Wikipedia:Teahouse

Anachronist, a Teahouse host

Welcome to the Teahouse!

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

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

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

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

Help Wikipedia

Assistance for new editors unable to post here

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

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

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

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

Left-wing bias

Are you people aware you have an extremely left-wing bias? All the sources you deem "reliable" are usually left-wing. To be fair, a lot of top Wikipedians explicitly have userboxes that state their leftist viewpoints, so I'm sure the ArbCom probably decided that Wikipedia has to lean left. Albert Eisenstein (talk) 05:04, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello @Albert Eisenstein. Generally, accusatory questions like this do not accomplish much without any actionable way to address what you say is a problem. We have all heard this type of question before. toby ^(t)(rw) 05:08, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Best to just revert off accusatory rants like this. Especially since they think ArbCom adjudicates content. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Object Class: Drygioni} 07:25, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Reality tends to have a liberal bias, ⠀⠀⠀⠀ .n 12:28, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

When someone makes an unfair accusation, I'm not sure a curt reply that would reinforce their beliefs is a good approach. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 13:31, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Ironic that Albert Einstein was in favour of socialism. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:20, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

so I'm sure the ArbCom probably decided that Wikipedia has to lean left. ArbCom has no power to decide such things in any way. You shouldn't believe everything you read on Twitter. I know they'll tell you that Wikipedia is run like a totalitarian state and ArbCom is our politburo, but they'll also tell you the earth is flat and the moon is made out of cheese, so maybe apply some skepticism. Athanelar (talk) 08:19, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

"so maybe apply some skepticism"

I won't because I'm a Catholic, not an atheist. Albert Eisenstein (talk) 21:56, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

More or less every faith group, Catholics certainly included, are very effective skeptics regarding all the other faith groups. A non-skeptical Catholic would be an atheist and a Buddhist and a Muslim also, all at the same time. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 22:12, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

To echo TMF, your religiosity has nothing to do with your ability to think critically. Pope Leo is constantly exhorting Catholics to be curious and to think critically. Athanelar (talk) 06:19, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't like my pope. We should have chosen someone else. Someone like... Redeemed Zoomer! Obviously not Redeemed Zoomer himself, but someone like him. Albert Eisenstein (talk) 20:34, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

A Catholic priest, Georges Lemaître, was one of the people to propose the universe is expanding (rather than being a static creation of God). Gregor Mendel, a friar, is responsible for our understanding of inheritance of traits, an important part of evolution. The Catholic Church (big C) is very skeptical of miracles, demonic possessions, and the like. As far as I know, they only recognise a handful, while they dismiss 99.99% (guesstimate) of reports they get, saying the things people witnessed are a result of mental illness or something natural.

You say you mind a "left-wing" bias, yet even Pope Francis (you might have heard of him) drew on liberation theology, and many considered him to be (economically) left-wing. What would he say to your comment? The Pope!

Honestly, I have no idea where you get the idea that Catholics can't be skeptical or left-wing. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 08:19, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Pope Francis was an atheist. Not a trustworthy pope. Albert Eisenstein (talk) 20:35, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Pope Francis was an atheist. This is an extraordinary claim, and needs extraordinary evidence. Sesquilinear (talk) 19:29, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia certainly has a left wing bias, often preferring left wing narratives over truth. The reason is we have a lot of progressive editors from US dominating opinion here. Also there is organised stacking of discussions on some topics. If you want to change ARBCOM leanings, then consider voting at the next election. Conservative editors like me can be attacked for their points of view, including assumptions about points of view that are not valid. However everyone should be welcome to edit here. You just have to watch your behaviour, and not become so passionate that you cause problems. Fake stories from the right are just as unwelcome as bigoted lies from the left. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:56, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

often preferring left wing narratives over truth [citation needed]

For someone who's been here 22 years you ought to know very well that what we prefer is neither "truth" nor any narrative, but what is verifiable from reliable sources. It is true that the majority of conservative media outlets are not considered reliable here: but that is not because we dismiss them out of hand for their ideological leanings, rather because those outlets have established themselves as having a reputation for peddling falsehoods. Fox News, for instance, literally said in a lawsuit that viewers should not take their content seriously because they are an entertainment channel, not a factual reporting channel.

Rather than accusing Wikipedia of being biased against "your team," maybe take a moment to question why it is that "your team"'s media outlets keep failing the most basic standards for reliable reporting. Athanelar (talk) 08:59, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

22 years? Your profile says you've only been here since October 2025. Meanwhile you are replying to somebody who has been here 20 years. I've been here since 1967 (I actually haven't, I've only been here since this year) and I can tell you Wikipedia loves their bias. Just look at pages like Gaza genocide or Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory! Many top Wikipedians are literal communists, communists, even tankies, who probably always complain about people they deem "fascists" and/or "liberals". Albert Eisenstein (talk) 20:43, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

There are also monarchists, transhumanists, furries... it's a motley bunch. The point is to focus on content and on the encyclopaedia, and leave the various hats (or paws) at the door. For better or worse, we say what reliable sources (as defined by the Wikipedia community) say.

There is a lot of editorialising going on, though, and if you wanted to improve neutral coverage of topics, one way to do it would be to hunt down the howevers, the despites, and the WP:FALSEBALANCEs.

Making threads such as this one is equivalent to shouting at clouds and is unlikely to result in the kind of changes you want to see, or any changes for that matter. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 21:00, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

I’m sure time here on Wikipedia doesn’t matter here.

There’s a lot of political views on Wikipedia. Communist or not, the goal is to keep tone as neutral as possible. If the top editors didn’t keep the tone neutral, they probably wouldn’t be a top editor in the first place.

If you think there’s left-wing bias on Wikipedia, you’re free to fix it yourself. There’s no need to make a thread on it. Agar!! - Talk with me, im sad and lonely :( 00:22, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

As a literal communist, communist, tankie even, I can tell you that from my perspective Wikipedia has a centrist (i.e. liberal/right) bias, because that is what is appropriate for an encyclopedia. The job is to describe, not prescribe. If you are looking for an encyclopedia to reaffirm your world view, you are not looking for an encyclopedia. There are many passages which irritate me throughout this project, but my own political project is not bound up in the approval of an encyclopedia, and neither should yours. Gebble (talk) 17:04, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

@Graeme Bartlett "Wikipedia certainly has a left wing bias, often preferring left wing narratives over truth". I don't think anything you say in your comment reflects reality. I can say the earth is flat, but it is not flat in objective reality. David10244 (talk) 02:25, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a liberal, therefore a right-wing, bias. Only (North) Americans consider liberals to be "left-wing", while the rest of the world considers them as part of the right. If you want to see an example of a left-wing encyclopaedia, check out ProleWiki. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 08:03, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Do you want to read only what you want to hear and what fits your views? Or do you want to read a summary of what is said about the topic? The latter is what we do here. Wikipedia does not claim to be the truth, see WP:TRUTH. It is possible to read an article and disagree with everything presented. 331dot (talk) 08:53, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

I’m sure Wikipedia is quite neutral politically.

While we do use a lot of liberal sources, it’s not guaranteed that most editors care about who wrote the article and their views in a source. More often than not, it’s likely that they care more about the reliability of the source. Agar!! - TALK 23:52, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

@Albert Eisenstein That is not a question about how to get help using Wikipedia. David10244 (talk) 02:27, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Unfortunately, much of what is published by so-called right-wing media outlets is either propaganda serving government interests or outright fake news. Wikipedia, on the other hand, is neither left-wing nor right-wing. It is a platform where people collaborate to build a reliable record of knowledge, and in doing so they are required to cite trusted sources. Both things can be true. Morris (talk with this worm) 08:09, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia Edited Page Stuck in Limbo

Good afternoon- I submitted a page for Nancy Widmann, my mom, which I did disclose. The editor had one recommendation. I did make the changes but now my draft has been sitting since March. Unsure how to continue the submission through the process. Thank yo- Sabina Draft:Nancy Clifford Widmann Sabinacwidmann (talk) 20:46, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi, it looks like your draft was missing the submission template. I've added it now, so just click "Submit for review" and someone will get to it eventually. ^{In solidarity,} 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 ^{(They/them • Talk • Contribs)} 20:51, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

@Sabinacwidmann: I have restored the original submission template and other things. In [1] you removed everything from a line saying "Do not remove this line!" to a line saying "Important, do not remove anything above this line before article has been created." That's why the draft has been sitting since March. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:06, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you Sabinacwidmann (talk) 21:12, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Sabinacwidmann, your reference for the National Radio Award Honorees is just a Google search. That does not verify anything. Please provide a link to a source that actually verifies the content. Cullen328 (talk) 01:21, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Sabinacwidmann To be sure, there are various (if not numerous) sources available (and readily accessible) which support the claim of the National Radio Award, e.g. Radio World Magazine (August 1995), p. 35. Fabrickator (talk) 02:00, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

@Fabrickator Yes, and you need to cite them (or at least one of them) in the draft; you can't just offer a search result as a citation. David10244 (talk) 12:43, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

@David10244: I don't know whether you're complaining about the OP's original link or the link I just provided. If it's the OP's original link, I think that's a "technicality" of sorts (with the link providing very "sparse" content). I provided a link, albeit not in the form of a "citation", but it was a valid url to a PDF that went to the correct page stating "... presentation of the 1995 National Radio Award to CBS Radio President Nancy Widmann." While the lack of detail is somewhat unsatisfying, I believe that fulfills the technical requirement. Please let me know if I'm missing the point. Fabrickator (talk) 12:58, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

@Fabrickator I haven't checked the article, but sometimes editors put sources here, in a Teahouse discussion. That doesn't help a future reader of the article. I was trying to make sure the source was cited in the article itself, not just here. I hope that makes sense! David10244 (talk) 06:07, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Help with biography and potential copyright?

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)

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)

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)

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)

Meeting notability for article that was merged

Hi Teahouse! I'm having trouble understanding nobility.

I made this draft on an incident I thought was notable enough to have it's own article. There was an article for it written a few days after it happened, in this edit, but it was merged with the high school's article, and I had trouble finding the exact reason. I assume it was because the event didn't meet notability at the time. I hope my draft meets notability now, but I'm not sure if it does, to me it kind of feels like it falls under WP:ARTN, if there's anything that should be changed or added that'd help a lot.

I also have two other articles I'm drafting, so anything about understanding WP:NOTABILITY and lasting coverage would help a lot! AnthonyTheGuy (talk) 23:58, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Notability is when many trusted publications have - from scratch, by themselves, without a word from the subject - composed their own stories on exactly the topic. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 04:58, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Reference without external source

Hi. I found in many articles with reference that point to nowhere, e.g. in Ancient Olympic Games, a claim was backed with reference Kyle, 1999, p.101, but there is any book, journal, web pages with that last name and publication date in section Bibliography, so reference is useless. Is there any template to mark such useless references? KrleNS (talk) 03:54, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

@KrleNS Welcome! Afaict, you're quite correct about this example. Template:Full citation needed may be of use here. You can also try asking around, perhaps at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Olympics, if someone can help you find the source. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 04:23, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. But I found that in many unrelated articles, e.g. Algebraic number theory. Plain text is used, if sfn or harvnb templates were used, maybe this problem would more obvious. KrleNS (talk) 04:33, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

It also might be worth looking through the revision history to see if there waa originally a full citation to which that shortened cite referenced which has since been removed. Athanelar (talk) 04:34, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

OK. But can a bot convert simple text into harv templates? KrleNS (talk) 04:38, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

@KrleNS: As Athanelar suggested I looked at the history then used External tools: Find addition/removal. This took me to wikipedia.ramselehof.de/wikiblame.php?lang=en&article=Ancient_Olympic_Games. From there I put in Kyle, 1999, p.101 in the Search for box & changed the Versions to check to 5555, & checked the Force searching for wikitext checkbox. That gave me Insertion found between 22:14, 12 February 2010 and 22:51, 12 February 2010: here. Clicking on here took me to the vesrion where Kyle, 1999, p.101 was inserted. I did not see a full citation for "Kyle 1999" put I did see one for "Kyle 2007":

• Kyle, Donald G. (2007). Sport and Spectacle in the Ancient World. Oxford, England: Blackwell Publishing. ISBN 9780631229704. Retrieved 2010-02-12.

I was able to do some wrangling with archive.org to display the pertinent page:

• archive.org/details/sportspectaclein0000kyle/page/100/mode/2up?q=mythologized

From this, I think that we can conclude that H1nkles mistakenly put in 1999 rather than 2007.

Here is the appropriate code to fix the problem:

{{sfn|Kyle|2007|p=}}

* {{cite book |last=Kyle |first=Donald G. |title=Sport and spectacle in the ancient world |publisher=Blackwell Publ |publication-place=Malden (Mass.) |date=2007 |isbn=978-0-631-22970-4 |oclc=63116432 }}
Peaceray (talk) 05:53, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that I used the ISBN to query worldcat.org then looked for ebooks. You will need to register (free) to use that functionality. Peaceray (talk) 06:04, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Fantastic job, thanks. But is there any tool that would remind contributors that they added useless references? I saw that editor copy entire paragraphs from one article to another and they forget to copy sources at bottom of source page. I contribute mainly to Serbian Wikipedia, we use sfn/harvnb templates extensively, so our category Harv_and_Sfn_no-target_errors is overpopulated. I use HarvErrors.js script that mark problematic references and I usually find that source of the problem is English Wikipedia. KrleNS (talk) 06:51, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

It's complicated!

There is a script, User:Harej/citation-watchlist.js, that can be installed in one's Special:MyPage/common.js (see Wikipedia:Common.js and common.css for an explanation of common.js). However, this is only useful when one uses {{sfn}}, {{harvnb}}, {{citeref}}, or one of the other author–date citation templates that use parenthetical referencing in footnotes (see WP:CITEREF & H:SRF). When an editor has installed this script, it will flag mismatches that use the appropriate citation templates.

The 2010-02-12 edit that H1nkles made did not use an author–date citation or a shortened footnote template, but instead used a plaintext format, i.e. <ref>Kyle, 1999, pp.101–102</ref>. In this case, using citation-watchlist.js would not have been able to flag this, since it only works with citation templates. Peaceray (talk) 20:47, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

If only Wikipedia can prescribe mandatory use of harvard citation... --KrleNS (talk) 02:08, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

How to Publish draft and eventually get the article published on main page.

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

AI generated tag. article substantially revised, requesting review

Hello. im a reletivley new editor and would welcome some guidance.

In May 2026 an AI generated tag was placed on the article I was working on 'William morris mordey' as I had pasted in some mark down code block wrapper from an assistant I was using. This was a formatting error on my part and I aknowlage it was a legitimate reason to be flagged.

I should explain that I used an AI assistant because I have dyslexia and dyscalculia, and I used an AI tool to help with spelling, grammar and formatting of my own research and writing and not to generate the content itself.

Since then I have substantially revised the article. the flagged content has been removed and all sections have been re jigged, written and re cited. I have also added additional source materials.

I posted on the talk page in early June 2026 explaning what I had done and requesting review. I subsequently pinged the user that flagged it directly on the Talk page and contacted them by email. I have received no response.

I believe the article now meets standards and the concerns that prompted the tag have been addressed. Could an experienced editor review the article and, if satisfied, remove the AI generated tag? Any feedback on the article itself would also be very welcome. I should note that that the article may still contains some grammatical errors and minor typos which I have done my best to correct.

The article is here en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Morris_Mordey Mordzy (talk) 16:24, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: William Morris Mordey Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:23, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for adding the link Mordzy (talk) 17:53, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

I have put some comments on the article talk page. M kuhner (talk) 22:24, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

What does "{{!} }" mean?

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)

@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)

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)

@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)

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

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)

Brand new user

I am a brand new Wikipedia user who aims to become familiar with the platform and its functions. I was reading through the editing syntax for this article, for example (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ketogenic_diet&action=edit), and I noticed that most explanations for changes made to a site began with a colon (:). If I want to explain why I made a change without accidentally including that explanation with the actual change, do I just put a colon (:) before whatever I want to say to explain?

Separately, to whoever addresses this: thank you for the support! I hope to become an experienced general contributor and editor myself, as I explore this site over time. Do you have any general tips for me on Wikipedia, or help sites that you recommend I visit as I try to become part of more experienced user groups? Thank you again. Lwightmanresearch (talk) 17:54, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Was wondering what a reply would appear like Lwightmanresearch (talk) 17:56, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

You're looking at a talk page there, which is for the discussion of an article rather than the article itself.
The colon indents text, so it's used for replies. For example, since this is the first reply to your original message, it will have one colon at the start. If you reply to this message using the [ reply ]` button at the end of it, your message would have two colons, and so on.
In general for talk pages it's probably easier to just use the buttons so you don't need to worry about the wikitext. {{GearsDatapacks|talk|contribs|in solidarity}} 18:02, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Is wikitext difficult to learn or does it just take time? I've seen some sections about frustrated new users with the way it is, but I could understand that you'd get the hang of it over time. Lwightmanresearch (talk) 18:05, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Help:Cheat sheet can point you in the right direction. Sesquilinear (talk) 16:24, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Things are starting to look a little less foreign. I am currently clicking between "edit" and scrolling through the wikitext/syntax for this particular discussion lol. Lwightmanresearch (talk) 18:10, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Wikitext has its nuance, but most editors figure things out over time. I would recommend you stick to visual editor until you get the hang of things; you can do most tasks on Wikipedia without the source editor. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 18:14, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

It depends on your previous experience, but it shouldn't be too difficult to learn. I would say it's probably more useful to look at the source text of articles rather than talk pages, but feel free to do whatever you want. {{GearsDatapacks|talk|contribs|in solidarity}} 18:14, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Got it. I created this reply through syntax editing let's go Lwightmanresearch (talk) 18:21, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

For purposes of future questions, here's something I learned right here at the Teahouse. It is hard to talk about source editing issues because the stuff you type gets interpreted. But if you put it between nowiki tags, it won't: <nowiki> your problem code here </nowiki>. Makes discussing the intricacies of Wikipedia source much more feasible! M kuhner (talk) 21:59, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Just saw something about Semi-protection policy -- editing primary informational articles is only available to registered users (which I become automatically after ten edits and four days since my first)? Lwightmanresearch (talk) 18:28, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

"primary informational articles" not sure what you mean by that; articles are usually semi-protected if they are frequently vandalised (which are usually articles that get a lot of visibility, or are somewhat controversial, such as celebrities and politicians). {{GearsDatapacks|talk|contribs|in solidarity}} 19:04, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, the articles about politics, celebs, etc was what I was referring to there. For instance I can edit this Teahouse page and post and reply, but I would not yet be able to edit, say, a page about Taylor Swift. Lwightmanresearch (talk) 19:17, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Some talk pages are semi-protected too, and keep in mind that not every article about a politician or celebrity is semi-protected; most aren't. ^{In solidarity,} 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 ^{(They/them • Talk • Contribs)} 19:23, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

It's important to note that (semi-)protection only occurs as a result of actual problems in an article, and is not applied pre-emptively. So as JohnLaurens says, not all articles in any given category are protected, only the ones that have had frequent vandalism. {{GearsDatapacks|talk|contribs|in solidarity}} 19:51, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Myles Moylan

There is controversy about Major Myles Moylan's birthplace - Amesbury, MA, versus Tuam, Co. Galway. Currently there are ten citations to support Tuam as his birthplace, which includes the Congressional Medal of Honor Society Myles Moylan. If you scroll down to the bottom of his citation page, you will read the following -Myles Moylan served many years in the U.S. Army. During that time, he gave varying places of birth. Sometimes it was Amesbury, Massachusetts, and sometimes it was Tuam, County Galway, Ireland. Birth records show that he was, indeed, born in Ireland. Official Army records continue to show his birthplace as Amesbury because that is the place of birth he gave when he started the enlistment for which he earned the Medal of Honor. This is the citation that is being used to show that Major Moylan was born in Amesbury - although the Congressional Medal of Honor Society clearly state that they agree that he was born in Ireland. How can I remove Amesbury as his place of birth? BuffyO'B (talk) 19:16, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

It is fine because if there are ten sources that say different the article has to put the information from all ten sources so you do not need to remove that SillG (Hi! Want to talk?) 21:38, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

different things* SillG (Hi! Want to talk?) 21:38, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Btw if you remove that it will probably cause a edit war. SillG (Hi! Want to talk?) 22:06, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. For anybody researching Moylan, I think it's clear from the sources that he was from Tuam. I have also attached loads of supporting primary sources to the profiles of his family members on Findagrave. There should be no doubt as to his birthplace. I'll leave it to someone else to make the edit. Thank you. BuffyO'B (talk) 15:26, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

This is the third time at the Teahouse with the same question. How can we help you? Are you dealing with an edit war on this point? You might consider WP:THIRD or some other form of dispute resolution (there is a good rundown of options at WP:DISPUTE). M kuhner (talk) 21:55, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

No, I'm good. I'm happy that it's clear to researchers that Major Moylan was an Irishman even if Amesbury is also recorded as his birthplace on Wiki. Most researchers will visit the Congressional Medal of Honor Society site and be assured that he was born in Ireland ~~~~ BuffyO'B (talk) 16:12, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Is Galawêj Festival a "major award" for WP:ANYBIO #1?

Hi, my draft Draft:Milet Mihemed was rejected by User:Athanelar with the reason "contrary to purpose of Wikipedia" and "AI hallucination".

But the current draft was completely rewritten from scratch with 3 strong sources: 1. PUKmedia 21 Nov 2023 - subject won first prize for poetry at International Galawêj Festival 2023 2. Library of Congress authority file 3. VIAF cluster

This meets WP:ANYBIO #1: "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor".

Galawêj Festival is the oldest literary festival in Iraqi Kurdistan, running annually since 1996, and is covered by all major Kurdish media including Rudaw, PUKmedia, Kurdistan24, and Xelk.

The reviewer now says Galawêj is not "well-known and significant" and only international awards like the Booker Prize count. Is this correct per policy?

Can an uninvolved editor review if this "Reject" is appropriate? The draft has no AI text now and the sources are real and verifiable. Thank you. ~2026-36678-20 (talk) 20:27, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Generally "well known award" is understood to mean an award that itself merits a Wikipedia article, like Nobel Peace Prize or Academy Award. 331dot (talk) 20:35, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi User:331dot, thank you for clarifying the standard.

Per your definition, the award does meet "well-known and significant" because:

1. **The award has its own Wikipedia article:** International Galawêj Festival

2. **The festival is explicitly international** with coverage confirming this:

- Rudaw 2016: "Galawej International Festival... 20 countries participated" [2]

- Kurdistan24 2023: "30 countries participated in the festival" [3]

- Channel8 2023: "International guests from various countries" [4]

- TheNewRegion 2023: "International festival... 30 years of creative history" [5]

- KFuture Media 2023: "brings global voices to Sulaymaniyah" [6]

Since the award 1) has a Wikipedia article, 2) is called "International" by multiple reliable sources, and 3) hosts participants from 20-30 countries, does this satisfy WP:ANYBIO #1 for the first-prize poetry winner?

If additional sources are needed, I can provide more. Thank you for your time. ~2026-36678-20 (talk) 21:21, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

If the award has an article, you didn't link to it. 331dot (talk) 21:28, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

You're right, apologies for not linking it. Here is the article: International Galawêj Festival

Additionally, here are the direct sources confirming the subject won first prize for poetry:

1. PUKmedia (English): "The first prize for poetry went to Milat Mohammed Muhsin." [7]

2. PUKmedia (Kurdish): Confirms the award [8]

3. KNWE.org (Kurdish): "یەکەمی شیعر، پێشکەش بە میللەت محەمەد موحسین کرا." [9]

Given that:

1) The award has its own Wikipedia article International Galawêj Festival,

2) Multiple reliable sources confirm it is international with 20-30 participating countries, and

3) Three independent sources directly verify the subject won first prize,

does this satisfy WP:ANYBIO #1 for "well-known and significant award"?

Thank you again for your guidance. ~2026-36845-53 (talk) 22:10, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Please do not use AI models to generate talk page comments. There is not an article by that title, as you can see by the link being red. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 22:17, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you everyone. I have now found multiple independent reliable sources for WP:GNG:

1. PUKmedia (EN): https://www.pukmedia.com/EN/Details/77334 - "Milat Mohammed Muhsin... awarded first place in poetry"

2. KNWE.org: https://knwe.org/KU/Details/24032 - Confirms award win

3. Kurdsat TV: https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1D2FErgJZM/ - Video report, subject speaks at 0:15-1:30

4. Waar TV: https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1BLmcw28Aq/ - Festival coverage, subject featured at 1:05-2:20

These are four independent reliable sources: two written articles + two TV broadcasts from different networks. All provide significant coverage of the subject winning the award.

This clearly satisfies WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. The award itself has articles on and Wikipedia, showing regional significance.

Can an uninvolved editor please review for approval? ~2026-36845-53 (talk) 23:27, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

It is certainly not suitable for Wikipedia in its current state. Library of Congress authority file and VIAF cluster fail WP:42; they don't provide significant coverage and I wouldn't consider VIAF reliable for this purpose either (as it cites Wikidata). Not 100% sure on the PUKmedia source, but it's certainly not enough content for an article on its own--all it says is that the subject won this award. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 20:57, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Also, Courtesy ping: Athanelar. 20:59, 25 June 2026 (UTC) SomeoneDreaming (talk) 20:59, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Deadnaming in a reference's by-line

I came across two rather curious edits[10][11] for The Fool (Bladee album), that changes a author's name in both the ref template and in the article body to a new one, citing avoiding deadnaming. However, the by-line in the source still credited the author's original name.

Is there any policy that's relevant to this case? I am assuming MOS:DEADNAME doesn't apply to just a reference. Do we have any BLP-esque duty-of-care to people whose full name we are including in the references? Especially since they are often non-notable? For example, in this case, I was not able to find any online presence of a person under the new name, but plenty under the old name.

LkL-70547 (talk) 20:59, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

MOS:DEADNAME specifically says: "In source citations, do not remove names of authors or references to former names in titles of works. If the author is notable, the current name may be given, for example as "X (writing as Y)". Do not replace or supplement a person's former name with a current name if the two names have not been publicly connected and connecting them would out the person." SomeoneDreaming (talk) 21:01, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Neuroscientist Maria Dorota Majewska

Hello! Please, responsible editors out there, look again at a draft of my article on a neuroscientist Maria Dorota Majewska again. After critique (thank you!) from .nhals8 and  Devonian Wombat, I removed what was considered as a promotional language; citations of opinions of other  neuroscientists not related to her in any way ; I reported with sources which support that the person meets overwhelmingly all  specific criteria for inclusion among academics, and belongs consistently year after year to the top 1% of all neuroscientists cited by the most recognized brain research journals worldwide and by 12500 other neuroscientists in them, with a frequency of 120 citations per publication, on average. At the start, I reported some so called conflict of interests. I believe that this part of the American neuroscience deserves some attention of the reading public. Thank you. Walerus (talk) 21:42, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:Maria Dorota Majewska ^{In solidarity,} 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 ^{(They/them • Talk • Contribs)} 21:49, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Long live solidarity of all Wiki writers, thank you! Walerus (talk) 22:26, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Being a neuroscience ignoramus, I do not intend to review this. But here's one pointer, Walerus. The draft says (for example): Majewska’s 1987 invited review on steroid actions in neurons further developed the concept that steroid hormones [...] could regulate neuronal excitability through direct effects on GABAA receptors. And it cites for this: Majewska, M.D. (1987). "Actions of steroids on neuron: Role in personality, mood, stress, and disease". Integrative Psychiatry. 5 (4): 258–273 – via PsycINFO. So the claim that Majewska's 1987 review further developed a concept is sourced to a 1987 paper (the same one?) by Majewska. Er, no. If a draft says that Majewska achieved such-and-such an advance, then the claim needs to be supported by a reference to a reliable source independent of Majewska. -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 04:01, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, very good question. From 1984 to 1987 she coauthored 11 papers on the subject, leading to the discovery of the function of neurosteroids. Then she had 2 more publications on the topic in 1988, but while they were in preparation, the team already knew their results. In the most of these papers she was the first author. The most important paper of this NIMH group led by her is the 1986 publication, ref. 8. All 13 papers 1984-1988 are on her Google Scholar profile attached as an external link. Her work is recognized as an important discovery in a series of papers by other neuroscientists, references 9,10, 12, 13, 14, 17. Thank you. Walerus (talk) 05:25, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Please everyone note we have here a cross-wiki SPU in self-declared COI (see fr:User:Walerius), previously blocked for one week on plwp for POINT (pl:Dyskusja_wikipedysty:Walerus#Blokada) after spamming talk spaces, today rebuffed on frwp's village pump (fr:Wikipédia:Le Bistro/26 juin 2026#Restauration de l’article Maria Dorota Majewska) for doing always the same, after his undeletion request was not accepted. CaféBuzz (talk) 13:43, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

recover edits lost when Wikipedia crashed

Hi, I tried to login but somehow could not succeed, so I finally decided to do a unon-logged in edit of my (personal, living author) Wiki page "Christopher I. Beckwith" (that's me), which has been increasingly more or less vandaiized (for a scholarly person article), mainly devoted to removing the many nasty things added to it, so I spent most of the day on it today and was about to try and save or "publish" it when Wikipedia suddenly went "Violation!" in a big red and yellow "explosion" image, and my entire many hours of work disappeared. I tried all the "recovery" options, but none worked. So I tried again and again to get a username that WP would accept ("Bearpit"), then logged in. I was using the same computer (my own) all day, and am still using it, but still could not recover anything. If you could recover my work for me that would save me many hours of work redoing it from scratch.

Thanks in advance,

"Bearpit" Bearpit (talk) 21:58, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

If you weren't logged in, I don't think there's anything that would have saved your work. If it's not at Special:EditRecovery, it is likely lost.
As an aside, you shouldn't edit pages about yourself directly. Instead, you should make a edit request on the article's talk page. {{GearsDatapacks|talk|contribs|in solidarity}} 22:03, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Bearpit, I'm sorry to hear that you lost your work. (However, when you say that Wikipedia suddenly went "Violation!" in a big red and yellow "explosion" image, you surprise me: I've never seen or even heard of such warnings.) If the article Christopher I. Beckwith needs emending and you are Beckwith, then, using Template:Edit COI, please make edit suggestions/requests on Talk:Christopher I. Beckwith. Back these up with references to published sources -- "I am Beckwith!" won't work -- and avoid accusing other editors of malicious intent (or mental incompetence or whatever); your documented facts should be enough to flush out their undocumented assertions. -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 04:23, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Dear Hoary, Thank you for your message and explanation. I have no idea about the "Violation!" and have never experienced that before either. On the article, which is now not about me and my work but about how much some people hate my scientific/scholarly work and hate me for doing it. There is not a word in the article saying what my contributions are to the fields I have worked in, or the praise that some have written for them, etc. (though my Macarthur Fellow award is listed). I was in the midst of preparing a large international research grant application when I noticed "my" Wiki bio is not a bio at all but an attack on me intended to destroy me, written by people I know, who even mention themselves in the current text, along with others who have considered my work to threaten them (and attacked me too). But I nowhere criticize any of those people, though I do cite some of their publications here and there, and my latest book (The Scythian Empire [Princeton UP 2023]), for example, is glowingly reviewed by the famous historian Peter Brown in History Today and by Maxwell Carter, an art historian at Christie's, in the WSJ. Wikipedia is effectively saying that I must continue to be a victim and continue to be victimized forever by these evil people (two of whom recently died) unless I drop everything and devote my last breath to fighting back, again, and again. I am 80 years old, with a heart condition; I can't do it--and in this case I am not allowed to do it!--and don't know when any of my colleagues or former students would have time to do it, SO, please, if possible, either (1) delete everything from the article except my name and brief information bio, including my degrees and MacArthur Fellow award (1986) only, or (2) delete the article entirely and I will ask someone to write a completely new one. Could you please help me with this? Sincerely, Chris (Christopher I. Beckwith), "Bearpit" Bearpit (talk) 16:16, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Lists containing mathematical text

When making a list which contains mathematical text, as seen below, the item number is aligned with the middle of the whole equation.

1. ${\begin{aligned}math&=math\\&=math\\&=math\\&=math\end{aligned}}$

See how the '1.' is in the middle of the equation? How do I align it with the first line in the equation? ACarWP14_TC 22:05, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

This is LaTeX hiding inside Wikicode. You may find some help on LaTeX specific discussion boards, for example this thread looks relevant: [12]. The question isn't the same as yours but the solutions look promising for your issue. Alternatively, you could try WikiProject Mathematics. M kuhner (talk) 23:36, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Archive display problems

Hello, I was trying to setup archiving on my talk page. It is active, but for some reason the archives only show inside some page inside of my talk page acessible via a link that says "About this page" or something like that. Is there a way for it to display prominently on the top of the talk page?

Thank you! Me, in particular 23:11, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

The "About this page" thing is a limitation of the mobile site, I think. I clearly see the archive banner at the top of your talkpage. However, it looks like you made a mistake in the the automatic archiving setup: the |archive= parameter is set to User talk:Powerplay11 %(counter)d, which means it's not a subpage of your talkpage, so it won't work. You should change it to User talk:Powerplay11/Archive %(counter)d. --rchard2scout (talk) 14:37, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Noob Question

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)

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)

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

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)

Question about 'needs infobox' removing on talk page please

Hi Teahouse,

I hope you're doing well.

I added an artist infobox (few parameters, but just a start) to Hugh Davies (artist). I looked at the Help:Infobox but not sure of best practice - once I have added the infobox, will the 'needs infobox' tag auto-remove from the talk page? Is this autopatrolled or do I need to make a separate edit to the talk, after having added the infobox please?

Thank you! SunnyBoi (talk) 02:54, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

I can't see "needs infobox" on the article talk page. In fact I don't see any talk page at all for this article?

The general rule is that if you are sure you have fixed a problem, you are allowed to remove any tags about the problem. One exception is that if someone does a review of your article, for example at Articles for Creation, you should leave that alone. It is useful information for subsequent reviewers to check if you've tackled the issues raised. M kuhner (talk) 03:40, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

SunnyBoi, Hugh Davies (artist) may, in the opinion of many editors, need an infobox. But I'm not aware of any change to a guideline such that it should have one. The problem is elsewhere. The article -- rather a grand term for such a puny effort -- says little about Davies. For this, it cites but two sources. One is the top page of, or an unspecified page within, the blog "Analogue Art Map Archive" (analogueartmap.blogspot.com), for the claim that he was "founder of the collaborative arts project Analogue Art Map". (This isn't stated on the top page of the blog.) The other is this Wayback scrape of his profile at an institution that employed him. As I attempt to view this, I'm told "Content cannot be accessed". There's no independent sourcing for this article. If no informative, reliable sources independent of Davies can be cited, this should be deleted. -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 06:14, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

@SunnyBoi: |needs-infobox=yes should be removed from Talk:Hugh Davies (artist). PrimeHunter (talk) 11:39, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Massive copyright violations

see all articles in template:AFI 100 Years... series and Wikipedia:Copyright in lists, 781h (talk) 03:32, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi @781h, I've looked through the template and found this that explained that the lists are in public domain, therefore they can be reproduced in the respective articles. Jolly1253 (talk) 04:44, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

What should I use as a citation to prove a mod for a video game is "popular"/Would adding something in to mention this mod be considered advertising/Consensus around talking about mods on game articles

I want to update the article on Neon White to mention how in order to push the limits of the game, people have modded more milestones into the game. I was thinking about saying something like "The community has come to a consensus on what level times warrant certain levels of celebration, and given these times titles like Emerald, Amethyst, and Sapphire. These are most often implemented through the popular mod [mod name]"
So what should I use to cite this? Just linking the GitHub repository wouldn't really prove that the mod is popular. As someone fairly active in the speedrunning community for this game, knowing what someone means when they say "emmy" or "ammy" is very important.

Shorter question here: would it be considered advertising to mention this mod? It's free, no one actually makes money off it, and it's basically considered a necessity for anyone even remotely serious about the game.

I'm new around here, what's the culture behind talking about mods on articles about video games? Is it frowned upon since they are inherently not a part of the base game? Is how influential they are on the game and its community a factor in this? Ertizoel (talk) 03:55, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

It's all about what reliable and independent sources say. If no one besides the players has reported on the mod, it's not notable enough for a mention. ^{In solidarity,} 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 ^{(They/them • Talk • Contribs)} 04:08, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello @Ertizoel. Good and bad sources for videögames are listed at WP:VGRS. You should avoid sourcing unreliäble ones except in extraordinary circumstances. Secondary sources are preferable in most cases.

How to describe a claim from a reliäble source will differ on a case by case basis. If I find a source by Rock Paper Shotgun describing many Terraria mods that picks Calamity as "probably the most popular" example, I could say Terraria has a numerous mods, including one named Calamity, which Rock Paper Shotgun describes as the most popular. If the source instead just lists Calamity indiscriminately with other mods without calling a specific one "the most popular", then Calamity shouldn't have a mention. Of course, the modding factor of a game's community would have to have at least multiple sources covering them in the first place to mention specific examples in the first place. Always make sure that articles follow their DUE weight.

Writing something as simple as a mod for a game would not be promotional, but your tone can always change this factor of course. toby ^(t)(rw) 04:45, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

I did some searching and I'm sorry to say found no independent analysis articles or news stories about the modding community, vibrant though it seems to be. Do you know if there's a language other than English commonly used by this community? That might be something to try. You could also ask around on forums related to the game: while forum posts themselves aren't useful, they might point you to coverage that is. M kuhner (talk) 04:40, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Talk pages

What is the general purpose of a talk page on Wikipedia? Talk pages are completely public and basically anyone on the internet can see my talk page, right? What are the polices and some stuff you shouldn’t talk about on it? Lwightmanresearch (talk) 05:42, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

@Lwightmanresearch, check out the Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines (shortcut WP:TALK) for more details, but the purpose of article talk pages is to provide a place for editors to discuss edits to the article. Common discussion topics include suggestions to add or remove content, resolving disagreements between editors about how a topic is covered or what is/isn't included, and evaluating sources used in the article or compliance with policies and guidelines. User talk pages are for discussions with or notifications to a specific user. See Wikipedia:User pages for details. Yes, talk pages are public and visible to basically anyone with an internet connection. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 06:02, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

@Lwightmanresearch: In addition to Mycetae's explanation above, keep in mind that talk pages are only for discussion of the article itself, not of the subject of the article. For instance, on Talk:Taylor Swift, you could ask "Should we reword this sentence about her newest album?" but not "What do you think about her newest album"? Using talk pages like a forum is a common pitfall for new editors. ^{In solidarity,} 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 ^{(They/them • Talk • Contribs)} 06:10, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Hey all I am new

How do I post my newcomer information and is there anyone here who specializes in true crime, criminology, CPTSD and Dissociative Amnesia? CPTSDcoldcase (talk) 06:34, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Welcome! You might be interested in joining WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography. It's a WikiProject for crime & criminology, and you can use its talk page to collaborate with other members of the project. You can post your areas of interests (within the crime genre) here, when signing up to be a member. You can also use your userpage to talk a little bit about your goals on Wikipedia. jolielover♥talk 07:14, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

CPTSD cold case

Request for Assistance from the Wikipedia Community My name is Brian "Happy" Bryanson. I am a survivor of severe childhood trauma due to I was born into an intergenerational hierarchical organized crime family. For many years I have been documenting my experiences with Complex Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (CPTSD) and dissociative amnesia while attempting to understand a series of memories that I believe may relate to unresolved cold cases from my childhood. My memories did not return all at once. Like many trauma survivors, they emerged gradually over decades in the form of flashbacks, fragmented recollections, recurring nightmares, and dissociative episodes. As these memories surfaced, I began documenting them carefully, comparing them with publicly available historical records, missing-person reports, maps, locations, timelines, and my own personal history. I have shared this information with numerous law enforcement agencies and investigators over many years. I recognize that memories recovered after trauma can be incomplete or mistaken, and I do not claim that every recollection represents an established historical fact. Instead, I have tried to separate what I personally remember from what can be independently verified through documents, witness testimony, historical records, or physical evidence. My goal has never been to sensationalize my experiences but to preserve my testimony in hopes that it may someday help investigators or surviving families. My work has grown beyond my own story. Through my project, CPTSD Cold Case Texas, I write and speak about trauma, memory, dissociation, and unresolved cold cases. I seek to educate others about the long-term effects of childhood trauma while encouraging renewed interest in forgotten cases whose victims may still be unidentified or whose families continue searching for answers. In an effort to raise awareness, I have been building a network of websites and social media platforms dedicated to this project. My goal is not simply to tell my story, but to make the information accessible to survivors, researchers, journalists, genealogists, forensic specialists, and members of the public who may recognize details, contribute expertise, or help connect pieces of unresolved cold cases. By sharing my work across multiple platforms, I hope to encourage informed discussion, preserve my testimony, and increase the likelihood that independent investigators, media organizations, or law enforcement agencies will examine any leads that can be corroborated through evidence. I also want readers to understand that producing this material has been especially challenging for me. In addition to living with CPTSD and dissociative amnesia, I have experienced two traumatic brain injuries (TBIs) resulting from childhood abuse. These injuries contributed to learning disabilities that make reading, writing, organization, and communicating complex ideas much more difficult. Although I have spent years documenting my experiences and researching historical records, I often require assistance editing and organizing my written work. I ask that readers evaluate my efforts based on the substance of the information rather than the polish of my writing, recognizing that these neurological and cognitive challenges are part of the lifelong consequences of the trauma I have endured. I am asking members of the Wikipedia community for guidance and assistance—not special treatment. If independent, reliable sources eventually establish that my work or advocacy meets Wikipedia’s standards for notability, I would appreciate help creating a neutral, well-sourced article that accurately summarizes my background, my public advocacy, and the documented efforts I have made over many years. My hope is that increased public awareness will encourage journalists, historians, researchers, forensic specialists, trauma experts, genealogists, and cold case investigators to examine the available evidence with fresh eyes. Even if my testimony ultimately serves only as one piece of a larger investigation, I believe it deserves careful, objective consideration. I am now living with significant health challenges, and I know my time and energy are limited. Before I die, my greatest hope is that every lead worthy of investigation will be examined, every unidentified victim will have the opportunity to be named, and every family still searching for a loved one will have the chance to receive answers. If my experiences contribute in any meaningful way toward that goal, then sharing my story will have been worthwhile. Help me to send the dead home to their loved ones. Big Happy Texan CPTSDcoldcase (talk) 07:37, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

@CPTSDcoldcase While I do have the same condition as you do, I do have to say that WP:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; it's not really an WP:ADVOCACY or blogging/writing platform either, nor a place to publish opinions. I also believe that CPTSD needs more awareness and assistance to its victims, though because of Wikipedia's scope and the limitations as I've said above, we won't be able to keep such documentation.

I recommend some other publishing platforms, including WordPress, Blogspot, Tumblr, etc. or perhaps if you have the resources, writing and publishing books.

Overall, Wikipedia isn't a publishing platform, and you should seek other options to document your and others' experience. Take good care. ⠀⠀⠀⠀ .n 08:14, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank You for your time CPTSDcoldcase (talk) 08:18, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

A question: Could someone write about my story and have me and my works as part of their research and bring the dead back alive in that manner? I write extensively on this topic and have a self-fpublished book on amazon. CPTSDcoldcase (talk) 08:30, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

@CPTSDcoldcase, if you haven’t already tried reaching out to organizations like the International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies (ISTSS) or the European Society for Trauma and Dissociation (ESTD), you might want to do that because they facilitate networking between researchers and individuals with lived experiences to shape future research priorities. Augnablik (talk) 10:34, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

@.nhals8, you couldn’t have better timed your coming along to make the initial reply to @CPTSDcoldcase, as the perfect combination of seasoned editor who knows the Wiki ropes and someone who shares the same life story as the Teahouse guest. Touching, and one of those things that make us stop for a moment and wonder … Augnablik (talk) 10:51, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

how to request an article?

how to request an article? Research agent O (talk) 08:32, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

At Wikipedia:Requested articles. jolielover♥talk 08:38, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Note one sentence near the top of Wikipedia:Requested articles, Research agent O: "Most requested articles will not be written." The keyword hereabouts is DIY. Your best bet may be to improve existing articles, thereby developing your Wikipedia skills; and, after successfully making a few dozen successful edits and checking that your proposed subject is "notable" as defined by and for Wikipedia, creating a draft yourself. -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 11:47, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

thank you in advance, I have seen and read. and by the definitions of the pages the canadian artist(s) several who are not included seem an oversight as many of the other artists who are mentioned equally on the other sites and the web archive seem to say they are, real, worthy of at least an entry, unless there is a tactic of needing for a canadian artist to be registered with Wikipedia I was following due process and reasearch as I understood and attempting to help artists retain visibility given the conversations I had with people at the Hamilton Art crawl and the city has a very vibrant and growing culture of artists misplaced or financially affected who had been a part of a culture seen in Toronto going back to 1980s.

I'm not sure what happened to wikipedia but articles are not there so I registered to do my part and now I my getting lectured on the relevance? seems the wrong place for fact checking or research if this is the way its done.

are you sure this is the right way to answer my query? No judgment on where you are but this is shocking to me. I care about information conservation. this was very dismissive and I don't understand why? Research agent O (talk) 03:30, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

@Research agent O The people who answer questions here are volunteers, knowledgeable in the ways of Wikipedia. And, all Wikipedia articles are also written by volunteers. The two sets of volunteers have some overlap.

This encyclopedia is not a place where volunteer editors are "assigned" articles to write. You might be correct that there are artists who are notable (as defined here) and could have an article. But again, it's up to a volunteer editor who has the interest, the time, the knowledge about how to write a Wikipedia article, and the inclination to write such an article. It seems that you have the interest. Writing a new artice, using proper sourcing, is not an easy task. I hope this clarifies the (entirely correct) information you were given, and sorry if you are disappointed. David10244 (talk) 13:11, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

English Translation of a Spanish Article: CIMA (Centro de Investigacion Medica Aplicada)

Hello everyone,

I would like to create an English version of the article about CIMA (Center for Applied Medical Research, University of Navarra). The article already exists in Spanish and Basque and is supported by reliable sources.

I have translated the article using the Content Translation tool, but I cannot publish it because I receive the following message: "Your translation cannot be published because publishing is only allowed to more experienced editors on this wiki." Would an experienced editor be willing to review my translation and publish or move it to the main article space if it meets English Wikipedia's standards?

The existing wikipedia article is: Spanish [13]

Thank you very much for your time and assistance. Perfectionistt (talk) 14:43, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

@Perfectionistt: You should be able to publish it to the Draft namespace by prepending it with Draft:. Peaceray (talk) 06:23, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Am I, an autoconfirmed user, required to use AfC? (among other questions)

Hello Wikipedia Teahouse,

I have been contributing to Wikipedia for a... relatively small amount of time now (~1 month total but my account has existed for ~6), but am yet to create an article. Today, I noticed that something that might meet notability guidelines but does not have an article exists; a statue (Cast in Blue, colloquially known as the "Blue Blob") erected in a town in my region that has a few secondary news articles about it, namely by the ABC, BBC and some companies owned by News Corp Australia.

I've read through a few internal materials surrounding article creation, including but probably not limited to Help:Your first article, Help:Cheatsheet, WP:RS, WP:RSP, WP:N, Wikipedia:Notability for Beginners and the brief on Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation.

I've still a couple of questions though, provided you don't mind me asking:

1. Is this subject actually notable? It is well known in the area and I could see a significant number of people wanting to find out about it considering the large amount of attention it got after it's announcement, erection and subsequent vandalism (heck, it even made it to the BBC somehow?), but I am also very new to this and could be misinterpreting guidelines or overestimating demand.
2. If I do draft this article, am I required to/should I enter it into the AfC process? They seem to have a large backlog of submissions, and I can't tell whether it is required or even recommended for me to do so (also three months is so long 😭)
3. What exactly is a WikiProject? (Not a strictly related question)
4. No pictures of the subject are available on Wikimedia Commons, but I have the ability to take one and upload it myself. Are there restrictions on image quality? Can I take a picture with my phone?

Thank you for your consideration! Crtbob (talk) 14:55, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

For your first question: Think of notability as "how many sources exist that I could use when writing this article?" And how many of those sources provide new information, as opposed to being substantively similar?

For your fourth question: No restrictions (and it's Australia, so freedom of panorama won't be a problem). Sure, use your phone.

I'll let someone else handle #2 and #3. DS (talk) 15:24, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your response!

Searching again, what the available sources cover seems to be split into about two topics; the statue being erected, and the time that a drunk woman stuck googly eyes on it (Majority are about this. I guess it's just the more interesting story). I feel like I can probably find enough to work with?

I'd never heard of freedom of panorama before this. Thanks for the read! Crtbob (talk) 15:37, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Assuming you have no conflict of interest with the topic, you aren't required to use AfC. It's recommended if you have never attempted to create an article before, so that other people can see it and find any issues before it is a live article, but it's not required. If you truly feel that you can write a minimally acceptable article right now and don't need anyone else to check your work beforehand, you are free to try. Just understand that someone like a New Pages Patroller or any editor would be free to take action if your draft isn't up to minimum standards, like tagging it, moving it to draft space, or nominating it for deletion. It's usually assumed that someone submitting a draft knows what they are doing in terms of Wikipedia guidelines. 331dot (talk) 15:42, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice. I will work to draft the article, and then decide where to go from there. Based on what you've said, AfC seems like a good idea. Crtbob (talk) 17:11, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

I recommend AfC for first articles, because a decline by AfC is no big deal, you just fix and resubmit, and much more fun than getting taken to Articles for Deletion. I've been autoconfirmed for a while and have one successful article but will still likely go AfC for the next one.

A piece of advice I got from people who do AfC reviews: Clearly good and clearly bad articles get reviewed fast. (Mine, to my surprise, took 2 days.) Questionable ones take much longer. So polish well before submitting and it probably won't take months.

I haven't examined the Blob sources, but they have a nice geographic spread, which sounds hopeful.

WikiProjects are groups of editors interested in a specific topic, and often maintaining resources useful for that topic. For example, WikiProject Newspapers lays out what they'd like to see in the infobox of a newspaper article, and country WikiProjects often have lists of good or bad sources in that country. Many of them manage ratings and importances for pages in their scope--you've probably seen those on article Talk pages. You can also ask for help there on specific questions, though check to see if the WikiProject is active--some are more or less dormant. M kuhner (talk) 18:28, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice! Crtbob (talk) 02:42, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

my own talk page was edited by someone who incorrectly put their signature

Hi! I received an edit by a user but I cannot reply to it, as it was unsigned, how do i correctly sign it? ~2026-35622-93 (talk) 16:21, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi ~2026-35622-93, you sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). Also make sure your response is below the original to keep everything in chronological orders, and indent (using ":") to keep the flow of the conversation from getting confusing. - Adolphus79 (talk) 16:40, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

And to mark an unsigned edit from someone else, you can use {{subst:unsigned|<username>|<timestamp>}}... sorry, I answered a little too quickly before checking the issue... - Adolphus79 (talk) 16:42, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Well, now I know about {{subst:unsigned}} , so it's all good, thank you ~2026-35622-93 (talk) 16:47, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

I went ahead and fixed it for you. Alternatively, you should see an "edit" button next to each section heading, which would allow you to edit the section without the use of the "reply" button, hope this helps... Good luck, and happy editing! - Adolphus79 (talk) 16:49, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

yeah, I know how to do that, it'd be just tedious to do with that specific diff because I have no idea where to start putting my reply, which is why I asked at teahouse. thank you for your help! ~2026-35622-93 (talk) 16:53, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

I would suggest replying below the second paragraph (your original warning template from their talk page). I'm not sure why they copied your warning template from their page for some reason, instead of just providing a link to the diff, that would be a question for you to ask that user. - Adolphus79 (talk) 16:57, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Domain blacklist logistics

I'm planning an article about an influential policy supported by the Heritage Foundation and a number of conservative legislatures in the US. I'm confident that it's notable. I'm gathering sources and writing notes on them in a subpage of my user page. However, I could not save my notes until I removed a link to the Heritage Foundation's model legislation. The alert was helpful in explaining that heritage.org is a blacklisted domain, and how to whitelist specific links. I can understand why the blacklist exists for the encyclopedia, but why does that also extend to userpages and drafts?

Also, where can I read more about the blacklist policy? Gebble (talk) 16:52, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

@Gebble See Wikipedia:Spam blacklist and note that the guidance applies to all pages, not just articles. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:06, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

It was found that if spam links (which is what the blacklist is meant to stop) are allowed anywhere, they will proliferate in that location. People trying to use their user or talk pages as ad platforms, while silly, is extremely common. Also a draft can turn into an article in the blink of an eye: better stop the bad links from being made in the first place. M kuhner (talk) 18:38, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I was surprised because it seemed like an unusual act of censorship to block the domain of a conservative think tank. But digging into the RfC seems to indicate that there was/is a malicious campaign against wikipedians originating from that think tank. I have no interest in propagating misinformation from that website; this issue is they seem to be the origin point for model legislation that is being implemented in at least five US states. Thankfully, other sources have reported on it, so I will happily take the excuse not to link to their website. Gebble (talk) 18:51, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Rahiembhati's post

hi, this is my page [FSC] PRE MEDICAL STUDENT FROM SHEIKHUPURA (BORN 2008) DIGITAL MARKETER Rahiembhati (talk) 18:13, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Rahiembhati! This is a place for asking questions about Wikipedia: what's your question? Also, please use the "add topic" button to start a new section when you post here. (I've fixed that for you--your message was at the end of someone else's question, which just leads to confusion.) M kuhner (talk) 18:38, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

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

Judging from your question above, and the edits you have made, it sounds as if, like many people, you have a misunderstanding about what Wikipedia is.

Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia - nothing else. It is not social media. It is not for chats with friends, unless the chats are about making Wikipedia better.

You may have a user page (User:Rahiembhati) on which you may share some information about yourself as a Wikipedia editor.

If your purpose is to learn how to edit Wikipedia and make our articles better (clearer, better referenced, more neutral) then you are very welcome. If you are here for any other reason, I suggest you find somewhere better suited to what you want to do. ColinFine (talk) 14:52, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Someone added a movie in "41st Golden Raspberry Awards", a movie that dosen't have its own article on Wikipedia and has no reference

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

---

The edit was done by Valdemar17273729, and the movie in question is "The Rodfellows Movie". I looked at this user's editing history and they actually do improve articles, which makes it somewhat unusual. I'm kind of thinking that this user got this information about The Rodfellows Movie being present at the 41st Golden Raspberry Awards from somewhere, but i coundl't find this information myself. So, i'm very much guessing that this information was on a user-generated website or wherever it came from, and the user thought it was true and didn't fact-checked this information. But, just in case, i'm making a post on the Teahouse. ~2026-36190-10 (talk) 18:23, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Courtesy ping: Valdemar17273729 ^{In solidarity,} 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 ^{(They/them • Talk • Contribs)} 18:41, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-36190-10: I don't know whether it was added in good faith but it was wrong so I have reverted it.[14] PrimeHunter (talk) 22:46, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

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

Proposed Deletion of redirect.

Proposed deletion of Government of the Russia (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Government_of_the_Russia&redirect=no).
0 pages link to it. FatalSubjectivities (talk) 18:46, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

@FatalSubjectivities This is usually handled at WP:RfD. Note the comment there that "Redirects should not be deleted just because they have no incoming links." Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:56, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Any proof that Polon the Star Child aired in Arabia?

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

---

I looked at the article "1974 in anime" and saw that Polon the Star Child aired in Arabia, but i haven't found any information about Polon the Star Child airing in Arabia. The edit was by 81.105.123.102, its history of edits are geniunely vast and good, so why would they put this information in this article is somewhat unusual, were they mistaken? or did they accidently put this information in the wrong space and meant to put it on a different cartoon? Despite this, i haven't removed this information in this article, just in case it isn't false, and i'm making a post on the Teahouse. ~2026-36190-10 (talk) 18:47, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

I wasn't able to find any reliable source confirming that Polon the Star Child was ever broadcast in the Arab world. It's possible that the information was added in good faith but without a reliable source it shouldn't be treated as verified. If no source can be found to support the claim it would be reasonable to remove it per Wikipedia's verifiability policy. Of course if someone can provide a reliable reference—such as broadcaster records contemporary TV listings or documentation of an official Arabic dub—the information can always be restored. Yashvi Sharmaa (talk) 19:21, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

@Yashvi SharmaaTry find it in Arabic, perhaps maybe it has a altrenate name. ~2026-36190-10 (talk) 19:34, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

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

My second articles

Hello, This is my second attempt at creating the article on Mohamed Wisham My first article was speedy delete because somone was told there had been a previously deleted page with this title. I also noticed in the deletion log that there was a previous deletion. Could you please clarify whether this article will also be deleted simply because of the earlier deletion or will it be evaluated on its own merits based on its sources and content? If there are any issues with this version I'd appreciate specific feedback so I can improve it. Yashvi Sharmaa (talk) 19:12, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

It should be evaluated on its own merits. _{In solidarity} Wikipedian12512 (Talking is fine | contribs) 19:26, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

The article as currently written will struggle to show notability. It needs more sources that are independent of the subject, reliable, and substantial. Statements made by the subject or their employer can't show notability, and that's almost all of the sources in the article. The Belarus Ministry source is independent, but not substantial: it's three sentences and very vague. The Voice source is just repeating what the subject says (not independent). The other Belarus source is better, but that's only one; three are needed. I'd suggest doing more searching for sources.

It may be that an article can't be written on this person due to lack of sources: that's true for most people in the world, and no reflection on them.

I recommend writing the article in draftspace and sending it to Articles for Creation, rather than putting it up directly as a published article. Having the article declined with feedback is easier to work with than having it deleted by a New Page Patroller. M kuhner (talk) 20:25, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

article history

I don't know where to report a glitch, so I am bringing my concern hither. The history > page view for the article "The Present Crisis" reports various numbers for this week and other time periods, except for the total time of the article's existence. That chart (https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&range=all-time&pages=The_Present_Crisis) shows no views at all. This is obviously wrong. Can some-one fix it? Kdammers (talk) 19:36, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi Kdammers. I see "Pageviews: 19.075" at your link [15]. Are you saying it says 0 for you? PrimeHunter (talk) 22:34, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Peer review me!

Being way too involved in a dispute hinders my ability to remain neutral - so I invite everyone to review my edits (that are almost definitely RGW and POV):

NEBOair _{- talk} / Shimon Slavin _{- talk} / Dovi Frances _{- talk} / Yael Markovich _{- talk} / Other World Computing _{- talk}

Feel free to revert me, and to tell me where my behaviours are inappropriate / straight-up wrong. Be as perfectionist as you wish, and no need to sugarcoat any of your opinions.

And I wish you a productive weekend.

p.s. I just went to WP:PEER and saw the process is for improvement of already good enough articles, so I came here, as I'm asking for peer reviews of my behaviour. p.s.s. I hereby waive my NPA rights in this thread so people can go guns blazing at me. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk} 19:57, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
Updated, 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk} 10:36, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Not a topic for the Teahouse. I strongly suggest using the options at WP:Dispute resolution. M kuhner (talk) 14:08, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

There isn't much dispute, though. Thanks for replying, anyway. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk} 18:22, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Redirect page on notable person

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)

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)

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)

Idea for a article creation on the 2024 East Kalimantan mass murder case

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

---

I was reading the talk page for "Boku no Pico" when i saw a user named ~2026-33556-97 say that "The paragraph concerning the 2024 murder appears to be unnecessarily long and detailed, giving undue weight—relative to all other coverage of the OVA", and says that "Preferably, the details of the case should go into a dedicated article but even as there isn't one right now, the mention should be stripped down, as this article is not a substitute for a nonexistent one", this sparked a idea in my head for the creation on the 2024 East Kalimentan mass murder case. What do you think about it? ~2026-36190-10 (talk) 21:09, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Can you read Indonesian? Can you evaluate the reliability of Indonesian sources? Would you be able to demonstrate in the draft that the event satisfies Wikipedia:Notability (events)? -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 00:57, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

@Hoary - FYI In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 05:05, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

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

How to report uncivil editors? And when does incivility escalate into something worse?

I came across an edit where the editor appeared to refer to another user as a (nationality) motherf***** here And occasionally I see incivility like this and I wonder what's the appropriate thing to do? Do I leave a warning on their talk page? Do I not worry about it if I'm not one of the editors involved? Do I report it to someone else? (I'm wary of drama and prefer not to get involved in it and would much rather bring someone else's attention to it) Obviously good faith should be assumed and escalating steps should be taken. But I'm not aware how wikipedia treats such a comment (especially as a first edit). Would it be considered hateful because it brings nationality into the insult? What are the different levels of incivility on the wikipedia and when does something that would normally be responded to with "please be civil" escalate into something much more? How should I respond to an edit like this if I ever encounter it again vs how could I best respond to an editor being a little rude vs being outright hostile. Wik206 (talk) 22:30, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

If the very first edit someone makes is something racist, report them to WP:AIV. WP:TWINKLE makes this easy. Cheers. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 02:47, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Can someone please help me rename my wikipedia article from User:Pokejackrm/sandbox to Ratua Island Airstrip (Vanuatu)?

Thank you so much for your help. I am a new user, and I have just finished my first article and would like help performing a move. Pokejackrm (talk) 23:14, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Congratulations on creating your first draft, Pokejackrm. It's now at Draft:Ratua airstrip. -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 23:25, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

(i) There's already an article (Ratua (Vanuatu)) about the island, Pokejackrm. It's not clear why an article about the island's airstrip would need a section about the island. It could be argued that the article Ratua (Vanuatu) isn't much good (indeed, I'd argue that it's poor), but the remedy for that is improvement of the article Ratua (Vanuatu). (ii) External links belong in references, but in very few other places within articles. The body text of this draft has a lot of them; all should be removed. -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 23:39, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

I would agree with this, as most tiny island with the area of only 0.59km should not even have a Wikipedia article in the first place. My argument, though, is that this island is a highly popular resort island. With the island already being an article, I wanted to add information if people were wondering how to get to the island form Port Vila. Your view is valid, though and I really thought that this topic maybe is not a good idea. Pokejackrm (talk) 00:19, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

The size of the island is not an issue, and in theory any officially named and inhabited place may qualify for an article if there is enough reliably published and independent material about it to summarise for one – see Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features).

I think the best approach would be to improve and expand the article about the island (which seems to have had comparatively little effort expended on it over the 15 years of its existance), and incorporate a section within it about the airstrip. I concede that the island's main use as a private resort may make this difficult. Access to archives of Mass media in Vanuatu would doubtless be useful. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-36805-68 (talk) 01:46, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

We read in the article Ratua (Vanuatu) that Ratua became the property of a French nature lover who established a private resort which encapsulates the patrimonial association of nature preservation. The resort has adopted an "eco-friendly" philosophy [...]. I don't understand "the patrimonial association of nature preservation". (Its association with what?) But if this "private resort" has "eco-friendly" aspirations, the article might cite reliable, disinterested sources on how this eco-friendliness is squared with encouraging paying guests to fly in and out. -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 04:12, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

I've merged it from mainspace, where it was moved prematurely, into Ratua (Vanuatu). Mathglot (talk) 15:44, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Rename category that closed for rename

Can someone rename this category, Iraqi Kurdistani politicians, per the closed discussion [16]? Thanks. PresentlySuraye3 (talk) 00:35, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

@PresentlySuraye3  Done ~2026-37189-39 (talk) 06:52, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

What happened to the Editing Suggestions button in the VE?

Hello,

When I made my first edits, on the mainspace, there was a light bulb icon in the toolbar that allowed me to jump to areas that could use some help, eg removing duplicated wikilinks, adding citations. However, about a week after I got autoconfirmed status, that icon was gone from the Visual Editor.

I believe the suggestions would be useful even for experienced editors, as a way to “Jump to…” areas that need help, such as inline cleanup tags. May I know if the suggestions feature being gone after being in here for a while is an intended feature? Or was it a beta feature all along?

Thanks. Hason-LEK-SIN ● Let’s chat! ● My contribs 02:28, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

If no one here is able to answer your question, @Hason-LEK-SIN, the folks at WT:GTF will be able to help you. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 02:52, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi Hason-LEK-SIN. Is "Suggestion mode" enabled at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-betafeatures? PrimeHunter (talk) 03:03, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Oh, it got turned off, IDK why. I’ve re-enabled it now. Thanks! Hason-LEK-SIN ● Let’s chat! ● My contribs 03:14, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

User pages

What are Wikipedia user pages supposed to be for in general, what kind of info should I put on mine? Lwightmanresearch (talk) 03:01, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

See WP:UPYES and WP:UPNO for what you should and shouldn't have on your userpage. Athanelar (talk) 03:16, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello @Lwightmanresearch. In short, your user page is used to explain to other users who you are as an editor, such as by adding userboxen, listing the articles you've contributed to, etc. Some editors exposit basic IRL information about themselves. Though there is some leeway, user pages should not go out of their way to distract against actually editing Wikipediä, such as by diving into political beliefs or making the user page a social mediä forum. toby ^(t)(rw) 03:23, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Some of us also use it like a bit of a notebook for WP-helpful links to stuff we want to keep handy. You don't have to put anything there, it's very optional. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 04:00, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

When is it appropriate to add a "citation needed" tag instead of removing the information?

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)

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)

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)

why is my talk page still not created?

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

@~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)

@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)

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

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)

@~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)

Sandun Wijemanne Nissanka

This reference check this article request nomination delete? I,m think promotional style? Article published payment?

Reference is enough?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Botempa (talk • contribs) 14:43, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Someone has put "non-primary source needed" tags on four of the references. That would be a very good place to start.

Wikipedia generally doesn't want to hear what a person says about himself, or what his boss, co-workers, employees, or family say about him, or what he pays a reporter to print about him. It needs to be an independent source.

Since you are not the author of the article, you are allowed to remove the speedy deletion tag, but ONLY if you commit to fixing the article. My recommendation would be to ask someone to move it to draft space, which will stop it from being deleted and give you time to work on it. It is not ready for publication. M kuhner (talk) 20:30, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Thomas Jeannerot

The article in question requires a significant amount of cleanup for unsourced and suspected promotional content - I'm unsure where else to ask on Wikipedia other than here for support - so thank you in advance! LonghairSpaceHistoryGuy (talk) 16:01, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

@LonghairSpaceHistoryGuy By policy, any material in biographies of living people that doesn't have an inline citation can and shoud be removed on sight. As the citation that do exist are mainly in French, it may be a bit of work to check whether any of the existing sources can be used for the currently uncited parts but you could start by cutting many parts of the text. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:10, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Yeah I've already started removing a lot of unsourced text, will just keep cutting down. LonghairSpaceHistoryGuy (talk) 16:12, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Two other places you can ask for support: the Talk page of the article, and the WikiProject to which that article is relevant, if any (there will likely be a Talk page notice if it's in the domain of a WikiProject).

Talk pages are hit or miss, but if there is interest in the article you can get surprisingly good results there. I've been removing a batch of LLM-generated articles, and in three cases I found a group of editors already discussing the problem on the Talk page and was able to leave it in their hands. M kuhner (talk) 20:25, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Wikiproject, etc. question

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Differences: "Courts of..." vs. "Judiciary of..."

Hi all! Was just curious about the underlying rationale between differences such as that between Courts of Iowa and Judiciary of Iowa. I am working on that WikiProject, and was curious as to what kind of information should be sorted into which!
Thank you for your time, EHynnek (talk) 18:54, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

To be completely honest, that looks like a good merge candidate to me, and the reason is probably that someone didn't notice one when making the other. Sesquilinear (talk) 19:02, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Just want to say, even if the merge doesn't go through, we'll all have learned something in the process. It's not an error to make a reasonable AfD even if it fails. (People sometimes worry about this too much.) M kuhner (talk) 20:20, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. I really appreciate your positivity and kindness! EHynnek (talk) 20:51, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

To clarify, so that this kind of mistake does not happen again, "Judiciary of Iowa" is an article on the courts of the state of Iowa, whereas "Courts of Iowa" is an index of both state and federal courts of Iowa that transcludes into a master index of courts in the United States. BD2412 T 21:30, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Okay that makes sense and isn't obvious. Probably could use hatnotes. Sesquilinear (talk) 21:32, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

How to note for help needed

Sometimes I see things that I can tell need help (e.g. poor grammar, very brief section for a particular topic, a bunch of un-referenced claims, an article that is based on a single source or that lacks overall perspective), but I don't have the time or expertise to fix them. Is there a simple way to tag or flag issues like this so others can consider fixing them. I know about citation needed, specify, which? and vague templates. Is there anything else I should be aware of or is the correct form to just write on the talk page and hope someone sees it. Ethanj801 (talk) 19:15, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

There is a rundown of what tags are available, as well as good and bad uses for tags, at Wikipedia:Tagging pages for problems. One reason to consider tagging rather than just writing on the Talk page is that using a formal tag gets the article sorted into lists of articles with a particular problem, which are used by Newcomer Tasks and other systems. M kuhner (talk) 21:05, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Looking for answers

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)

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

@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)

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

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)

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

@~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)

Dead links on Jodie Resther

On the article Jodie Resther, there are dead links relating to Winx Club (2004-2009). Mostly, the one where Netflix is used as a source (the streaming service has long removed the 4 seasons of the show, and it has moved to YouTube and Prime Video). It is on other sources now. The Winx Club English channel cited in that article is now a dead link because that channel folded into the official channel to another Rainbow S.p.A. TV series. It cites YouTube. So is it fine if I would replace the YouTube references with text references to end of the show? I was asking because I'm using List of Arthur characters to look for the actors, and improve their articles. (The same actors appeared in Caillou and Winx Club). An Unexpected NTSC Composite-Component VCR (talk) 20:42, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Nevermind. I saw the Ghost Archive link to the YouTube Winx Club archived things. I'll leave those alone. But the Netflix references I'll remove. Is that okay? An Unexpected NTSC Composite-Component VCR (talk) 20:44, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Help

My account Tornado Elliott got block because I typed in my exact password and it came up as wrong. I click forgot password thinking it would have like a Gmail confirmation or something then I got blocked. I was I suppose to know that I would be blocked? I make one Dang mistake and I get blocked. what if there were other editors in my area? they are blocked too? what did they do? (global block). Can I move my edits and stuff to this account? or unblock Tornado Elliott? Check my IP, or computer id or modle or any fricking way of finding it out? I hate the fact that happens. I feel bad for the people who click it on accident. it's stupid. there should be a warning or something. I need to get my account back, but I can't request because It's blocked! plz help. Elliott Crowell (talk) 20:42, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Two things that may help:

If your IP range is blocked because someone else has been abusing it (which can happen), you can file a request for unblock using the instructions and link at Wikipedia:Unblock Ticket Request System.

If your password is just messed up, and you have an email address on file, you can follow instructions at Wikipedia:FAQ/Technical.

I doubt very much that you were blocked because of your password change request: if you got a message that you are globally blocked it's almost surely because you found yourself accidentally in a bad neighborhood. (I checked your account and you are not personally blocked.) Hope this helps! M kuhner (talk) 21:00, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

What infobox to use for complex museum object

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)

{{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)

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)

Add Wiki-stickman images

Add images:

Wiki-stickman.svg (a stickman with Wikipedia puzzle pieces on ears)

Wiki-stickman crying.svg

Wikipe-stickman facepalming.svg

Wikipe-stickman with broom.svg

Wikipe-stickman holding mug with coins.svg

Wikipe-stickman hugs Wikipedia logo.svg

Wikipe-stickman hugs 25 Wikipedia logo.svg

25-version of Wikipe-stickman.svg — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-36974-88 (talk)

Add them to what? -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 00:21, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Top Importance or Low Importance?

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)

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)

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

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)

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

Chicken leg

Hey guys... I've been eating chicken drumsticks for the last three days and I couldn't find any Wikipedia topic that excited me. Then I thought why not write an article about the very thing I've been researching so intensely? 🍗😆

If the article survives it's a contribution to Wikipedia. If it gets deleted at least my meals were thoroughly documented.

So presenting Draft:Chicken leg Hirematviru (talk) 02:07, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Why does it have the same sentence twice in the lead?

I looked around in news and there's coverage of the fact that legs are now more expensive than breasts in Asian markets; you could look for some additional sourcing there. Economics of chicken legs is an angle you don't yet cover!

(I'm not going to comment otherwise: I'm not an expert on notability of foods.) M kuhner (talk) 03:39, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for feedback Hirematviru (talk) 03:41, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

I think it's good to go. removed that duplicate statement. -- Least Action (talk) 03:43, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Yeah..the draft isn't ready yet. I'm still researching and will continue updating the content and sources. No worries. Hirematviru (talk) 03:47, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Here's a possible source: [17]. Plain Google search for "chicken leg news" was surprisingly productive--they are apparently quite an item at the moment. (Your chicken leg diet may become expensive in the future!) M kuhner (talk) 03:55, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Haha... if chicken legs become expensive at least I'll be able to say I started researching them before they became a luxury item. 😄 Hirematviru (talk) 03:58, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Huh, another essential article that's been undocumented. Good job creating the draft! jolielover♥talk 04:20, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks but But what's the point? Someone accusing me sock for creating this draft and I feel really hurt. All my time feels wasted. Hirematviru (talk) 04:22, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

What does it mean if I am on the administrators' noticeboard?

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

“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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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)

@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)

Should this be removed as a source?

Editing Maria Antonia of Austria and found this Youtube video [18] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

What counts as a viable photograph/portrait of a person to add as their header image, and how are they selected?

Hey everyone, I was wondering if anyone could tell me, or point out where the editing guidelines for how portraits are chosen and selected are listed? A friend of mine stumbled across Antonio Iturmendi Bañales' article, having an illustration of an existing photograph as the portrait, which left us puzzled for a little bit about how photographs and portraits for people are selected. There are more pop-cultral-ish moments of celebrities asking for their Wikipedia photos changed, like actor Don Cheadle doing a live photo shoot on The Tonight Show to revise a awkward photo chosen as his portrait, or game developer Toby Fox requesting as an April Fools joke that a picture of him covered in bath foam be his portrait. Is there any leaning towards professionally shot photos from the individual and associated companies/marketing agencies, illustrations of pre-photographic people from the times they existed in, live interviews or during important events... this seems like a really fascinating topic to talk about, and so if anyone would be willing to discuss this in the form of linking to style/editing guidelines or giving examples they find fascinating, I would greatly appreciate that. Thank you! ~2026-37049-33 (talk) 04:37, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

The single biggest concern is copyright/licensing. Photos of living people that are not under a Wikipedia-compatible license are essentially unusable. This often leaves very few (if any) choices. M kuhner (talk) 04:57, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

M kuhner is correct that an acceptable free license (or legitimate public domain status) is essential for portraits of living people. The vast majority of what you might find in a Google Images search is restricted by copyright. When there are a variety of images to select from, most editors prefer a clear photo emphasizing the face and showing the person "at the top of their game". There is no expectation that the photo be shot by a professional photographer, but subjects are welcome to submit such photos if properly licensed.

The Bañales image is quite unusual and may be inappropriate. It was uploaded by a since blocked sockpuppet. The file information page says that it is a pencil drawing based on a photo. If the source photo is copyright restricted, then the drawing is a derivitive work and therefore also copyright restricted.

Photos are selected by editors interested in the article. If the person is lesser known, that might be just one editor because no one else cares. There may be vigorous debates on articles about better known people, especially if there are many acceptable photos to choose from. The decision is made by consensus.

Please read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images for additional guidance. Cullen328 (talk) 06:14, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

There was an interesting discussion a couple of months ago at Talk:Martin Van Buren about whether to use a photo of an elderly Van Buren or an earlier painting showing him as US president before the invention of photography. Part of the discussion is collapsed because it was initiated by a sock puppet, but you can open it if you choose. The discussion shows that there is disagreement among editors about such issues. Cullen328 (talk) 06:38, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

I can't help mentioning here probably the least appropriate image I've come across in a biographical article. In Einari Teräsvirta, a Finnish architect, the image shows a group of people, and it's not immediately obvious which of them, if any, is Teräsvirta. Not only that, but the first thing that catches your attention is that some of them are doing the Nazi salute (that's because the photo was taken at the 1936 Olympics, where Teräsvirta won a bronze medal in gymnastics). So not only is the image totally useless is illustrating Teräsvirta, it's a complete distraction, and as a cherry on top it vaguely, and totally falsely, implies some sort of Nazi leanings. (Unfortunately there isn't a better image available. Or there may be one, but I couldn't get any clarity at Commons on whether it is or isn't in copyright.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:57, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

The body doesn't even mention the 1936 Olympics this photo comes from (though he had competed). Anyway, I feel like it should be moved from infobox to body since he's not identifiable. And the caption should be similar to the one in commons, Gymnastics men team medallists at the 1936 Summer Olympics. jolielover♥talk 07:22, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

WP:BOLD is probably often the case on how pictures are selected. When necessary, discussion will happen. Per WP-rules, the selection for living people is often small if it exists at all. For dead people, WP generally allows a non-free pic as leadimage if no "free" alt is available, and the principle of BOLD + discussion still applies. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:10, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

China's small plane accident

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

Policy

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)

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

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

@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)

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)

New editor requesting help moving draft to mainspace

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)

@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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

File Renaming

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)

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

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

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

I found that a living person who is a subject of an English Wikipedia article produced content with questionable factual accuracy. Should this be mentioned in the article ?

🔥Jothefiredragon🐲talk🐉contrib(s)✨log🌟mail🎉global🎊 14:37, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Jothefiredragon, can you link the article? See WP:COI; the person is required to WP:DISCLOSE their connection to the article, and you (or anyone) may tag the article Talk page using {{connected contributor}}. Mathglot (talk) 15:02, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

@Jothefiredragon: if a reliable source has reported on the "content with questionable factual accuracy", it could possibly be included. However, if you simply figured out by yourself that the content was questionable, that is original research and cannot be included in the article. ^{In solidarity,} 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 ^{(They/them • Talk • Contribs)} 15:21, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

User creating dozens of blank drafts?

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)

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

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

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

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)

how page name fix

Hello, Arenghtqru888 here, I have a question. how do you change a page name, because i want to change the name of User:Arenghtqru888/Userboxes/Userbox Name because I accidentally set it as that Arenghtqru888 (talk) 16:57, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Arenghtqru888, and welcome to the Teahouse.

You change a page's name by moving it. ColinFine (talk) 17:20, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

ok, thanks! Arenghtqru888 (talk) 17:25, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

How to have someone create a page for me?

Hello everyone,

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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

updating an organization's page

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)

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)

Samuel Leeds Article - Instagram Source

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).

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)

Making Changes to a Page

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)

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)

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)

Detect similar text between articles

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)

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)

Amendment to the name "Low-Importance" for the category, on the Talk page, to which Barbara Comyns' The Vet's Daughter is assigned.

  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)

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

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)

@~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)

Seeking help improving/restructuring Legalism (Chinese philosophy)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Upload poster

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)

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)

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

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Brand New here to Wiki. How do I edit my profile? Add a photo, address, verification I am NOT AI, for legitimacy?

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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

Internet archive down

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

Can someone please translate a page into English Wikipedia?

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

AN vs ANI

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

---

This is a very low-stakes question but I fell into the rabbit hole of back reading dispute stuff (great way to figure out Wikipedia behavioral norms/expectations, I gotta say) but I don't understand the difference between AN and ANI. Like I understand they're both ways to resolve issues between editors, but do they handle different things? Or is it a matter of preference? I do not have an issue I need to bring forward, I'm just curious Kimakishi (talk) 13:14, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

@Kimakishi Have you read WP:AN and WP:ANI? I stands for "incidents". The latter is a subpage of the former. Shantavira|^{feed me} 13:19, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, their descriptions were confusing me, since they seemed to be the same thing. Thank you for clarifying! Kimakishi (talk) 13:22, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

The key detail in their descriptions that ANI is specifically "for urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems."

That's an interesting rabbit-hole, and a good way to learn those types of norms! It's also interesting to see how some of the content/sourcing and behavioral aspects change over time. What used to be acceptable in the "wild early days" sometimes is no longer. DMacks (talk) 13:34, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

@Shantavira Now that this is answered, how do I mark the question closed/remove it so it's not cluttering up the page? Am I allowed to do that myself? Kimakishi (talk) 13:36, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Generally the person who raised an issue shouldn't be the one closing it, though for a completely non-contentious close like this it's acceptable. I'll close it, and you can look at the page source if you want to see how it's done for future reference. (Fellow drama-board follower here, and it's helpful to know how to do a non-administrative close from time to time....) Any close you do, be sure to use the template Nac to mark it as a non-admin close; and if you doubt the correctness of a close, don't do it. M kuhner (talk) 13:47, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

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

Reverts done by more than one user

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)

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)

There's weird going on in Muhammad Subuh Sumohadiwidjojo

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)

Diana Ross (1944 -)

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)

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

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)

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

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

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)

Question about potential promotional article with broken references

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)

Notability Questions

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Question about organizational notability after an AfC decline

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)

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)

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)

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)