Wikipedia:Teahouse

AI-generated label applied to draft due to copying-and-pasting from a sandbox location -- how to move past this?

 Courtesy link: Draft:Elizabeth R. Macaulay

I need to move past a hurdle: my draft is flagged as AI-generated. I created the environment for such a conclusion by drafting in a sandbox and pasting the finished content into another location, giving the impression that the entire content had been generated at once. You can see the progression of the content at User:GrantBremer/Projects/Elizabeth_Macaulay over the course of week or so. I apologize for creating this situation, know better now, and will not do it again. With this label, the draft is seen as unusable. What is the best way forward here to address the AI-generated conclusion? GrantBremer (talk) 18:11, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In general you shouldn't move pages by copy-pasting. Instead, you should perform a page move. That said, it seems your draft has several more pressing issues at the moment, which I would suggest you focus on first. Even if not AI generated, your article will not be accepted in its current form. {{GearsDatapack|talk|contribs}} 18:28, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

GrantBremer, the main problem with your draft is the complete lack of references to significant coverage of Macaulay in reliable sources that are fully independent of Macaulay. Cullen328 (talk) 18:49, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help me with this feedback on sources? Also, I have made edits to add additional sources and remove original research. One thing that I did do was to check on prior art -- I looked at published pages on other CUNY GC professors and their sources. Those pages use CUNY references as well, sometimes exclusively. CUNY, as a source, is a place that I would consider reliable since they are employing Dr Macaulay, have vetted her bona fides, and vouch for and rely on her academic credibility. What, if not these sorts of sources, are you looking for? GrantBremer (talk) 17:15, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, putting aside the AI label, I acknowledge needed improvements, particularly the declaration of my COI and removal of original research. I have either trimmed that out or added citations there. GrantBremer (talk) 17:05, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @GrantBremer,

As other editors pointed out, moving a page via copy-paste is not the proper way to do it. However, cut-and-paste page moves are not a factor in determining if text was written by an LLM. To put it bluntly, the reason editors flagged your draft as being LLM-generated is because it appears to be LLM-generated.

LLMs should not be used to write articles from scratch. See WP:NEWLLM. The best way to address this issue and move forwards is to not use LLM generated text at all, although there are still the other issues pointed out by other editors that you will still need to address. MEN KISSING (she/they) T - C - Email me! 19:59, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few things that I see off the bat if you want to rework this article, whether or not it really was AI-generated. Bring it up to the standards of a wikipedia article manually now.

1. Make sure that your sources (and the particular page reference) say something close to what they are used for. Check every single one again, manually. If you partially generated this article, know that this is perhaps the thing that LLMs are worst at. Having tried to play around with LLMs for sources a little bit, I have found that the references they generate are not inline with CLOP 100% of the time (no caveats, 100%, not 99.9% in my experience), let alone whether the sources are correct generally. The more general issue is "the complete lack of references to significant coverage of Macaulay in reliable sources that are fully independent of Macaulay" as Cullen328 brought up, but baby-steps and all that. Good will come from good and if there is still an issue, seek comment on that.

2. The review also point out that there may be an undisclosed COI there. Will you please state on your profile what your relationship to the subject is? You should follow the COI-editor process rigidly. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. By going through AfC rather than creating an article in mainspace, you are already doing something right, so thank you for that.

3. There is a fair bit of uncited synthesis language throughout the article. I would delete "; and the intersections between archaeology and diplomacy" in the lead and similar from the draft entirely unless well-supported by sources tbh. The entire "Intersection of Antiquity and Modernity" is basically this, with only one subpar citation at the end of the section.

4. I would trim the "Selected works" section heavily. Take a look at other pages that have such a section for guidance. Specifically cite her work in-line when you feel it is appropriate.

Hope that helps.

Pietrus1 (talk) 22:34, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, this helps a great deal. Thank you for breaking things out. Speaking to each --

1. I wrote the article, so any mistakes are mine. I will double check the citations and have asked Cullen328 for some clarification on the sources and standards.

2. I declared my COI late last week.

3. Along with the COI, I either trimmed out items like the one you called out or added citations. Another editor pointed out original research is not appropriate here; I could generously classify it as such and thus addressed it.

4. I will trim down the selected works and cite in line. I agree that would help. GrantBremer (talk) 17:22, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Draft:Pavel Kizhuk

Hello everyone! How glad I am to be at the tea house! Sorry, I received a comment about the article, and it mentions spelling errors. I checked everything and it seems correct. How can I be sure the spelling matches the encyclopedia? I'm sure this is a stupid question, but I would be glad to receive any help.

With regads, Jamescopperfieldd (talk) 10:21, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your browser probably lets you choose among languages, Jamescopperfieldd. Tell it that you're writing in English and it will probably avoid what aren't words in English. (There are minor complications, such as whether you want to write according to US, according to UK, or according to other convention.) But there are larger problems than spelling. Here's a photo caption: Pavel Kizhuk shoot in western this Alex Carlin.2023. I cannot parse this. -- Hoary (talk) 10:33, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, thank you! Yes, he's filming in western. Okay, I get it, I'll try to correct that. "Shoot" is film slang for "to act in."

With regads, Jamescopperfieldd (talk) 12:00, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

While not necessarily spelling, I do see many grammatical and punctuation errors. To me it reads like it was translated poorly from a language that has difference syntax. I recommend running it through a basic spelling and grammar checker in a program such as Word. Please note that some of these programs have added AI elements, and AI content is not allowed in articles - you should not let it replace chunks of words for you; review each suggestion and only approve simple minor corrections. (There may be ways to disable the AI tools, but I don't have any experience with them.) ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 10:34, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for watching! I read that articles don't work when translated through AI. Well, I'll think about what to do. I doubt anyone can help me with this! Thanks again!

With regads, Jamescopperfieldd (talk) 12:02, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hey!)

Sorry to bother you, but after researching this issue and reviewing numerous well-known articles that are written with errors and are publicly available, I understand that Wikipedia is no better or worse than any other database,like IMDB.The main factor.A user with extensive editing experience, and that's it? Well...

With regads, Jamescopperfieldd (talk) 08:34, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

More or less. The biggest difference is that Wikipedia is collaborative, so anyone can fix errors (or outright misinformation) posted by someone else. Popular articles are closely monitored, so they're less likely to have issues than niche subjects.

There's a general preference for fixing things when possible rather than outright deletion - but it requires someone interested enough to do the fixing. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 08:46, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite agree. I can cite numerous articles with a single source, lack of significance, etc. Interest in the individual in the capitalist world, you yourself understand only why...Okay, this is all philosophy, but at least we are in a tea house))I'll be working on the article's grammar. Is there any other way I can offer some advice regarding the article?

With regads, Jamescopperfieldd (talk) 08:57, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry "You can offer some advice regarding the article?"

With regads, Jamescopperfieldd (talk) 08:59, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know anyone who's more fluent in English that might be able to help proofread? That will probably give you better results than direct translations. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 09:17, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confident in Your theory. Perhaps You could skim through it? It's a short article. I just don't know how I can thank You for it.

With regads, Jamescopperfieldd (talk) 09:24, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Jamescopperfieldd@ChompyTheGogoat

It's poorly written and unreferenced. I don't think it belongs in mainspace. ~2026-84942-3 (talk) 01:25, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the text, I checked everything according to your instructions, correcting punctuation and grammar errors. The links for this article, taken together, are more than significant. The person's age must be taken into account.Regular databases provide much more truthful information than paid articles in well-known publications.This is information for you. Thanks for your help with grammar and punctuation.

With regads, Jamescopperfieldd (talk) 06:13, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of young people with ample coverage and no question that they qualify as notable. Wikipedia has strong guidelines on which sources are considered reliable, with accuracy being a major factor. Sometimes it can be difficult to find or judge sources on foreign subjects for English Wikipedia, but leaning on sources you've been told are unreliable aren't a solution, and dodging the AfC process isn't either. Reviewers know what they're doing, and you disagreeing with guidelines won't change them. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 07:02, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not breaking the rules in any way. Regarding the significance of sources, it's actually a very philosophical question, based more on personal beliefs. When all the factors are taken together, it's clear that the person has made a significant achievement.Yes, this isn't supported by the BBC or any government website. But why would the government talk about this man? He's not a politician, just a personality, and the state, as a rule, doesn't need personalities.

With regads, Jamescopperfieldd (talk) 07:12, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It might be "philosophical" in a general sense, but on Wikipedia it's a matter of established guidelines and consensus. If you don't agree with them you're free to post on other platforms with no such restrictions. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 07:41, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, right? So what kind of freedom are we talking about when it possibly dictates the criteria for the significance of sources?

With regads, Jamescopperfieldd (talk) 07:56, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

One in which "free" refers to not costing money, and where validity matters. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 08:07, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, this is how the world is currently, but as you can see, big changes are taking place. And as a rule, "idea" wins out over "material value".You are a very good conversationalist and I am very glad to meet you in the teahouse.I promise to improve the article. Deleting it would be cruel.

With regads, Jamescopperfieldd (talk) 08:20, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I can find many articles with one source, or which are based even on a local statement, not to mention an international one.I'm just defending article, not questioning Wikipedia.

With regads, Jamescopperfieldd (talk) 08:00, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has something called WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS which I recommend you read. Each article is expected to stand or fail on its own merits. The existence of other sub-standard articles does not mean new articles can also be sub-standard. Madam Fatal (talk) 20:51, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, you're absolutely right. I'm actually getting familiar with Wikipedia's rules.Could you please suggest how I can save this article from being deleted? Maybe make it shorter? Remove facts that require more reliable sources?

With regads, Jamescopperfieldd (talk) 06:00, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I would start with removing any primary sources that you are currently using on the page. It looks like you have press releases as well as Pinterest listed as a source multiple times, those should be removed - if you cannot replace them, then the corresponding content should be removed.

There is also a great deal of storytelling and promotional material that does not read as encyclopedic (i.e. Kizhuk's work has yielded some good results in relations between Greece and Russia. And Pavel himself, through a requiem of fate, gained profound experience without any particular purpose and also brought benefits.) The article should read as strictly factual.

This is a start, but it also seems like there is a lack of significant coverage, which is necessary for a page to stay. You can check out WP:SIGCOV for more information about this. FiddleheadLady (talk) 02:17, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Recently I added a small line-break in Special:Diff/1340740662 Barak-MX, but in my edit history, it's showing itself as a humongous (+702) edit. This is the second time I'm witnessing this glitch, the first time being Special:Diff/1319678090 UFC 321.

I didn't observe any visual distortions, when I switched between the mobile or desktop version of the page.

Isn't there any way to solve this ? Cdr. Erwin Smith (talk) 10:46, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit is that large because you added over 700 spaces in an infobox, trying to make the "=" symbols line up. This isn't necessary. If it's automatic, then turn that feature off in whatever tool you're using, it just bloats the article size needlessly. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 10:49, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm using no such tool. Maybe there's something wrong with Mobile Wikipedia ?Cdr. Erwin Smith (talk) 10:55, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Cdr. Erwin Smith: See the Diff you linked. (I have replaced the plain URL with a wikilink, but it's the same diff page.) There is about 60 blocks of spaces added, approx. +10 spaces on average. Plus several addded or deleted or moved lines. So six-hundred-something would be quite a reasonable estimate of the net growth, hence 702 looks pretty correct. --CiaPan (talk) 11:08, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Cdr. Erwin Smith Your edit is tagged "Tags: Visual edit Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit. It's likely that being in "mobile mode" has automatically aligned the infobox. I have seen this in others' edits, but have never worked out which particular component is doing the unnecessary reformatting. Bazza 7 (talk) 11:17, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen this before too, and I just assumed the editor was satisfying an OCD issue.

I have never used the visual editor, and never attempted to edit Wikipedia on a mobile device. Give me a keyboard and a real monitor, or I wouldn't participate here. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 11:37, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on mobile, and even switching to desktop mode it's not showing me any of what's being described - just the very minor change OP intended to make. I suspect this has something to do with display size and doesn't show up on smaller screens. I'm sure it's over my head in the underlying code. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 12:29, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Bazza 7 Okay, so we've figured out the Barak-MX.

Was it the same issue with UFC ? Cdr. Erwin Smith (talk) 12:11, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Cdr. Erwin Smith: That one was minus 70 bytes mostly due to collapsing 13 instances of {{MMAevent bout}} from 10 lines into two lines each, which removed 13 × 9 = 117 newline characters. Plus, you apparently added 'He retained his championship belt.' into the first modified template instance, which added 34 bytes. As a result we get –117 + 34 = –83 bytes change. The actual value reported in history is –70, so probably I made some mistake in calculations. CiaPan (talk) 12:32, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think it must be the visual editor, as I edit nearly exclusively on mobile and I've never seen this come up. Athanelar (talk) 14:06, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience, the visual editor seems to work very poorly on input that it wasn't programmed to expect. Or, to put it another way, if you try to be smarter than it is, or try to do anything "behind its back", then it's likely to mess everything up. If you want the visual editor, then it seems to me that you have to stick to using only the features that it displays to you, and even with those, using them only as they appear to have been intended. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 18:08, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is a long-standing issue and is not the fault of people making the edits. There is a formatting specifier somewhere that aligns the equal signs when VE is used and I forget where, now. I'll try and find it if I can. Mathglot (talk) 07:07, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to pop back and forth between visual and source so I can check if my markup is functioning correctly. Perhaps editors who mainly rely on VE should make a point of checking the source for this problematic code, until and unless it's fixed. I still think it's curious that I can't make it show up for me at all in the diffs.

Within the last day it's started trying to paste pre-formatted text into my source editor, which is mildly annoying. I can't fix the markup if I can't see it! ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 07:47, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You can't ask VE editors to do that, and many wouldn't know how. Mathglot (talk) 07:53, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We can mention it if they run into the problem so they can try to avoid it going forward. Just as a suggestion, not a requirement. If you're able to find the relevant code they don't need to understand it, just find and remove it, then double check their preview before publishing. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 07:55, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's doable, but tedious, and also pointless. I used to copy the Infobox to a text editor and use a regex to collapse multiple blanks down to one, then copy it back over the preview window Infobox, then do a Show changes, then Publish. But the next person who uses VE in the same circumstances is going to just reinstate the problem all over again, so your time was wasted. You can't ask the passengers to keep bailing out the boat indefinitely knowing that the hole in the hull is still there and none of the crew is working on patching it. Mathglot (talk) 09:04, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm currently having to do similar on my phone due to a very bizarre glitch that randomly spazzes out parts of my writing halfway through (but doesn't happen in Docs). Extra fun when it happens to markup. So I preview everything.

Who do we have to blackmail convince to fix this? I won't continue the above metaphor where not addressing it equates to drowning, but it's certainly problematic. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 00:21, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

WMF, but they are busy building bigger, shinier, new boats. Nobody wants to be Director of Fixing Minor Holes in Old Boats when the passengers seem capable of bailing fast enough. And they know you know how to tread water, so they aren't really worried about you drowning. (But Phabricator is that-a-way.) Mathglot (talk) 06:37, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I bet I don't want to see the backlog for software glitches, do I? ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 07:07, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve been helping with cleanup on the Hersilie Rouy page, and there’s a section that several editors feel would probably be better removed and potentially developed into a standalone article. I’m just a bit unsure whether it might be too niche to support its own page.

More broadly, how do we like to handle subtopics that are interesting and potentially notable within the scope of the project, but may not quite meet the threshold for a full article?

For context, the subtopic is: Historical psychiatric research and French women in the 19th century. Coffeeurbanite (talk) 16:47, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

More broadly, how do we like to handle subtopics that are interesting and potentially notable within the scope of the project, but may not quite meet the threshold for a full article?

By leaving them inside the article that they're in.

I don't know because I haven't read the article in question, but from what you said here it sounds like this sub-topic might not be major enough to have its own article, but then again it might be, and doing a good analysis of that subtopic to decide "spin off or keep it here?" might be the way to go.

It's also possible that "This doesn't belong, so we're cutting it even if it won't make an article" could be an option. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 15:51, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think that if it IS considered notable within the scope of the project, the question becomes whether the section overwhelms that article via WP:UNDUE, and then whether that extent confers notability for a standalone article. Revise the section to a shorter summary, and if the answer to the previous question is yes that new page should probably receive a "main article" link. Otherwise just trim it down and drop the unnecessary bits. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 00:28, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello.

I've looked, and I know there's a way to do this with a template on the draft, but I can't find it. I've been picking my way through removing archive.today links (see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Archive.is RFC 5) and came across these identical drafts. Two of them were created by an account now blocked, so I'm thinking those should just be removed.

Submitted by User:Alex132219georgia

• Draft:Sir Shaun Jackson
• Draft:Shaun Jackson (Doctor)

Submitted by User:Sg15072025

• Draft:Shaun Phillip Jackson

Can someone please link me to the info on the template I need to use to put at the top of the drafts from Alex132219georgia to request their deletion?

Thanks in advance! Tampering Ides (talk) 20:52, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn't appear to be a criterion for speedy deletion for duplicate drafts, only duplicate articles. Athanelar (talk) 21:40, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Drat. I thought for certain I was simply overlooking it.

Thanks for your help! Tampering Ides (talk) 04:24, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to say something about abandoned drafts, and realized I'm not clear on the process. I know that after 6 months being abandoned they could be deleted - but in practice, do they get deleted? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:37, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The rare occasions I have found duplicate drafts, in one case I merged them because neither had been approved by a reviewer (and there was no overlap in edit timestamps), and in another case I simply deleted it as WP:CSD#G6 maintenance due to the draft being redundant.

If there is already a mainspace article, I'd simply redirect each redundant draft to the mainspace title. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 08:42, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, regularly, all the time. Try search-on-page for the string G13 on this page, it finds five such deletions in a 39' period, so, maybe a couple hundred per day? Mathglot (talk) 06:45, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Guys, ~2026-13166-69 (talk) 05:27, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@~2026-13166-69 Welcome to Teahouse! Do you have questions for Teahouse? CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 06:54, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. @Thilio ~2026-13166-69 (talk) 05:27, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a question about the article Victor of Braga, or some other article, then which article, and what's the question? -- Hoary (talk) 06:57, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I recently published an article named "Ubayd Ullah ibn Abbas" one of my ancestors. I've read about him in books and just published article about my reading. But unfortunately i dont have any reference or source which i can add on my article. Because of that my article got rejected. Can somebody help me about this? Moeed072 (talk) 15:50, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Without reliable sources, the article can't be made. Everyone has ancestors, and people's ancestors don't belong on Wikipedia - unless there are reliable sources showing that each individual was the subject of major public reporting about their lives or careers. For more information, please look at Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:05, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You say "I've read about him in books and just published article about my reading."

Those books are (potentially) your (Reliable) sources, but you need to cite each fact you put in the article to the specific passage in the specific book from which you learned that fact. This would require you to have the books in front of you (physically or online) since you will (I am sure) not be able to remember the page, title, author, publishing date and book publisher relating to each fact.

There is no way of creating an acceptable Wikipedia article without Reliable sources, and without properly citing those sources. Writing "what you know" first and then looking for sources to support it is what we call "writing backwards" and is far more difficult and time consuming than finding the published sources first and basing the article on what they say (and nothing else).

The fact that you did find material about your subject in published books is very good news, because it means that, almost certainly, he does qualify as "Notable" in the sense Wikipedia uses the term, and which is an absolute requirement for an article about any subject. Good luck!

[edited to add] Incidentally, we already have an article Ubayd Allah ibn Abbas – I presume this is not the same person?

{The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-76101-8 (talk) 17:01, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

First of all my ancestors belongs to the family of Prophet Muhammad PBUH which means they're not ordinary human being. Secondly the person you're mentioning is not the same person imtalking about. And can you guide me how we can publish an article which dont have any refernce or any sources online? Because i found about my ancestor online but there's nothing authentic instead of books. So am i still publish it without any online reference or source? Moeed072 (talk) 11:02, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable. If you have no sources about your ancestor, there can be no Wikipedia article about him. Consider writing about him somewhere else with less stringent requirements, like social media or a personal website that you own and operate. 331dot (talk) 11:05, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sources do not need to be online. If a source is not online, you need to provide enough information for someone to be able to locate it(publisher, title, author, publication date, page numbers, etc.). 331dot (talk) 11:06, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Recently on a couple pages such as 79th British Academy Film Awards, a little globe guy appears in a righthand column, scrolling on a Wikipedia branded phone. I've figured out that there's a fun animation when you switch from light mode to dark mode, and I assume this is related to Wikipedia's anniversary, but who is this? I'm curious to know more and why they show up on certain pages. – OdinintheNorth (talk) 23:56, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That's Baby globe.

Added for the 25th anniversary, you probably have Birthday mode on.

I found it(?) kinda cute. Starlet! (Need to talk?) (Library) ([[User:Starlet147/Sandbox|Sandbox]) 00:22, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(DOn't mind my broken sig) Starlet! (Need to talk?) (Library) ([[User:Starlet147/Sandbox|Sandbox]) 00:25, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! – OdinintheNorth (talk) 04:38, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No problem.(Hey I fixed my sig)

Starlet! (Need to talk?) (Library) (Sandbox) 16:26, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

See Le Petit Prince, London, Book, Wikipedia, and Music. Versions111 (talk • contribs) 12:21, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I love the Le Petit Prince once. It's so adorable. --DollarStoreBa'al^Converse 14:37, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's on most space articles. It is cute. Starlet! (Need to talk?) (Library) (Sandbox) 15:09, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

How many variations of Baby Globe exist and how can I find them. He's so cute OMG. Please tell me he's permanent he's too cute to go away. ~2026-14085-32 (talk) 16:40, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he/she/they are cute. Starlet! (Need to talk?) (Library) (Sandbox) 20:27, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all, I need some advice/feedback on a topic that has been on my mind for a while. It's a small thing with a big impact.

I live and work in Timor-Leste. The local language is called "Tetun". In Portuguese (the former colonial power), this is spelled "Tetum". The final sound is an /n/, which is written with an -m in Portuguese. However, that is not the case in the actual language, nor is it the case in English.

However, the historical spelling with -m has carried over in many sources, including here on Wikipedia. This is frustrating and confusing for many people. It is also somewhat disrespectful to indigenous people and culture.

There is an official government decree to support the correct spelling here: https://mj.gov.tl/jornal/lawsTL/RDTL-Law/RDTL-Gov-Decrees/Gov-Decree-2004-01.pdf

I don't want to start making edits and cause a lot of problems. I want to approach this respectfully.

Thank you for your time. ~~~~ CanelaQuill (talk) 03:44, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, CanelaQuill. You are being respectful. The best place for you to propose a change is Talk:Tetum language. I noticed that the pronunciation given in the article appears to agree with what you say. The relevant policy is Wikipedia:Article titles. In general, the best title is the one most commonly used in reliable English language sources. When I take a quick look at the article's references, it seems that some use "Tetun" and some use "Tetum". So, the issue is certainly worth further discussion. Cullen328 (talk) 07:17, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

See also: WP:Naming conventions (languages)

As with the corresponding guideline at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ethnicities and tribes) § Self-identification, how the group self-identifies should be considered. If their autonym is commonly used in English, it would be the best article title.

That seems pretty clear to me. Other guidelines relating to foreign subjects have similar directives - local styling should be preferred if it is used in English. Personally I'd go ahead a file a move request based on that rational. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 07:32, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ChompyGoat, I'm not sure what a move request is or how to file it, but I'll try to search around for some answers. Thanks! CanelaQuill (talk) 23:05, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant instructions and template are here. This may be an uncontested move that could qualify for WP:BOLD, but there's no harm in giving other people a chance to discuss it first.

I'll go ahead and file this one myself for the sake of practice, since I haven't done it before and I support your reasoning. If you don't have any experience using templates it's fine to just start a discussion like you've done and ask someone else to handle the technical part. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 23:23, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I found out how to do it, but it wouldn't let me as it said there was already a "Tetun language" page. There is/was, but it is just re-directing to "Tetum language". CanelaQuill (talk) 23:25, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, then it would be a technical move requiring deletion of the redirect first. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 23:26, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the {{db-g6|rationale=reason}} tag for deletion. CanelaQuill (talk) 23:34, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Added to related redirects. Hopefully I've done it all correctly. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 00:03, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Cullen328. I've just posted a topic there. It looks like the page has not had any activity since 2018. Hopefully, I can encourage my Timorese colleagues to take an interest an perhaps breathe some life into Tetun-language Wikipedia! CanelaQuill (talk) 23:04, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! First time writing for Wikipedia, so I really appreciate any help. I thought Draft:Joe Sugarman had pretty solid coverage, including direct mentions and references from The New York Times,Inc, and several major magazines. I’m just trying to understand what might still be missing. Are there certain types of sources that would make the draft stronger? Is there a rough number of high-quality secondary sources that reviewers usually look for? And would trimming anything back actually help, or is it more about the type of coverage? Appreciate any guidance.

The company he started with Samuel G. Bonasso, Ski Lift International seems to have been approved with much less... Frost3535 (talk) 04:04, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Frost3535: The important thing is the type of coverage, reviewers look for significant coverage that is independent of the subject to show notability. WP:Three good sources is a solid number to shoot for. AllWeKnowOfHeaven (talk) 04:07, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for the clarity! Do you have any ideas of why my references didn't meet the standard? I thought that all my sources were independent (news media covering his exploits, with no connection to him), and had significant coverage (his legendary FTC lawsuits, distribution of the first chess machines ever with Anatoly Karpov, and generally being one of the most famous copywriters ever). Frost3535 (talk) 04:23, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Frost3535, I think that your references are excellent and I do not understand why the latest reviewer declined your draft. Perhaps that reviewer, Gommeh, can explain their reasoning. Cullen328 (talk) 06:55, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As for Ski Lift International, that article was created way back on April 14, 2007. That was long before the Articles for Creation process started, and standards in general were less stringent then. Cullen328 (talk) 07:00, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not Gommeh, so I can't authoritatively state their reasoning, but looking at your sources I have some possible ideas;

• Your most referenced source, #1, is an obituary, which are not always reliable sources; see WP:OBITUARIES, a relevant essay. They should, however, be used with caution; they are often not intended to be neutral, but to eulogize… the subject.
• Sources 2 and 3 are also obituaries.
• 4 was written by the subject.
• 5 is at least partially based on an interview
• 6 seems it could be good coverage, but I can't access it; paywall

Athanelar (talk) 12:35, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The above is why the draft was rejected. The subject seems notable, but I think you need more reliable secondary sources. You're basing it too much off of primary sources for it to be a good enough article IMO. Best of luck! Gommeh ^{(talk! sign!)} 15:24, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Gommeh and Athanelar, please be aware that Wikipedia:Obituaries as sources is neither a policy nor a guideline. It is an essay that represents an opinion that may not be widely shared. I disagree with that essay. There are two types of obituaries in American journalism. The first type is written by professional journalists and goes through normal editorial review. That type of coverage meets independent, reliable source standards. The second type is written by family members or friends, and is often published after a payment. These are not independent sources. The Chicago Sun-Times obituary in this article is clearly the first type, and is signed by a staffer. It is not a primary source. The other two obits are not independent and do not contribute to notability. The New York Times article is not an interview. Yes, it includes a couple of direct quotations from Sugarman but it also includes quotations from two other people talking about Sugarman, and quotations are a very small percentage of the content. It is not a primary source. The MEL magazine article is in-depth. It includes a few quotations from Sugarman's daughter but not from him, and the quotations are a small part of the source. It is not a primary source. I see no reason to reject this draft. The standard is whether an article is more likely than not to survive an Articles for Deletion debate, and if it was at AfD, I would argue vigorously to keep it. Cullen328 (talk) 17:37, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that Gommeh misspoke and the draft was declined, not rejected. Athanelar (talk) 17:48, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, my bad. Gommeh ^{(talk! sign!)} 23:25, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

After reading this discussion I looked into the draft myself and published it on the basis that the subject plainly and obviously meets WP:GNG. It can now be improved further in mainspace. MediaKyle (talk) 18:01, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, HorseBro the hemionus here and am I allowed to express ANY opinion on anything? And no, this is not for pages, I am only asking this to include my honest opinions on my userpage. The Khan of the universe and the Hoofed animals (Please don't click this) 07:24, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No. Please see WP:UPG. Certain things are considered inherently disruptive and/or worthy of immediate blocking (WP:ZT, WP:CHP, and more). EvergreenFir (talk) 07:27, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hemmy is taking a short wikibreak and will be back on Wikipedia on the day i want to fucking return obviously dumbass might not count as a personal attack since it's technically not referring to anyone in particular, but it's certainly inadvisable. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 07:38, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It would help if your question were less vague. Your userpage is certainly permitted to contain your opinions about certain things; but what is it specifically that you want to include but aren't sure about? Athanelar (talk) 12:20, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Like stating that Dog Ningen is peak fiction IN my own userpage? The Khan of the universe and the Hoofed animals (Please don't click this) 12:31, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's not likely to be removed, but why would you want to? See WP:UPYES, WP:UPNO and WP:UP#GOALS; the point of your userpage is supposed to be to tell people about you as a Wikipedian; not to be a social media profile. Athanelar (talk) 12:44, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also probably inadvisable given that the uncensored name contains a slur, the subject has no Wikipedia article, and you linked to unrelated pages. The most that does is create confusion. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 00:08, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the article Special Cabinet Committee on Middle East Tensions is AI-generated as while I was reading it, it didn't sound like a human wrote it. I put it into GPTZero and it detected that it was 100% AI-generated. I'm not exactly sure how to proceed with this. Unilandofma^Talk 08:48, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You can tag it with {{db-g15|your reason here}}. Or you can draftify it. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 08:54, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't come across as AI generated to me in the prose, although the formatting does look like it could be AI. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 08:58, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"Hirihimaidhi Kaleygefaanu" also sparked a concern for me as being AI-generated and another editor had also mentioned it in the talk page. Unilandofma^Talk 09:08, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You could use this template as well: Template:AI-generated. There is also WP:AINB to get second opinions. Pietrus1 (talk) 19:32, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Based on their contributions, they wrote the 10kb article in one hour and twenty minutes including an Infobox and 11 citations, and no errors. Then, after they were done with that one, they wrote List of Maldivian films of 2026 including two tables and four citations in 14 minutes and no errors. That's some pretty fast and fancy footwork! I couldn't even type it in that fast copying it straight from a completed wikisource, and I'd never get those wikitables (including some merged cells) right the first time. Mathglot (talk) 20:39, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Unilandofma, it could also be draftified or nominated for deletion per WP:NOTNEWS, as it concerns a committee that was created on 28 February 2026. Or it could be transwikified to Wikinews. Mathglot (talk) 20:45, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved it to Draft:Special Cabinet Committee on Middle East Tensions for failure to meet WP:Notability and notified the creator. Mathglot (talk) 23:20, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Unilandofma^Talk 01:08, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm a new editor, and I found a great source on the Wikipedia Library on an underdeveloped article that I would really like to cite, but I'm having trouble understanding how citation templates work. As far as I can tell you're supposed to use the template {{sfn}} when citing a source multiple times, but I'm not sure. Other than that I haven't really been able to understand much. Thank you. Wreaderick (talk) 10:18, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Help:Referencing for beginners might be helpful. Athanelar (talk) 12:18, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That was very helpful, thanks! I just have one last problem with the URL linking to the source. This ("Beam Me up, Ömer": Transnational Media Flow and the Cultural Politics of the Turkish "Star Trek" Remake) is the source I found, but when I tried to publish my edit, I got an error saying I need to replace the proxy links with direct links that do not use a proxy. I wasn't sure exactly how I can edit the URL. Thanks Wreaderick (talk) 15:09, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

With ebsco links from the Wikipedia Library, you can't always find a direct url. In that case you don't necessarily need to provide a URL in the citation template; the title, publisher, author and year is anyway sufficient for anybody to search and find the text. Athanelar (talk) 17:51, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wreaderick, here's a better approach: don't leave out the url field, just find it using a Google scholar search for the title, which comes back with this url underlying the title of the #1 result: https://muse.jhu.edu/pub/15/article/232120/summary and place that url in your citation. Mathglot (talk) 20:14, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone update this with the tye kartye thing 2025–26 Seattle Kraken season. Kivi36 (talk) 17:04, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Kivi36 What do you mean by the tye kartye thing? If you are unable to update the page yourself please make an edit request (click for instructions) on the talk page of the article. You must include a reliable source. Shantavira|^{feed me} 18:33, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

He's referring to the recent trade to the NY Rangers. Pietrus1 (talk) 19:15, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sort of. @Shantavira Tye Kartye was claimed off waivers by NY Rangers. I updated on the rangers page but I can't on the kraken Kivi36 (talk) 19:16, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for updating the Rangers page. I'm curious why you would not be able to update it as there doesn't appear to be protection on the Kraken season page. Pietrus1 (talk) 19:26, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm kind of bad a source editing and it's a template that i don't wanna mess up Kivi36 (talk) 19:27, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I'm not a sports person, though I follow the NHL a little bit. Take a look at how other instances of NHL players being claimed off of waivers mid-season have been handled. Pietrus1 (talk) 20:07, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's different for each NHL Team Kivi36 (talk) 14:00, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am simply curious about this. If a personality has a nickname that is entirely lowercase and does not have spaces (such as my nickname), should a biography format it that way or use a certain standard of formatting (such as "Sprinkled Nights" or "Sprinklednights"? sprinklednights (talk) 18:54, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Sprinklednights: It depends, MOS:LCITEMS says that "In such cases, Wikipedia articles may use lowercase variants of personal names if they have regular and established use in reliable third-party sources (for example, k.d. lang). When such a name is the first word in a sentence, the rule for initial letters in sentences and list items should take precedence, and the first letter of the personal name should be capitalized regardless of personal preference." AllWeKnowOfHeaven (talk) 19:30, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. Thanks for the reply. I will try to close this. sprinklednights (talk) 19:39, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(reopened) sprinklednights, Just wanted to point out our handling of E. E. Cummings, and also to mention that in some articles where this pertains, a parenthetical stylization comment is sometimes added; examples here and here. (Feel free to re-close, but you don't have to; it will eventually get archived either way.) Hope this helps, Mathglot (talk) 19:52, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this information! I am simply new to Wikipedia and I am trying to figure things out, and I read somewhere that discussions should be closed at some point. No worries there. sprinklednights (talk) 20:05, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

sprinklednights, by far, most conversations are never closed. Some formal procedures like article deletion discussions require a closure, but as a new editor you needn't worry about this and someone else will handle closures if and when they are needed. And, welcome to Wikipedia! Mathglot (talk) 20:21, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Sprinklednights I see a real expert has just beaten me to it, rubbing salt into the wound by directing you towards k.d.lang, my own first choice too, which looks like it's breaking all sorts of rules.

So, if it is still worth anything, here is my fifty cents worth; just take a look at 50 Cent. That is an example of another name that doesn't follow established rules as such, but it is accepted both for the article title, and throughout the article too. Granted it does include a space, and isn't all lowercase. k.d.lang beats it easily

I'll end with MOS:BIOEXCEPT which says;

Exceptions to the guidance in the Names section are only made when:

• The person has clearly declared and consistently used a preferred exceptional style for their own name; and
• An overwhelming majority of reliable sources use that style

I would assume that what goes for actual names could apply equally to nicknames.

WendlingCrusader (talk) 20:00, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello teahouse people! Just got a notification on my talk page from the disambiguation bot about linking to blood brothers on The Sympathizer page. I went to look at the link itself and it seems to go straight to the "main" page for blood brothers (the one about two or more people not related by birth who have sworn loyalty to each other) and not the disambiguation page - does this mean it was fixed? Is there anything I need to do?

Bonus meta question: I've been lurking a bit here and reading the questions that people submit, and wow, all the volunteers have the patience of a saint. When you started volunteering, were you surprised by the arrogance of the number of people who felt entitled to having a wikipedia page on themselves? (I'm honestly still surprised...) Acinonyxjubatusrex (talk) 21:32, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a volunteer and have limited patience. Before encountering the "teahouse" I was already resigned to the fact that (i) a significant minority of people want nothing more than to advertise themselves (their companies, their products and services, etc), that (ii) they will expend a lot of energy to this end, and that (iii) they're shameless about it. -- Hoary (talk) 22:46, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the reply! You're right, the want for Wikipedia to be free advertising is insane (just make your own website, seriously...). I knew that COI/paid editing was a problem on Wikipedia (read an article about it ages ago) but it's still shocking to me how shameless people are. Also the rampant LLM use to generate whole articles! The Teahouse volunteers are almost always unfailingly polite (very commendable) to people but I admit it's satisfying to watch people be rebuked more firmly lol. Acinonyxjubatusrex (talk) 23:19, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Acinonyxjubatusrex Yes, it was fixed with this edit by Rodw. To be honest, I don't know how the disambiguation people do it - it's a very tiring and repetitive task, but someone has to do it and I'm amazed by their speed and output. HurricaneZeta^C 22:54, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oh got it, thank you!! Haha yes they are incredibly fast! Acinonyxjubatusrex (talk) 23:16, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Just for kicks, I dove into some bot logs to get a sense of the scale of the situation. The notice you received was placed on average about 70 times per day during this past February. And there are some tools that make it fairly easy to find and fix the situation (still repetitive and potentially tiring obviously). We've got a lot of WikiGnomes who love fixing things. Or the challenge of figuring out how to look up weird data :) DMacks (talk) 01:53, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, thank you for the info! TIL what a WikiGnome is. Acinonyxjubatusrex (talk) 02:04, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

When you started volunteering, were you surprised by the arrogance of the number of people who felt entitled to having a wikipedia page on themselves? Frankly, I almost prefer those people. The ones who obviously flagrantly have no idea what Wikipedia is or what they're doing are easier to deal with. The real problem is people who know just enough to be a huge pain in the ass about it. Athanelar (talk) 18:03, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, thank you for the reply!! Acinonyxjubatusrex (talk) 10:00, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, another question. Where does one host images and get the link from it in order to make userboxes? I have some photos I'd like to use to make a userbox but I don't know where to upload the image to. Acinonyxjubatusrex (talk) 23:27, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Only freely available files would be usable for this purpose. You upload freely available files to Wikimedia Commons. Userboxes are explained at Wikipedia:Userboxes. -- Hoary (talk) 23:53, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thank you! Acinonyxjubatusrex (talk) 23:57, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Acinonyxjubatusrex: Just going to clarify the "freely available" files in this context means anything that meets c:COM:L; in other words, content that is now considered to be within the public domain or content that has been released by its copyright holder under a license that is free enough for Wikipedia/Commons purposes. It doesn't necessarily mean stuff that you can download "free-of-charge" from somewhere online or otherwise scan or photocopy for free. So, if you're not sure about the copyright status of something you want to upload to Commons, it would probably be best to ask for help at c:COM:HD before uploading it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:07, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yup, no worries, I understand. I'm just picking photos from Wikimedia Commons right now, but the photos I was originally thinking of are my own, so I'll need to find time to upload them to Wikimedia at some point. Thanks for clarifying though, appreciate it! Acinonyxjubatusrex (talk) 00:11, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am looking on Wikipedia for information about the FL 2026 US House of Representatives (2026 United States House of Representatives elections in Florida#Filed paperwork 18) and I notice the candidate for US Representative in FL ninth District named Jorge Antonio Malavet is missing. He is a declared candidate and filed with the FEC on November 14th, 2025. = Malavet, Jorge Antonio = Candidate for House Florida - 09 ID: H6FL09260 Republican Party ~2026-13408-05 (talk) 23:39, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome. You're able to edit that article to add this information, or, if you'd prefer, post to Talk:2026 United States House of Representatives elections in Florida and ask someone else to. 331dot (talk) 23:52, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

How do I edit an article with a partial block on it which limits direct access? I have access to the Talk Page. PhotoManA1 (talk) 03:02, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@PhotoManA1: Do you mean Robert Rankin (photographer)? It looks like you were blocked from editing that page because of a conflict of interest. You could request to be unblocked, but I think that might be unlikely. After looking at your talk page, it seems like you were only unblocked under the condition that you wouldn't be able to edit that particular page anymore. You can still request edits to that page: Wikipedia:Edit requests. AllWeKnowOfHeaven (talk) 03:11, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly - yes, I have already searched the archives both here at the Teahouse, and via the MOS Manual of Style. This problem dates back to at least 2008 (some say it goes back 141 years, to the advent of the first typewriter). It appears MOS:NUM is open to interpretation.

The actual article text I wish to edit is related to the Triumph Herald car, and appears as follows;

In order to build the Herald the company invested £2+1⁄2 million in a new assembly hall extension at the Canley plant which Standard had acquired in 1916.

That rogue 1⁄2 is generated via £{{frac|2|1|2}}, and looks bad enough in a stand-alone sentence here, but arguably looks even worse within a larger paragraph of text, with the numerator climbing up towards the line above, and the denominator sinking down towards the line below. But as it is the only instance of a fraction within the article, I would really like to use "£2½ million" for aesthetic reasons alone, although I understand that may not translate for every browser for some reason. And clearly the original editor thought they were doing 'the right thing', so who am I to disagree?

MOS:FRAC says;

• Do not use precomposed fraction characters such as ½ (deprecated markup: ½ or ½)
• Except: If ¼, ½, and ¾ are the only fractions needed, they may be used in an article, or category name, maintaining typographical consistency within an article where possible. Example: Floppy disk

Am I reading too much into the "except" clause? A second opinion here would be welcomed.

WendlingCrusader (talk) 03:58, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

WendlingCrusader, I quote a single pair of sentences from the article about this handsome little car: In standard single-carburettor form the 34.5 bhp (26 kW) car was no better than average in terms of performance. A saloon tested by The Motor magazine in 1959 was found to have a top speed of 70.9 mph (114.1 km/h) and could accelerate from 0–60 mph (97 km/h) in 31.1 seconds. So the article already makes ample use of a widely understood and typographically unproblematic alternative to "vulgar fractions". How about "£2.5 million"? -- Hoary (talk) 05:12, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Especially considering decimals are typically the preferred format for currency anyway, as values are rarely even fractions. Half or quarter are more likely to be used in casual verbal conversation.

Note that the article also contains existing ASCII fractions in the scale models section, as in 1/32, 1/44, and the potentially typo'd 1/43. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 07:26, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As ever, thanks to @Hoary and @ChompyTheGogoat for your inputs. It would be churlish to say that you have neatly sidestepped the question, but your answers are perfectly valid in this particular case I have no complaints. As regards the Hongwell model at 1/43 scale; it comes up readily with google searches so there is nothing wrong with that. So maybe it is the 1/44 that is wrong - potentially a mistake for 1/144 scale?

So I set off with another internet trawl, only to find out that Corgi models are a potential minefield;

Truly original examples are for sale on ebay, but do not seem to specify any scale on their boxes.

But you can also purchase a modern 'newly tooled' versions, for instance of the classic James Bond Aston Martin DB.5 (model #261), available from Corgi Classics at 1:43 scale, or from the Corgi Model Club at 1:46 scale; different versions at different scales, but both supposedly 'officially licensed'.

Fun fact; I knew precisely nothing of the above until prompted by your posts - I haven't been a modeller for a number of decades now, and back then it was Airfix, not cars. So thanks for taking me on another Wikipedia Magical Mystery Tour. And please notice my solution to vulgar fractions i.e. 1:43 scale. Cheers all!

WendlingCrusader (talk) 12:37, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The pedant in me is compelled to point out that proportions (ratios) and fractions aren't the same - and in light of that, the fraction use there may actually be improper in the first place.

Aren't you glad you asked here so I could find more work for you to do? XD ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 13:09, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You object to 2+1⁄2 on esthetic grounds, but I find the greater change in font size in your preferred method to be a much worse look. User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 12:28, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Being a keyboard worrier these days, I don't often pick up a pen and write by hand, but having just done so, it came perfectly naturally to write "2½" with a clear change in (handwritten) font size. However if you consider that to be a worse look, then I must accept your opinion. Thankyou for your input. WendlingCrusader (talk) 12:45, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have to concur with others here, in that a fraction in currency looks very odd aesthetically. Unless I've lost my mind, AP, APA, and Chicago stylebooks all emphasize decimals for currency rather than fractions, so it ought to be fairly unusual to encounter outside of speech. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 12:45, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is one exception: when the currency actually has fractional coins, for example the old coinage in the UK, where 6/11¾ is a correctly-written price (six shillings, eleven pence, and three farthings, a farthing being a quarter of a penny). It would not be reasonable to write "six shillings and 11.75 pence".[1] Elemimele (talk) 13:43, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@CoffeeCrumbs, @Elemimele: Two exceptions! My country used the likes of 7.521⁄2 for several years. Bazza 7 (talk) 13:46, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi dear Teahouse

I am a new member of Wikipedia, and have made one page. I tried to add links to this page to other pages that were relevant to its subject, but couldn't publish the changes. I also tried to adjust the text in the page I created and again couldn't publish the changes.

Could you let me know how to adjust this? Or advise?

Thanks a lot!!!!

Andrushka Fairfabric (talk) 07:23, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What error message did you receive, and on what article? It's possible it's protected due to past issues, in which case you'll need to file a request for the change. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 07:28, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that you're asking about some problem that arose in Draft:Mitchell Faircloth. Could you give us an example of a link that you can't add to it, and tell us just what error message you get on attempting to add the link? -- Hoary (talk) 10:53, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently I misread this the first time, but looking again it appears they were attempting to crosslink to their draft within live articles on related topics. I suspect the edit history on the draft might have something to do with it, but I don't see any direct action. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 11:28, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrushka Fairfabric MOS:DRAFTNOLINK advises against trying to link from mainspace articles to drafts and there may a technical block to doing so (I haven't checked). Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:31, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to link from my main space published article (not a draft) to another published article. I think maybe I can't publish edits because I haven't practiced editing enough to have been recognised as an editor? Thanks for your help!!! Andrushka Fairfabric (talk) 01:13, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have a mainspace article anymore. It was moved to drafts by another editor because it has multiple issues and is not ready to publish. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 03:39, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ok! Thanks for your help. Andrushka Fairfabric (talk) 04:03, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you've been able to make more edits to your draft, so I take it things are working fine on that page? The error probably was related to the links then. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 06:57, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have just finished a draft at Draft: Chapter Seven: The Lost Sister, but Chapter Seven: The Lost Sister is currently a redirect blocking the move. Can someone help me move it? I’m not exactly sure how to, so any help or even just advice on how to do it myself would be greatly appreciated Crystal Drawers 🍌 ^{(wanna talk?)} 12:02, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Crystal Drawers You can try to request a page move at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 12:56, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you submit the draft for review??? TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 14:00, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for your comments. TheGreatEditor024, I usually do submit drafts for reviews most of the time but I know there are quicker alternatives for when there’s redirects in the way so I was curious as to what they are Crystal Drawers 🍌 ^{(wanna talk?)} 14:05, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well, moving it yourself is easier but re-directs do make an issue. I faced this issue when I wanted to publish my article Tbeti Monastery. So, it better and easier that you allow the AFC to deal with it. Use the move tool, when there are no re-directs acting as a barrier. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 14:30, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Can I change my user name on Wikipedia, or do I have to make a new account to do that? I want to change my username bc it sucks now. Thenascarsonicblueyfan (talk) 14:05, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Of course yes. You can change your username.

See:Wikipedia:Username policy#Changing your username TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 14:31, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, you can change but you would need the help of the global renamers TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 14:31, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have submitted my draft article for review through AfC. It has been pending for some time. Could someone please take a look and advise if further improvements are needed? Thank you. Yogiin (talk) 15:28, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Yogiin: I would strongly advise that you dial back the WP:REFBOMBING. There is no way a five-sentence stub requires 34 sources. Pick the 3-5 that establish notability, and ditch the rest. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:41, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Yogiin, and welcome to the Teahouse. In addition to what DoubleGrazing said, I advise reviewing each of your sources against the criteria in WP:42. If they don't meet all the criteria, they should probably go.

Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 18:10, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - I am looking to work with the editor community to correct some simple factual inaccuracies on Newmont.

Specifically, the infobox still lists the former CEO, and since reporting its 2025 results, the financial data is out of date.

I've tagged the edit on the article talkpage and it's in the queue, but I wanted to know if the Teahouse3 would recommend anything further to get the updates completed?

Many thanks in advance! Ctobey2026 (talk) 16:55, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at your request, I would suggest formatting the changes using the {{Textdiff}} template. That makes it much easier for editors to see which parts are changing and which aren't, so they can more easily evaluate the request. It seems the CEO change is noted elsewhere in the article, so that part seems fine. For any other changes, you should make sure to provide a reliable source, or point elsewhere in the article where the data is already sourced.

As for the backlog, there are simply a lot of COI requests so you'll just have to be patient when it comes to waiting for a review. But if you make the changes clear, and support each of them with a reliable source, you will hopefully not need to go through more than one round of review. {{GearsDatapack|talk|contribs}} 17:39, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

How to write my biography on wiki?. Since I'm a professional boxer, musician and an entrepreneur. Emulys (talk) 18:34, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Emulys First of all, new editors are heavily warned against creating an article. Secondly, WP:AUTOBIO states that you should almost never even edit an article about yourself unless you are removing blatant policy violations, much less create one. CabinetCavers----DEPOSIT OPINION, [valued customer] 18:44, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I'm not new, I've been using this account before COVID 19.. Emulys (talk) 20:15, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

How notable are you really? Be honest with yourself. Professional does not necessarily imply notability. I've known a couple of people who have been in and out of the lower echelons of the PGA tour who do not have articles here. If you think you really are notable, your only path is via the AfC process. Pietrus1 (talk) 19:01, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For clarification, the AfC process is here CabinetCavers----DEPOSIT OPINION, [valued customer] 19:34, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but you probably do not meet the notability guidelines, I could find almost no mentions of you in Google (Facebook doesn't count)

TrueMoriarty Talk | Contribs 05:42, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have a close connection to the Canadian indie band, The Organ, so I have a conflict of interest. The current article was created many years ago and is poorly written. I would really like to see it improved for clarity and conciseness. Would anybody be able to review it and help with clean up or provide further guidance? I appreciate any neutral assistance. I'm more than happy to provide better sources or background if that is helpful. ThrumPumPumPum (talk) 18:59, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @ThrumPumPumPum, and welcome to the Teahouse.

While it's always possible that an appeal like that will find an editor who is interested enough to work on the article, it's not very likely. Usually, the most effective thing if you want an article improved is to do it yourself - even when there are obstacles like conflict of interest and inexperience.

If you were proposing to create an article, I would strongly advise that you go away and get experience in editing Wikipedia first; but since you're wanting to improve an existing article, this can be part of that learning.

What I would advise is as follows:

1. Make a formal declaration of your conflict of interest, preferably on your user page (which you haven't yet created - there is no requirement that you do so, but it's a good place to make such a declaration).
2. Read about verifiability and WP:42, so that you know what kind of sources we will be looking at for any information you want to add. For uncontroversial factual information like places and dates, primary sources (including the band's own website, or interviews from them) may be acceptable, but for anything less clearcut, a secondary, independent source is required.
3. Start making edit requests on the article's talk page: you can use the edit request wizard if you like. Make each one as clear and precise as possible (eg "Replace xxx by yyy in paragraph starting zzz"), and cite any sources for any information you wish to add - or, indeed, any information which is already there but unsourced. Have patience, as response may not be immediate; but if you have used the edit request mechanism, an editor will get to the request in time. If they do not think the request is appropriate, they'll explain why, and you can make an alternative suggestion.

ColinFine (talk) 19:49, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I would love if a Wikipedia Page could be generated for Karen Cassidy Irish Ultra Cyclist who holds the record for the first female ultra cyclist to cycle from Mizen Head at the very bottom of Ireland to Malin Head at the very top of the country continuously between the 25th and 26th of September 2023. Cycling 568km in 21 hours 43 minutes and 3 seconds. The first female cyclist to do this epic journey and is the current female record holder. Karen has many other achievements as an ultra cyclist including Race Around Ireland with the Galway Baybes (4 women cycling team), Donegal Ultra Cyclist, 32 Counties including several half Ironman events and one full ironman. But her cycle from the bottom of Ireland to the top in less than 24 hours is her crowning achievement in 2023 at 53 years of age. I have no idea how to go about having a wikipedia page for her - even if it is possible, and I would be very grateful for help. Leonydissac (talk) 19:36, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Leonydissac Could you find me some sources for this person's feats? CabinetCavers----DEPOSIT OPINION, [valued customer] 19:39, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

https://tritalkingsport.com/karen-cassidy-sets-irish-cycling-record-from-mizen-head-to-malin-head/

https://www.galwaybeo.ie/news/ireland-news/galway-legend-diesel-engine-smashes-8788046

https://www.galwaybayfm.ie/sports/galway-cyclist-breaks-mizen-to-malin-record-144673

https://open.spotify.com/episode/0obujZTPDMybfzpfqV2p1S

https://www.cyclingireland.ie/news-item/galway-baybes-break-irish-cycling-record-by-over-10-hours/

https://www.galwaybayfm.ie/sports/galway-baybes-return-home-following-new-round-ireland-race-record-37397

https://www.galwaydaily.com/galway-baybes-set-new-course-record-in-donegal-atlantic-way-ultra/ Leonydissac (talk) 19:45, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is a small mention I discovered on Malin to Mizen wikipedia page, but I would love if she had a page of her own Leonydissac (talk) 19:54, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, this appears to be a decent set of sources. Also, by "generated", do you mean AI generated? If so, don't do that. CabinetCavers----DEPOSIT OPINION, [valued customer] 19:54, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No nothing I have added there is AI generated Leonydissac (talk) 19:56, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I was asking if you planned to AI-generate an article. Sorry if I wasn't clear enough. CabinetCavers----DEPOSIT OPINION, [valued customer] 19:58, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Leonydissac, and welcome to the Teahouse. It sounds as if you might be lucky: CabinetCavers sounds as if they are interested.

Judging from your username, I suspect you are related to Karen Kassidy. If this is the case, then Wikipedia regards you as having a conflict of interest. That doesn't prevent you from asking for, and contributing to an article about her; but I recommend that you declare your connection on your user page, to avoid doubt.

I notice you use the phrase "a page of her own". Please note that if an article is written about her, it will not belong to her or to you, it will not be controlled by either of you, and it will not necessarily say what you want it to say. A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what the majority of people who are wholly unconnected with the subject have independently chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, (see Golden rule) and not much else. What you know (or anybody else knows) about the subject is not relevant except where it can be verified from a reliable published source. ColinFine (talk) 19:57, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@ColinFine I'm not particularly interested in the subject matter, but I am more than willing to help as much as I can. CabinetCavers----DEPOSIT OPINION, [valued customer] 19:59, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Colin, (CabinetCavers)? I am a bit confused as to whom I am replying to. Yes I agree with everything above, and yes apologies I am Karens husband (Noel), but I assure you that all the information pertaining to Karen that I have provided is true. If you would like me to provide you with photos and any other information let me know. My phrasing is probably not correct, I suppose what I meant by a page of her own, is information solely about Karen on a wikipedia page, so when her name is searched, people will get information on her? Maybe? Leonydissac (talk) 20:09, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I would not use AI when generating an article about Karen Leonydissac (talk) 20:11, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, just your use of the word "generate" made me suspicious. Also, Colin's reply stretches from "Hello @Leonydissac" to "reliable published source" and their signature. CabinetCavers----DEPOSIT OPINION, [valued customer] 20:13, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies I wont use the word 'generate', from now on. Let me know what to do next if anything? many thanks Leonydissac (talk) 20:33, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, again, @Leonydissac. People often do talk about subject "having" and article - I just wanted to guard against you having any wrong expectations.

If CabinetCavers is willing to create the draft, that would make it easier for you, but it's not clear whether or not they want to.

If not, you may create a draft. But in that case I would strongly advise you to put this project on hold for at least a few weeks, and spend that time finding existing articles that interest you, and working on improving them - especially, articles that are lacking sources - to learn more about how Wikipedia works before you read your first article and try creating a draft.

When you come to do so, the basic steps are:

1. Find several sources that each meet all the requirements of the golden rule: they are wholly unconnected with you and your wife - not published or commissioned by you, not based on a press release or interview; they are published in a reliable source; and they contain significat coverage of Karen Cassidy - more than just a couple of lines. I haven't checked the sources you listed above for this.
2. If you have found several sources that meet those criteria - but not otherwise - you can go on and create a draft, using articles for creation.
3. At this point comes the hardest thing for a person with a conflict of interest: you will need to set aside everything you know about Karen Cassidy, and write a summary of what those sources say. Nothing else. If they leave out important things - tough. If they are critical of her - the article should summarise what they say. If you know they are wrong - tough. The standard for Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.
4. If that gives you something that looks like an encyclopaedia article, you can submit it for review. You can also add a limited amount of uncontroversial factual data (such as dates and places) from non-independent sources. But you may not add anything that is only from your own knowledge or unpublished documents.

If this sounds difficult - I'm afraid it is, for a new editor, and for an editor connected to the subject.

For completeness, I should have mentioned another possibility - you can request an article be written at requested articles. But in all honesty the takeup there is extremely low. Including the links you've listed above may make it more attractive to editors who look at the list of RAs. But I wouldn't hold out too much hope. ColinFine (talk) 21:26, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Colin, list of RAs (Rhetorical Analysis?). Appreciate this feedback, I will work on this. Leonydissac (talk) 10:03, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

[RAs = Requested Articles. {The poster fomerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-76101-8 (talk) 12:53, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am curious why this article was ambushed and deleted? It went through AFC and is the definition of notable since it is at the biggest tourist attraction in LA, is 100 years old and has been in several movies. Plenty of press as well.

 Courtesy link: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Lobster (restaurant)

Can someone tell me how this article was ambushed and then deleted within 3 days in WP:AfC? The comments made in the discussion to justify the deletion, just are not true at all. Seems like this group has a problem with the restaurant that sits at the front of the Santa Monica Pier for 100 years.. Also, the one participant Mer-C was already suspended for being a sock, suspicious deletions and editing...

Does this look odd to you? Most deletion discussion must go at least a week and most go 2-3 weeks.. I hate to accuse people but this seems to be some sort of paid attack on an article that was submitted through afc. Just because someone who was accused of paid editing 3-4 years ago made a version which you have no idea if he was paid to do?

The World Cup, Women's World Cup and the Olympics are coming to the area and we are trying to clean up the Wikipedia for the city for these events. Is there a problem with that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-66804-1 (talk) 20:46, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I would not say that the article was 'ambushed'. I think it was rightfully deleted after either a self-promotion to article status or a false approval by the AfC reviewer. Do you have any proof at all that this was a "paid attack"?

I will also say that, if you are trying to clean up the city's Wikipedia pages for the Olympics, creating new articles would not be a good idea. It would be wiser to clean up any tagged articles relating to the city. --DollarStoreBa'al^Converse 21:53, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Lobster_(restaurant)

Here is an article stating its one of the top 10 most instagrammed places in the world https://smmirror.com/2012/12/santa-monica-pier-makes-top-10-most-instagrammed-places-in-world-in-2012/

~2026-66804-1 (talk) 20:32, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind telling us what the article is? aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 20:36, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Lobster_(restaurant) ~2026-66804-1 (talk) 20:39, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/most-instagrammed-places_n_5679aee6e4b014efe0d720d3 ~2026-66804-1 (talk) 20:44, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@MER-C @Star Mississippi Might want to take a look at this temp account. aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 20:45, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Aesurias

They also came to my Talk. GIven the concerns here and at my Talk about using this article for promotion and the multiple deletions and paid promotion and sock puppetry as well as bad faith assumptions that we have an issue with the restaurant itself, I decline to restore this article @~2026-66804-1. You're welcome to file a Deletion Review if you believe my close was incorrect, but I would not recommend that based on the case you've made here. WP:NOTTHEM is also helpful reading. Star Mississippi 02:31, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I will discuss it with a few others in the office and consider the options. I feel the press the restaurant has over 75 years in more than enough to be included. The article went through AFC and independent review, it has plenty of coverage. The photos were already on Wikipedia from different users over quite a long period.

We've submitted a request to Grokopedia for an article as well. Hopefully that will go better! ~2026-66804-1 (talk) 08:16, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We have been going through a tough time in the downtown area and working to improve the areas image has been a goal for the current city administration.

https://www.smdp.com/city-manager-outlines-brazen-plan-to-reshape-santa-monicas-culture-economy-government-and-landscape-as-he-says-the-city-stands-at-a-crossroads-between-ruin-and-revitalization/ ~2026-66804-1 (talk) 08:17, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There are outlets for this @~2026-66804-1, but neither Wikipedia nor Grokipedia are the best options. I tink you have a misunderstanding of AfC which does not guarantee retention, just that it has a chance of being kept if someone files for deletion. If you're going to pursue this, which I don't recommend as a new editor as it's one of the hardest things to do, please gain an understanding of how the policies apply. WP:SIRS WP:CORP are helpful. Star Mississippi 13:53, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"The World Cup, Women's World Cup and the Olympics are coming to the area and we are trying to clean up the Wikipedia for the city for these events. Is there a problem with that?" Several problems, actually. You say "we", is this account used by anyone other than yourself? Or are you saying that there are multiple people editing in coordination? Also, you seem to be saying that you are editing articles here to drive up business for this restaurant. That is at least an admission that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. It also makes me think that you are somehow connected to this restaurant, creating a conflict of interest. You say it is at a large tourist attraction, but there are many things at or near tourist attractions that are completely unknown to the world. There was a local restaurant in my own home town that was open for 75 years, but I would not expect it to have an article here. What makes your 100 year old restaurant any different? "It has been in several movies". Really? To what extent? Lots of things can be seen in the background of movies. That doesn't make them notable. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 21:07, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I mean the employees of the city of Santa Monica... nothing specific to this restaurant except this is one of the properties deemed to be worthy because of the reasons stated..There was plenty of press from the LA Times to the NY Times and many more. ~2026-66804-1 (talk) 21:12, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that you are a city employee? And that you are doing this to increase business to things in your city? That still sounds like a conflict of interest to me. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 21:28, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

PS -- that "most instagrammed places" list is 14 years old. Instagram itself was only a couple years old at the time. Is this really as impressive as you think it is?--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 21:12, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It is in the top 10 every year.. according to this and the other articles it was top 10 in the world for 2012, 2015, and 2016 so far.. I've heard its there every year but, with a quick search thats what I came up with. ~2026-66804-1 (talk) 21:18, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.timeout.com/los-angeles/blog/2016s-most-instagrammed-places-in-l-a-120716 ~2026-66804-1 (talk) 21:19, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That link you just posted is for most Instagrammed places in LA. That is not the same thing as most Instagrammed places in the world. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 21:26, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The Santa Monica Pier was ranked in the top 10 most Instagrammed places in the world in 2012 (#10), 2015 (#8), and 2016 (#8). Ask the AI's, like Grok or ChatGPT. ~2026-66804-1 (talk) 21:35, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That's the pier. Not the restaurant. And why would I ask the AIs? --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 21:49, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What is the point of arguing the validity of the instrgram lists as opposed to something like notability? There is plenty of press, you can use the AI's to ask them for a detailed history on The Lobster restaurant in Santa Monica and to cite each source after each sentence. ~2026-66804-1 (talk) 21:38, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Again, why would we ask AI? Also, is that press all from the local media? There were articles about the local restaurant I mentioned, too. Doesn't mean it was notable. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 21:52, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The LA Times is a reputable internationally recognized press source with editorial oversight. The restaurant is in Santa Monica, CA. Claiming the LA Times is local is like claiming the NY Times is local coverage to NY. ~2026-66804-1 (talk) 22:17, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

When the location is that close by, it is local coverage no matter what paper it is in. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 23:54, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No place in any of the notability requirements that i have reviewed is local coverage not acceptable. WP:SIRS. Virtually every article about subjects in Los Angeles use the LA Times. I am not sure why you are trying to bring the articles validation to an inconsequential article? ~2026-66804-1 (talk) 01:10, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Does any source outside the LA region say anything sbout this restaurant? No. I'm surecthere are hundreds of restsurants in Paris, London, Tokyo, NY, etc that get lots of reviews from local media. To the world at large those restaurants are of no more notability than the lost dog coveres on the local 6 o'clock news.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:34, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Why would anyone be using AI to prove that a topic is notable ? AI hallucination existsToarin (talk) 21:41, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

People use AI for the weirdest things. --DollarStoreBa'al^Converse 21:42, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That is why you ask them to cite each source.. It can source relevant articles faster than going through google. ~2026-66804-1 (talk) 21:43, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It can also source relevant articles much less reliably than going through google, or any search engine for that matter. --DollarStoreBa'al^Converse 21:44, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I know the person requesting help is also under scrutiny but i was under the impression that the business only needed 2 in depth articles to meet the notability requirements. This place has articles I could find going back to the 50's if i remember.. https://latimes.newspapers.com/search/results/?_gl=1*qr48o9*_up*MQ..*_gs*MQ..&gbraid=0AAAAADtl_1DhEExDb3cEDxRIDCnpOeeYN&gclid=CjwKCAiAh5XNBhAAEiwA_Bu8FbNGK9X_cNsiTYHKFayBDxtMm5N6uyV0JDQQ3I3T2EyW_jFrD-Xf0RoCuKAQAvD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds&keyword=1602+lobster ~2026-66804-1 (talk) 21:53, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The notability requirements for corporations and organisations can be found at WP:NCORP if you wish to read it. Athanelar (talk) 02:15, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Attempts to create an article about this restaurant have been highly disruptive for years. Advertising is contrary to policy. Undisclosed paid editing is contrary to policy. Sockpuppetry is contrary to policy. Those who have attempted to create an article about this restaurant have resorted to all of those dishonest tactics. I am certainly not opposed to articles about tourist oriented seafood restaurants. I am, after all, the #1 contributor to both Joe's Stone Crab and Nick's Cove, California. I have no connection to either restaurant other than eating at each one once. It is all about the quality of the in-depth significant coverage of the restaurant (not the pier) in reliable independent sources, and neutrally summarizing those sources. The same is true of this Santa Monica restaurant. I express no opinion about its notability but I can say that coming in hot and heavy with promotional language and dark accusations of some sort of conspiracy against this restaurant is exactly the wrong way to go about it. "Ambushed"? "Some sort of paid attack"? Give me a break. Calm, competent editing in compliance with policies and guidelines is the correct course of action. That is what gets results. Cullen328 (talk) 05:14, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Barely any of this is true.. Looks like someone tried to create a page 3 years ago and then it was created again 5 days later.. There is no ongoing conspiracy to create a page for this restaurant that i can see but closing a deletion discussion within 3 days is out of policy unless it was listed as speedy deletion. The article also went through AFC and was approved.. Isn't that the policy for submitting articles that had issues previously? ~2026-66804-1 (talk) 18:54, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The Lobster (restaurant) was:

• Draftified on 4 September 2023 for being 'covert advertising'
• Deleted on 9 September 2023 under WP:CSD#G5 (created in violation of a ban/block)
• Deleted on 23 February 2026 after an AfD

Draft:The Lobster (restaurant) was:

• Deleted on 5 September 2023 under CSD G5
• This means that it was deleted a day after it was draftified per above, and then seemingly recreated directly in mainspace to be deleted again on September 9.

Draft:The Lobster (Santa Monica) was:

• Moved to mainspace on 8 September 2025; the different name was almost certainly a (successful) attempt to evade scrutiny over the previous history of the draft.

So the chronology seems to be;

1. First created as The Lobster (restaurant) some time prior to 4 Sep 23, whereafter it was draftified.

2. First deleted at Draft:The Lobster (restaurant) a day later.

3. Created for the second time as TL (r) in mainspace some time between 5 and 9 September 2023

4. Deleted for the second time at TL (r)

5. Created for the third time at Draft:TL (SM) some time before 8 September 2025

6. Deleted for the third time at TL (r) on the 23 Feb 26

I wouldn't say it's a 'conspiracy,' but the page is certainly a target of persistent recreation. Athanelar (talk) 19:08, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@~2026-66804-1 I'm not sure why you keep repeating three days, the discussion was opened on 16 February and closed on 23 February. The community has decided The Lobster is not notable. You're welcome to pursue a draft and AfC, but I think promotion of your city manager's goals is probably best achieved elsewhere. Star Mississippi 01:50, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@~2026-66804-1 Do you have a conflict of interest with the topic of this article?Toarin (talk) 08:17, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've been adding a piece of info to a page and it got reverted by a user (who created the page, apparently). So I tried to revise it and make it better, but the same user just keeps reverting it (no big deal - but I thought it was a valid addition and I cited it). Anyway, then I looked at the user's contributions and noticed that ALL they ever do is revert and rollback edits on that page and lots of other pages on Wiki. Surely not all of these edits are bad and need to be reverted? It's like they won't let anyone else add anything new, ever? If you create a page, do you own it? I don't know if that's cool as I'm new here, but I thought old pages could still be added to. Or maybe we're only meant to update new pages? Anyway, I'm not looking to shake up anything - here's the user if you want to check it out? If it's okay, then sorry for bringing it up. DisneyFanatic25 (talk) 21:47, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@DisneyFanatic25 This does not look seem okay, even just from reading your description. I'll check it out, but it sounds like they're violating WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. --DollarStoreBa'al^Converse 21:58, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@DisneyFanatic25 Having looked, it appears that the above stands, as well as WP:DRNE. It seems to me that they are not here to build an encyclopedia, they're here to build their encyclopedia. However, this is just my opinion. --DollarStoreBa'al^Converse 22:04, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking it out! I thought it must be a violation. What do we do? Is there a Wiki admin in the Teahouse who will read this post and handle it? DisneyFanatic25 (talk) 22:16, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've already messaged User:Bearcat, who is a well-known and active admin. Hopefully, he will respond soon. --DollarStoreBa'al^Converse 22:17, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, I appreciate it! DisneyFanatic25 (talk) 22:25, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried discussing with Amaury? This is appears to be a content dispute, and the first step of those is to discuss on the talk page. A user mostly reverting also isn't that uncommon; they could just primarily be a counter vandalism patroller. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 22:29, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Amaury would be well advised to use edit summaries to communicate better about why they revert so much, but their edit history actually isn't as problematic as it might appear to a newbie — bad-faith editors often add unsourced or inappropriate material to our articles, which has to be removed, and by and large that's what Amaury has been doing. They're a long-established editor who's been around here for well over a decade, although they aren't typically around as much as they used to be.

The issue, it would seem, is that the content you were trying to add to articles was sourced to things like X/Twitter tweets and YouTube videos, which are not reliable sources for Wikipedia content. So, again, I'd suggest that Amaury might be better off communicating a bit more, but their basic behaviour isn't nearly as problematic as a newbie might think, because we have to be regularly on guard for the addition of improperly sourced and/or entirely inappropriate material to our articles. Bearcat (talk) 22:32, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking - I wasn't sure if it was okay as I didn't want to step on their toes as they created the page. I was using an Instagram post with a direct quote from the series creator, but maybe that is not reliable either on Wiki. No worries I won't add it again, just wasn't sure if it was allowed or not. Thanks all for answering me! DisneyFanatic25 (talk) 22:38, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @DisneyFanatic25. Just replying to your last point (I haven't looked at any of the content). It's not clear from what you said whether the quote is posted by the series creator themselves or by somebody else.

A social media post from somebody involved, on their own channel/account, would be a reliable but self-published source, and usable only within the limitations of such a source. A quote on a random social media account is not a reliable source. ColinFine (talk) 10:06, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have found a article from the New York Times claiming that a US Federal judge has accepted a settlement from Greenpeace in regards to some protests of a pipeline in Dakota. The article showed up, according to Google 2 days ago on 3-2-2026. Can this material presented here be used in the Greenpeace article?I would have put it there myself, only to be possibly reverted due to the controversial nature of this matter. The article claims the settlement could literally bankrupt the environmental group. ~2026-11445-80 (talk) 22:09, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

While the settlement could bankrupt Greenpeace, it doesn't mean that it will. I recommend waiting until something is confirmed. However, if you want to cover the settlement itself in the article, and it's well sourced (it's an NYT article, so it seems to be), then I would say to put that in if you wish. --DollarStoreBa'al^Converse 22:19, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That case has been going on for years too, so it's hardly new - just finally closed (I assume, having not read said article). There's likely additional sources available. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 07:05, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have created a jpeg through scanning an original pamphlet (which I can convert to pdf if needed) The source is printed matter that I received many years ago and kept in a file folder . The source is not located on any website, Book, Journal etc so I cannot reference it thru the normal means. Is there a way to reference it and if so how do I do it ? Thanks Mouse1948 (talk) 22:39, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. We cannot use documents in private hands as a source because they can't be verified. Scanning and uploading one is possibly problematic from a copyright standpoint. Documents must be publicly available.

What information are you trying to cite? 331dot (talk) 22:43, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's a document included with an artwork (edition of 95 pieces) that I worked on with others over twenty years ago. When sold the pamphlet went with each artwork to document the number of the edition and who participated in its making. I want to use it as the document includes my name and others as well as a reference that I worked on the piece. The work was the "Act Up Art Box" --a fund raiser for Act Up New YORK Mouse1948 (talk) 22:55, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to add -- THE document has Act Up's masthead and I'm sure they would confirm my participation if contacted. Mouse1948 (talk) 23:04, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If an independent source does not document your work, it shouldn't be in an article at all. 331dot (talk) 23:12, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Mouse1948, you could try contacting Act Up and asking them if they would publish it in their blog (if they have one) or in a part of their website that covers Act up history. Once they publish it, then you can cite it. If you have a physical copy of the original pamphlet, you could contact one of the archives of LGBTQ materials, and ask if you may donate it to them for their archives, and index it. (Or, perhaps they already have it; search first!) Once they accept and catalog the item (or if they already have it), you can cite their archives, regardless whether or not it is available online or open to the general public. The New York Public Library — Manuscripts and Archives Division has an extensive LGBTQ+ collection and actively collects ACT UP materials, I would try them first. Others: ACT UP Oral History Project, Leslie-Lohman Museum of Art, ONE National Gay & Lesbian Archives; there are many other possibilities. Mathglot (talk) 10:01, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have searched Act Up and there are plenty references to the Art Box but the document I want to use is not there. Because it was included with the sale of the artwork the only source would be with its owners. I have gone to the museums who list it in their collections but again the document is not mentioned or illustrated.

Thanks for referencing the NY Public Library and Leslie-Lohman Museum. I will visit (online) them to see if it is there. Mouse1948 (talk) 13:26, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I found an article published by the Met in NYC by Peter Antony which illustrated the card that was included with the Art Box . The card acknowledged my participation so I have referenced it . Thanks again for your help Mouse1948 (talk) 15:14, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I took a break from editing for a while and as far as I remember AI generated content wasn't allowed for accuracy reasons, but when I loaded up my user homepage today and chose a suggested article to edit, I saw this message on a page. I can't really find anything pertaining to this or addressing the change, but when has AI generated content been allowed on Wikipedia? Is this a new feature? Evilrh104 (talk) 23:07, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Someone explained it to me, but the short answer is that there has never been a wholesale ban on AI, despite that many may wish there was such a ban. The generation of new pages is forbidden per NEWLLM. There is a lot on the subject at the links here: Wikipedia:Writing articles with large language models. There is also WP:AINB for when it gets out of hand in certain instances. Pietrus1 (talk) 00:45, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's a work in progress. After a long-fought RfC we managed to pass a guideline forbidding the creation of new articles with AI, but there's still no broader ban on AI editing. There's an ongoing RfC to ban AI-generated discussion comments (like on talk pages, AfD discussions etc) and the general community norm is that all AI editing is problematic and should be undertaken with great care. The main LLM essay highlights a lot of the problems that arise from AI-assisted editing. Athanelar (talk) 02:12, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Evilrh104, that message is in fact a maintenance template which is intended to alert editors to problems or potential problems in an article. We've had maintenance templates for a long time, for issues such as inadequate citations or style issues. We've now had to develop maintenance templates for AI-generated text because a lot of editors do not want to see slop overtake the encyclopaedia and, even if there is a blanket ban on AI, some will slip through and need to be cleaned up. As a returning editor, you might also be interested in the AI Cleanup project. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 09:51, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Is there? Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 23:30, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe so. There is an open issue on twinkle's github for adding support for CTOP alerts, but it appears no one has coded and implemented the request. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 03:29, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes; with CT-Helper.js. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:57, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Andy Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 20:33, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Is it ok to ask a school admin to unblock the IP of Wikipedia due to vandalism and needing to write a paper? ~2026-13584-47 (talk) 00:30, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is more up to your school admin than anyone in administration here. Pietrus1 (talk) 00:40, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

From the Wikipedia side, IP blocks only prevent editing the content. Anyone is free to read, even if they are blocked from editing. Now your school might have their own network configured to block access to the site at all. And that's indeed solely up to them not us. DMacks (talk) 03:58, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I recently completed my 1000th edit, and sure enough, I got a little notification thanking me for my contribs, like I got at 1, 10, and 100 edits. So, where are these messages stored? Are there any more of them, and is this publicly viewable or hidden deep in MediaWiki software? Has anyone documented what they are if they aren't? 𝓕𝓵𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓷 (Talk to me! · My contribs) 03:14, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@FloblinTheGoblin: These messages are called milestones, and they are system notifications automatically sent to you when you reach a certain number of edits (see Help:Notifications#Milestone). You can see a list of the messages here, and they will go up to ten million. All of it is publicly viewable and the messages are stored in the mediawiki namespace at pages like MediaWiki:Notification-header-thank-you-1000-edit. Sophisticatedevening^(talk) 03:56, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

How do I edit a a graph (it’s not a photo)? Thanks Longhorncowfish (talk) 04:19, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Longhorncowfish, Is this a graph in a Wikpedia article? Can you provide a link, or just name the article (and the graph)? For non-Wikipedia questions, try the WP:Reference desk. Mathglot (talk) 09:35, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Are images from Facebook copyrighted? Can I upload them? TrueMoriarty Talk | Contribs 05:18, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

An image on Facebook can be assumed to be conventionally copyright ("all rights reserved") unless you can cite sound evidence to the contrary. You may not upload an image that's conventionally copyright unless you have an immediate "fair use" for it in mind and are ready to argue for this "fair use". -- Hoary (talk) 05:35, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In general, is it safe to upload Facebook images I Wikimedia

TrueMoriarty Talk | Contribs 05:37, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not. TrueMoriarty, all contemporary images automatically become copyrighted upon publication, with very few exceptions. Exceptions include images created by employees of the US federal government as part of their job duties, and images explicitly released into the public domain by their creators. Images published on Facebook are copyright protected, just like publication anywhere else. There is nothing special about Facebook in this regard. It is just a convenient publishing platform. Cullen328 (talk) 05:42, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the information TrueMoriarty Talk | Contribs 05:46, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all,

Would you recommend adding an email address to your Editor account? Is it better to connect a private email, create a separate one just for WP, or skip it entirely?

Thinking mainly about security, password recovery, and whether it actually helps with communication between editors.

Curious what your experiences are.

Thanks! LionmerterTHE (talk) 07:30, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend it, so you can occasionally provide private feedback to someone, or ask them something privately. Your use cases are another good reason. I created an email just for Wikipedia-related activities, and have never received spam on it; I find it useful. If you want to try it out, you can email me a 'Hello' if you want, by going to my User page or Talk page, and clicking, 'Email this user'. (On my skin, that link is in the left sidebar under the heading 'Tools', but it might be different for you.) If you do, lmk in your message whether you want an email you a reply or not. I can also just respond here or on your Talk page to tell you I got it. Mathglot (talk) 09:32, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Missing ping: LionmerterTHE. Mathglot (talk) 09:33, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Tell me if it worked LionmerterTHE (talk) 08:07, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@LionmerterTHE To add to Mathglot's answer: if you have added and verified an email address to your Wikipedia/Wikimedia account, and subsequently lose your Wikipedia password, having a registered email address will help you reset your wiki password. (I don't think that's possible without the email address. Also, everyone should use password managers.)

Most wiki-related communications should take place on-wiki, but two use cases for email are when there might be private or sensitive information involved, or for sending file attachments, such as through the Resource exchange. To initiate an email conversation from Wikipedia, both parties need to have registered email addresses, and the first email is sent from a generic Wikipedia address so the recipient's address is not revealed to the sender unless they reply to the email. My Wikipedia address is an alias for my primary email account, which I filter into a dedicated Wikipedia folder. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 09:44, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

LionmerterTHE, I just (@08:07 UTC) got a notification (i.e., a Wikimedia alert) that you sent me an email, but the actual email hasn't arrived yet in my email (i.e., *not* part of Wikimedia) inbox. There's probably a queue for sending them out from Wikimedia, or maybe my email provider is slow to update my inbox. But anyway, it worked! Mathglot (talk) 08:12, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thats interesting - thank you again LionmerterTHE (talk) 08:15, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

LionmerterTHE, my mistake; the email came through at the same time as the notification; I was looking in the wrong place. You should have the response, or soon. Mathglot (talk) 09:49, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Good Morning Teahouse,

I'm new to WikiText and HTML-style systems in general, Is there any way to force a section (Multimedia, Userboxes or Other) to display a specific distance from the top or bottom of the page without altering anything else?

The WikiText cheatsheet doesn't give any information about that.

Edit: Is there a way to force a New Line as well?

I-like-Arm64 (talk) 07:32, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I-like-Arm64, in HTML, yes (but that is off-topic for the Teahouse; if you are curious about HTML, try the Wikipedia:Reference desk or any of the many good tutorials and references online). For Wikitext, that would generally be unadvisable; do you have a real-world problem in mind? To force a new line, do what you did above: add two blank lines in your text. Mathglot (talk) 09:24, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip! I-like-Arm64 (talk) 10:22, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@I-like-Arm64: if you're talking about articles (although the same probably goes for non-article pages as well), then by and large it's not a good idea to 'force' anything. Bear in mind that we get huge numbers of users accessing Wikipedia on a multitude of different devices, screen sizes, operating systems, skins, etc., some of whom may also have special access needs, and what may look good to you could cause problems for others. We sometimes see users increase the font size in an article, or blow up the infobox image to 1000px width, or whatever, and while that may be fine on your 32" super duper hi-rez monitor, someone else working on an old mobile device might not feel the same. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:49, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@DoubleGrazing Thanks for the reply!

What I was trying to say was:

How do you set margins around an Infobox?

One of my headings were clipping behind the Babel userbox on my userpage, the only solution I could find was making the text around the userbox longer than the userbox itself. This doesn't work you change text size through appearance options on the sidebar

Also, I was talking about forcing a single newline character to appear rather than needing to put 2 newline characters back-to-back. since doing it like that adds more spacing than the standard text wraparound. Is there any way to do this without needing to use the poem plugin?

Thanks in advance! I-like-Arm64 (talk) 10:38, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I-like-Arm64, regarding, 'How do you set margins around an Infobox?' the answer is, you don't. You allow the mediawiki settings to do that for you. Please provide a link to the version of your user page (or any page) that shows the problem, and then I or someone can look at it. If there is a legitimate bug, it can be raised and tracked, but we have to see it, first. Mathglot (talk) 11:09, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"'How do you set margins around an Infobox?' the answer is, you don't." Really? That sounds counterintuitive.

Here's the example in my sandbox (Here)

The line on the text formatted as 'Heading' passes into the info/userbox. The text on the other hand wraps properly. I-like-Arm64 (talk) 13:29, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, really. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia with a home stylesheet to enforce a certain level of consistency across articles. This should not be surprising. It is not a blank slate where you can style an article any which way you want, as you can in pure HTML. To an extent, you can modify how things look *only for you*, i.e., without affecting how the page looks to anybody else, so if you want extra space around Infoboxes in articles you browse, you can do that. Read Wikipedia:Common.css for details how to do this.

Otherwise, if you really need to, Wikimedia accepts most (but not all) HTML tags, and one of the ones they do is <div>, so if you must, add a div above the Infobox (or nest the box within it), and include your margin in it. Mathglot (talk) 08:27, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This article Timočani is a falsification of history. Timoceni are a Romanian group, partially came from Romania, partially the Romanians who lived and still lived on both sides of Danube river and in vicinity of Timoc river. No connection with Slavs. There is a Cultural Genocide of Serbian administration against Romanians. The Romanian language is forbidden in schools, also a recent cyrillic alphabet was invented for Romanians in order to assimilate them. And the most chauvinistic action was the separation of Romanians in two groups: Romanians and the "Vlachs". The "Vlachs" are a part of Romanians who accepted the Serbian authority. In this way Serbs started an oppression against Romanians. The question of Romanians of Timoc was discussed in the European Parliament, mainly about the false division of Romanian minority by Serbs in Romanians and "Vlachs". The Timocani article is full of propaganda promoted by some Bulgarian editors! Dellhom (talk) 09:51, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Dellhom, and welcome to the Teahouse. A Wikipedia article is (or should be) a summary of what the major reliable sources say about a subject, and nothing else.

If you think that an article could be improved, please open up a discussion on the article's talk page. Be ready to support your position with reliable published sources.

And I strongly suggest that you drop the battleground approach: we are all here to build an encyclopaedia collaboratively. Sometimes people have strong views about what should and shouldn't go into an article: often other people have equally strong contrary views. Wikipedia does its best not to favour one view or the other, but to document the competing views without choosing between them. ColinFine (talk) 10:18, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Topics surrounding the Balkans and Eastern Europe is among some of the most controversial in all of English Wikipedia. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Active sanctions. Toarin (talk) 10:20, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I would add that Bulgarians have as much a right to be here as Romanians or any group. If your strong views on this topic prevent you from working collaboratively with people regardless of who they are, you need to find another topic to edit about, one that strikes less passion in you. Eastern Europe is a formally designated contentious topic. 331dot (talk) 10:22, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Luckily, you can improve, flesh-out, and add sources to any article on wikipedia. It will be better to have a less aggressive attitude when you do so, and make sure what you add is verifiable and rigorous, especially in a contentious topic like that. I'll add that Bulgarians on here have been nothing but wonderful to me to date as someone who edits Bulgarian articles. Just WP:be kind to people. Remember, they are all human-beings just like you :). Pietrus1 (talk) 11:10, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all, I made a userbox User:Acinonyxjubatusrex/UBX/Lotus but I would like to host it on User:UBX/Do the right thing instead (prefer not to have my username so prominently attached to the userbox), but whenever I try to edit the latter page, it gives me the error message:

The revision #0 of the page named "User:UBX/Do the right thing" does not exist. This is usually caused by following an outdated history link to a page that has been deleted. Details can be found in the deletion log.

When I go into the source history, I don't see any edits. Does anyone know why this is happening and/or has a solution? Acinonyxjubatusrex (talk) 10:14, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wait never mind it loaded, I think it was just a delay and I was impatient, my bad! Problem is solved :) Acinonyxjubatusrex (talk) 10:15, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a lot of lag right now. 331dot (talk) 10:17, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can you help to create a page for my creative agency which is growing & our work is getting noticed!

You can Google about "AdBriewer"

Looking forward! Rajnish ~2026-13689-07 (talk) 10:20, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia cannot be used for advertising or promotion. Please see WP:NOPROMO. Those that try to do so are considered to be WP:NOTHERE 10:24, 3 March 2026 (UTC) Toarin (talk) 10:29, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Wikipedia has articles about topics that meet our criteria for inclusion, what we call notability. For companies, that is our definition of a notable company. The vast majority of companies on Earth do not meet that criteria, because most reporting on a company is about its routine business activities, not critical analysis and commentary as to what is viewed by those wholly unaffiliated with the company as important/significant/influential about it.

Please see this page as to why an article is not necessarily desirable. There are good reasons to not want one. For example, disgruntled customers(every company has those) could vandalize it, it only temporarily. Any and all information about your company, good or bad, can be in an article about it as long as it appears in an independent source and is not defamatory.

I suggest that you go on about the work of your company as if you had never heard of Wikipedia, and allow an article to organically develop the usual way- when an independent editor takes note of coverage of a company and chooses to write about it, summarizing that coverage. Company representatives trying to force the issue and create an article outside this process rarely succeed. 331dot (talk) 10:27, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@~2026-13689-07 Please see WP:BOSS and show it to your colleagues and higher-ups. The vast majority of companies are not notable enough for Wikipedia. --DollarStoreBa'al^Converse 14:28, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

St_Antony's_Forane_Church,_Kannamaly please help in developing this article. if it doesnt meet the wikipedia guidelines at all. pls help to improve the article. Tellmethetruth555 (talk) 10:33, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a tag. I won't edit the article, as I'm completely unfamiliar with churches, but hopefully somebody will come along and fix it up. For those who are reading and considering jumping in, the article has multiple instances of promotional language and is written more like a novel than an encyclopedia. --DollarStoreBa'al^Converse 14:26, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well, You can add more sources to the 1905 miracle if you can find them. It is hard to find independent sources as early history of the Churches in Kerala are mostly church records which are not accepted by Wikipedia. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 15:31, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

But I'll try to help. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 15:32, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some copy-editing, but it wasn't that bad.

Some independent sources for the history, and an interior picture or two, would be good. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:07, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats, It is now an article. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 19:22, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! I need some help clearing my sandbox so I can make another article. I made an article on my personal sandbox (User:Jacobthenerd/sandbox) but because it has been published to the main page it just redirects to the actual article now. How can I clear the sandbox so I can start on another article while still keeping my first published article up? Thank you! Jacobthenerd (talk) 12:30, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I cleared the redirect; this can be done yourself by, once you get to where the redirect takes you, to click the link to the original page(usually) in the upper left corner.

It's best to use the Article Wizard to create drafts, or otherwise create them under an actual title.(like [[User:331dot/Article title]]). 331dot (talk) 12:36, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In january, I checked the store to see the 25th B-day merch, and there was this adorable plushie. I checked a couple weeks ago and I can't find it anywhere. It's like it never existed. Can anyone help? --DollarStoreBa'al^Converse 14:38, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @DollarStoreBaal44. The Teahouse is for questions about editing and contributing to Wikipedia. Your question seems to be about store merchandise, so you may want to contact the store directly for help. Thanks! TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 15:13, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Aight. Sorry, thought this would be a good place to ask. --DollarStoreBa'al^Converse 15:14, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It’s totally fine. Many contributors post things in the wrong place at first. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 15:18, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sold out perhaps? The Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk) 15:31, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You may be talking about the Baby Globe plushie! The bottom of this page mentions it. Unfortunately, pre-orders are not available anymore, but it tells us to "check back for more updates in March". LightNightLights (talk • contribs) 15:36, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Why have my comments on Talk:2026 Minab school airstrike been removed. Who if not the US and Zionist entity are responsible for the bombing? Aliens? Is this an encyclopaedia or zionist/fascist/pro-Trump propaganda? Piccionaia (talk) 15:13, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Because you wanted to have the content changed, but did not follow the modus operandi for edit requests; also see the comment in the edit summary when you were reverted. Lectonar (talk) 15:19, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It is not. Your 'edit request' was in no way helpful to make the article better, which is what the talk pages are for. I do agree with you about the fact that the US is at fault in this case, but no reliable sources are going to make such brazen claims. Since wikipedia articles are just summaries of what reliable, secondary sources say about the subject, I'm afraid you're out of luck. There is no propaganda or censorship here, your comment was simply not following proper talk page etiquette. See WP:TALKPURPOSE. --DollarStoreBa'al^Converse 15:19, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sean.hoyland (talk · contribs), who reverted your edit, left the following edit summary; that is not an edit request. read WP:EDITXY for how to write them. I.e, they reverted you because your comment was not a properly formatted edit request, not because of "zionist/fascist/pro-Trump propaganda." Athanelar (talk) 15:19, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Athanelar: Sean.hoyland could have been more helpful in their rejection. Notwithstanding the request not being in the right format, using the edit summary is not the right place to answer it. Placing the rejection in the discussion (with a {{not done}} for highlighting) would allow everyone to see what the request was originally, and why it has not been done. Bazza 7 (talk) 15:24, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but when reverted the appropriate course of action if in doubt would be to check if the reverting editor left an edit summary, not run to another forum to accuse them of being a zionist/fascist/pro-Trump propagandist. Athanelar (talk) 15:41, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Normally, for a registered account, I would leave the appropriate topic area welcome templates on their talk page, but I'm a bit busy updating things at the moment. I have posted the messages now. As for being more helpful, I'm afraid that would require some kind of personality transplant, and we just don't have that technology yet. Piccionaia, it's nothing personal. The answer to the question "Is this an encyclopaedia or zionist/fascist/pro-Trump propaganda?" is that it is a bit of both, or possibly a pro-Hamas/Iranian operation, it's hard to keep up with all the social media experts, but mostly it's a rules-based encyclopedia. So, if you follow the rules, it will be fine. Sean.hoyland (talk) 16:17, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Piccionaia (talk) 15:20, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I was scrolling on Wikipedia (going through random pages like I usually do), when I spotted this photo of Charles Darwin “with his son William”. Now I don’t know about you but the child in that photo certainly doesn’t seem to be William, correct me if I am wrong but that definitely seems to be a daughter of Charles Darwin as opposed to his son. Is it possible someone mixed one of the children up with William, it seems far more likely that the child is either Anne, Henrietta or Elizabeth. Just thought I’d bring this issue up. The Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk) 15:16, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That would probably be a photo from before William's breeching. Lectonar (talk) 15:22, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense, thanks! The Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk) 15:28, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@KeyolTranslater I'm pretty confident that is William. I looked him up and found https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/103240746/william_erasmus-darwin, which shows a picture of him looking quite similar to the picture here. You can even look at both pictures side-by-side. CabinetCavers----DEPOSIT OPINION, [valued customer] 15:24, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I see it now, came to a conclusion too quickly 😅 thanks for the help! The Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk) 15:28, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Always happy to help! Between work here and some genealogy I've been doing on my own time, I've gotten quite good at finding sources and pictures. CabinetCavers----DEPOSIT OPINION, [valued customer] 15:32, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ah you’re a fellow genealogy enthusiast, always happy to find another. Thanks for your help The Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk) 15:34, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We might want to stop talking. After all, WP:NOTSOCIAL exists. CabinetCavers----DEPOSIT OPINION, [valued customer] 15:35, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No worries it was just a passing comment. The Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk) 16:08, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well, sources shows that the kid is William.This is what the source tells about the picture.

The second is a daguerreotype of Darwin with his oldest son William, taken in 1842, when photography was exactly 3 years old (second image).  The photograph is notable because Darwin is showing the first signs of the illness that would afflict him the rest of his life. And yes, William is wearing a dress.

https://www.lindahall.org/about/news/scientist-of-the-day/charles-darwin-3/ TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 15:24, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I look like a right fool now for not knowing that 😅, I did know that males were dressed in dresses back then but I suppose I just forgot at that moment, well now I know, thanks for all the corrections. (Would it be worth noting that he is wearing a dress and this was taken before his breaching, others could stumble into the same issue as me and think that it’s a mistaken identity?) The Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk) 15:27, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Since the source mentions that this picture was taken before William’s breeching and also notes that he was wearing a dress. So, it would be reasonable to clarify that with a citation. That could help prevent similar confusion while staying faithful to the source. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 15:54, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I 100% think that is a good idea, I can do that now to prevent further confusion, at least some good has come out of my confusion 😅 that’s what makes Wikipedia a better place. The Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk) 16:11, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 16:19, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have been trying to edit a page I created many years ago about Alvan Ikoku Federal College of Education, Owerri, to reflect its new status as Alvan Ikoku Federal University of Education, Owerri, but the admin keeps reverting the page. My edit shows the transition from College to University. How do I get past this challenge? Admin's message is reproduced below: Page is Alvan Ikoku Federal College of Education

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Alvan Ikoku Federal College of Education—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 12:07, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirwebs (talk • contribs) 15:38, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Try messaging them. I think the talk page of that article with a ping to the admin in question would be good. I think you two can work this out. Pietrus1 (talk) 16:01, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, please remember to sign your comments when you leave them here or on similar pages.

You added a bunch of material—some about living people—with no citations. You removed cited material with no explanation. And you used non-standard formatting, including adding the name of the institution at the top of the page, in all-caps. None of that meets our standards.

Do you have a professional or personal relationship with the college? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:44, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

When I patrol recent changes looking for unconstructive edits, I often find some users engaging in the talk page with the intention to reach the subject of the article...be it an organization, a person etc. I want to be able to send a templated message saying something to the effect of "the talk page of an article does not establish communication with the subject itself but to engage in conversations regarding the article". However, I am unfamiliar with the process of creating templated messages/warnings. An option to include this either in Redwarn or Antivandal would be most appreciated. Thank you! _signed, Kvinnen (talk) 16:01, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to create templates for your personal use, the best way is to create them in a subpage of your userspace, and then you can invoke the template with curly brackets, like {{User:Kvinnen/example}} would transclude the contents of the page User:Kvinnen/example Athanelar (talk) 16:45, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I will attempt to do this. Thank you very much! _signed, Kvinnen (talk) 16:49, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you create a template you think could be useful more broadly, you're also completely able to create a new template in the Template: namespace. Athanelar (talk) 16:50, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any issue with creating them in userspace and then moving them to Templates? ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 14:18, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's also fine. You can create it in userspace, make sure it works properly etc and then move it to Template space if you want. Athanelar (talk) 15:10, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The Template:Uw-chat2 series probably covers many of these situations; you may (or may not) want to take a look, a copy, or consider proposing a tweak. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:52, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I will take a look a this too. Thanks! _signed, Kvinnen (talk) 17:02, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You can use WP:Twinkle to easily locate and use such templated messages. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:01, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If the problem is repeated by serval editors on one talk page, you can add {{Talkheader}} to the top of that page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:35, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I even created an article one week ago and it was declined. Why articles get declined? Zahrazamedahmedi (talk) 17:02, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zahrazamedahmedi! On Wikipedia, there is no guarantee that you get to write an article about anything you want. Unlike a wiki farm like Fandom with looser standards, every article on Wikipedia must fulfill our standard for notability by being discussed in multiple reliable secondary sources -- it needs to be something that fact-based publishers of information like newspapers or scientific journals care about. Your article did not meet this criterion, and did not have any sources at all to try to meet it. ✨ΩmegaMantis✨^(he/him) ❦blather | ☞spy on me 17:07, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thank you for a swift reply and thank you so much for the information. Kind Regards, Zahrazamedahmedi. Zahrazamedahmedi (talk) 17:18, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, Zahra. You should probably take a read through WP:What Wikipedia is not, which helps to clarify what sorts of things we have articles about and why. One important quote from that page is that [a fact, information, or the existence of a subject] merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. I have no doubt that Zaza is in fact a real player on the game PK XD, and that all of the information contained in that article about Zaza is true - but Wikipedia does not indiscriminately include articles about things merely because they exist.

Every article subject has to meet a standard that we call WP:Notability, which essentially means that somebody else wrote about that subject first. What our articles then do is summarise all the things that have been written about the subject by those other sources. We have standards that those sources have to meet for us to consider their coverage for this purpose, too.

If you look, for example, at the page for Albert Einstein, and go to the references section, you'll find things like a biography about him written by the Nobel foundation, or an article about his discovery of the theory of relativity, or an article about the things he wrote in his personal letters. The existence of this kind of significant coverage makes Einstein 'notable' according to Wikipedia, and so we create an article which summarises the information available about him in these sources.

In other words, Wikipedia is a tertiary source. We collect information available in secondary sources, nothing more, nothing less. Athanelar (talk) 17:27, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

hi, so the film High End by Antonia Campbell-Hughes stars Eva Green, Raffey Cassidy, and Alessandro Nivola! Look look, I know ya gonna say "provide a source 🙄", well my source is go to Eva Green's Filmography, it says she will be in the High End movie, and if you click the sources, it takes you to the site and it says Cassidy and Nivola will also be in the film! Can someone add that for me, pretty please? ~2026-13784-94 (talk) 17:38, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, can someone add High End to the Filmography of Raffey Cassidy and Alessandro Nivola pretty please? ~2026-13784-94 (talk) 17:50, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can make out from the web and IMDb, this project is still "in development" and/or pre-production (I may be mistaken about this) and does not yet have even a vague release date. A significant proportion of films in this stage of development fall through and are never completed or released: it is far too soon to start adding details to Wikipedia about it, whether in its own article (see WP:Too soon and WP:Crystal) or in others. I suggest you wait until the film has actually been (or at least is just about to be) released. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-76101-8 (talk) 22:46, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the standard for films/TV is that articles can be created once filming starts, since the vast majority do make it to release once that happens, but there has to be significant coverage. That mostly applies to sequels or subsequent seasons of projects that are already successful, since there's rarely enough detail on entirely new works that far out to prove notability. There may or may not be enough as it ramps up to the release, since larger projects often do media tours after filming wraps. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 14:15, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Its been 3 days, I try to expand articles I have passion on, I feel like a confused alien here and it doesn't feel very good, I want to improve stuff but I don't know how, I needed a teacher :( Tactical15 (talk) 18:14, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I just left some introductory links on your talk page; I'm sorry nobody thought to do so sooner.

You may also be interested in Wikipedia:Mentorship. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:49, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Alr,No probs. Im kinda hard to get as a teen but thanks for understanding. Tactical15 (talk) 19:05, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all, I tried to look it up in the WP:MOS but there's no mention of alphabetical sorting and there's no Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Food. I'm wondering if varieties of Donburi should be sorted alphabetically, and if this is the norm, or if the order is decided by something else. (If there is a resource that discusses this, I would be very grateful!) Acinonyxjubatusrex (talk) 19:42, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think the only time I've seen subsections in a specific order is when they're chronological. Aside from that I don't think it really matters. Putting more popular/prominent towards the top and rare or niche ones to the bottom seems to be fairly common. MOS:JAPAN would apply to the article in general, and there is MOS:LIST, but subsections aren't really a list, the way List of lists of lists is, for example - just simple text without going into detail. True lists like that can also be sorted various ways including but not limited to alphabetically per said MOS.

If you're so inclined, it would probably help that article more to add references. I bet you could find plenty that are usable in the main articles for the more popular varieties like unagi don. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 13:43, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I was browsing my watchlist, and came across Talk:Jaiden Animations which is full of discussions that are NOTAFOURM or not relevant in general. However, they're old and long enough that I hesitated to delete them, and I see that there's an archive for that talk page, so should I try to archive them or just delete them outright? Or just leave them? (Or if something happens before I get an answer, what should I have done?)

Pinging @LaffyTaffer because they've been active on the page and might have some insight as well. Realtent (talk) 19:48, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Realtent While I think that talk page can be a mess sometimes, I'm not sure I agree that there's any WP:NOTFORUM messages, all of the existing discussions are about potential improvements to the article as far as I can tell. NOTFORUM would apply to posts like "I'm trying to find a specific Jaiden Animations video" or "I thought it was really funny when Jaiden did [x] on stream yesterday", messages that aren't relevant to improving the Jaiden Animations article. ᴸᵃᶠᶠʸTaffer💬(they/she) 20:14, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I guess I suggested there were more than a handful when it's not a huge problem. "How can we ask Jaiden for permission" "How about this one" and "Does Jaiden live in Washington" I don't find much value in but I guess could be potential improvements. Realtent (talk) 20:22, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

hello! i need help editing a rejected draft of mine. the reason for rejection is source-related, so any help would be greatly appreciated (im very new to this)

Draft:Kets4eki - Wikipedia 404.seikoko (talk) 20:01, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. The good news is that your draft was only declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning in the draft process, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means that it may be resubmitted.

You need to show that this musician meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable musician, through significant coverage in independent reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 20:12, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all, I have a few more questions....

Q1: On Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/, there are five different entries that redirect to the same page, i.e. Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/China-_and_Chinese-related_articles:

• Manual of Style/China
• Manual of Style/China- and Chinese-related articles
• Manual of Style/China-related articles
• Manual of Style/China and Chinese-related articles
• Manual of Style/Chinese

I went to "edit source" on Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/ but realised the entries are automated, but I'm not sure how. Anyway, it would be great if the page could get cleaned up so there's just one entry and not five. Could someone point me in the right direction?

Q2: would teahouse staff prefer that I put multiple questions in one Teahouse question and just bullet point them, or submit an individual question for each query? I've been combing through the MOS and various but realise I still have a lot of questions... Acinonyxjubatusrex (talk) 20:41, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Acinonyxjubatusrex, and welcome to the Teahouse.

As you say, that page is automatically generated from all the pages that exist as subpages of WP:Manual of Style.

Some of these (indicated by being in italics) are to redirection pages - pages which simply redirect to another place, often because there is an alternative name or an alternative spelling under which people might look for that page or article.

That is the explanation for the multiple entries pointing to the same place, and there is nothing to be cleaned up: they are not intended for people looking at the list you found, but to help people who try searching for WP:Manual of Style/(something about China) to get to the right place. ColinFine (talk) 21:44, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ohhh ok, that explains a lot. Thank you! Acinonyxjubatusrex (talk) 21:48, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

How do I thank someone for a comment on desktop? When I'm on mobile there's a link to do so on every one, and that doesn't seem to exist on desktop. I feel like I'm missing something obvious. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 20:43, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

if you go to the 'view history' button, you should see a button that says 'thank' next to each edit, just after the edit summary. --DollarStoreBa'al^Converse 20:48, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that seems unnecessarily complicated. For once mobile handles it better. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 21:02, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You an switch to mobile view on desktop (and back; and vice versa) using the link at the foot of each page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:43, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yeah, but that kind of defeats the purpose of being on desktop. I don't think sending thanks should be something that requires much effort, let alone a workaround. The whole point is to have something simpler than adding a comment, right? ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 21:48, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You can propose a change on WP:Phabricator. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:04, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For me, no, that's not the point. "Thanking" already requires little effort, and I say that as a lazy person. If it required even less, thanks might proliferate and become as vapid as Facebook "likes". -- Hoary (talk) 23:29, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since they aren't displayed publicly and don't factor into either monetization or reach algorithms, they don't NEED to mean anything more than the word itself does. I use them when I appreciate someone's input and don't have anything else to add. What is the point if not that? I assumed it was to avoid clogging things up with a bunch of people just saying thanks. When I'm in the middle of reading a discussion (often on long pages like this with frequent edits) I'm not interested in digging back in the history to try to find a particular comment just to send one. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 00:41, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As they aren't displayed publicly and don't factor into either monetization or reach algorithms they do seem innocuous. So I retract my earlier moan on the subject. -- Hoary (talk) 01:55, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

They are displayed publicly though. You can see the thanks anyone has sent or received with Special:Log, using the 'thanks log' option. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 02:21, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the same as displaying them on the comment like it's a popularity contest. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 02:27, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't actually think this is a mobile vs desktop difference. Other wikis have this feature on desktop, such as simple (See Simple:Wikipedia:Simple talk) and Wikitionary (see wiktionary:Wiktionary:Information desk). 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 22:38, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably because someone coded them that way. I'm only active here and I have it on mobile but not on desktop 🤷‍♀️ I do wonder what the point is of having the elipses menu button with that as the only option, but whatever. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 00:44, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting - apparently there are some venues where that menu option doesn't exist, and mobile doesn't have any options in history view either so I have to swap INTO desktop mode to do it on those (and remember that the internal modes are different from my browser function, which basically just rearranges the layout but doesn't affect features). *Sigh*

I know this is minor in the grand scheme; it's just one of those things that niggles at me. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 11:23, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@ChompyTheGogoat I don't know if this is some personal preference setting, but for me, in a thread like this, every Reply is followed by 3 horizontal dots, which can be clicked to thank. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:44, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I'm referring to. I don't have it on desktop at all, and I ran across an area that didn't show it on mobile either. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 14:49, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am seeking guidance on the appropriate steps to establish a Wikipedia page for a business professional. My employer is the founder of his own company and the author of a book that details his personal journey, including the challenges and processes involved in building his business from the ground up. The book not only shares his professional experiences but also provides practical guidance for aspiring entrepreneurs. It offers comprehensive, step-by-step insights—from launching a business to understanding and calculating key financial figures. In addition to being an author, he owns and operates an equity funding company specializing in the acquisition of owner-financed properties. Could you please advise on the requirements, guidelines, and best practices for creating a Wikipedia page in compliance with Wikipedia’s standards? Thank you for your time and assistance. Best regards ~2026-13820-85 (talk) 21:07, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Others will have better worded advice than I, but I will say that you should be aware that a Wikipedia article is not necessarily desirable for a person.(click the link for more information) There are good reasons to not want one. It won't necessarily say what the subject might want it to say, and could potentially contain embarrassing information as long as is properly cited and accurate. Wikipedia is not a place to showcase someone- that's what social media is for. Wikipedia articles summarize what independent sources say about a topic, not what they might say about themselves and not mere documentation of their work and accomplishments. Please see Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 21:15, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:BOSS, WP:PAID and WP:COI. If writing about your employer, compliance with the latter pair is mandatory. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:41, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also WP:NEWLLM. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 21:51, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the world? ~2026-82500-9 (talk) 22:01, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's Wikipedia. Have you a question about using or editing Wikipedia? ColinFine (talk) 22:32, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the world, but you have access to most of the world's knowledge here. You can get a pretty good picture of what the world is like. --DollarStoreBa'al^Converse 18:56, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there!

I've been working on doing copyedits on some articles that look like they haven't been copyedited for a while. If I've copyedited a section, but feel it (or a smaller section within it) could still use additional copyediting, is there a different tag I should add? Could I change the date of the template that says it needs copyediting to the date of my recent copyedit? Or would asking the talk page if it's appropriate to remove the template be more appropriate? Thanks so much! Mikankiwis (talk) 22:23, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you think the copyediting has been done, you can just remove the maintenance template right away; there's no need to ask anybody.

If you still think it needs further work that you can't/don't want to do yourself, then yes; change the date of the copyediting tag to reflect the current date, to show that the article needs copyediting as of x date. Athanelar (talk) 22:32, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(also, be aware that there are three templates; {{copyedit}} {{copyedit section}} and {{copyedit inline}} to flag articles, sections/subsections and individual lines, respectively. Same goes for most maintenance tags.) Athanelar (talk) 22:33, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense, thanks for your help : ) Mikankiwis (talk) 22:41, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Do temporary account IP viewers see user agents? ~2026-13911-71 (talk) 22:25, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that is restricted to CheckUsers proper. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 22:27, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

TAIV does what it says on the tin; it allows people with that permission to see the underlying IP address below a temporary account. It's basically just like how on the old Wikipedia your IP address would be shown directly; you just need a special permission to see that now instead. Athanelar (talk) 22:31, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I think this article might need some help to keep it neutral - and that I'm not the appropriate one to do it, because my editing there is tainted by my extreme personal bias against its subject, to the point where I'm being repeatedly incivil for mere content disputes (in talk and edit summaries). I'm sorry. And I know I should refrain from that article from now.

I'm still concerned that the article might be under stress from PR efforts, I invite fellow WPdians to watchlist it in place of me - anyone would be better guards than me.

Again, I'm sorry. No need to hesitate if you want to highlight instances where my behaviour is bad; I'm so emotional I don't even know where exactly did I went off the line.

Thank you, and have a productive day! :) iris 7:26a (+8) 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk} 23:26, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I would. Except I am like you, in the fact that I think databrokers are the scum of the earth that need to be enveloped by Jell-o and suffocated. --DollarStoreBa'al^Converse 18:57, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I have been working on a draft for Ramila Meghwal, a political leader from Rajasthan. I would appreciate it if an experienced editor could review the draft for "Mainspace" readiness.

She currently serves as the President of the Jalore District Congress Committee (DCC), having been appointed by the All India Congress Committee (AICC) in August 2023. She was also a candidate in the 2023 Rajasthan Legislative Assembly election for the Jalore (SC) seat, where she secured over 64,000 votes (approx. 35% of the vote share).

I have included the following reliable sources in the draft:

• AICC Official Appointment: The formal press release from August 2023 confirming her leadership role.
• Election Commission of India (ECI): Official candidate affidavit and detailed 2023 election results.
• Media Coverage: News links from The Hindu, Dainik Bhaskar, and First India regarding her nomination and organizational role.

I have aimed for a neutral, encyclopedic tone and followed the guidelines for political notability in India. Could someone please review the citations and layout to see if it's ready to be published?

Thank you for your time and help! Nishant208 (talk) 02:44, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please give us the link to your draft. It seems like you don't have a draft in the given name

Draft:Ramila Meghwal, The name of the draft is shown in red. So, is there really a draft in that name. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 04:11, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You can check now I have moved draft to Ramila Meghwal Nishant208 (talk) 04:41, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's at User:Nishant208/sandbox, Nishant208. At its head, I read: Are you ready to request review of it by an experienced editor for possible inclusion in Wikipedia? Submit your draft for review. So if you're ready for the request, then submit. -- Hoary (talk) 04:17, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Hoary TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 04:30, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Is it good to go. Any suggestions Nishant208 (talk) 04:47, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well, add more citations to Media coverage and public image TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 04:51, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have added more citations to media coverage and public image.

Any thing else for improvement. Nishant208 (talk) 05:00, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also add her Haryanvi name like this Ramila Meghwal (Haryanvi: idk, you write) TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 05:04, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Why would I write hrayanvi name Nishant208 (talk) 05:08, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Look at these articles

Girogi Jincharzarie

Hala Al-Qadi

Moon Jeong-hee

Moon Jae-in,etc TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 05:12, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Nishant208, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Please note that 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.

Official election results and press releases are primary sources, and of very limited use for a Wikipedia article, and no use at all for establishing that the subject meets the criteria for notability.

Sources from major newspapers may be more useful, but only if they are secondary sources with significant coverage of the subject: see golden rule. ColinFine (talk) 10:43, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Is it good to go. Nishant208 (talk) 10:45, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Nishant208 please do NOT add her name in Haryanvi (as you say, why Haryanvi?), Rajasthani, Hindi or any other non-latin script, as that would contravene WP:NOINDICSCRIPT.
The four points you have listed in the references section need to be added in the appropriate place in the article, the social media removed from the External links and infobox and the image moved into the infobox.
However, as she appears to be just a regional party official, not an elected representative (losing doesn't count), I suspect she may not meet the notability criteria at WP:POLITICIAN, so she would need to meet the General notability guideline. I think you should submit the draft through the Articles for creation process where this could be assessed, so I have added the appropriate "Submit for review" button to the draft. Best wishes. - Arjayay (talk) 10:50, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I forgot about the WP:NOINDICSCRIPT. Thanks for telling. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 11:10, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

now I have improved. Nishant208 (talk) 11:45, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

should I submit for review Nishant208 (talk) 13:14, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I have been doing the suggested edits for awhile, and have come across two articles for football/soccer players that are written with extremely bias for the player, most likely written by a fan. Micheal Galea is the example I found today (unfortunately I cant seem to dig up the one I found earlier :( ). I personally don't feel like the right person to fix these fully, as I don't have an interest in the sport and don't know any of the terms, but for future reference, would it be better to try and reword what is already there, or try to build a new page from the ground up for pages like this? I would love to hear others opinions on this! Gordonthefreedman (talk) 04:14, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Micheal Galea looks more like a fandom page than a WIkipedia page, due to words like "Michael lived up to his class" , "In a highly disappointing 2006–2007 season" and "He managed to score no less than 14 goals in the 1997–1998 season: TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 04:34, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Gordonthefreedman, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Thank you for bringing this up.

When you find a problem in an article, the best think to do for Wikipedia's benefit is to fix it; but often we don't have the time, or the interest, or the knowledge to do so. One approach is to add a suitable maintenance template (for example {{POV}}) - that at least warns other readers and editors that there may be a problem.

There is no requirement on you to do anything at all to it; but if you wish to, you are perfectly entitled to simply remove the most egregious POV material from it.

Probably the most useful thing you could do is to look for sources that meet the golden rule. If you can find some, you can add them to the article ; if you can't, that's a very good indication that the subject is not notable and you could take it to articles for deletion. But that certainly takes some work.

If you haven't already got Twinkle installed, you will find that installing and using it helps with some of those steps (though not with searching for sources!). ColinFine (talk) 10:52, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Woah, thank you! I haven't heard of Twinkle before, I will be sure to download it! I was considering taking it to deletion, but again I know so little about the sport that I have no clue if someone is well known or not lol. Again, thank you so much, this will definitely be helpful for me (and I hope others)! Gordonthefreedman (talk) 22:16, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, so I recently start a merge proposal. Despite adding a message on the wikiprojects there doesn't seem to be much response.

Also as a side note is there a closing process like WP:RM or can it be closed at any time?

I could get some input here maybe? Discussion: Talk:London (disambiguation)

Thanks, Jacksonvil (talk|contribs) 05:16, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Mary%27s_Forane_Church,_Thankey - please someone help in improving the article, by giving necessary corrections and edits. Please Tellmethetruth555 (talk) 06:20, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Tellmethetruth555, you have an invitation on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LAWRENCE PRAVEEN THOMAS to present reasons for other editors to disbelieve a claim that you're merely another name of the block evader LAWRENCE PRAVEEN THOMAS. So far, you haven't responded. Better attend to that first. Though if you'd prefer to skip that chore, then one of us could block you and "draftify" or delete the article whose improvement you're asking for. -- Hoary (talk) 06:33, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, [REDACTED], This user page is definitely a sock-puppet. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 07:17, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

TheGreatEditor024, I've redacted your comment out of an abundance of caution because I suspect it constitutes WP:OUTING. If you have off-wiki evidence of sockpuppetry, it should not be shared publicly on-wiki, particularly where it might reveal an editor's real identity. Athanelar (talk) 12:38, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

i know, thats why I just said that i am ready to share only if the administrators ask me because I didn't know if it was a violation or not. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 13:31, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your original comment here stated this editor's real, full name in public. It's in another thread where you said you were willing to share it privately. Athanelar (talk) 13:32, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ohhh okay, I said his name because the above message did reveal his name. I mean the message by Hoary. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 13:48, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The above message speculates that the account is linked to another account which has a particular username. That is not the same thing as stating outright that you can confirm a user account is linked to an email address with a particular real person's name.

Please do have a read through WP:OUTING. In general, you should never publicly confirm on-wiki a link between somebody's Wikipedia account and any off-wiki information about that person, such as their real name or email address.

Posting another editor's personal information is unacceptable, unless that person has voluntarily posted their own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia. Emphasis from the original source. Athanelar (talk) 13:51, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, Thank you for the link. I am gonna read that now. I am really sorry for messing up, TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 14:00, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It happens. The editor has now confirmed their connection to that account and name on their talk page anyway. Athanelar (talk) 14:03, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Athanelar the blocked user sent me a mail, telling that he didn't know anything related to Wikipedia and he actually wanted a mentor. He is sending mails to me because I helped him in one of his drafts. What should I say. I really don't know. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 13:50, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You can encourage them to submit an unblock request following the instructions which have been posted on their talk page, though it seems they've already pledged to undergo the WP:STANDARDOFFER and wait 6 months. Athanelar (talk) 13:52, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Should I mail him or reply in his talk page. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 13:54, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Either's fine. Athanelar (talk) 14:00, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Done, I sent a reply to his mail. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 14:00, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Btw Thank you so much TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 13:31, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be possible to include in the main Wikipedia page the subject of the conflict with Iran in the Ongoing section? (This is the part which includes the war in Ukraine and the Sudanese civil war)~2026-12178-57 (talk) 07:35, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@~2026-12178-57 Hello! You certainly can nominate the topic/related topics at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates, although the conflict would not be listed under "ongoing" since it is already featured under the In the news section. If the conflict continues and more events get covered with short blurbs under In the news, then it would likely be added under Ongoing. GGOTCC 08:18, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it won't be put in ongoing until the blurb rolls off the ITN box. 331dot (talk) 09:02, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In the Iron Lung (film)#Critical response, {{efn}} is used {{efn|Multiple references:<ref name=":0" /><ref name=":1" /><ref name=":2" /><ref name=":3" /><ref name=":4" /><ref name=":5" /><ref name="IndieWire" /><ref name="Variety" /><ref name="HorrorPress" />}} but in the article Myers–Briggs Type Indicator, {{refn}} is used instead. {{refn|Attributed to multiple sources:<ref name=v512/><ref name="Schweiger"/>{{sfn|Stein|Swan|2019}}{{sfn|Thyer|Pignotti|2015}}{{sfn|Lilienfeld|Lynn|Lohr|2014}}}} Which is the correct one? Toarin (talk) 08:05, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Efn is for footnotes. I don't believe that's a proper way to insert citations, even though the note itself does contain the refs. Refn added a "master" reference containing the rest, so it shows as a correct inline citation.

Open to correction if there's a guideline that says otherwise. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 08:18, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing wrong with just having multiple inline citations one after the other if a claim is attributed to multiple sources. Obviously you don't want to chain like 4 citations in a row, but 2 or even 3 is fine and I have seen used. Athanelar (talk) 12:35, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Both of those have a significant number - likely because the statements being supported are controversial opinions, so they're wanting to show that numerous reputable sources have all said it. Particularly for MTBI given there have already been disputes over neutrality on that article. Leaving them inline would look like refbombing, but I can see why they wanted to show more proof than normal, so used this route to condense them. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 12:43, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I was just watching Bloomburg at3:30am. What else does a 77-year-old Hippie listen to without going crazy. I do watch BBC WORLD NEWS. I looked up how many billionaires per country there were. I'M GLAD I GIVE TO WIKIPEDIA! ~2026-13856-79 (talk) 08:30, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:53, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Following disagreements regarding edits on a page, I would like to flag the behaviour of @GenoV84 who has been making unwelcome comments on my talk page. I do not think this rises to the level of harassment at this point, but this feels abusive, including with personal accusations. Having been around a little, I think I know better than to directly respond and escalate; however, it feels like a behaviour that should be addressed. I would welcome some recommendations to this effect. Tagging @Cambial Yellowing who was involved in these messages (in a supportive way). Julius Schwarz (talk) 09:31, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Julius Schwarz Discussion on your talk page is already over. Don't cry for help elsewhere and take responsibility for your own mistakes. Move on. GenoV84 (talk) 09:36, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate you making my point for me. Julius Schwarz (talk) 09:42, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - From reading this entire situation as an uninvolved editor, both of you probably need to read WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL and WP:KETTLE. ★ Campssitie (msg) (contribs) 🧋🏖 10:27, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Campssitie, thanks for chipping in. And, yes, there are probably two sides to this situation, not just my own. From my perspective, I admit that my reverts can, as always, be disputed -- although I believe I have sufficient experience with people going around changing ideologies/positions without adequate sources or discussion; but then the article's talk page is the place for this. This is what I encouraged in my reply. Instead, my issue is the immediate name-calling, accusations of ganging up (while @Cambial Yellowing responded even before I saw @GenoV84's posts), etc. Good faith is admittedly a little hard to assume there, and it seems like a bit of a pattern. Julius Schwarz (talk) 10:37, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You might start with WP:DRN for the article in question, plus a request that they avoid your user page. If that doesn't suffice WP:ANI might be necessary. Just tread cautiously, as they have a tendency to WP:BOOMERANG. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 11:35, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Or rather - try to address it on the article TP before DRN, if that hasn't happened yet, but do be cautious about not escalating outside of the content dispute itself. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 11:37, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice, @ChompyTheGogoat. I think I will wait and see what steps the user takes, if any. If that behaviour continues, then I will consider further action. All the best. Julius Schwarz (talk) 12:23, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Context missed The good faith efforts to read the entire situation are welcome, but uninvolved editors have apparently missed relevant context. The version to which Julius reverted is the consensus version, as pointed out by Julius to GenoV84 here. That consensus was reached with a reasonably lengthy discussion involving at least eight editors and reference to ~30 sources. The notion Julius was "disruptive" in doing so does not bear the tiniest scrutiny. Moreover, given the existing agreed consensus, the burden is on GenoV84 to demonstrate consensus has changed. Cambial — foliar❧ 17:27, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have been working on a Wikipedia draft and received an email from someone saying they can help me with writing the draft. It was signed by someone named Asher. It landed as a known spam in my email so I thought I had better check this out . I went to safari to do a search on the email address and when I returned to the suspect email to record the sender and source of the email it had vanished. I did not delete or trash the email. Very strange. Is Wikipedia aware of fraudsters offering help services. Mouse1948 (talk) 13:16, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is a very common scam. No legitimate Wikipedia editor or anybody affiliated with the Wikimedia Foundation will ever reach out to you to offer editing services in exchange for payment. Wikipedia editing is done strictly by volunteers who do so with no expectation of or desire for compensation in return. If anybody contacts you like this again, please report the exchange to paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org. Athanelar (talk) 13:40, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I went to the spam section of my email and managed resurrect the email. It was signed " Asher Consultant Wiki Submissions"

I just received a reply while writing this confirming my suspicions. Thanks Mouse1948 (talk) 13:42, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Mouse1948 Do not reply to this 'consultant,' simply forward the entire email exchange to paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org and let them handle it. Athanelar (talk) 13:44, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sent copy of scam email to paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org Mouse1948 (talk) 14:22, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I found an account called 'AzoraSkybound'.

Has no edits to any page except the userpage.

Completely new but the user page is formatted pretty well which is unusual for a new user. SomnambulantFish _talk ∫ ^contribs 13:19, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing particularly unusual about that. They're probably copying what they've seen on other userpages. Athanelar (talk) 13:38, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of an example Barnstar section seems to support that. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 13:48, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

SomnambulantFish, I have been editing on Wikipedia for over 20 years without ever feeling the need to open an account. If I ever do, I will obviously not look like a new user. Doubtless out of the 100,000+ other regular editors, some are in a similar situation and would present the same 'unusual' appearance. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-76101-8 (talk) 14:20, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Lol guys I'm just doing the user page first before editing. How'd you find my account tho? AzoraSkybound (talk) 15:50, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Probably via recent changes.   Metal Breaks And Bends   (talk) (contribs) 15:55, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Lol why you watching that? AzoraSkybound (talk) 17:14, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RCPATROL is a very common method of vandalism prevention. Athanelar (talk) 17:36, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

So you think I'm vandalising? AzoraSkybound (talk) 17:39, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No, RC captures all edits, and some types of vandalism or other indicators of poor behavior require going through large volumes of good edits.   Metal Breaks And Bends   (talk) (contribs) 17:43, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. AzoraSkybound (talk) 17:45, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

someone is making edits under my account on another Divice Julie Crowell (Ask me a question) 13:29, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have reported your account as compromised, which may lead to your account being blocked until the situation is resolved. See WP:HACKED for further guidance. Namely, you should probably change your password and set up 2-factor authentication. Athanelar (talk) 13:36, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

thanks Julie Crowell (Ask me a question) 13:42, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys,

My passion is contemporary art (even though it has nothing to do with my profession) and I wanted to contribute to the recognition of a larger group of young French artists, especially from the Occitanie region. I closely follow articles in regional cultural magazines and see interesting exhibitions of young art. I'm impressed by the work of artists from our region like Kader Benchamma, Jimmy Richer, Kate Wyrembelska and others... I started writing an article about the latter (link: [2], but it was rejected, even though she had a large solo exhibition at the Centre for Contemporary Art in Montpellier: Espace Saint-Ravy; and she has participated in many other prestigious group exhibitions. She recently created a beautiful work of art in a public space for the GGL development group/Helenis. She is now nominated for the "Outstanding Pole Abroad" competition organized by the Polish Embassy in Lyon in the Culture category. I don't know well the Wikipedia codes, and I'm wondering what exactly was the reason for the rejection: my poor writing style? Or rather, the topic itself? Can I somehow modify the article, simplify it, to make it acceptable, or is that pointless? Is it a good idea to commission someone with more experience to write it? Could someone help me? Thanks in advance for your help! Loic, sci fantaisie Scifantaisie (talk) 14:52, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The reason your draft was declined is outlined in the large reddish decline notice at the top of the page, as well as the reviewer comments just below. Read those and look at the pages linked therein, and it will probably clarify some of your confusion.

Is it a good idea to commission someone with more experience to write it? No, and you should be aware of scams that target editors like you. Athanelar (talk) 15:25, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

The fact that you have a particular topic area that you want to contribute to is great; but please note that "to contribute to the recognition" of anything or anybody is exactly what we mean on Wikipedia by promotion, and it is forbidden.

If there is enough independent, reliable information published about one of the artists in question, you are certainly welcome to create a draft about them (though see my last paragraph below). But if there happens not to be, then you will be wasting your time trying to do so.

If you do create a draft and it is accepted, then the article might indeed contribute to their recognition: but there is no guarantee. Suppose, for example, that one of your artists had been involved in something dreadful, nothing to do with their art, and the news reports on them were mostly about that not about their art: then an article about them would be mostly about that, and not about their art - even if you wrote it about their art, others would in time edit it to match the sources better, and you could not stop them.

This is not a likely scenario, I know; but it is a reason not to create an article about somebody for their benefit. (See also an article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing.)

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 16:15, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

My post here got archived without any replies, so I'm trying again. Here's my original post. I'll copy-paste it below: (side-note, why didn't I get any replies? It seems like every other post has. Did I do something wrong?)

Hi all! I've attempted an "overhaul" of the List of Irish mammals page. It's on my sandbox. Here's what I've done:

1. Made the whole page be mostly reliant on 2 primary sources (for consistency, and to clean up the ref list)
2. Made the IUCN ratings be specifically the global ratings, instead of a mish-mash between global and local (the Irish ratings are all just LC, so they're kind of pointless to include)
3. Updated pictures to be either from Ireland, the UK, or to just be higher-quality in general
4. General polish and formatting changes that IMO make it a little easier to read

Note that I'm not looking for technical feedback about Wiki formatting etc, I've edited Wikipedia a little before (I only registered an account now), so I'm familiar with how it all works. I'm more so looking for general feedback to make sure everyone likes what I've done, before I go ahead and change the actual page. Thanks in advance! Let Me Edit It (talk) 15:08, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Be bold! There's no need to ask permission before you make improvements to a page. Do it, and if somebody takes issue with it, then they can revert it and you can start a discussion with them. Athanelar (talk) 15:23, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I recently came across this article in the wikilink editing list. It has multiple issues (most of which are marked by templates on the page), many of which are characteristic of AI-generated content. Some factors: a lack of wikilinks, a lack of inbound links, a need for additional citations and vague, disjointed topics. It also ranks 82% AI-generated on GPTZero. I know this is not a surefire way to determine AI content, but combined with all of the other factors, it does make this article more likely to not conform to the rules of Wikipedia.

One other oddity that I noticed is the fact that all of the references were accessed on the same day, which would be strange for a human writer.

I came to the Teahouse to see what others thought about this. Thanks! Paolo Roland Self (talk) 15:33, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if it's AI, but it's definitely... shall we say 'really, really bad'? It's in desperate need of a rewrite for sure. I'll see what I can do. --DollarStoreBa'al^Converse 19:05, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that you nominated the article for deletion. Thanks! Paolo Roland Self (talk) 03:48, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Paolo, welcome to the Teahouse!

After a good look at the text in article itself, it seems to me it does emphasize some characteristics of the AI-generated language that you have pointed out, and with my observation, It additionally seems to frequently present information in sets of three, which is a quirk shared by many LLMs.

But, as the other commenter stated, It may not actually be LLM-generated, but definitely needs some kind of heavy rewriting, since it has an abundance of issues.

If you think this is a possible misuse of AI, I recommend sending this over to the AI cleanup noticeboard, but for a last resort. Best regards! ★ Campssitie (msg) (contribs) 🧋🏖 19:15, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the warm welcome! An other commenter nominated it for deletion, which is appropriate, I think. Paolo Roland Self (talk) 03:50, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The surest sign it was AI generated is the fact that the very first edit has a pre-declined {{AFC submission}} tag already there. It was declined before being submitted. AIs do this a lot. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 19:35, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That does make sense. Thanks! Paolo Roland Self (talk) 03:50, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

how to edit hindu yuva vahini details as hindu yuva vahini is registered and trademarked. need your support in this content Vikram1712 (talk) 15:57, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Hindu Yuva Vahini. Looking at the talk page, users need to be extended-confirmed before they can edit that article. This means that your account needs to have existed for 30 days, and you need to have made 500 edits whilst logged in. Does that help? You can also request a change to the article on its Talk page using Template:Edit extended-protected. You will need to supply citations for any information you want to add. Tacyarg (talk) 16:21, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"registered and trademarked" is irrelevant to Wikipedia.

If your position is that being "registered and trademarked" means we can't write about it, or affects what we write about it, please read WP:No legal threats, before you edit or comment further. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:39, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Vikram1712. If your concern is that a trademark is being used in a Wikipedia article without an icon to show this, then please read MOS:TRADEMARK. We do not use symbols such as ™ or ® in Wikipedia articles. ColinFine (talk) 18:25, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I found a user with a userpage that was written to appear like a regular wikipedia article on a living person. I'm pretty sure this is not allowed? Where would be the best place to report this / inform them? 🐟sea cat :3 (talk) 16:51, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Walking-sea-cat I took a look around, and it seems like they are violating WP:FAKEARTICLE. Consider pinging them on their talk page to let them know and give them time to fix it. If they are deliberately making a hoax, it might be more serious. Consider pinging an admin if it comes to that or if they are refusing to change the content of their page. --DollarStoreBa'al^Converse 17:59, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Walking-sea-cat Could you please link this page when you get the chance? --DollarStoreBa'al^Converse 18:49, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Akhtarkarate

i left a message on the talk page 🐟sea cat :3 (talk) 18:53, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If it is a genuine attempt to write an article, then it should be in a draft or sandbox, to avoid confusing people that come across the user page. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:25, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I made a report on ANI less than an hour ago[3] on another editor's disruptive behavior and was told to file a Wikipedia:3O or WP:DRN instead. However, the discussion so far has been scattered across edit comments, user talk page, and ANI, Should I recap all those discussions for the purpose of 3O, or is linking to them enough? Thanks! PetéWarrior (talk) 16:51, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to recap all of the external discussion about the conflict itself, just provide the details of the content dispute so it can be resolved. Athanelar (talk) 18:00, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Off topic
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
How many names does it take to resurrect the dead? ~2026-13977-34 (talk) 17:25, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply] @~2026-13977-34 From my calculations, it looks like around 5,200, give or take a few hundred depending on the size and amount of people you're resurrecting. --DollarStoreBa'alConverse 17:55, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply] I heard its 215. ~2026-13977-34 (talk) 18:37, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply] You probably made a mistake in the calculations. They're quite complex. I'm Ba'al. I'd know. --DollarStoreBa'alConverse 18:49, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, is there a template or tool I can place on my user page that automatically lists the drafts or articles I created? Live counter kind of LionmerterTHE (talk) 18:08, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No, because the computation requirements of providing a templste that will constantly live call an editor's edit/article/draft count would be huge if a lot of people used it. Athanelar (talk) 18:19, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there is a template that lists all subpages of a page. For example, on your user page you could have

{{PrefixIndex|User:LionmerterTHE/|stripprefix=1|hideredirects=1|colwidth=20em}}

Which currently shows as:

• sandbox

...because that's the only subpage you have on User:LionmerterTHE.

But using it to list your drafts would be unnecessarily complicated; it's simpler simply to list the articles you've created on your user page, like everyone else does. See my user page for example. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 19:30, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have long wished to create a page detailing the newspaper for whom I worked over 20 years, the South Yorkshire Times. It was staple diet in its readership area, and still commands a reduced readership.I have copies of pre-WW2 pages detailing the family paper's 'ancestry'. But every time I start, I get bogged down in attempting to create links, and generally format the page. Writing is no problem. Formatting is a nightmare. WikiTramp 1942 (talk) 18:18, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Before you even think about writing or formatting the article, you will need to find sources that demonstrate the article meets our inclusion criteria for organisations and companies. The article which you then create needs to be a summary of the information available in those sources. You must not write the article based on what you know and then find sources to confirm it, that's called writing an article backwards and inevitably results in disaster. For a full guide, Help:Your first article is a good resource. Athanelar (talk) 18:27, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @WikiTramp 1942, and welcome to the Teahouse.

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. (I know your account has been around for a long time, but with only nine edits in your history, I think still applies!) ColinFine (talk) 18:29, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed that Wikipedia occasionally features site-wide banners to acknowledge cultural and religious observances like Ramadan. Given Wikipedia's commitment to global neutrality, I’m curious about the specific criteria used to determine which observances receive this level of visibility—for instance, why a banner might be implemented for Ramadan but not for a period like Lent? Is this based on geographic readership metrics, editor community proposals, or a specific set of cultural inclusion guidelines? ~2026-14052-57 (talk) 18:35, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's based on the criterion of "users being arsed to do it". —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:48, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

meta:Wiki Loves X campaigns have the details on these banners and their associated campaigns.

Namely, Anyone can start a Wiki Loves X campaign at any time. If you want Wiki Loves Lent campaign, then you're welcome to do it. Athanelar (talk) 19:16, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The banner wasn't acknowledging Ramadan, but inviting editors to participate in an editing contest related to it (Wiki Loves Ramadan). We are currently holding a similar editing contest (Feminism and Folklore), which also received a banner. We typically hold editing contests for topics that have a low amount of coverage or a large amount of low quality articles on Wikipedia. Considering lent is Christian (thus being a large part of the Western world), it has received a lot of coverage on Wikipedia. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 19:20, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I'm trying to publish a draft for a Wikipedia page for Yuhihai, which is UCLA's Annual Intercollegiate Invitational Kendo Tournament, however it keeps getting declined. I noticed that Harvard's Shoryuhai got a page with less sources than what we have. I was wondering what kinds of articles/sources do you guys want from us in order to get approved, and what did Harvard do that we didn't? Itslaaadoorman (talk) 19:43, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Itslaaadoorman, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Wikipedia has tens of thousands of articles which if they were submitted for review today would not get accepted. Unfortunately, not many editors are keen to spend the considerable amount of time working on them to either improve them or delete them. (see WP:Other stuff exists).

Shoryuhai has been tagged for two years as needing additional citations. I very much suspect that it does not meet the requirements for notability, and should be deleted, but I haven't the interest to do the work required.

We review a draft article on its own merits, not against existing articles.

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

Unless you can find at least three sources each of which satisfies all the criteria in WP:42 - being reliably published, completely unconnected with Yuhihai and UCLA, and containing significant coverage of the competition - there will be no point in spending any more time on this endeavour. ColinFine (talk) 20:00, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

hello! i'm a bit new to editing wikipedia (i have done some reading about the policies and stuff though) and i noticed an article that seemed to use a lot of not neutral sounding words like "he was an unusually talented musician" and I wanted to improve it but I just wasn't really sure how to go about doing so. I would like some advice or maybe help with it

Alexei Stanchinsky <-- this was the article ImageWizard (talk) 21:23, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

ImageWizard, you're right to be suspicious. But on "he was an unusually talented musician", what the article actually says is: "At the age of six, it was apparent that Alexei was an unusually talented musician as he was already performing piano works of the masters." Within that, "the masters" is vague; and even if we take them to be those then rated highest among composers for the piano, perhaps we need to say whether we are or aren't including the works they may have written expressly for neophyte pianists. Still, even with these ambiguities, I wouldn't call this an intolerably promotional description.

The prose is unsuitably dramatic in places. Sample: "However, after one major event all his work would come crashing down before him."

A problem is that quite a bit of the content doesn't seem to be referenced. Another is some of this is attributed to a master's thesis. A link to the thesis is provided, but the link doesn't work (or anyway didn't work for me, a few minutes ago).

Other cited sources are described fairly helpfully, but not as helpfully as they could/should be. (ISBNs? DOIs? ...)

This is an article that would merit critical (but sympathetic) attention. If you haven't yet done this kind of work on an article, I suggest putting Stanchinsky aside till you've gained experience with other articles for which more sources are -- or anyway are claimed to be -- available on the web. But after that, do please return to it. -- Hoary (talk) 23:12, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

thank you :] i will keep that in mind ImageWizard (talk) 00:41, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I recently found a citation (^[1]) with an original URL that goes to a 404 and an archived URL which goes to an endless loading screen. I did a new search on Wayback for the page, and found that the blue snapshots take me to a redirect. Is there any other way to access this webpage? Are there other web archives which we are still allowed to use for WP? OrdinaryOtter (talk) 22:28, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@OrdinaryOtter Hello and welcome to the Teahouse! I have found working URLs from April 30, 2007 to August 4, 2009, so maybe you would like to look through and replace the current archive URL. As for your second question, see Wikipedia:List of web archives on Wikipedia. Jolly1253 (talk) 04:17, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I keep trying to make an article for the holiday Bomellida, if you do not know what that is, you can search on Google and easily find it, but I'm starting to think I'm getting stalked by this same moderator, every time I make an article, even if it fully complies in the Wikipedia guidelines, oops, your article just got deleted by the same moderator! Anyways, I think I'm getting stalked, and since they're a moderator, you can't do anything because they're a "trusted" user. Not trying to be on purpose rude, but do better, Wikipedia, I know you can. Cooliglazeddonutzer (talk) 22:44, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Did you create the article using AI? (Like ChatGPT, Gemini, Meta AI, Claude, etc.) If you did, the admin could have deleted it under G15 speedy deletion criteria; if not you could post it to drafftspace and work on it until posting it for revieew via AfC. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 23:16, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping: DoubleGrazing. FYI, instead of moderators/mods we have administrators. It seems they deleted three pages you created, those being Draft:Media Posts Official, Bomellida, and your userpage. Bomellida was deleted for three reasons combined: A7 (no indication of importance), G11 (unambiguous advertising or promotion), and G15 (LLM/AI generated page). I can't speak for how the page looked as I am not an administrator, but G11-able pages tend to have not only promotional language, but their only sourcing tends to only be non-independent sources e.g. for an article on a company being G11ed the only source would be the company's website. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 23:24, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Cooliglazeddonutzer The screeds on your userpage and at Draft:Moderatrolling will not do you any favours. Athanelar (talk) 00:41, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

page is [[overview of Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations]]. Thanks! Bhdshoes2 (talk) 23:41, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed! SenshiSun (talk) 00:05, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anyone who can review this article under the Film section? MailJail (talk) 01:41, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you've submitted the article for review, you simply need to wait for a volunteer to review the article. Posting here likely won't make it happen any sooner. There are around 700 nominations waiting to be reviewed in no particular order.

Check out the the getting started page for things you can do while you wait! SnowyRiver28 (talk) 02:17, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Follow the process here: Wikipedia:Good article nominations Pietrus1 (talk) 03:38, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

how can we write article about m II ~2026-14187-38 (talk) 03:40, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]