under the impression that Instagram was an acceptable source for basic biographic details. If it is not, please accept my apologies and I will move on with my other points of contention.

Thank you for helping me,

Puffin123 (talk) 22:55, 28 June 2026 (UTC).[reply]

Hello, @Puffin123, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Have you read BRD? That talks about how the (absolutely routine) business of editors disagreeing should be handled.

Choosing a controversial subject to work on is always likely to bring you into disagreement with other editors. While there are times and ways to appeal for an outside opinion (see WP:3O) generally it is up to the editors involved to reach consensus. ColinFine (talk) 23:08, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Puffin123: Just to add on your final query, see paragraph four of WP:DOB, as well as WP:ABOUTSELF. If there's no reason to doubt that the subject has accurately (and publicly) shared his DOB on social media, then yes, that should be an acceptable source. Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 03:33, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I need to make sweeping changes to a page as I know they're wrong. Please advise on how to do so. Football1994 (talk) 23:36, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Three points:

(1) You, or me, or anyone "knowing" something is wrong (or right) on Wikipedia is of no use – every 'thing' (fact) in Wikipedia must be cited to a published source (preferable a Reliable source) in accordance with our principle of Verifiability. Do you have the necessary published sources (which may be on line, or offline with the appropriate bibliographical details) to cite for every change you make?

(2) If you are, as we say, being Bold and making changes to an article, be prepared for someone to disagree and Revert them, after which you and they will need to civilly Discuss them and come to a consensus: this is our WP:Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle which is a routine procedure on Wikipedia.

(3) If making a number of changes, it is better to make them one or a few at a time, rather than sweepingly all at once, so that if someone disagrees with some and agrees with others, they can revert only the one(s) they disagree with, rather than all of them. This makes the whole process easier and more efficient for all involved.

Hope this helps.

Edited to add: You have been given some excellent advice by Blue-Sonnet on your Talk page. I strongly recommend you follow it and study all of the material she has linked. Yes, there's a lot of it: Wikipedia is a complex project with high and firm standards and procedures, which it is advisable for you to grasp before embarking on a great deal of effort, so as not to waste it, and your client's money. We regular (I am tempted to say 'legitimate') Wikipedia editors are all unpaid volunteers, so you cannot expect too much hand-holding from us when you are charging somebody else money to carry out work on it, presumably on the basis that you are competent to do so. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-36805-68 (talk) 23:56, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Football1994, you must fully comply with the Paid contributions disclosure. This is mandatory and not negotiable. You must follow the Conflict of interest editing guideline. You need to justify the sweeping changes you plan to make in accordance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Cullen328 (talk) 05:30, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've been working on merging an article, and have noticed some sections I am trying to merge are verbatim (which makes merging very easy). Is there some tool I can use to immediatly spot identical or near identical text sections between 2 wikipedia articles to speed up merging? Thanks! Wik206 (talk) 23:38, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wik206, as a first cut, the WP:Diff program, which is what is used on the History tab when you compare two revisions of an article. Diff can compare any two revisions, they don't have to be the same article. On the other hand, if there are major differences, Diff can get very verbose and difficult to interpret. But for very similar pages, it should be fine. See also WP:Earwig, giving it one article name, and passing the other one as an url to compare to. That should be better when only portions are similar. Mathglot (talk) 01:49, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I am suggesting that the name "Low-Importance" (for the category to which Comyns' novel is assigned) should be changed. I have reasons. How do I do this??

HC ~2026-37261-24 (talk) 00:56, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: The Vet's Daughter ^{In solidarity,} 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 ^{(They/them • Talk • Contribs)} 01:17, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the novel has not been assigned low-importance, but it has been assigned low-importance to a few WikiProjects. WikiProjects are spaces where editors interested in a specific subject can collaborate. Just because the article is not considered particularly important to those WikiProjects doesn't mean the book is unimportant, or that it can't be important to you or others.

If you've read and understood the above, do you still require assistance? What are your "reasons" for changing its position on the importance scale for those WikiProjects? ^{In solidarity,} 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 ^{(They/them • Talk • Contribs)} 01:27, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@~2026-37261-24 it's just scored low importance because those articles are low in importance specifically for the scope of those WikiProjects, not that it's unimportant irl. take the assessments for Juche (at Talk:Juche) for example:

Korea: North Korea - Top-importance

Socialism: High-importance

Politics: Mid-importance

we see here that, per the respective explanations of each WikiProject's importance scale on why that WikiProject assessed it as such:

Subject is an entry point for [North] Korea and is crucial for understanding [North] Korea. A must-have for any good encyclopedia.

Subject is extremely notable, but has not achieved international notability, or is only notable within a particular continent.

Subject is only notable within its particular field or subject [Socialism/Communism] and has achieved notability in a particular place or area.

you can also see that considering the scope of each WikiProject, this makes perfect sense for each individual one, not that Juche is objectively a top or mid importance subject ⠀⠀⠀⠀ .n 02:43, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I recently decided to try and contribute by improving the article on Legalism (Chinese philosophy). It's a very large page with a number of noted problems. I have been talking to the primary editor of the page, User:FourLights, about ways we could do this, and while we're in agreement about a great deal, we disagree on some crucial points. We agreed that it would help to find an experienced editor to chime in and give their opinion, and being new to editing Wikipedia, this seemed like the right place to ask.

An underlying issue is the complexity of classifying Legalism as a "School of philosophy" to begin with - "Legalism" was a category invented during the Han dynasty, and not used when the Legalists were actually writing, and due to their heterogeneity it can be difficult to really describe an underlying shared core of their thought.

Where we disagree is that my opinion is that foregrounding this complexity can (and has) led to difficulty in interpretation - Legalism is a central topic in Ancient Chinese history and philosophy, and so (via WP:RF) we should be focusing primarily on what the Legalist thinkers thought, and explicitly outline the issues with the classification later in the article. This may lead to some compromises on completeness in the early stages of the article - for example, if I were to write something like "Legalism is a school of philosophical thought originating in Warring States China, emphasising among other things the consistent and unbiased application of laws within a state, limiting direct interference in the affairs of state by the sovereign, the use of rewards and punishments to achieve outcomes, and reducing the power of the aristocracy in favor of meritocracy.", it may be technically incomplete in that some of the core Legalist thinkers did not advocate for punishments, but may serve well as an introduction to the broad patterns within the classification.

User:FourLights disagrees, arguing that these sorts of overgeneralisations are technically inaccurate, and should not be written this way (Although he will probably be better at phrasing his opinion than I am).

This is just one example; there are more issues that I think we need help with.

In any case, the article does need a lot of work, and considering its high importance I think it would be really helpful if an experienced editor could help us out, either in this thread or contacting us otherwise. Please let me know if you'd be willing to help, or if you could point me to someone who could! ZonNgoKhong (talk) 05:48, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

While there's nothing wrong with posting here, the Wikipedia:Third Opinion board exists specifically for finding experienced editors to offer a third opinion on a knotty topic. M kuhner (talk) 06:50, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The answer, as always, particularly regarding how it should be described in the lead, is "how do reliable sources on the matter describe it?" It's not necessarily important to only (or primarily) describe how Legalist thinkers of the time might have summarised their philosophy. The question is, how are people now using the term? What philosophy are people describing when they say Legalism now?

I ran into a similar issue when first writing Hindu theology. I went into it thinking I was going to be writing an article about what Hindu thinkers thought of divinity. What I actually ended up writing was moreso a meta-overview of Hindu religious thought, because as it turns out the term "theology" was historically unpopular among Hindu thinkers (who thought the term had too much Christian baggage, and was less "legitimate" in the eyes of Western scholarship than the term "philosophy") and so preferred to think of themselves as "Hindu philosophers" rather than "Hindu theologians." As a result, the term "Hindu theology" really only came to prominence in the past couple of years in the context of religious scholars analysing the traditions of Hindu religious thought and recontextualising them in the context of the term "theology"; so what I mostly ended up writing about was the struggle of contextualising various forms of Hindu religious thought as "theology" in hindsight, rather than writing about the theology itself.

Go where the sources take you, is the point. If "legalism" is a later term invented by later people, then report what they wrote about legalism. Don't try to force earlier writings into the box of legalism unless reliable sources identify it as such, otherwise it's WP:SYNTH. Athanelar (talk) 06:53, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input! Your comparison with Hindu theology is highly instructive here.

"Don't try to force earlier writings into the box of legalism unless reliable sources identify it as such, otherwise it's WP:SYNTH"

So to clarify here, the problem is that later-writer classification of "Legalism" is the only solid thing that Legalism is. It began with historians in the Han dynasty creating a box (for complicated, potentially political reasons) called Legalism and putting a bunch of diverse writers into it, and then modern scholarship came about and called the meaningfulness of that box into question. I'm no expert, but my understanding is that if modern scholarship had started reading all these texts from scratch without the classification, they'd have been unlikely to make that same box. But nonetheless that box entered common usage, and a page on Legalism that describes the work of actual thinkers rather than the history of bibliographic labeling choices is necessary.

So I think there's something of a conflict between the conventional narrative that arose out of traditional Chinese historiography (which greatly informed the vocabulary in modern usage) versus modern scholarship, in terms of how this is approached. Fourlight's view is, as I understand it, that the structure of the article should the view that Legalism just refers to a sort of archival classification rather than a school of thought. My view is that this should be secondary to the philosophical content, structured more like "These are the Legalists, this is what they thought and the rough patterns we can see between them, here's why modern scholarship thinks that the term itself isn't that helpful [later in the article once the actual ideas have been introduced]", my reasoning being that the current structure has made the article extremely difficult to someone who doesn't already know a lot about legalism.

If those two choices are the options, do you think you could help us understand which ones is better? ZonNgoKhong (talk) 10:33, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

On the terminological side, you may not find any quality modern source that calls them Legalists. Tao Jiang, even as an advocate of Fajia as a category, disowns the translated term.FourLights (talk) 10:38, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If the historical writers never used the term themselves, then you can only report on it in the context in which it was used, if that makes sense.

I.e., you can't say "Here's what Han Writer X says about Legalism, now here's some of the writings of Legalist Y, who in my opinion fits into that box." As with any article, your job is to summarise what's available in the sources on Legalism, and that's all. You have to find sources that do use the term "Legalism" and write down what they say about that term, what it means, who's included in it, etc. It's not our place to try to correct the historiography or make sure that the views of those we now describe as 'Legalists' are being portrayed as accurately as possible. Athanelar (talk) 10:57, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have no knowledge of the pre-modern imperial Chinese ever using the term Fajia outside a bibliographic context. Before the term, sometimes they simply name three thinkers together. They even have alternative terms. Shen Buhai and Han Fei are referred to under the term Shen-Han. Shen Buhai, Shen Dao, Han Fei are earlier classified under Huang-Lao. Shang Yang, Shen Buhai and Han Fei are alternatively referred to under the Han Feizi's term Xing-Ming.FourLights (talk) 11:02, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you want a report on Legalism as one translation of the term Fajia, then it would be a report on scholarship leading up to the modern era, where the term variously is becoming defunct. It's dispute goes goes back to 1938; even before it's most modern stage of dissolution, I counted only half of scholars using it's particular translated term, lasting a bit longer in books of Chinese scholarship either English written or translated.FourLights (talk) 11:09, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Tom & Jerry: Forbidden Compass My article was published yesterday. I tried to upload a fair-use image for it but I haven't been able to get it working correctly. Would anyone be willing to help upload the image or guide me through the process? I think the article would look more complete with an appropriate image. Thank you. More Than Nothing (talk) 09:06, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain what is Image about and why you "haven't been able to get it working correctly"? It will help other understand your situation. Thank you. Morris (talk with this worm) 10:12, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also it is slightly confusing to me why you are using different usernames. Morris (talk with this worm) 10:14, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you didn't read my message properly. read it again. More Than Nothing (talk) 10:15, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have resume this conversation on your talk page. Morris (talk with this worm) 10:18, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Why and who are you? I see your edit history You already seem unfamiliar with how things work for new editors here so please don't get involved in this discussion. More Than Nothing (talk) 10:19, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Why? I was trying to understand your situation and help with your image related issue. Who am I? I cant disclose that to you. What exactly do you see in my edit history that makes you think I am unfamiliar with how things work here? You have already been partially blocked for abusive comments disruption. Morris (talk with this worm) 10:23, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Don't give your opinion without knowing the matter. I was not blocked for abusive behavior; I was blocked for SPI commenting after a warning so learn to check a user's edit history before making assumptions about them. More Than Nothing (talk) 10:26, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

ok. Have a good day. Morris (talk with this worm) 10:28, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I did some look up on your "edit history" and found that you are suspected sockpuppet. Morris (talk with this worm) 10:33, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at the SPI reports. The allegations seem to be based largely on perceived behavior patterns. A similar report was filed on 13 June and did not result in a confirmed match. More recently i started working on an article about Chicken leg, a common and widely known topic that currently lacks an article. I chose it simply because it seemed like a useful subject to create. I don't see how anyone could reasonably claim there is a conflict of interest regarding a chicken-leg article; no one is paying me to write about chickens. It has also been suggested that a sock account worked on a similar topic about seven months ago. However my account is nearly a year old & the timing alone does not demonstrate any connection. How would editing a common topic months later from an older account automatically imply that the accounts are related? More Than Nothing (talk) 10:48, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The "perceived behavior pattern" is exactly how we suspect shock puppet in Wikipedia if you don't know. Also looking at your edit history I can see that you seems to use LLM to both write articles and do conversations with people here. Anyway I want to stop this conversation right here. You have been nothing but negative toward me for no reason at all. Morris (talk with this worm) 10:56, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't come to you to discuss this. You chose to get involved on your own. Please stop acting like an administrator when you're not one. I would prefer to discuss the matter with the relevant editors handling the case. More Than Nothing (talk) 10:59, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As for the LLM accusation I'm sorry but I may simply have a larger vocabulary and more experience writing in English. I dont struggle to find words. AI-generated replies usually have a very recognizable style with phrases like "Thank you for your comment," excessive politeness, bullet points, and other repetitive patterns. What I write is my own work & there is a clear difference. More Than Nothing (talk) 11:02, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Hirematviru.

You haven't explained either what image you are trying to upload or what problem you are encountering. It's unlikely that anybody can help you without those details. ColinFine (talk) 16:27, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I said could someone please upload the image from IMDb? I'm not familiar with the upload process and would appreciate any help. More Than Nothing (talk) 16:33, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Go to WP:FUW. Pick Upload a non-free file > This is a copyrighted, non-free work, but I believe it is Fair Use. > This is the official cover art of a work. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:59, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I know you've already explained the upload process to me before & I appreciate that. At the moment but though i m not looking for instructions on how to upload it myself. I'm simply asking whether an experienced editor would be willing to upload the image for the article as a courtesy. More Than Nothing (talk) 17:03, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Brand New here to Wiki. How do I edit my profile? Add a photo, address, verification I am NOT AI, for legitimacy? LMK RobGreeneEsq (talk) 09:41, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. That depends on what you mean by "profile". You have a user page (User:RobGreeneEsq) where you can tell about yourself as a Wikipedia editor or user, but not anything and everything about yourself. If you are referring to an article about yourself, something part of the encyclopedia, there doesn't yet seem to be one about you. Writing an article about yourself is highly discouraged, especially without broader Wikipedia editing experience, please see the autobiography policy. Also know that there are good reasons to not want an article about yourself. 331dot (talk) 10:01, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your username might be in breach of WP:PROMONAME: Usernames that unambiguously represent the name of a company, organization, website, product, musical group or band, team, club, creative group, or organized event. If I put in your username into google, the second result is what I presume to be your law firm (first is your X/Twitter account). Your username is the name under which you conduct business, so that's why it seems promotional to me. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 10:41, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it is promotional, how could it not be? I am a solo attorney, Rob Greene, Esq. I have 25 years of criminal law experience and served on the PA District Attorneys Board and in current litigation with the Federal Government for taking Veterans 2nd Amendment Rights for using cannabis for PTSD! So yes, am I promoting, of course, but I have a lot to offer being an expert in the field of Pennsylvania Criminal Law.

Just putting my toes in the water. 💦 RobGreeneEsq (talk) 12:15, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your candor. Wikipedia is not a place for promotion. While your work may be admirable, we have to treat everyone the same. I think you should request a username change. There is nothing stopping you from writing about yourself, the work you do, or linking to your website on your userpage. Wikipedia has a rule that usernames cannot be names of websites, businesses and the like. Nothing against you, and your expertise is very welcome, we all have to abide by the same policies and guidelines. Please read the conflict of interest policy if you wish to edit articles that may be closely related to the work you do. Again, this is not against you and we welcome your contributions, I am just trying to save you headaches down the line. Wikipedia is a special place and new editors may find it all a bit confusing, frustrating even labyrinthian. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 12:25, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well said. I get it. Thanks TurboSuperA+. What will my new name be? See ya on the other side. - Rob Greene, Esq. 🧙‍♂️

1. Honor420Freedom🏴‍☠️💚🇺🇸 RobGreeneEsq (talk) 12:32, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

PUBLIC NOTICE:

“I served on the Board of Directors of the Pennsylvania District Attorneys Institute (PDAI) from 2019 to 2024. During my tenure, to the best of my knowledge, the PDAA/PDAI did not take an official position regarding medical marijuana or adult-use cannabis legislation.”

- Rob Greene, Esq. RobGreeneEsq (talk) 12:27, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We have no interest in this, why are you posting it here? Theroadislong (talk) 13:21, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm new to Wikipedia and am still learning how things work, so I appreciate your patience.

Could someone please point me to the official Wikipedia rules and guidelines, particularly those governing sourcing, editing, and dispute resolution? If possible, you can simply post the link here. Thank you!!!

I understand that editors often use usernames rather than their real names, and I'm curious about how the system of volunteer editors and administrators works. Who wrote these policies, and who is responsible for enforcing them?

@Theroadislong: May I ask whether you saw my first post where I mentioned I was new to Wikipedia? One of the things that attracted me to the project was the opportunity to contribute to a free, collaborative encyclopedia. I admit that some of my initial interactions have felt more formal than I expected, but I'm hoping to better understand the process and contribute constructively.

Thanks in advance for any guidance.

— Rob Greene, Esq. RobGreeneEsq (talk) 14:06, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I saw your first post and sent you a welcome message on your talk page with some useful links. Theroadislong (talk) 14:15, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect! Thank you. I will go check out my "talk page". TTYL RobGreeneEsq (talk) 14:30, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Policies are hashed out by volunteer editors, except for a very small number which are imposed by the WikiMedia Foundation (those mostly deal with legal matters). If you want to see the process in all its messy glory, visit the Village Pump and look at the Policy tab.

Dispute resolution is covered at WP:Dispute resolution. (As a helpful tip, if you want advice and instruction documents, search for "WP:thing I want advice on" and you will often find it.)

Enforcement is generally by administrators, who are chosen by the English Wikipedia community as described in WP:Administrators. Extreme issues can escalate to the Arbitration Committee.

For sourcing, you might start with WP:Reliable sources and work from there.

Things are definitely more formal than they were early in Wikipedia's history, partly because the project has gotten so big, and partly because the environment is different (due to LLMs among other issues). M kuhner (talk) 22:08, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Is IA down from everyone here? I am unable to access it with "Too Many requests" error showing for more than 2 days. How am I supposed to verify citation and add one myself? Morris (talk with this worm) 10:03, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's up for me. A website to check whether a site is up is: https://www.isup.me you can add the address after the slash, i.e https://www.isup.me/web.archive.org and then it'll be converted to https://downforeveryoneorjustme.com/internet-archive because isup.me is just the shorturl for "downforeveryoneorjustme.com" TurboSuperA+_[talk] 10:46, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

thanks @TurboSuperA+ and @Jolielover. I will see if the alternatives work. Morris (talk with this worm) 10:50, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately that happens a lot. You might want to look at alternatives. I've seen people here use Ghost Archive & Megalodon (website). I do not use either so neither endorse nor oppose them. jolielover♥talk 10:47, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just add that "Too many requests" could be the response you get from a CDN (content delivery network), like Cloudflare, and is not a sign of the site being down. You can try changing your DNS settings (like switching to cloudflare's DNS), or using a (free) VPN: Firefox, Proton, RiseUp, Calyx Institute... these are all free providers. You can't use them to watch movies, but it is enough for web browsing. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 10:56, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I did try VPN and IA just seems to load infinitely even thought my network speed is decent. Seems like it could from their side since it has been days. Morris (talk with this worm) 11:01, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Try switching the location of the VPN server or VPN provider. The IA CDN could be getting too many requests from the same IP range. Try clearing your browser cache and any cookies from IA. Alternatively, use a different web browser (so then you don't have to clear cache or cookies). TurboSuperA+_[talk] 11:08, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yep its up. Used Proton (canada server) and Firefox, its working now. Thanks for your help. Morris (talk with this worm) 11:12, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 11:19, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There's a page at the Pao Wikipedia that is about a new discovery. Can someone please translate it into English? I have a basic understanding that it's a new discovery, named "Emerald Green Murder Wasp". I don't know if this is a hoax or what. It doesn't seem to be the Emerald Cockroach Wasp, because it's a part of Vespa (hornet wasps). It could genuinely be a new discovery related to murder hornets, but I don't know. MapleArchivist (talk) 12:18, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@MapleArchivist Not sure A quick Google search doesn't show results for this species, and the article itself doesn't have any sources. Though since the Pao language isn't good and reliable enough for machine translation, can you provide a translation of the text to English first? ⠀⠀⠀⠀ .n 12:36, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, no, I can't, that's why I was asking for others to do it. I could try translating. This is my best try then:

Article
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
{{Short description|A species of hornet from the Cambodian region}} {{Speciesbox | name = Emerald Green Murder Wasp | image = Vespa smaragdina.png | status = CR | taxon = Vespa smaragdina | genus = Vespa | species = smaragdina | authority = Naing & Vance, 2026 }} '''Vespa smaragdina''' is a species native to a regional inland territory. The Pa-O highland region, upon observation, represents a distinct and notable written record. Upon further observation, it is documented through various written characters. == History == In the Pa-O language, when spoken of, this is documented through written characters. Upon observation, it leads to a distinct notable record. The Emerald Green Murder Wasp was first observed in the year 2026. == Characteristics == * '''Size:''' 4.8 cm – 5.3 cm * '''Genus:''' This species is a new species of the genus ''Vespa''. * '''Habitat:''' The Pa-O highland region is a native inland regional territory. == References == {{Reflist}} {{stub}}

MapleArchivist (talk) 12:44, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No sources means no article. If sources eventually come out for this creature, that is when an article could be made (as long as it is notable). 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 13:05, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

All recognized biological species are presumed notable. One can question whether this is wise (it leads to a lot of perma-stubs) but it's true. See Wikipedia:Notability (species). So if this is a species, it can have an article.

I can't find anything though, neither on "emerald green murder wasp" nor, more concerningly, on Vespa smaragdina. What I do find is multiple scholarly papers discussing interactions between Vespa wasps and an ant named Oecophylla smaragdina. Fusing these two name-parts because they are often found together is a typical LLM mistake, and I wonder if your wasp may be an LLM hallucination. Sympathies! M kuhner (talk) 14:05, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What if 3 reverts were done by two users? Can I still report it? The second user most likely knew about previous reverts as he participated in the discussion on the Talk page. --Igor Yalovecky (talk) 13:18, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Unless those two users are the same person (and illegitimate sockpuppets), then neither user has violated the three-revert rule. That doesn't necessarily mean that they aren't engaging in edit warring though, it's possible to edit war without breaking 3RR. {{GearsDatapacks|talk|contribs|in solidarity}} 13:52, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Recently newcomer editing hard edits for Muhammad Subuh Sumohadiwidjojo and I found a source that seems like it got legitimately plagiarized by the article down to the source and all.

• https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004435544_030

Here's the previous rendition: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad_Subuh_Sumohadiwidjojo&oldid=1345290937

It even has the parenthesis for the sources! Can someone fix this? I have school and I do not have any motivation for this. DoNothingEveryday (talk) 13:40, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

On Diana Ross's page, even after multiple edits, someone keeps inserting that her death was 7/2/2026. As I am writing this, it is 6/29/2026, so this is fake. Even after editing her page numerous times, it keeps reverting. This is the link to the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diana_Ross Thanks! ~2026-37395-69 (talk) 14:23, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

To whoever who edited it, thank you! ~2026-37395-69 (talk) 14:33, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and blocked the account responsible for the disruption, and others have reverted the changes to the pages themselves. For future reference sort of obvious vandalism can be reported at WP:AIV (and more complex cases go to WP:ANI). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:34, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! It's so bewildering why someone would post something so obviously fake. ~2026-37395-69 (talk) 14:49, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I created this account just an hour ago, so I am new. ~2026-37395-69 (talk) 14:52, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Usually it's kids with nothing to do, intrigued by the idea that anyone can edit this (very well-known and highly visited) encyclopedia. {{GearsDatapacks|talk|contribs|in solidarity}} 14:56, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I would like to get some advice on how to handle the article Lochana Jayakodi. I strongly suspect that this page was created as a paid or promotional piece. Many of the reference links used to support the article are now broken or the articles have been completely removed from those third-party websites, suggesting they might have been temporary sponsored content.

Does this qualify for Speedy Deletion under the G11 (Unambiguous advertising) criterion, or should I nominate it through the regular Articles for Deletion (AfD) process? I want to make sure I take the right approach according to Botempa (talk) 14:37, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As a rule of thumb, if you are struggling to decide between Speedy or AfD, pick AfD. Speedy should be reserved for cases where you are absolutely certain, especially if you're inexperienced. (I see you've already taken the article to AfD, and I think that was a good choice.) Sometimes the sourcing geniuses on AfD will find a way to salvage the article, which is also a good outcome.

Worth noting that another common cause for massive numbers of broken links is use of LLM, which often inserts links that are dead on arrival. M kuhner (talk) 20:52, 29 June 2026 (UTC) (Edited to add: not this time, though, most of the problem links are older than the LLM era.) M kuhner (talk) 20:56, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to request one of you ladies and gents to write an article on my Principle of Persistent Structurization on Figshare, but I noticed that it said you generally want multiple sources--would something like an acceptance to present orally at the Constructal Law Conference in Paris this year be high quality? I have the letter from the Université Paris Sciences et Lettres. I didn't think LinkedIn would be acceptable as a source.

I don't mind writing it, but I'd rather have someone who's been here a while at least edit it. I'm pretty intellectually forthright and honest to the point of self-deprecation, so I'm not sure there'd be much bias in it if I wrote the article.

Just wanted to clarify on the Figshare question. Hopefully, that will be enough of a source to at least get my foot in the door. JustMichael80 (talk) 14:55, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

An acceptance letter would not be considered a useful source in this context, although a writeup of the talk published afterward in the conference's Proceedings volume would potentially be a start. That having been said, for novel scientific concepts, generally we'd want to see peer reviewed literature discussing the concept by a researcher independent of the person who coined/discovered the concept. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:59, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, gotcha. Glad I asked. It's still so new that it hasn't really had time to work through academia. Would plainly stating that it is still awaiting peer review get around that? Not that I'm trying to "get around" anything, just want to satisfy Wikipedia's requirements as much as I honestly can.

Really appreciate you taking the time to answer, Rosguill! Thank you! JustMichael80 (talk) 15:04, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There really is no getting around that. Wikipedia isn't a place to promote brand new concepts - this site exists to summarize what others have to say. It needs to be more like this: [Your primary publication] -> [Other Academics write about it] -> [Wikipedia summarizes what the other academics wrote]. MrOllie (talk) 15:09, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I get it. I don't want to be That Guy who clutters up Wikipedia. I'm working on alternative ways to legitimately get cited on Wikipedia to keep everything above board and in line with the ToS. I hate the idea that I might become noise, so I'm trying to do everything I can honestly and by the book. You say, bring us peer review, and I go to Paris to get it in October.

I was going to try getting some stuff published on Medium, too, and maybe see if I can get Sabine Hossenfelder herself to give me a citation. No matter what, I'll follow whatever advice you ladies and gents give me, and if it takes working more on getting citations and published articles, so be it.

Really appreciate the feedback to help keep me within the ToS. Thank you again, MrOllie and Rosguill! JustMichael80 (talk) 15:15, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@JustMichael80 There is exactly one way to get cited on Wikipedia. There are two important steps to it:

1. Get cited in real life.

2. Completely ignore Wikipedia for an extremely long time.

Wikipedia stays deliberately way behind the curve. We publish nothing but third-hand information that has no connection with the original author, and we're volunteers. So expect your work to just start filtering onto Wikipedia after you retire. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 03:24, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean it will necessarily take that exact length of time; I do mean you should give up hope now, to save time and frustration later. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 03:30, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yawn. Many people in history were told to give up and didn't, and were later vindicated. I'll take inspiration from my heroes like Ramanujan, Tesla, Maxwell, and Faraday.

inb4 "You're comparing yourself to them??" Nope. They're the bar I set to cross. Better to be inspired than a worn down cynic. JustMichael80 (talk) 14:45, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, I have a letter from Université Paris Sciences et Lettres that declares their registration and submission process as peer-review--happy to post that to satisfy your "peer review" requirements. Or does an actual university not count?

To quote from the email, "Following the peer-review process, your contribution has been accepted for oral presentation and will be included in the official conference proceedings, provided that the registration requirements are fulfilled."

The PPS has been peer-reviewed or it wouldn't have been accepted at the Conference.

Peer review? √ JustMichael80 (talk) 14:50, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's completely irrelevant. Something like 3 million peer-reviewed articles are published every year. The mere fact that something is peer-reviewed does not contribute (for or against) to notability at all - we're simply not in the habit of starting a Wikipedia article for any result anyone publishes. MrOllie (talk) 15:01, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As a native Sinhala speaker and an active editor on the Sinhala Wikipedia, I want to help clean up these promotional articles and manage the backlogs myself. However, because the local community is so inactive, it is difficult to hold a regular Request for Adminship (RfA) election there.

How can an active local editor like me request community-trusted tools or temporary administrative rights (or temporary sysop rights via Meta-Wiki) to clean up cross-wiki spam and promotional abuse when the local project is functionally inactive? Who should I contact to guide me through this process? Thank you! Botempa (talk) 15:55, 29 June 2026 (UTC) Botempa (talk) 15:55, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Botempa, and welcome to the Teahouse. You had appended your question to a different section, so I added a new header.

The only place you might be able to go is the WikiMeda Stewards. However, their ability to interfere in individual Wikipedias is limited (it's a bit like trying to appeal to the UN when you have a grievance against your own government or legal system) so I don't know whether or not they can help you. But certainly, nobody on English Wikipedia can help. ColinFine (talk) 17:38, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

	This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hello everyone, I'm a new Wikipedia editor looking for advice before deciding whether to revise and resubmit an Articles for Creation draft. I have a personal connection to the subject and have disclosed that on my user page. Because of that, I'm trying to be especially careful about following Wikipedia's conflict of interest, neutral point of view, and sourcing policies. I recently submitted this draft article about a small Sonoma County winery through Articles for Creation. The draft was declined with the following feedback: "This draft's references do not show that the subject meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion for organizations and companies. The draft requires multiple published secondary sources that provide significant coverage, are reliable, and are independent." I'm not asking anyone to overturn that review or to review the draft outside the AfC process. Rather, I'm hoping to better understand whether the issue is likely the available source base itself or whether the draft may simply not have made the strongest possible use of those sources. The independent sources I relied on include: Three Forbes articles (published in 2020 and 2022, including one article primarily profiling the founder and winery) Two Grape Collective feature articles discussing the winery and its operations A Sonoma Magazine profile of the founder Additional coverage or mentions in Decanter, Wine Enthusiast, The Boston Globe, Sonoma County Gazette, and Sonoma Magazine I understand that passing mentions, reviews, and listicles generally do not establish notability. My question is whether, based on the draft and the sources cited, experienced editors would generally conclude that the available independent coverage is unlikely to satisfy the notability guideline for organizations, or whether this seems like a draft that could reasonably be improved and resubmitted. I'm looking for guidance on how to interpret the guideline correctly so I don't continue resubmitting a draft if the underlying source base is simply insufficient. Thank you very much for your time and any advice.

Californiawineresearch (talk) 16:31, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Those aren't actually Forbes articles. Some time ago, Forbes opened their website to allow posting by others, unreviewed by the Forbes editorial staff. These articles are typically tagged as from 'Contributors'. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Forbes_contributors has some more information on this. Those sorts of forbes.com links are not typically counted as building the case for article notability.

Between that issue and the passing mentions / interview issue you correctly mention, I think the AFC reviewer is correct and the draft article does not have sufficient sourcing. MrOllie (talk) 16:37, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

	This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Thank you—that's very helpful, especially the explanation regarding Forbes Contributor articles. I wasn't aware of Wikipedia's sourcing guidance on those. May I ask one follow-up question? Setting the Forbes Contributor articles aside, is the primary issue that the remaining sources do not provide enough significant independent coverage of the winery itself, or is it that the types of publications I cited (for example, Grape Collective and Sonoma Magazine) generally would not be expected to establish organizational notability on their own? I'm asking because I'm trying to better understand how experienced editors evaluate organizational notability. If the available source base simply isn't sufficient under the guideline, I'd rather understand that than continue revising and resubmitting the draft. Thank you again for taking the time to explain this.

Californiawineresearch (talk) 16:45, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The sources you use simply do not show that this subject meets our notability guidelines. MallardTV ^{Talk to me!} 16:37, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

My draft for 100graham was denied due to source issues, I’ve swapped most of the social media sources out for other sources, I’m just wondering if I’ve sufficiently fixed the sources enough for it to get accepted/not get deleted if it’s denied again? Draft:100graham Pokepower70 (talk) 18:53, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Pokepower70, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Well you may have removed the intrinsically unreliable sources, but just looking at the first few sources in the draft, not one of them is independent of 100graham. You're making the common mistake that any information that comes from him or his associates is of any relevance to a Wikipedia article about him. (Actually, a small amount of uncontroversial factual information might be).

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

Unless the great majority of sources each meet all the requirements of WP:42, you're on a non-starter. ColinFine (talk) 19:40, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The 3-May-2026 draft version of the article "Tiny Alice (band)" is the wrong version for review consideration, only the 10-June-2026 version should be reviewed.

3-May was when I started building the article in my sandbox, and I have made numerous additions and edits to it since that date. It was never my intention to submit that incomplete version for review.

My understanding is the "Publish Changes" button is required to save edits to the draft, while also making it visible to the Wiki community. I have not seen any instruction that warns it will also submit the draft for review.

It is my further understanding that a draft will only be considered for review when the code {{AfC submission|||ts=20260629193125|u=Werdmerk|ns=4}} is added to the top of the article. I did this only on the 10-June draft and do not understand why the 3-May version is being reviewed without having the code.

Please advise how the 3-May version, and the numerous subsequent dated revisions, can be removed from review consideration and have only the 10-June version considered for review. Werdmerk (talk) 19:31, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Werdmerk, and welcome to the Teahouse.

On 2026-04-29 you created User:Werdmerk/sandbox/Tiny Alice (band)

On 2026-05-02, you submitted it for review

On 2026-05-02, user Cosmic840 moved it to Draft:Tiny Alice (band), then declined it, and added a comment. There has been no further action on that draft.

On 2026-05-18, you created User:Werdmerk/sandbox.

On 2026-06-10, you submitted that for review.

On 2026-06-11 Dan Arndt declined it as a duplicate.

So, nobody has reviewed or touched your first version (in Draft:Tiny Alice (band)) since May.

But you submitted your second version in early June, and it was declined as a duplicate.

If you want to abandon your first version completely, you should request it be deleted (you can paste {{db-author}} at the top).

But, glancing at User:Werdmerk/sandbox, I don't think it has much chance of being accepted in its present state.

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

You need to find sources that each meet all the criteria in WP:42 (you may have some, but if so they are probably swamped among sources that don't meet the criteria).

If you can find several, your article should be a summary of what those sources say about the band, and very little else. Wikipedia is not interested in what the band or their associates say or want to say.

You also need to improve the formatting, and sort out some of the inadequate references (see WP:REFB).

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 20:05, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I am a new editor and I have created a short draft in my sandbox about "C.M. Rackets Llasat", a historic Spanish tennis racket brand. I have added independent references, but I would love to get feedback from an experienced editor to see if the references are formatted correctly and if the topic has enough notability for the English Wikipedia. Thank you for your help! EncordadoCTA (talk) 19:42, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

I have added a header to your sandbox which will allow you to submit it for review - which is the way to request feedback.

I haven't looked closely at the draft, but it looks to me like an unusually good attempt for a beginner: submit it, and we'll see what a reviewer thinks. ColinFine (talk) 20:09, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@ColinFine: Thank you so much for the warm welcome and for your encouraging feedback on my draft! It is great to hear that I am on the right track.

The article is not quite finished yet, so I will hold off on submitting it for review for the time being. Since you have been so helpful, I would love to ask for your advice on a specific section.

The draft includes a section on "Models", but there are hardly any surviving examples of them left in the world. In fact, I actually own one of these tennis racquets myself. However, I have been told that taking photos of my own racquet or using my personal knowledge does not qualify as a reliable source under Wikipedia's guidelines.

Given how rare these models are, could you please advise on how I can properly document or prove their existence within the article?

Thanks again for your time and assistance! EncordadoCTA (talk) 21:23, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for your patience. I also want to be fully transparent before we proceed: my real name is José María Illán Fernández. I am a historian and the author of a comprehensive work covering the entire history of modern tennis. Because I am a leading researcher in this field, I have a Conflict of Interest (COI) regarding this topic. However, my goal here is simply to share this specific historical data neutrally, relying on independent archives. I will not cite or reference my own books in this article. I welcome your feedback to ensure it meets all standards. EncordadoCTA (talk) 23:15, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, EncordadoCTA, your draft says that this company was in business during the first half of the 20th century although I did not see the exact date that it ceased operations. It is therefore difficult for me to see, based on what you have said, that you have any degree of a conflict of interest that would restrict your editing. This company has not been around for roughly 75 years or more. The only exception that comes to mind is if you are the heir of a tennis racket fortune that came from this old company. Topic area expertise in itself does not create a conflict of interest. It is true that your unpublished conclusions about tennis history do not belong in Wikipedia, according to the policy No original research. And you should be cautious and conservative about citing your own published work, but it is not at all forbidden if other experts would agree that your published work is excellent. There is no restriction on uploading your photos of historic objects that you own. For example, I started mountaineering about 50 years ago, and the article Ice axe includes photos of several old mountaineering ice axes and accessories that I own. So, please go ahead and photograph this old tennis racquet, and possibly others that you may have access to, and upload those photos to Wikimedia Commons under a free license. Cullen328 (talk) 02:20, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Cullen328. Thank you so much for your guidance and kindness. Unfortunately, I am not an heir to a tennis racket fortune from this company! In fact, it is impossible to find any copies of their rackets available for purchase today. Their production was strictly artisanal, and it took them an entire year to manufacture a single racket (although they worked on several at the same time). Since CM Rackets was a small artisan brand, they didn't leave a large footprint behind. However, I have managed to find official documentation in public records and old advertising brochures. The only interest this company holds is purely historical, especially since it disappeared back in the 1970s. Thank you very much for clarifying that I can upload my own photos. That was a huge doubt of mine, and it is exactly why the 'Models' section in my draft is currently empty. You have been incredibly helpful in allowing me to complete this article. I will keep working on it. EncordadoCTA (talk) 12:42, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What's up with reFill? I get a blank screen when I try to use it. TwoScars (talk) 20:18, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I created a new Wikipedia account whose name I thought would be unique (Hollis Friese). Next day I discovered it was not as unique as I had expected, so I submitted a rename request form. Since I had not yet created or edited any content, I was hoping for a quick approval. It has now been a couple of days and I have not yet heard back. What's the typical turnaround time for a relatively simply rename request? I can be patient, just want to set expectations. Hollis Friese (talk) 20:20, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you submit the request?

Note that if you like, it would be easier to just abandon this account and create a new one, since you haven't made any edits yet. ^{In solidarity,} 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 ^{(They/them • Talk • Contribs)} 20:38, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The "simple username change form" at Wikipedia:Changing username/Simple has no open case for you (scroll down to see open cases). Did you submit it there, or somewhere else?

If we can't sort this out and your name still isn't changed, I agree with JohnLaurens333: just make a new account. Put one line on the user page of the new account acknowledging that this one is yours and stating that you will not be using it. (Using more than one account at a time is generally a bad idea.) M kuhner (talk) 20:43, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you M - I believe it was a Global form and not a Simple form (still learning here), I just meant the lower case "simple" as in brand new user with not a lot to review. Could you look there, if able? Otherwise I'll follow your suggestion to just create the new user as you suggest above. Either way, thank you both for the quick responses. I'm looking forward to learning and contributing. 🙏🏼 Hollis Friese (talk) 20:53, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I cannot. I don't think it's on English Wikipedia since Global means "rename me everywhere" and that would have to be handled centrally. Welcome to Wikipedia, in any case! M kuhner (talk) 21:01, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikipedia:Changing username, Requests made privately on the Global user account rename request form or Global vanish request form are archived privately and are only visible to global renamers, stewards, and Wikimedia Foundation staff. This means that me and M Kuhner cannot access it, unfortunately. I doubt your request will take longer than a few days, but I'm not entirely sure how that process works. ^{In solidarity,} 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 ^{(They/them • Talk • Contribs)} 21:06, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

How do I disambiguate the title of my article and add a qualifier, or a more specific moniker? Joseph G Morgan (talk) 22:04, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That depends on the article. The most common way to disambiguate is to add a set of parentheses after the name, with a noun describing what it is. For example, Georgia (country) vs Georgia (U.S. state).

Sometimes natural disambiguation can be used though, which keeps a naturally worded title while successfully removing ambiguity. For example, hand fan vs Fan district.

For more information, see Wikipedia:Disambiguation. {{GearsDatapacks|talk|contribs|in solidarity}} 22:11, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If a reviewer accepts Draft:Walter Stephen Taylor, they'll handle its retitling. (One thing you should do is work out how to create internal links, and to turn your nonfunctional attempts at these into working internal links.) -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 23:08, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

ok, thanks! but I'm not quite sure what you mean by, "create internal links, and to turn your nonfunctional attempts at these into working internal links." ? Joseph G Morgan (talk) 23:13, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As an example, Joseph G Morgan, you write [[Colgate University]], whereas I'd write Colgate University. -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 23:24, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Got it! thank you Joseph G Morgan (talk) 23:39, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please use sections, like this:

== Early Life ==

(if you look at the source to my post, do NOT copy the nowiki tags! I am using them here so you can see what I actually typed. You just want to put the equals signs around the section name.)

Sections are very helpful to other people who will edit your article in future, because they can edit one section at a time rather than opening the entire article. This doesn't work if you use formatting that just looks like a section.

~2026-37627-15 (talk) 02:46, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thank you! When I added an equal sign- on the first one- it automatically flipped it to a section. I wasn't able to add more, but I think this was what you meant? Joseph G Morgan (talk) 13:39, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Henlo!

I hava added an infobox to this article, because I believe one should be in there. However, I do not know how to format the year in population data. Any help? ;-)

Also, might someone check if I did everything okay?

Best wishes --Kaworu1992 (talk) 00:43, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the infobox documentation at Template:infobox settlement. Whenever a template is giving trouble, I recommend doing this first.

The "population_total" line only wants a single number. If you also give it a year, it gets confused. Try this:

population_total = 28400

population_as_of = 2007

I previewed that and it looked correct.

There is also an issue with "coordinates" as it is getting an error. As a first try I'd take the "region:CN|display=title,inline" part out and see how it looks. The documentation says to use only raw numbers. I previewed this and it also looked correct to me.

M kuhner (talk) 01:12, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Dear friend.

Thank you for your info about the population statistics. As for the coordinates/map, I changed the wikicode, but it seems the same to me? Anyway, I hope everything is fine now? ;-)

Best wishes!

--Kaworu1992 (talk) 11:58, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think changing the wikicode changed the appearance at all; but when I previewed the previous version I got a red error message, which the shorter version doesn't get. This may not be visible if you use Visual Editor? In any case, glad to hear it's working! M kuhner (talk) 15:18, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've been adding photos for members of the Scottish Parliament that were missing them and have been trying to add to their infoboxes as well but I'm not able to figure out why some of the pages don't display the photos when you over over the page preview. For example: Liam Kerr compared to Katie Hagmann. I'm guessing it's just something about the templates I don't understand but any explanation as to how they work would really help me out. Tigered27 (talk) 01:05, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Page previews dont pull images directly from infoboxes. They usually use the page image selected through page properties (often from Wikidata or metadata generated by templates). So even if an infobox image is present it may not appear in the hover preview. In the examples you mentioned I'd check whether the article has a page image set and whether the image is available through the associated Wikidata item. Differences there often explain why one article shows a preview image and another doesn't. More Than Nothing (talk) 06:42, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tigered27, welcome to the Teahouse. A page image is selected by mw:Extension:PageImages#Image choice. This image may be used by several features. One of them is Page Previews but it has a size requirement with an unclear formulation at mw:Extension:Popups#Known problems. As far as I can tell from that, experience and the source code, width × height must be either at least 320 × 200 px or 203 × 250 px. File:Liam Kerr MSP.jpg is the page image for Liam Kerr but 170 × 201 px is too small to be displayed by Page Previews. File:Katie Hagmann, Official MSP Portrait (cropped).jpg is 250 × 333 px which is enough. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:29, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to both of you for the responses, I didn't know that's how the page images worked but now can hopefully get the pages sorted out with this information. Thanks for your help! Tigered27 (talk) 17:23, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have doubts and no idea what to do about this strange case of a user without a page but with a COI discussion that has been vandalizing the UNODC page for more than a year.

User is a paid worker of the UNODC and is visibly paid to update the office's information.

I had to revert a ton of edits that this user made, not because the edits were substantially bad but they were formally unacceptable (from a 101 editing perspective); the edits made just on the first few lines of the article, to give you an idea, were:

• deletion of the United Nations infobox
• In the intro, the word "French" for the French name of the UNODC used to link to "French language", user deleted the link…

This kind of things.

• Deleting references and places direct external links to the UNODC website in the body of the article.

After I reverted the edits, the user sent me an email asking me why, and mentioning a few elements that highlight the user's limited understanding of the international legal regime that underpins the UNODC as an intergovernmental body (user referred to the UNODC as a "NGO"…) I note that advices have been given already a year and so ago by others, and I think just restrict the account won't work, they may just come back with another account. The user seem to be paid to edit the article (sadly, not to learn the rules for editing it).

Would blocking the IPs from the location of the UNODC headquarter be an option to prevent such issue from happening again? No idea, just sharing doubts. Cheers. Teluobir (talk) 07:09, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking the IPs would work, but might be a bit of an extreme response. For now, I would recommend raising this at Wikipedia:COIN and potentially placing Template:COI editnotice on the affected page. Tantomile (talk) 07:26, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Teluobir It's not helpful referring to this as vandalism or suggesting she may be committing a crime (on the talk page). There is a clear COI, and the user also refers to 'we', suggesting that more than one person may be using the login. ~2026-20856-07 (talk) 09:02, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding, as a fellow new user, is that adding the template is not saying they're committing a crime, as COI is not a crime. It just means that they need to disclose that they have a COI, and then submit edit requests instead of directly editing the affected page(s). Kimakishi (talk) 12:16, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Adding the template is fine. But "vandalism" has a very specific and extreme meaning on Wikipedia, and these edits, while likely improper, are not "vandalism." Vandalism is something like blanking the page, replacing it with nonsense or obscenities, or substituting an irrelevant picture. M kuhner (talk) 15:22, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This user seems to edit only sporadically, so we might have to wait quite a while for a response. I've therefore blocked them from editing United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, which seems to be their sole interest since 2010. Once they confirm they understand and will comply with our PAID rules, and also that their user account is only used by a single individual, the block can be lifted. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:36, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, I will try to reach out to the user and see what is happening. More widely can I ask if anyone sees any issues related to UN staff having issues editing Wikipedia please ping me, I've been working with the UN on Wikipedia projects for over 10 years now so I can usually help in some way. John Cummings (talk) 02:33, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

OK thank you everyone Teluobir (talk) 09:07, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I was doing some research on south-east Asian musical instruments and realized that many don't have proper Wikipedia articles. Now, I couldn't find any criteria for inclusion or notability guidelines on Wikipedia:Notability_(music), thus I wonder if there is any established guideline for the converage of non-mainstream or regional musical instruments.

Thank you in advance Nyraxis (talk) 12:13, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I know of. You'd just follow the general notability guidelines. {{GearsDatapacks|talk|contribs|in solidarity}} 12:50, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No, there isn't, not for "non-mainstream or regional" or any other musical instruments; they all come under WP:GNG. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:24, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to add a source from the website 'This Is Money'. It is part of the DMG Media, which also owns the Daily Mail. DMG also owns other publications such as the i and New Scientist. I assume these are acceptable sources. Is "This Is Money" banned or has me putting DMG Media in the reference falsely triggered an alarm?

For the record the page I am trying to edit is Samuel Leeds. It am trying to add uncontroversial biographical information about Samuel, I'm not trying to rant about UK politics.

Puffin123 (talk) 12:14, 30 June 2026 (UTC).[reply]

@Puffin123: This Is Money is on the edit filters' deprecated sources list, alongside quite a few other DMG publications. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:19, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

So I should find another source? I am here to play by the rules and not annoy people. Puffin123 (talk) 00:00, 1 July 2026 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, exactly; find a reliable source. I suggest you at least skim through WP:RELIABLE; it lays out a lot of the rules for what is and isn’t a reliable source. Cheers, 𝔰𝔥𝔞𝔡𝔢𝔰𝔱𝔞𝔯 ^{(𝔱𝔞𝔩𝔨)} -⃝⃤ (any/all) In solidarity. 03:06, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes, the reliable sources lack some important information. In those cases, Wikipedia must also continue to lack that information. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 03:10, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What should be my approach to citations in what could be called "synthetic" list-class articles? For example, the suggested edits feature has taken me to 800s in poetry. This page has the {unreferenced} template. Indeed, looking through the edit history the names appear to be pulled from nowhere. However, I imagine this list was synthesized by correlating 800 births and deaths with categories of poets, rather than drawing from a specific source (e.g. Blumpy's Chronology of Every Poet Ever) listing all the poets born and died 800-809. If this is the case, what is the expectation for sourcing on a list synthesized from wikipedia categories? Should there be a citation for every single entry in the list? Is the {unreferenced} tag even necessary? Gebble (talk) 14:47, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NLIST talks about this a little bit, and notes that it's an area where views are still in flux. From my experience at Articles for Deletion this is true: there is no consensus about lists and how they're best handled. There seems to be a general sense that listing by date is acceptable, though, even in cases where there is no sourcing for the concept of that particular date range. M kuhner (talk) 15:30, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The overriding principle on Wikipedia is that everything must be based on a source that the reader could go off and look at, assuming they have the time, energy and dedication to do so. If a list is purely navigational (e.g. poets from a particular century, or castles in a particular country) then all the items in the list should have their own articles (or at least be obviously article-worthy/notable). On this basis, they don't need to be sourced, because the information that they are a poet from the 8th century, or a castle in Spain should be in the target article, and properly sourced there. The reader is only one click from the sourcing. Navigational lists aren't synthesis, they're just a structure very similar to categories, but more appealing to a particular sort of reader.

The sorts of lists that fail at AfD tend to be lists cross-categorising things that no reader would reasonably be looking for: e.g. Football players who also play the flute. This could very well be a navigational list - we my have articles on multiple football players that mention their fluting exploits - but even if it's immaculately sourced, it's not a grouping anyone discusses and no one in their right mind is going to expect Wikipedia to have a permanent article answering this very obscure google-search. So even as a navigational list, it would get deleted. Elemimele (talk) 16:22, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I went ahead and removed the template. I've since come across WP:CATV and though the page is not, strictly speaking, a category, I can't find a more specific policy. Gebble (talk) 19:49, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am assuming that Wikipedia/Wikimedia issued a press release on or around 26 March 2026 covering the new AI guidelines for Wikipedia EN. The reason I think so is because several notable media organizations ran similar stories during the same news cycle. Three examples are provided here (but I have more).^[1][2][3] Was there indeed a press release? Or was this simply one news story that generated others? If there was a press release, could someone point me to a copy? TIA, RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 15:52, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Wikipedia does traditional press releases. It looks like your sources point to the relevant policy change. Is there an issue with citing that? For what purpose per se do you need a press release? Gebble (talk) 16:02, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am interested in the governance issues surrounding that new policy guideline. For example, that particular guideline has been edited 130 times since it was first put to the vote. To be honest I don't believe that to be good process. I would like to see versioned policy with identified release candidates, similar to good practice in software engineering. Call this grass roots interest, if you like. Best, RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 16:11, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A proposal to change how policy guidelines are handled could appropriately be made at the Policy section of the Village Pump, WP:Village pump. But before doing that, I recommend reading up on the current process, to avoid errors. (In particular, those are not votes: they can be, and sometimes are, settled against the numeric count of supporters and opponents. It's quite an interesting system which I have not seen anywhere else, and takes a while to grasp.) M kuhner (talk) 16:46, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you're interested in the reasoning behind the policy, the consensus-based essay is Wikipedia:Large language models. As for versioning, the infrastructure of wikipedia is inherently incremental and non-hierarchical, and edit histories don't really distinguish between major, minor, and trivial changes like versioning does. The governance question I will leave to more experienced editors, but in the meantime, you may find some value in the WikiBlame tool for unpacking edit histories. Gebble (talk) 16:52, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@RobbieIanMorrison Wikipedia itself doesn't have a community-maintained "press release" channel I think; public-facing communication is often handled through its parent Wikimedia Foundation and it's social media accounts, though most of the time they don't really care about publishing posts about individual policy changes in local wikis and its sister projects. A likely origin point for this reporting probably came from Reddit posts about this change on a subreddit like r/Wikipedia or tech-related subreddits, then reporters picked up the story and reported as such ⠀⠀⠀⠀ .n 16:52, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that the closest equivalent is the WP:Signpost, but still. ⠀⠀⠀⠀ .n 16:53, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In response, I am reading the replies with interest. Many thanks, best, RobbieIanMorrison (talk) RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 17:23, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@RobbieIanMorrison: All three examples link to https://www.404media.co/wikipedia-bans-ai-generated-content/ from 26 March 2026. 404 Media is not affiliated with Wikipedia but https://www.404media.co/tag/wikipedia/ shows they are interested in how AI affects Wikipedia. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:58, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I also logged 404 Media but didn't realize its significance.^[4] RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 20:07, 30 June 2026 (UTC) RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 20:07, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A question, but first some background.

I recently found edits to an article that were made by a sockpuppet three months ago without any discussion.[3] No other editors had edited the page after the sockpuppet so I undid his edits.[4] Another editor restored the sockpuppet's edits with ES, [5] "Wp:due sockpuppetry is not reason to remove a valid edit". I undid his edits[6] and started two "Deletion" discussions on the talk page citing WP:NOBLANK and WP:DENY. Another editor effectively restored the sockpuppet's edits again with two edits[7][8].

My questions are these: 1. Do indeed WP:NOBLANK, WP:DENY, or WP:BANBLOCKDIFF apply here? 2. If so, is the pre-sockpuppet version the WP:STATUSQUO version? 3. And if so, should the article be restored to its status quo version until discussion concludes? Lightbreather (talk) 16:58, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The general policy seems to be that ban evasion can justify removal, but does not force removal. When another editor disputes the removal it turns into a standard content dispute, and methods in WP:DISPUTE are relevant.

However, if there is a flurry of different editors restoring the same edits by a previous sockpuppet, you might consider filing a report at Sock puppet investigations and asking those who have appropriate tools to check whether these might be additional sockpuppets. They have access to technical evidence which can settle this conclusively in many cases. M kuhner (talk) 20:15, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Recently, my DYK nomination for Frankfurt Airport Terminal 1 was accepted, but pulled a little after that due to sorcing problems. I have resolved the sourcing problems (I think) and removed the template (which I'm not certain that I should've done that now), but I want to know if I should put the DYK nominations back or if someone else could do it upon review of the article. TY Jlittlebigbeard (talk) 17:58, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Jlittlebigbeard There is no need to resubmit anything, although you did not sign your most recent message at Template:Did you know nominations/Frankfurt International Airport Terminal 1, so no ping will have been made. In general, you should continue to watch and engage at Template:Did you know nominations/Frankfurt International Airport Terminal 1. CMD (talk) 14:04, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Should I do anything or will it be reviewed one last time before they go ahead and mark it as denied or whatever they do? Jlittlebigbeard (talk) 18:29, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It is likely someone will come along and look at it. If they do, they will post their comments at Template:Did you know nominations/Frankfurt International Airport Terminal 1. You can continue to work on the article in the meantime if you wish. CMD (talk) 18:35, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Not meant as spamming, but I have another question: how big should an archive page be? My talk page seems kinda big to me, not certain if I should go ahead though. Jlittlebigbeard (talk) 18:05, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A page that is enormously too large will start showing a warning, because this is brutal for our cell-phone-using editors. But you want to get to it before that happens. I suggest setting up archiving now. It often takes a few tries to get it right. M kuhner (talk) 20:17, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

On your personal talk page, you can go ahead with archiving at any time. The only way for archiving to be a problem on your own page is if things get archived so soon that some conversations weren't even finished. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 22:03, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote a personal memoir of my experiences growing up in a company my parents started in 1973. “The Listening Room Inc” listeningroomsaginaw.com

I would like to formally submit my memoir and have people make changes. Either create a new page for “The Listening Room Inc”. Or a new page for myself, Keenan Rodammer.

I would also like people to take my Federally recognized copyrights to six Lana Del Rey songs and use them to cite how and when I came up with the stage name for the singer, Elizabeth Woolridge Grant. KeenanRodammer (talk) 18:59, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Wikipedia is not a place for people to publish their original works. You'll have to find a publisher to publish your memoir. 331dot (talk) 19:02, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It’s published at a local print shop and notarized by “The Listening Room Inc’s” accountant team where it gained Federally recognized authority over the origin of the name “Lana Del Rey”. Blocking the true origin recognized by The United States Federal Government is considered a Federal offense. KeenanRodammer (talk) 19:06, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please do NOT make legal threats, or anything that can be construed as a legal threat, on Wikipedia. WP:No legal threats gives policy on this, and it is likely to get you banned.

The things you seem to be asking for are just not things Wikipedia does. (You can read about this at WP:What Wikipedia is not.) You will need to look elsewhere. M kuhner (talk) 20:26, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what the US federal government has to do with this. Are you saying that your name is trademarked? No one is preventing you from publishing your memoir; you simply don't have the right to force a private entity to host it, just as I cannot forcibly enter your residence and force you to hear my views on a topic. 331dot (talk) 21:12, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

KeenanRodammer, when I see this post of yours, I wonder if you are even familiar with the notion of encyclopedia. Either way, Wikipedia is just one among a vast number of websites. Here are some alternatives, and of course you can construct your own. -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 21:07, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware that this is a memoir. It is published at my local print shop after being notarized and fact checked by listeningroomsaginaw.com their accountant team. I am merely presenting this memoir as an article to cite while making a new page for “The Listening Room Inc” formally 5801 State Street, now 404 Court Street in Saginaw, Michigan. It can also be used as factual statements from when I met young Liz Grant in 2003 and suggested she should change her name to “Lana Del Rey”. It is simply a memoir published at a small shop with large and loud claims to fame that I would like to be noted in their respective articles on your encyclopedia. KeenanRodammer (talk) 21:31, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think I understand now.....your description of your experience at the company would be a primary source; it can be used for certain things, but not to establish notability of a topic. 331dot (talk) 21:39, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@KeenanRodammer: Please don't post your memoir here. I have removed it. And we cannot use it as a source for claims about other people. See WP:SELFPUBLISH. Meters (talk) 23:01, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@KeenanRodammer

A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what the majority of people who are wholly unconnected with the subject have independently chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, (see Golden rule) and not much else. What you know (or anybody else knows) about the subject is not relevant except where it can be verified from a reliable published source. As a result, memoirs have absolutely no place on Wikipedia. Athanelar (talk) 06:14, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I submitted a draft titled Draft:Senses of Fear about 14 days ago. It has multiple reliable, independent sources and meets notability guidelines. Could someone please take a look and let me know if anything needs improvement before review? Thank you! Draft link: Draft:Senses of Fear Musicman7381 (talk) 19:22, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Musicman7381 Hello and welcome. I fixed your link, the whole url is not needed, just [[Draft:Senses of Fear]]. You have submitted the draft and it is pending. 331dot (talk) 19:40, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You, and I am Glad to be here. Musicman7381 (talk) 20:24, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've tagged several issues with the draft. Firstly, it appears you may be using AI/Large Language Models to write content, which isn't acceptable on Wikipedia per our guidelines which I suggest you read before resubmitting in the future (WP:LLM). There appears to be no reliable sources actually cited in the article (in fact some appear to be highly questionable), so therefore you have failed to demonstrate any subject notability. Please read the guidelines for sourcing to understand what we mean by reliable sources (WP:RS).

Finally you also appear to be operating multiple accounts as I'm presuming you are also Musicman8173. Please could you only use a single account in the future. Rambling Rambler (talk) 19:51, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that i don't know why it did that i was creating my account and it didn't go through so now its this one, sorry, I changed everything, and did a Clean rewrite to comply with WP:NOLLM, WP:RS, and WP:N; I also removed unsourced sections. I hope I did everything correct. Fingers crossed. Musicman7381 (talk) 20:21, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Each claim in the article needs to be supported by a source. Look at the last two paragraphs in "Origins and Style"--what is the source supporting those paragraphs? Also the whole run from "Formation of..." to "Modern era..."--what is the source supporting that material?

The text has a lot of hints that it was written (partly at least) by an LLM. This is not allowed on Wikipedia: WP:NOLLM is the current policy. If this is the case, please rewrite in your own words, and check each source to make sure that (a) the citation is correct and (b) it actually supports what the article claims. M kuhner (talk) 19:51, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I rewrote everything, and thank you all for the super fast reply's and the problems with the draft, if there are and more please let me know. Many Thanks in advance, Musicman7381 (talk) 20:23, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Um. It was 34 minutes between our comments and your response. From bitter experience, an article like this can't be purged of LLM text and bad sourcing in such a short time--when I've successfully done this it took me many hours.

People are giving you examples of the problems and hoping you can learn from them and correct those problems everywhere, not just the specific ones that were pointed out. In looking at the draft it's clear that did not happen (hint: look at the last section, where it says "subject of several Rock Era Magazine" articles. That is not a citation; there's not a single citation in this whole section.)

Please don't just fix one thing and ask again. LLM articles have very pervasive problems and they all need to be fixed. If this seems like a lot of work--you're right! That's why using LLM is a trap: it is more work than writing a human article. If these articles get into Wikipedia someone else ends up putting in the hours of work, not the author, which is unfair: that's why our policy is never to allow LLM use for article writing. M kuhner (talk) 20:33, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Musicman7381.

I have answered you at length at the Help Desk. Please don't post the same question in multiple places. ColinFine (talk) 21:27, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello All,

Thank you for all your efforts behind the scenes.

I would appreciate some help with my Human Metabolome Project (HMP) article. I currently work part-time as a scientific writer/editor for Dr. David Wishart. I have not worked on the HMP or the Human Metabolome Database (HMDB) described in the attached article. However, because of my professional connection, I've used secondary sources where possible. I would appreciate independent feedback on the HMP article before resubmitting it. Additionally, are there any concerns about sourcing, neutrality or style?

This is the link to the article: Draft:Human Metabolome Project - Wikipedia

Thanks for your time,

PaperTempo PaperTempo (talk) 22:41, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Did you use AI tools to assist in writing the draft? It seems like that was the reviewer's decline reason. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 00:02, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your question. For the original drafts (version 1 and 2), yes, a LLM was used to write the article from a list of facts. However, for the 3rd and final version I shared today, I revised and reduced the text. PaperTempo (talk) 01:48, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Revised LLM content is still not acceptable in articlespace per WP:NEWLLM. You should start over. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 02:17, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, PaperTempo. My recommendation is to copy all of your references but none of the prose to a new draft and abandon the old draft. Do not use any AI/LLM tools to write your new draft. We want prose written by a human being - you. This is easier than trying to eliminate all of the AI/LLM content from the old draft. Cullen328 (talk) 02:25, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Revised AI content does arguably even worse damage to your credibility than the more obvious stuff. Don't revise it - delete the whole thing. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 03:05, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @PaperTempo, and welcome to the Teahouse. Besides the problems with LLMs that others have pointed out, I think your draft suffers from not being focussed on its subject. Part of it is about the HMP, but other parts seem to be about particular parts of the Metabolome. This is not how a Wikipedia article is structured. An article about the HMP should be a summary of what people wholly unconnected with the HMP have published about the HMP and little else. It should not contain more than a brief overview of metabolomes, but should link to the existing article metabolome (or more specific articles, if they exist) for any deeper explanation. ColinFine (talk) 09:28, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! If I'm editing the references list of an article, such as filling in a bare URL, what should I put as the "retrieved" date? I assume(?) it's good practice to put something there as to help with future archival, but what date should I put? Should I look back into the edit history and find when the edit that added the citation was made? Or should I just put the current date? Schlieffenplan223 (talk) 00:35, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've just looked at this Guardian article. It's timestamped "Tue 2 Sep 2025 16.27 BST". I don't know where you are, but where I am it's 09:47 on 1 July 2026. So I'd write |date=2 September 2025 |access-date=1 July 2026, of which the "access-date" would be rendered as the "retrieved" date. -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 00:48, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't think I made my question clear! I'm specifically asking about citations which already exist in articles, but that do not have a filled date or access date field.

Would I still add the current date as the access date if the citation was originally added years ago? My concern is that if I'm, for example, filling in a bare URL that was added 5 years ago, the website could have looked a lot different back then than it does now, and adding the retrieval date to be the current date would cause the archived form of the website to be an inaccurate representation of what was cited when the article was written.

Do I just use my best judgement and go through the edit history if I suspect that the website likely changed between the time when the citation was originally added and the time that I'm adding the retrieval date, and otherwise add the current date? Or do I always go through the edit history and check when the citation was originally added? Or always add the current date? Schlieffenplan223 (talk) 01:01, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. You encounter a "reference" that's a bare URL. This might have been added twenty years ago or last week; when it was added it might or might not have pointed to a web page that confirmed the assertion(s) that the Wikipedia article had just made; and the web page might or might not have been independent of the subject of the Wikipedia article, and reliable. On 1 July 2026 you click on the link and if the linked-to page still exists and says what the Wikipedia article implies that it says and is reliable and (for most kinds of assertion) is independent of the article subject, then you fill in the details, among which is |access-date=1 July 2026: when you verified that the reference was a good one. If the series of conditions I laboriously wrote in the previous sentence aren't all met, there are of course various possibilities. I think I know what I would or wouldn't do, but hesitate to attempt to write it all out as I'm lazy (and I imagine that some energetic person has already devised an explanatory flowchart somewhere). -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 01:40, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!! Schlieffenplan223 (talk) 01:47, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I was just wondering:

When using RefToolBar, why do you need to enter an archive-date, when the date is already present in the archive-url? I haven't double checked, but I seriously doubt that you can enter just an archive-date without it throwing an error. So why can't it do it for me? Is that beyond the capability of whatever the RefToolBar program is?

Thanks, JordyGrey _talk🧸 07:07, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, wait I've just remembered that there are other archives besides the wayback machine, that may not include archive date in url. So I guess that makes sense... JordyGrey _talk🧸 15:58, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

the "Publish" Section on Making New Pages is Broken., Please Give Me An Answer!!! GlammySammy (talk) 07:37, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What happens when you attempt to follow the suggestions of the "article wizard", GlammySammy? -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 07:52, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I was Trying to Edit My Sandbox (my Sandbox, Not to Be Confused with Wikipedia:Sandbox), and It Did Not Publish, it just sat there not Publishing GlammySammy (talk) 07:56, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

GlammySammy, The history of Wikipedia:Sandbox shows that you have five edits there, starting at 03:05 1 July (UTC). When did you try to edit your sandbox, some time after that? What happened after you hit the Publish button? Mathglot (talk) 08:11, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It Didn't Work. GlammySammy (talk) 08:13, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

GlammySammy, try clicking this red link: ⟶ User:GlammySammy/sandbox and tell me what happens. Do you see a page that says 'Creating User:GlammySammy/sandbox' ? Type something there, and scroll down. Do you see a Publish button there? Mathglot (talk) 08:18, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It Did Have A Publish Button, But it Didn't Work. GlammySammy (talk) 08:20, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Does an error message appear? 331dot (talk) 08:51, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible this is a misunderstanding of the button's function? "Publish" doesn't mean "convert this to an article and put it in main-space like all the other articles". All the "Publish" button does is update the current text wherever you happen to be, to include the changes you just typed. If you're in a sandbox and you hit "publish", the sandbox now has your text in it - that's all. Elemimele (talk) 16:09, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It Didn't Work., One of My Screenshots Has Proof. GlammySammy (talk) 16:54, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I Found An Error Message!!!!! 📢📢📢📢😡😡😡😦😦😧😦😧😦 GlammySammy (talk) 17:42, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I just saw someone else (not me) upload a pic from this Facebook album under the PD-PhilippinesGov licence.
This is what the licence says:
This work is in the public domain in the Philippines and possibly other jurisdictions because it is a work created by an officer or employee of the Government of the Philippines or any of its subdivisions and instrumentalities, including government-owned and/or controlled corporations, as part of their regularly prescribed official duties; consequently, any work is ineligible for copyright under the terms of Part IV, Chapter I, Section 171.11 and Part IV, Chapter IV, Section 176 of Republic Act No. 8293 and Republic Act No. 10372, as amended, unless otherwise noted. However, in some instances, the use of this work in the Philippines or elsewhere may be regulated by this law or other laws. (Emphasis mine)
I would love for the photos here to actually be under PD-PhilippinesGov, because that would mean a lot of these Filipino celebrities would finally get lead images or better ones. For example, the lead image for Angela Ken right now is extremely dark and blurry, you can't even see her actual face.
But yes, do you think the licence applies here? I think it does. The photos are from the Quezon City Government page. The "as a part of their regularly prescribed official duties" part is a bit murky, as LoveL4ban is a university event, not a political one. However, I think the photos are a part of the local government promoting the city.
The post also mentions that several local political figures and organisations gave speeches at the festival such as Risa Hontiveros, so I guess that's why the government photographers were there as well.
Please let me know before I upload anything myself. If the licence is valid, it would be really great for these Filipino celebrities in need of good pictures. Handsome Ellis (talk) 09:26, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Handsome Ellis, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Questions about copyright that may require specialist knowledge are more likely to get useful answers at WP:MCQ or C:COM:VP/C ColinFine (talk) 09:32, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'm taking the question there. Handsome Ellis (talk) 09:35, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm planning to translate an article from Polish wikipedia and paste it into the English version. I believe it to be a good idea since I know a lot about the subject myself, and the Polish article is a very-detailed featured article. As it's very long and I don't want someone to revert my change, I wanted to ask whether there is something I need to remember of. Also, do I need to include the current contect of the English article into the new translated version? ~2026-37657-76 (talk) 10:23, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you should say in Talk:English articles that you intend to do this, briefly explain why doing so is a good idea, and wait at least one week for other editors' reactions to your proposal. -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 11:08, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've just made a page on my sandbox about the 192nd Pennsylvania Infantry Regiment, even though I've done a significant of work on it, it still needs a lot more work to do, such as adding new content from A Daily Journal of the 192d reg't Penn'a Volunteers, alongside some images of Gallipolis, Ohio. If you do wish to contribute to this page, I'll be grateful for it. Cheers! SomeRandomGuy3523 (talk) 11:13, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You might have better luck asking at some of the WikiProjects, like Military history and/or Pennsylvania? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:26, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi editors, I made what I had hoped was a fairly straightforward request to update the key people and finances in the infobox of the Azrieli Group article but so far it has not really gotten any traction. Is there something different I should do with the formatting to make it easier to review? My main concern is updating the current CEO. ~~~~ RM Azrieli (talk) 11:55, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@RM Azrieli As it says on the notice at the top of your request, The requested edits backlog is very high. Please be extremely patient. There are currently 432 requests waiting for review.

COI requests particularly tend to take a while; to be frank, those of us who are here to contribute to the encyclopedia with our own time and passion are often not in any hurry to assist those whose effort in doing so is limited strictly to their own personal/business publicity interests, so even among the editors who like to deal with the edit requests backlog, COI requests are typically not top priority. Wikipedia is, ultimately, not a business directory and there is no rush to make sure your list of executives and your financial figures are up to date. Athanelar (talk) 13:35, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Block evasion. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 20:28, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I believe that this sentence “Greenland was effectively independent during the war years, and allowed the United States to build bases on its territory, in spite of the Danish pre-war neutrality.” is inaccurate. Instead of it effectively be independent during the war, it was instead effectively controlled/occupied/colonized/goverened by/part of the United States. But i don’t want to change this sentence without a discussion. ~2026-37526-71 (talk) 15:41, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply] Hello. You are welcome to start such a discussion on the associated talk page, Talk:Greenlandic independence. 331dot (talk) 15:43, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply] @331dotBut the last answer on Talk:Greenlandic independence is 8 years ago on 11th April 2018. So it will most likely not have a answer. Hence, why i wrote here on the Teahouse. ~2026-37738-29 (talk) 16:02, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply] If you can find a reliable source to back up your statement, you can also just put it in the article with that source as evidence. If anyone disagrees and takes it back out again, then the discussion should move to the talk page. Elemimele (talk) 16:05, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply] @ElemimeleLook up Talk:Greenlandic independence, and you can see that the last answer to a topic was by Batmacumba on 21:22, 11 April 2018 (UTC) on the topic titled “Opinion”. ~2026-37738-29 (talk) 16:07, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply] @331dotBut i did right now copy and pasted this text on Talk:Greenlandic independence, and mentioned that there is a discussion in Wikipedia:Teahouse. ~2026-37738-29 (talk) 16:05, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply] Also in the “Sápmi” article, there is a sentence in this article that says “Sápmi has never been a sovereign political entity.”, which i think is inaccurate, but again, i don’t want to change this sentence without a discussion. ~2026-37738-29 (talk) 16:20, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply] Also, i think that in the article “Tornedalians”, the sentence ”are an ethnic minority native to the Torne Valley (Meänmaa) region in northern Sweden and Finland.” could be changed into “are indigenous people native to the Torne Valley (Meänmaa) region in northern Sweden and Finland.”. The words “indigenous people” could be added in the top lead of the article “Kven people”. But again, i don’t want to change this sentence without a discussion. ~2026-37738-29 (talk) 16:38, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply] Is the sentence “although some herd reindeer across much of the region.” gramaticlly correct? It’s in the section “Soviet and modern periods” in the “History” section in the “Kola Peninsula” article. ~2026-37738-29 (talk) 16:48, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply] I think that you've done a good job alerting people that you're working on the article and hopefully attracted some attention. Further discussion should go on the Talk page. M kuhner (talk) 16:53, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply] @M kuhnerWell, i guess it’s better to call it a call for discussions and fixes, but yes, you are correct. I think that informations on Wikipedia about indigenous people need to be discussed about it and fixed when the discussion concluded that it is needed. ~2026-37738-29 (talk) 16:58, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

About a month ago I created and submitted a draft for an article on Beyond Shelter. After submitting it I received the message that there were approximately 4,000 submissions ahead of mine in the Articles for Creation queue. I am logged in as Oniongod, but I can't find the draft in my contributions, userspace, or the Draft namespace. Could an admin help me locate it or determine whether it was moved or deleted? Oniongod (talk) 16:59, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's not under your account edit history(either deleted edits or live edits). Perhaps you created it while logged out? Are you certain that you clicked "publish changes" when creating your draft? 331dot (talk) 17:04, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Beyond Shelter has never existed, nor Draft:Beyond shelter. Would it possibly have been under a different title? 331dot (talk) 17:08, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This article, Beatrice Mensah-Tayui is not showing on google and has no panel. Please check Createphoto.jpg (talk) 17:08, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Articles are not indexed by search engines until marked as reviewed by a New Pages Patroller or after 90 days, which ever is first. Note that the presence of a Wikipedia article is only one possible input into "knowledge panels".

You've never edited that article, what's your interest in it appearing in search results quickly? 331dot (talk) 17:09, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The page was created on 8 December 2025 and its past the 90 days. That is why I am have an interest in it. Thanks Createphoto.jpg (talk) 17:13, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't answer my question. 331dot (talk) 17:20, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Createphoto.jpg: It's indexed by Google now because it was edited after your post. Before it had not been edited since February. Wikipedia:Controlling search engine indexing#Indexing of articles ("mainspace") says: "After indexing is allowed, some external search engines like Google may discover this quickly if any edit (except an unlogged null edit) is made to the page. Otherwise it may take a long time." PrimeHunter (talk) 19:58, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@331dotAdditionaly, Google Search has been known to block certain Wikipedia articles. I tried finding a source (that isn’t a post by a user) to back it off but i coundl’t. The only source would be r/epstein, but you know that posts by users don’t count as a source to back off information about something. I’m not saying that this article has definetly been blocked in Google Search, but this can happen to this article. Whatever, i’m not here to add information about it in Wikipedia anyways, it’s just something that i know about it. ~2026-37738-29 (talk) 17:19, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've just started editing wikipedia and would like to have someone more experienced look at my edits and confirm they are reasonable/suggest ways to move forward. I was looking at Recent Changes, and found the article Caetano Altafin, which had a large edit. From my reading the page and history it looks like someone had repeatedly added this unsourced material, which is also too much detail for the level of notability this person has I think (sometimes non published details, like job name). I edited removing all claims which I could not find in the sources, including the subject's main reason for being notable.

This also leads into another issue where all sources that are reliable come from globo.com, at least in my view. I mostly want to know if this is something that should or could be nominated for deletion, or if an article makes sense, and whether the repeated editing by one editor, sometimes undoing reverts, is an issue. Mostly looking to learn and get the vibe...

Thanks! The guy not from ipanema (talk) 18:09, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

{{ping|The guy not from ipanema}},

It looks like the same user keeps adding problematic edits to the article. If they are unsupported claims/ unsourced materials, then yes, in my honest opinion it would be the right move to remove them, or at the very least add a "Template:Citation needed" next to the unsupported text. It looks like the same user has done this before and has had edits reverted. If they keep doing this it could be categorized as WP:WAR, which can be annoying, unless they are being done in good faith (WP:GF). It looks like the same user has been warned on their talk page that their edits look like promotional material (WP:PROMOTION) which is also problematic. It is always good to remember to write from a neutral perspective and keep WP:NPOV in mind when making edits. Thanks. HappyHistorian1862 (talk) 19:16, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Draft:Jack Denst

Is there anyone out there that I can hire to rewrite/correct my submission? I have researched references and interviewed his peers for over 5 years. I'm just wasting time trying to understand how to submit correctly. ~2026-37917-25 (talk) 19:11, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to The Teahouse. It looks like the reviewer for the draft saw issues with non-neutral writing. I also recommend looking at Easy referencing for beginners as your references lack bibliographical information. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:26, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you cited personal interviews as one of your sources. Unless these have been published somewhere, they would be considered as original research and therefore fail WP:NOR. Freddieh9 (talk) 20:58, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@~2026-37917-25: No, and anyone who emails you as a result of you writing this is trying to scam you. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Object Class: Drygioni} 21:05, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

While what Jeske said is technically an exaggeration, they aren't far off. The problems with hiring someone to edit/create a Wikipedia article are:

1. 95% of the "firms" that say they will write a Wikipedia article for you are scams
2. The few legitimate firms are out of everyone's but a few very large companies price range.
3. The people editing/writing the article know as little as you do, since every experienced Wikipedian is a volunteer, and there is a large bias against paid editors due to problems we have had with them for a long time.
4. Even if they write a legitimate article, they likely don't understand the rules of Wikipedia, which could expose the article to nominations for deletion.

Mikeycdiamond (talk) 21:27, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Zoshia

Some general (free) advice about your draft:

• The content is too long and full of minutiae. A biographic article should be concise and only contain encyclopaedically valuable information.
• The language is fairly casual and in some parts emotive. An article on Wikipedia must be dry, descriptive, and only a summary of what reliable sources state.
• Many biographic statements lack an in-line citations. Every statement should be accompanied by an in-line citation that verifies the statement.
• Some of your sources are inappropriate. We don't allow personal interviews and documents as sources because every source must be published and available to allow a reader to verify it accurately reflects what it is citing.
• Your references are all generic, making it impossible for a reader to verify the sources are real. Which records? What pages? What dated newspaper article? What website URL specifically? When was the book published? By who? etc. You should be writing an academic-style bibliography.

Hope that helps. qcne (talk) 21:34, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I recently submitted my first Articles for Creation draft about Jardín Memorial, a privately owned funeral and cemetery services company in the Dominican Republic. Before it is reviewed, I was wondering if anyone would be willing to provide feedback on whether there are any issues I should address or additional improvements I could make. I appreciate any guidance. Thank you! CamilaRT04 (talk) 21:53, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Whereupon, CamilaRT04, you posted the same invitation here (WikiProject Companies) and here (WikiProject Dominican Republic). I suggest that attending to the copyright status of c:File:Parque Cementerio Jardín Memorial Aerial View.jpg and c:File:Funeral of former First Lady Rosa Gómez de Mejía at Jardín Memorial in March 2022.jpg (and perhaps other files too, but I didn't look) should be of more immediate concern to you. -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 23:10, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I came across the page Bahirka, nearly all the references in the page are cited incorrectly, or to different wikipedia pages. Should I propose it for deletion or does it just need cleanup. I would consider trying to change it myself, however, I don't speak Kurdish. Thanks Freddieh9 (talk) 22:02, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thilio has now "draftified" this to Draft:Bahirka. -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 23:14, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]