Wikipedia:Teahouse

as First Journalist from Africa Accredited in The United Nations Office at Geneva, Switzerland

Hi, On July 12, 2000 I got my first permanent accréditation in The UN Office at Geneva, Switzerland and was congratulated by the Press Officer at the time, Ms, Cathy FEGLI, French, as the first journalist from Africa. How can you assist in creating a page for me.

I have a brother on wikipedia SYDNEY ONAYEMI, first DJ in Sweden HolyMichaelGeez (talk) 01:38, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HolyMichaelGeez, the simple answer is "We can't". I suspect that you are confusing Wikipedia with LinkedIn or similar. Don't be surprised if you are contacted by persons offering to create an article about you for payment. Most of these people will deceive you or are plain incompetent (or both), so be sure not to pay anything. -- Hoary (talk) 02:22, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HolyMichaelGeez, please read WP:FAMOUS 🐲Jothefiredragon🔥talk🧨contributions✨log🐉 07:54, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have to ask, why do you want a Wikipedia article about you? Publicity? Ego? Neither of those are good reasons. The best reason is if someone else unconnected to you thinks you merit an article, and writes one. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 22:31, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Create your user page DeezNutzS16 (talk) 15:02, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone,

I submitted the draft Draft:Arman Darian for review a little over two months ago, but it’s still waiting in the review queue. I understand there are many pending submissions, but I just wanted to kindly ask if someone could please take a look at it when possible, or let me know if there’s anything I can improve to help the process move forward.

Thank you very much for your time and help! 🙏 Armand2017 (talk) 13:16, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Armand2017 The delay is probably because several references are in languages few can check properly. You could improve the draft by making it conform to MOS:BOLD and by using WP:Named references where you have duplication. I've added the usual sectioning for the references themselves. Adding some Projects to the talkpage may help: see the "Improving your odds of a speedy review" link in the box at the top of the draft. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:30, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Armand2017 There is a field in the citations template for a "translated title". In your article, suggest click on the citations that are in Hebrew and add a "translated title" in English for each. MmeMaigret (talk) 14:00, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It looks to me like you didn't actually write that article, but you let an AI write it for you. We generally don't like that, AIs tend to make messes that reviewers aren't willing to clean up. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 22:36, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Armand2017 (1) Have a look at WP:COI and see if you need to declare a conflict of interest. (2) Has Darian been feature in any publications? ie, not just a mention but a feature article? MmeMaigret (talk) 14:13, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all,

I'm currently making an article on the song Peace of Mind by the Killers. The song was originally released on a 10th anniversary reissue of Sam's Town on October 7, 2016, and had not been available prior to this, but was also released as a single from the reissue on that same day. My question is, do I include the vinyl release information in the release history section of Peace of Mind or just the single release?

Thanks, SassafrassAlabass (talk) 19:30, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can think of no reason for not mentioning the vinyl release. However your current wording of the lede needs some work:

'"Peace of Mind" is a song by American rock band the Killers, released a single [sic] on the remastered double vinyl . . .'

is confusing and contradictory. (I take it the single release was online only, not in any physical format?)

I suggest you simplify this lede sentence to something like:

'"Peace of Mind" is a song by American rock band the Killers, released in 2016.',

and transfer the further details to the Background and release section below.

Incidentally, I think the usual format for song titles is to use single quote marks rather than double, as you have done, and to italicise album titles. Hope this helps. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.193.153.108 (talk) 09:16, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do not want people to email me, but every time I turn it off in settings (I do click the save button and turn it off in global settings), it just resets whenever I leave the page and come back. How do I fix this or do I just have to keep it on. Longhorncowfish (talk) 19:37, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you have to keep it n and not reset it again and gain, as this may cause the beta preferences to malfunction. The Cunning Eagle^talk 23:39, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I’m seeking a second opinion on my declined draft Draft:The Flood: Music for MANNA.

I believe it meets WP:NALBUMS because it received substantial coverage in [TV, radio, web with most of web coverage and all radio coverage being about just the albium].

The AfC reviewer hasn’t replied and the Help Desk request for an independent reviewer received no response.

Could someone take another look or advise the next step? Guyshomenet (talk) 19:41, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Guyshomenet, you did in fact receive a response at the help desk, where another independent reviewer explained why it was declined. If you want a third opinion, I can say that I agree with both the decline and the Help desk editor's response. If you are unable to find any more reliable, independent sources with significant coverage, the album unfortunately simply may not meet our inclusion criterion at this time and should not have any article. Best, GoldRomean (talk) 21:28, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also worth pointing out, Guyshomenet, is that Rejection as you wrote in your header is different from Declined which is what happened to your draft. Rejection means that the draft will not be considered further. Declined means that you are welcome to add more references, specifically to reliable, independent sources that devote significant coverage to the album, and then resubmit the draft. Cullen328 (talk) 02:18, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, an album doesn't merit an article unless the artist(s) already have an article. See the speedy deletion criterion WP:CSD#A9, which applies to "any article about a musical recording or list of musical recordings where none of the contributing recording artists has an article and that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant." If your draft had been moved to mainspace, it would have been speedy-deleted because it makes no assertion of notability and none of the artists (as far as I can tell) have their own Wikipedia articles. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 02:21, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I’ve submitted my draft Draft:Nainital Literature Festival

Could someone please take a look or suggest how I can improve it for quicker review? Literaturebee7 (talk) 06:19, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just be patient, Literaturebee7, and it will be reviewed. Though I don't suppose it will be viewed favorably, as most of the references have titles indicating that the sources are about what at the time was planned to happen, and so was most likely just on the say-so of the organizers. Where is the material, written by sources independent of the festival's organizers, about what did happen? -- Hoary (talk) 06:32, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Literaturebee7. 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) 11:02, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(1) You can't speed up a review. (2) Having said that, I don't see how the festival is notable, full stop. It's dubbed as an annual festival but since this was its first year, that remains to be seen. Whether it proves to be of cultural importance will probably not be known for years. Moreover, I doubt it's Wikipedia notable, which is the criteria for an article on WP. MmeMaigret (talk) 14:35, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I have a view that I haven't seen expressed or refuted anywhere on Wikipedia and I'd like to know if it's widely held and maybe if there's already an essay on it that I couldn't find. Simply put, I think that inline tags like ^{[citation needed]}, as well as banners at the top of a page, are helpful for readers as well as editors, in that they inform the reader that the information they find in that article/section might not be entirely accurate or balanced. As such, I think that flagging issues in article space is important even if there's already an appropriate message on the talk page. Thank you (: lp0 on fire (talk) 08:06, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have always assumed that as a given, so obvious that it hasn't needed emphasising. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.193.153.108 (talk) 09:02, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Lp0 on fire See WP:DRIVEBY and the section below it. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:41, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, can somebody please answer my question at the reference desk? Diff: [1]

try to see this. HavingATea303 (talk) 11:04, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, does Wikipedia have a culture, besides community? Giver058854687 (talk) 12:15, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not really? The selling point of Wikipedians is that we're each very different and unique, having diverse backgrounds and beliefs! jolielover♥talk 12:28, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

wat als je nu een vraag kan beantwoorden en over een tijdje niet meer 188.205.73.114 (talk) 12:21, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, this is the English Wikipedia. We request that you communicate in English. You can find the Dutch Wikipedia at nl:Wikipedia:Hoofdpagina. jolielover♥talk 12:27, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jolielover: This is the Teahouse. Everyone is welcome here, including those with limited or no English, who should be signposted to The Embassy. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:21, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Pigsonthewing, I had no idea that section existed! That is really useful, thank you. Knitsey (talk) 14:25, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@PigsonthewingI also didn't know it existed. What's the reason it's not listed along with the other community pages (teahouse, help desk, ideas lab, etc.)? Barbalalaika (talk) 08:50, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No idea: you can fix that. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:55, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, do I first go to the Idea lab for that? Sorry, I've been here for less than two months Barbalalaika (talk) 13:13, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You said "it's not listed along with the other community pages"; go to wherever it's listed, and add it (or make a request on the talk page, if it's listed on a page you cannot edit).

If you run into difficulties, you're welcome to ask here again. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:21, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to nl:Wikipedia:Hoofdpagina, you may (especially if your query is about this Wikipedia), contact Dutch-speaking editors via our "Embassy". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:23, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you link articles to drafts? Possible? Userbasoork07 (talk) 12:55, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Userbasoork07! To answer your question in one word, no. Mainspace articles should not have links to the draftspace. PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 12:56, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See MOS:DRAFTNOLINK. CodeTalker (talk) 15:30, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I wanted to try my hand at making my own page: Draft:Air_Parabat, but some of the dates do not line up with sources. The page List of defunct airlines of Bangladesh state that Air Parabat started in 1993 and ceased operations in 2001, while some other places say that it started in 1994 as Air Parabat Flying Academy and its operations as a private sector airline started in early 1998. There is also the fact that the airline ceased operations in 2001 but a crash was reported in 2002. However, i do think that that is about the flying academy which i can't find anything more on. Also the issue of it being a flying academy confuses me as I'm not sure if I should seperate the accidents into two categories. What dates should i be using? VTECAndVAR (talk) 13:32, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You may first need to consider how reliable each of those sources is. This is perhaps an issue best discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bangladesh and. or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation, depending on whether those source are locally- or industry-focussed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:28, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I want to rename the article Middle Pleistocene to Chibanian. But I don't know how. Christianhatley527 (talk) 14:10, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:Requested moves, but note that your proposal may be considered contentious and act accordingly. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:29, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, how do I declare a conflict of interest for a future wikipedia page that I have been instructed to create? For context, the person I am creating a wikipedia page for is a notable solicitor in the UK and I work in the marketing department. Would it be easier for him to set up the account and do it himself or can I help him with it? 82.32.67.118 (talk) 14:12, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See, in this order, WP:BOSS, WP:PAID and WP:COI. Compliance with WP:PAID especially is obligatory. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:31, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm working on Draft:SerpApi and would like to make it better.

If I understood correctly, the article missing an in-depth info about technology and the history behind the company? I'm a novice in contributing to Wikipedia and would love to understand what to improve.

Best regards,

Illia Ilyazub (talk) 15:25, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ilyazub You main issue is notability and sourcing and also the draft it reads a bit promotional. You can ADD independent reliable coverage LIKE news,, tech sites or journals about SerpApi itself also keep History and Technology brief and neutral. I suggest you can use these guides will a. WP:CORP b. WP:RS and bb. WP:NPOV. Thilio^{R O B O T🤖 talk} 15:45, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Thilio. Ilyazub (talk) 14:27, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Ilyazub, and welcome to the Teahouse.

A Wikipedia article should be a a neutral summary of what several people entirely unconnected with the subject have independently chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, and little else. If you can't find several sources that meet all the criteria in WP:42, (or even if you can but the coverage is routine commercial information such as acquisitions and share issues - see WP:CORPTRIV) then you will not be able to create an acceptable article.

Having found such sources, you then need to put aside almost everything you know about the subject from other sources, and write a summary of what those independent reliable sources say.

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 11:17, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, @ColinFine. That suggestion of learning by improving existing articles is really what I missed. Ilyazub (talk) 14:26, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What are the box things on peoples user page,and where do I get them? Starlet147 (talk) 17:04, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Starlet147 See WP:Userbox for details. You can search for such things in the Wikipedia search box by putting WP: at the front of obvious keywords. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:07, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks but how do I put one on my page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starlet147 (talk • contribs) 17:20, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is easiest in the source editor (See Help:Introduction), simply by copy/pasting the code from another editor's page or via the boxes listed on the Userbox page. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:24, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am wondering how to make a new page. If you can please tell me how Imgoated926 (talk) 17:09, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Imgoated926 If by "page" you mean an article in mainspace, then see Help:Your first article for detailed instructions. However, the best advice is to spend a couple of weeks updating existing articles in areas that interest you, so as to learn how Wikipedia works. New articles need to be on notable topics, as that word is used here. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:15, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Imgoated926, and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia.

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) 11:18, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, my name is Graham Haig. In Canada, in 1992, I won a very significant gay rights case, Haig and Birch v. Canada et al., (1992) 57 O.A.C. 272 (CA) https://ca.vlex.com/vid/haig-v-can-680869385. In that case, I won the original ruling that the Charter of Rights covered "sexual orientation", and the first positive remedy in Canadian history - the courts ruled that the Canadian Human Rights Act must be read as including "sexual orientation" rather than striking the Act down. Also some side precedents. It was the preeminent ruling in Canada regarding gay rights.

Birch died and I became a recluse (lol, not quite), I disappeared from view. Wiki has no biographical information on me, and has no page regarding the case, even though it is one of the most significant cases in Canada wrt gay rights. Many of the other pages documenting the history of gay rights in Canada may be misleading because Haig and Birch is not documented or referenced.

To complicate things, I also fought another case "Haig v. Canada" about voting rights, which went to the Supreme Court, which is minimally documented on wiki Haig v Canada (Chief Electoral Officer).

Anyways, I always said stories are for old timers to tell, and now I'm an old timer, I've decided to tell the story of Haig and Birch. I've started a substack, grahamhaig.substack.com, called "I was a teenage gay activist" to tell the story.

I was thinking that I could assist wiki to document Haig and Birch, and maybe a little biographical information on myself, but it is daunting just writing the substack! It seems a little vain to just go ahead and write about myself on Wiki, but I was wondering if there was a path where an experienced wiki editor might be interested in documenting the case?

Anyway, I'll check back here on Monday, October 10, to see any responses.

Thanks! Ghaig (talk) 18:44, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's mentioned at LGBTQ history in Canada#1990–1994 and Timeline of LGBTQ history in Canada#1992. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:16, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Primehunter,

Yes, but in LGBTQ history in Canada#1990–1994, it is misrepresented. It is a common misinterpretation. The thing about Haig and Birch was, that although Birch was in the Canadian Air Force, the case was not about that, nor about gays in the military. It was a pure legal case, launched by myself, which simply asked the court to interpret the Charter, absent of any specific controversy. It sought declaratory relief alone. I added Birch to the case very late, of many volunteers, to get around the question of standing, although we were sure I had standing, we were asking for so many related precedents we didn't want to get bogged down on the issue. But because Birch did have an active controversy after being discharged from the military for being gay, some confusion has resulted about the case of Haig and Birch. Ghaig (talk) 19:28, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just note that the section there doesn't claim anyone was in the military or the case was about the military. Only that the case's ruling was what enabled gay people to be able to join the military (and do lots of other things as well). CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 05:24, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Even more precisely, I'd say it enabled openly gay people to join the military.

Anyway, Mr Haig, I'm glad you realize that it's "a little vain to just go ahead and write about myself on Wikipedia", but the problem with asking whether "an experienced wiki editor might be interested in documenting the case" is that an experienced Wikipedia editor would know that Wikipedia should never be the first place the information appears. We have to be able to point to published sources. (In principle, anyway — I fully admit that we have article that don't follow this stricture, but we're a work in progress). DS (talk) 12:59, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DS, thanks, please see my reply to CoffeeCrumbs. Corroborating documentation predates the internet, it is available, and I can easily assist in locating it. Ghaig (talk) 17:04, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CoffeeCrumbs, Haig and Birch asked several related questions, first, it asked whether the court had jurisdiction to interpret the law as requested in the abstract, without reference to any controversy, and if yes, second, it asked the court to interpret Section 15 of the Charter and specifically, although "sexual orientation" was not listed in Section 15, whether it was an "analogous" grounds that was nevertheless, included in Section 15, and if yes, third, was the Canadian Human Rights Act unconstitutional because it did not include "sexual orientation", and if yes, fourth, was the Canadian Human Rights saved because of Section 1 of the Charter, and if no, was the remedy the standard remedy, that is, that the Canadian Human Rights Act be struck down, or was this the first case in Canadian legal history where the court would use a positive remedy, that is, that it would "read in" "sexual orientation" to the Canadian Human Rights Act, bypassing parliament.

We won on all of them. The effect was immediate and profound. Every government in Canada, from the federal government on down, except Alberta, declared that they were bound by the ruling, and all the Human Rights Acts in Canada suddenly included "sexual orienation", even if their respective legislatures did not include those words. Alberta had to be dragged to the Supreme Court to comply with Haig and Birch.

The case was designed to provide the legal theories and tools so that others, who had live controversies, could fight their cases. For example, before Haig and Birch, when a person was discharged from the military for being gay, there were no legal tools available to fight the discharge, and after, there were. But the live controversy itself would still have to go through proper legal channels to be resolved. For example, if afterwards somebody was discharged from the military for being gay, they could launch a human rights complaint, which is something that Birch himself could not do.

Yes, of course this was well reported in Canada, in fact, I was even a guest on "Front Page Challenge" where Betty Kennedy guessed my ID. But, this was before the internet, and while I do know where to find corroborating documents, they are not readily discoverable on the internet. 2607:F2C0:EF01:F010:48:8D09:5084:C889 (talk) 16:37, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Correction to my original post, Monday is October 13! Ghaig (talk) 19:37, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Above: Many of the other pages documenting the history of gay rights in Canada may be misleading because Haig and Birch is not documented or referenced. This is ambiguous. If you're saying that Haig and Birch v. Canada et al. isn't, other than fleetingly, documented anywhere, then there's only an insignificant amount of material for a Wikipedia article to be based on, and thus no Wikipedia article can be constructed. If you publish your own account at Substack (or anywhere else), then a Wikipedia article could make no more than incidental use of that. But your account at Substack (or wherever) might interest one or more social historians, legal scholars, or others; and what they write, more or less based on what you've written, could be the foundation for a Wikipedia article. (Or you could just be saying something quite different: that Wikipedia's articles fail to document or reference the case.) -- Hoary (talk) 22:48, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hoary, please see my reply above to CoffeeCrumbs. There is plenty of corroborating information, off line, that I can assist in locating Ghaig (talk) 16:42, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Graham: Okay there's a lot to unpack here. To advise, I need to know more:

• Wikipedia has no biographical information on me: To have an article, you'll need to be Wikipedia notable. Have you been featured (not merely mentioned) in two independent publications?
• Haig and Birch v. Canada: Am I right in thinking both these cases fell under section 15 of the Charter?
• Haig v. Canada: How do you think the article might be improved?

MmeMaigret (talk) 15:32, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MMeMaigret, please see my reply above to CoffeeCrumbs.

Before the internet, I was on the front pages across Canada. Not only for Haig and Birch, and Haig v. Canada, but also because I was the Chair of Ottawa Pride Week when we won the very first Pride Proclomation in Canada. I actually had to move and go into hiding, of a sort, due to overwhelming publicity.

Haig and Birch was one case.

Well Haig and Canada could be improved by documenting Haig and Birch, biographical information on both myself and Joshua, and linking that all through my name.

Thanks! Ghaig (talk) 16:45, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ghaig Okay, my advice would be:

• Haig and Canada - suggest go to the article talk page, add a new topic, and explain that you have a COI because you were counsel in the case but this is how you think the article might be improved (no more than 100 words, list the independent reputable sources that you think exist).
• Haig and BIrch - suggest go to the talk page for section 15 of the Charter, add a new topic, and explain that you have a COI because you were counsel in the case of Haig and Birch but you think the case should be discussed on the page (and why) and that it might also warrant its own article. Again no more than 100 words.
• Graham Haig (lawyer) (i) suggest go to Wikipedia:Requested articles/Biography/By profession and add your name under either law/lawyer or activist. (ii) you can also create a new page at draftspace and add a bullet-pointed summary about your life organised under these headings "Early life and education", "Career", "Personal life" (optional), with a list of reputable independent reputable sources under the heading "Bibliography". If you decide to do the latter, ping me and I'll have a look sometime.

MmeMaigret (talk) 17:33, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the great replies. Still looking for a central answer to my question, without myself going ahead and posting about myself to Wiki, how to update Wiki?

I'll next check back here on Wednesday, October 15.

Happy Thanksgiving! Ghaig (talk) 16:51, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to have some comments from the experienced editors on here about the Infobox in Sidemen. Do you folks think this is ideal? Is there a way to improve this? Should we create a new infobox for Creator Groups? Kingsacrificer (talk) 19:18, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When it says that the number of "Subscribers" is "155.6 million (combined)", explaining that the number "Includes the Sidemen's five group channels and twenty-four of their individual channels which host Sidemen content", is it describing subscribers or subscriptions? (If I subscribe to exactly two of their channels, how many "subscribers" do I constitute?) -- Hoary (talk) 23:18, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You would count as two subscribers. In a way, it does represent subscriptions. You're right.

Also, do let me know your thoughts about mentioning the Birth Year of each member in there. Kingsacrificer (talk) 08:56, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am a sockpuppet and I can't figure it out 2600:100D:B005:DB62:0:4F:E2FA:1D01 (talk) 00:13, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article Lafcadio Hearn was mentioned by the Overly Sarcastic Productions video Fables and Folktales: Yuki-Onna at around 4:25-4:28 way through in the ending and I was unsure if this warranted a mention on the talk page and if so how to properly put that on the talk page. I would greatly appreciate it if you could help me and explain exactly why or why not it warrants a mention. Thank you very much in advance. Fun Chaos (talk) 00:21, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And another Wikipedia page mentioned by Overly Sarcastic Productions: Astraea, mentioned in Miscellaneous Myths: Astraea just throughout the first half and shown on screen, so should this also be mentioned on the talk page and if so why, and if not why not, and if so, how? Thank you for your help and patience in advance. Fun Chaos (talk) 00:38, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:Press coverage. (I confess that I haven't bothered to read it myself, or to watch either video.) If one mention qualifies (or of course if both do), then use Template:Press. -- Hoary (talk) 01:01, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am unsure as to whether that applies to YouTube videos or if not, what would. I am also not fully certain as to what counts as "Press sources that reference content of a particular Wikipedia article", specifically how much is necessary to reference and what counts as a press source. If I could be confident on those, I feel I could make a determination and carry through in regards to these mentions, could I please get clarifications on those points? Thank you very much in advance. Fun Chaos (talk) 15:02, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How do I add images to articles,please help. Starlet147 (talk) 01:19, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Rebecca Alpert

hi @Starlet147 and welcome to the Teahouse! images have to be uploaded to Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons before they can be used. in this case, please check out Introuction to images. do note that images have to have the appropriate license before you can add them, and as such as a rule of thumb you cannot upload most of the images that you simply found online onto Wikipedia (unless they are already licensed under Creative Commons or are in the Public Domain). happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 02:18, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have to use Wikimedia Commons for images. If you want to use an existing image, use:

[[File:Example image.svg|thumb|Image description]]

For galleries, use:

<gallery>

File:Example image.svg|Example description]

</gallery>

If you want to make an image, see this licensing tutorial. Versions111 (talk) 06:30, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of the above comments are fully correct. Here at the english Wikipedia, we can use both images that have been uploaded locally to the english Wikipedia as well as images that have been uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. From a policy standpoint, Commons accepts images that are either freely licensed or public domain. In addition to what Commons accepts, the english Wikipedia accepts, uploaded locally, files which meet all of the non-free content criteria. However, since the subject of the image appears to be a living person, the latter option is probbably not available as a non-free image would fail the "no free quivalent available or could be created" criterion. Victor Schmidt (talk) 08:32, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And if you would like, @Starlet147, contacting the subject of an article and telling them about Wikipedia:A picture of you may be an option if you're interested. Yeshivish613 (talk) 19:58, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What if the subject is dead(for a different article.). Starlet147 (talk) 20:02, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Starlet147: If the subject is dead, you would likely be allowed to upload an image under Wikipedia's fair use policy. If you are sure that there is no freely licensed image available, you can upload it on the file upload wizard and add it to the article. Yeshivish613 (talk) 20:15, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone guide me on how to add pictures to a wiki article? Drpriyesh1 (talk) 05:57, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Drpriyesh1, please see "Images", above. -- Hoary (talk) 06:15, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone, this is my first wikipedia article and thanks to advice I have already received here I have been working on improving this article by adding reliable sources, page numbers, and expanding sections on its history, decline, and cultural memory. I would really appreciate if an experienced editor could take a look and let me know if the article seems anywhere at all close to meeting B class standards, or if there are areas that still need alot more work. Thanks you, I appreciate your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki Editor mq (talk • contribs) 07:55, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article is entitled 'Faction fighting'...with ungoing discussion to change to 'Faction fighting in Ireland' Wiki Editor mq (talk) 08:07, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Faction fighting. -- Hoary (talk) 11:05, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Editor mq, Wikipedia:Peer review may interest you. -- Hoary (talk) 11:09, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again for your assistance, it is very much appreciated as I am new to all of this. I have followed the instructions on the link you provided and requested a peer review. Wiki Editor mq (talk) 12:37, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Reviews take too long, don't they @Hoary? Kingsacrificer (talk) 12:52, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Back again and hopefully not to disrupt no one's time or anything, but I have been accused by Timtrent of constant violations of WP:NPA and WP:AGF. I have no issue with this user. I said something about a user "who needed to be reviewed for making a poorly sourced article on Wikipedia" and that's what caused the response. Is it true that I am violating these policies.

I think I need to take a while off WP to control my mental health. I'm going crazy right now. If so, I'll see you all in 6 months... again. Darrion N. Brown 🙂 (my talk page / my sandbox) 09:01, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I have recently withdrew that comment from the AfD discussion as of recently. Darrion N. Brown 🙂 (my talk page / my sandbox) 09:02, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DBrown SPS Thank you for your statement that you have withdrawn that comment. To be clear in this diff which includes your reply to me, I have not said a thing about 'constant violations of WP:NPA and WP:AGF'. What I did was warned you carefully, civilly, and accurately, that, in my opinion, you were Sailing very close to the wind with this one comment.

I am sorry that you are having (self declared) mental health issues right now. Every one of us has had or will have those at some point in our lives. Please do not allow this misstep to affect you. If I am able to do anything to help you please ask. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 10:06, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Timtrent. If there's anything else I can think of, I'll do exactly that: ask. For now, I'll just take a 6 month break. I am just not myself right now. Darrion N. Brown 🙂 (my talk page / my sandbox) 10:09, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DBrown SPS Come back when you are ready. I once took a four year break because of wiki-burnout. Come back happy and stronger. I did exactly that, and I am certain you will do the same. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 10:21, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

please rename the page Georgia (country) to Sakartvelo just like i seen in Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2025 October 8#Template:Country data Georgia. 91.234.25.26 (talk) 17:12, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No. The English Wikipedia uses common English names. Few English-speaking people would know what Sakartvelo is. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:22, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:COMMONNAME. Polygnotus (talk) 23:41, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How do I make my username link a different color? Ive seen other wikipedians with this colored username link. Starlet147 (talk) 19:59, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Starlet147. See Wikipedia:Signatures#Customizing your signature. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:46, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Starlet147: see Wikipedia:Signature tutorial. -- Verbarson  ^talk_edits 20:47, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How do I know when to delete/merge an article? Starlet147 (talk) 20:14, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Starlet147. Pages can only be deleted by administrators. Others can nominate a page. See Wikipedia:Deletion policy and Wikipedia:Merging#Reasons for merging for general help. If you seek help because of a specific page then always name it. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:49, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, dear editors:) I've been assigned an edit on a page of my choice, and I'm wildly intimidated! I do know which page I'd like to edit (soil carbon), and I thought I could come back to my sandbox to work on my ideas, but I guess it's called "sandbox" bc my progress will disintegrate there until officially saved on the actual page? Humph:/ this means I need to learn to work productively with the tech of this day and age!!! ahhh. Soil carbon Aofria (talk) 21:41, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia! My guess is that you didn't save the page by pressing Publish changes. Even though it's labeled "Publish", it doesn't publish your changes to the article; it only saves your progress in the sandbox. I also recommend turning on Edit Recovery to help recover edits that you forgot to save. jlwoodwa (talk) 22:29, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Aofria: (edit conflict) Only the general sandbox at Wikipedia:Sandbox is periodically cleared. You have a number of subpages in your own user space, including User:Aofria/sandbox (currently empty), User:Aofria/Soil carbon/Outline, and User:Aofria/Soil carbon/Bibliography. You can use those pages to work on your ideas. (To see a list of all the pages in your user space, click on "Subpages" in the box at the bottom of your contributions page.) Deor (talk) 22:40, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi y'all,

I'm looking to begin drafting an article about the "Neuhoff District" in Nashville, but wanted to get some input if it's notable enough. It's a former meat packing zone adapted to reuse as a mixed-use luxury apartment district. I don't see much of the namesake of this district on Wikipedia nor anything on the factory itself. The adaptive reuse, industrial architecture, German nomenclature, and history of this area is interesting. So I reckon it is notable since it's a significant area in Nashville's Germantown. Thoughts? Aronb04 (talk) 23:41, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Aronb04, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Generally a subject is notable in the sense that Wikipedia uses the word, if and only if it has been discussed in some depth in multiple independent reliable sources - see WP:42.

What the subject is, does, has been, or has had done to it are not directly relevant, and nor are whether it is important, interesting, famous, popular, significant, or influential. If it is some of those things, then it is more likely that enough has been written about it to meet the criteria for notability, but it is up to you to find those sources to demonstrate this.

I strongly advise you to write not a single word before you have found some suitable sources. This is for two reasons. First, if in fact you cannot find suitable independent reliable sources, then the subject is not notable and you shouldn't spend any time trying to write an article which is doomed to be rejected. Secondly, if you can find the sources, then you should write from what those sources say, and not from what you happen to know about the subject. ColinFine (talk) 00:15, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Aronb04 There's a good article I found via newspapers.com: Hitson, Hadley (24 October 2024). "New life for historic meatpacking plant". The Tennessean. pp. A1, A12.. If you can find a couple more like that, especially something covering the earlier history, you should be fine. Read WP:BACKWARDS if you haven't previously created many articles. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:16, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My page here: https://w.wiki/5ySA I have a draft for a Wiki page for 53-55 beach street and there was a banner at the top saying it was being reviewed. It’s been more than 12 hours, so i was advised to reach out here. Mitchmcmasters (talk) 23:45, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse. Your draft is here: Draft:53-55 Beach Street. That page says Review waiting, please be patient. This may take 2 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 3,247 pending submissions waiting for review. (emphasis mine). There are many pages waiting to be reviewed and not enough reviewers. Polygnotus (talk) 23:55, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. Thank you. There is another tag there that says if the page is not reviewed within 12 hours to file a question. I am referring to that. Thank you again! Mitchmcmasters (talk) 23:57, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So far it has been left as being reviewed for 1 day, if it continues for another day, a bot will remind the reviewer, then return it to the queue the day after that if no action is taken. Tenshi! (Talk page) 00:02, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Guessitsavis: See above. Polygnotus (talk) 00:04, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

related Talk:Python (programming language)#kotlin

i am researching about python influence on kotlin and found this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xH-RZ9YlxH0

video description stated this

. . . . Расскажем о тех языках, из которых мы заимствовали идеи и концепции, когда разрабатывали Kotlin. В числе прочего, речь пойдет о Java, C#, Scala, Groovy, Python, Gosu и т.д. Покажем, как некоторые из этих идей изменились в нашей интерпретации. И немного расскажем о том, какие известные языки теперь учатся на нашем опыте (Swift, Java, Hack, C#).

google translate

We'll talk about the languages ​​from which we borrowed ideas and concepts when developing Kotlin. Among others, we'll discuss Java, C#, Scala, Groovy, Python, Gosu, and others. We'll show how some of these ideas have changed in our interpretation. We'll also share a few insights into which well-known languages ​​are now learning from our experience (Swift, Java, Hack, C#).

but the slide in the video dont mention python at all

can anyone help me with this? Lokiretro (talk) 01:43, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Lokiretro. When he brings the slide up at 11:35, he does not name any languages: I'm pretty sure he's inviting people to suggest them. I'm not certain, but I think that the second one that somebody calls out, at 11:50, is "Python", and he echoes it, and says Yes. (tak).

Note that even if it is established that he talks about Python, and even if he says more about it than that (I haven't watched the video further), this will still be a primary source, and of limited usefulness for Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 14:08, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My previous post was misunderstood so I'd like to try again. I want to write a draft article about Gamers Nexus, a news and opinion website and publication. What guideline would I follow? Would it be WP:NORG? guninvalid (talk) 03:52, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, guninvalid. Since there is no notability guideline specifically for news organizations, the broader WP:NORG would be the appropriate guideline to follow. Multiple references to significant coverage of Gamers Nexus in truly independent sources will be your key to success. Independent sources are like gold nuggets. Non-independent sources are like gravel in the gears. Cullen328 (talk) 05:42, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I saw a mistake in an article (Korea), but because it was semi-protected, I did not know how to give an edit request formally, as I am a new editor. Can any of you guys please help me? Thank you. AerospaceloverVC-25A (talk) 14:33, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @AerospaceloverVC-25A, welcome to Wikipedia. You can use the Edit Request Wizard to make an edit request. More info about edit requests: Wikipedia:Edit requests. Perception312 (talk) 15:11, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! AerospaceloverVC-25A (talk) 16:00, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi friends at Teahouse,

I hope you are all doing well. I’m currently working on a Wikipedia draft about Claudiney Prieto, a prominent Brazilian and internationally recognized figure in the fields of Neopaganism and Wicca. The draft can be found here: User:Art2712/sandbox.

Claudiney Prieto is known for his significant role in the dissemination of Wicca in Brazil, as an author, teacher, and public priest who has contributed to the development of Pagan communities and education throughout Latin America. My goal with this page is to create a neutral and well-sourced biography that helps readers independently learn more about his work, publications, and impact on the modern Pagan movement, both nationally and internationally.

I would appreciate any feedback, guidance, or suggestions regarding the structure, tone, and references to ensure that the article aligns with Wikipedia’s notability and verifiability standards.

Thank you very much for your time and help! Art2712 (talk) 15:16, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Art2712, and welcome to the Teahouse, and to Wikipedia.

Which of your sources are or contain in-depth discussion of Prieto, not written, edited, published or commissioned by him or by anybody or any organisation associated with him, and not based on an interview or press release, and published by a reputable publisher? Unless you have several separate sources which each meet all those conditions (see WP:42), then you haven't got an article. Most of your sources clearly do not meet those criteria, but I have not looked at them all

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) 15:43, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for all the tips! I'm going to take the time to revise everything and to contribute in existing articles Art2712 (talk) 20:23, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:Golden Rule. Which three sources do you feel meet all three golden-rule criteria? If there are none, then the subject doesn't merit an article on Wikipedia. It's really that simple. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 17:09, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

thank you so much! I'm reading about the Golden rule right away to see if the article meets the criteria Art2712 (talk) 20:24, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to upload an image on my user page, but it shows me a pop-up that claims I need to complete a "tutorial" in order to upload. What am I supposed to do? That Italian duck (talk) 19:46, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you are supposed to complete the tutorial, @That Italian duck. PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 20:07, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @That Italian duck, and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia.

I don't know about a tutorial, but until your account is AUTOCONFIRMED, you are not able to upload images. That will happen once four complete (24-hour) days have elapsed since you created that account, and you have made 10 edits. This was your seventh edit, so you're not far from that target, but you'll need to be patient for four days.

I'm guessing the tutorial will give you some experience at editing Wikipedia articles (which is what we are all here for).

In the meantime, you might like to look at Help:Upload , which explains that uploading an image and putting the image on a page are two separate operations; and that before you attempt to upload an image you must determine whether it is licensed in a suitable way. If it is an image that you created (you drew it or pressed the button that took the photo), you probably can. If it is an image you found on the internet, you probably can't. And there are other possibilities, of course. ColinFine (talk) 20:11, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How do you add a person to wikipedia Dagogoola (talk) 20:30, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First you check they meet the criteria at WP:GNG; then see WP:Your first article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:35, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And, if the person is still alive or only recently dead, see also WP:BLP, which has stricter criteria than GNG. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.193.153.108 (talk) 13:36, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

can you help me publish and being approved due the wikipedia standard please ? 46.24.177.235 (talk) 21:09, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy link Draft:Michele casadei massari. Theroadislong (talk) 21:11, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The section "Style and Philosophy" is most impressive, but I fear not in the way intended. 27.134.48.132 (talk) 22:04, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what several people wholly unconnected with the subject have independently chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, and not much else.

What the subject, or the subjects friend and associates, say or want to say is of very little interest to Wikipedia.

Since LLMs do not understand references, never mind reliability or independence of references, they are incapable of producing anything even approximating to an acceptable Wikipedia article.

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) 22:05, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: User:ClarkyArtist/sandbox

Hi everyone — I’m currently working on my first article, which happens to be about myself. I understand that autobiographical articles can raise concerns about neutrality, so I’m looking for guidance or help from a neutral editor who could review or contribute to ensure the article meets Wikipedia’s standards for tone, sourcing, and notability.

The draft has been cleaned up with properly formatted citations and reliable sources, but I’d really appreciate a second, neutral perspective before submitting it for review. Any advice or assistance would be very welcome!

Thank you in advance for your time and guidance. ClarkyArtist (talk) 23:33, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The reference style is certainly.. something. Why are your in-text citations listed as being separate from the links I'd assume them to relate to? Your links should be used as the in-text citations, as currently the in-text ones are blank. PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 00:06, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are basically asking for a pre-review review. The best way to get feedback is to submit the draft. That said, it's not clear to me that you meet any aspect of WP:BAND. 331dot (talk) 00:08, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft doesn't appear to hold any reliable, independent sources. Most of your sources appear to self published; and the only independent source appears to be this one, which doesn't contain any significant coverage of yourself. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 00:12, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This attempt is too early. Three years from now, perhaps there will be substantial sources about you and somebody entirely unrelated to you will want to use these to create an article about you. 27.134.48.132 (talk) 02:44, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

this is inconsequential and silly stuff related to technicalities in processes i'll likely and ideally never have access to, and that will (probably) never come into play, so i'm taking it here instead of the help desk lmao

• can nonexistent accounts still be blocked? i say this one because there's at least one example of a nonexistent account that was indeffed in 2008
• can pages, in any namespace, that currently don't or have never existed, be "deleted" without first being created?
• can nonexistent accounts be given extended rights like rollback and adminship?
• can ips, even ones that don't exist, be given extended rights like those?

and i should probably clarify again that this is a matter of "can", and not one of "should" consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 00:38, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am confident the answer to all those questions is 'no', and would be intrigued to see the purported 'nonexistent account that was indef'd in 2008'? DS (talk) 02:48, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

the account is user:turd consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 10:58, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Consarn: The account User:Turd does exist. There is a message saying 'Wikipedia does not have a user page with this exact title'. That just means a user page has not been created for the account. Compare to User:Nonexisting which also says '"Nonexisting" is not registered on this wiki'. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:13, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, the point is just that this account is blocked (more specifically, hard blocked) despite not existing. this is easier to see in the contribs and talk page (which does exist), or with the "strike out usernames that have been blocked" function on consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 11:20, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ah, wait, i misread it. how come the user actually exists? i at least found no actual info related to the account. no date of creation, no contribs (which is usually fair, as some sleeper socks get blocked without contribs, but this is a part of the grander confusion), and no whatever other data you can name that wasn't created by gwernol. just a talk page that exists and a block that also somehow exists. i don't really think all data related to account besides the block and talk page was scrubbed off the planet, as that'd be a weird thing to seemingly only do once after 2002, so at best, at least this failsafe related to nonexistent stuff just wasn't implemented yet

...is what i would say, but the global auth says it was "registered" on 17/3/2017, 7 years after the block, and has no info beyond that, so now my brain is even more fried. my closest guess based on the oddly specific time of creation (exactly 12:00) is that it's just the auth being a little wacky, but it's no less confusing consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 11:43, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Consarn: The user creation log was started in 2005.[2] The account was probably created before that. The block was in 2007 but that doesn't imply the account was recent. The global account system didn't exist back then. Special:CentralAuth/Turd is from 2015, not 2017. The automatic mw:SUL finalisation of old accounts ended in 2015. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:08, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the username had also been created at Commons [3], probably by somebody else. commons:Special:Log/Turd~commonswiki shows it was in 2009. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:18, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Answers based on my tests:

• I just tried blocking a nonexistent account (by modifying the block URL with a different username) and I could not even submit the request.
• Nonexistent pages cannot be deleted; I just tried it by substituting a nonexistent page in the deletion URL generated from a valid page.
• I am unable to access the user rights of a nonexistent user, therefore I cannot change them.
• Same for IP addresses, there is no way I can access user groups, regardless of whether the IP address exists.

Good enough? ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 06:59, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, that works, thanks

i'm actually a little surprised those were accounted for, considering some other stuff i dissected a couple ages ago consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 11:00, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I am a first time writer of a Wiki article. I am trying to write an article for a social worker and have been facing multiple rejections on my draft submission. The feedback on my draft submissions have been generic according to me and I fail to understand which areas of the article need rectification. I have tried modifying the article based on my interpretation and understanding of the feedback however, each of those attempts have been unsuccessful. I am feeling very lost and demotivated and reaching out to this forum to seek any suggestions towards updating the verbiage/language of the article and/or links that would be helpful in getting this article approved.

Draft:Sachin Dattatrey Dharmadhikari

Thank you in advance for your time and guidance. Gaurav Dharra (talk) 02:07, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are asked to cite "significant coverage" of your subject. The material mustn't merely be bulky; it must also satisfy various criteria. (These are explained, or linked to explanations.) Can you identify the three best among the sources that you've cited? 27.134.48.132 (talk) 03:52, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Gaurav Dharra. The references in your draft seem to mostly be about the charitable organization he is involved with rather than about Sachin Dattatrey Dharmadhikari as a person. What is mandatory are references to reliable sources entirely independent of Sachin Dattatrey Dharmadhikari that devote truly significant coverage to this person. This is not a matter of verbiage or language (which could be easily corrected) but rather a fundamental question of whether or not this person is currently eligible for a Wikipedia biography. In its current form, your draft fails to make that case. A minor point is that your draft has not been rejected, which would be the end of the line. It has been declined, which allows you to resubmit it, if you make significant improvements that show that this person is actually notable. Please do not resubmit without dramatic, major improvements in the referencing. Cullen328 (talk) 06:10, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Based on my research, Sachin Dattatrey Dharmadhikari is the co-foudner of this organization and all his work is being done as part of this organization hence, the references are linked to the organization however, those references have his mentions. Besides the organization, he has also received numerous awards and honors for his work in this field. As per my research, study and understanding, all the social work is being led by him and his father Appasaheb Dharmadhikari. Could you recommend how I can tailor this article to make a case for him as a notable person? Gaurav Dharra (talk) 06:28, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, the sources so far suggest he isn't notable as Wikipedia defines it. Similar things happen in other situations: a book can be notable while the author is not, a wine can be notable while a winemaker is not, a song can be notable while the songwriter remains obscure, a company can be notable while the CEO is not. It looks to me like you should recast the article to be about the organization rather than the person. It also looks to me like you wrote the article WP:BACKWARD, which is way more difficult than writing it forward and usually leads to declined drafts. Your sources must comply with WP:Golden Rule too. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 06:47, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your explanation. So can the article for Sachin Dattatrey Dharmadhikari be submitted after creating a page for the organization Dr. Shri Nanasaheb Dharmadhikari Pratishthan (DSNDP)? Gaurav Dharra (talk) 07:39, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not, if the situation doesn't change; that is, you don't find any sources meeting WP:Golden Rule criteria. The sources need to provide significant coverage about him, not just his company. A book can have an article but the author cannot, a company can have an article but the CEO cannot, etc. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 14:12, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gaurav Dharra Please before adding sources to any article or Draft especially when copying and pasting from ChatGPT like you did in REF 1 make sure to clean up the insource: utm_source=chatgpt.com part please, because We have over 4000 links that match a search for insource: utm_source=chatgpt.com that needs clean-up. Adding on top of that not good at all. Thilio^{R O B O T🤖 talk} 07:14, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Noted, makes sense. Gaurav Dharra (talk) 07:36, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gaurav Dharra, even if you successfully wrote an article about the organization, that would not make this person eligible for an article. Notability is not inherited from such a relationship. Similarly, coverage of his father does not make him notable. In order to write an article about this person, this specific person must be the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable published sources that are entirely independent of him, his organization, his university, his father, his grandfather and so on. Cullen328 (talk) 08:20, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Gaurav Dharra, and welcome to the Teahouse.

If you wanted to learn to build a house, or build a car, would you make your very first project building a whole house, or a whole car? I would hope that the answer was No: you would start by learning the skills and knowledge you need, and working on small pieces, perhaps learning to make repairs or improvements to existing houses. If you tried to build a house, and you made some major mistake in (say) the materials, or how to construct the foundation, would you even expect to understand the feedback you got from experts?

While writing a Wikipedia article is obviously not nearly as big a task as building a house or a car, it is like them in that there are a whole lot of issues that need to be understood and managed that a beginner is probably not even aware of.

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) 13:05, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What’s the problem with this article, I have given plenty of strong sources. TeenX808 (talk) 06:58, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Anuradhapura invasion of Chola Kingdom (114-136)- the link TeenX808 (talk) 06:59, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You should ask the reviewer, RangersRus. The decline reason was about not meeting requirements for inline citations, but the draft has plenty of them, and no embedded external links as far as I can tell. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 07:03, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TeenX808 The main issues appear to be mentioned in the comment just below the decline notice, specifically that we already have an article on similar topic at Chola conquest of Anuradhapura and that many of your sources are too old (see also WP:RAJ). Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:35, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Michael D. Turnbull:The article contains a mix of old and new sources and it makes no sense for the article to be declined. TeenX808 (talk) 14:58, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you need to ask the reviewer. That should have been your first step, rather than asking here. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 15:02, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Asking here is fine; that's what The Teahouse is for. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:53, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: Plantation Bay Resort and Spa

This is my first time submitting a draft for a resort in Cebu. I followed the guidelines as best as I could, but I might have missed a few things. I’d really appreciate any tips or suggestions to make sure everything’s in line with the requirements. Any suggestions and tips are highly appreciated. Jmanuelphil (talk) 08:26, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome. You have submitted the draft for review and it is pending. There are thousands of drafts awaiting review; reviews are conducted by volunteers in no particular order. Please be patient; asking for a review does not speed the process. 331dot (talk) 08:35, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It reads like it was written by ChatGPT or some other LLM, and it's promotional in tone, with unsubstantiated puffery right in the first paragraph, and other instances later. Therefore it might be considered unreviewed LLM output and be eligible for speedy deletion in accordance with WP:CSD#G15. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 14:15, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: User:Molems/sandbox

Hi, I am a new user on Wikipedia, and I am learning how to create pages. I got rejected due to inadequate resources. I have tried to add a few but I am not sure that it is enough. Could anybody guide me as to how many references I would need to get accepted (I have already added a few and have resubmitted) but for future reference, how many would I need to get accepted.

- Also, a huge thank you to Timtrent for helping me with your constructive feedback. Molems (talk) 09:39, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While in general every statement should be sourced the criteria for publishing an article is not the number of sources, but the quality of them; and that the article subject's notability is demonstrated by the inclusion of at least three reliable sources that have significant coverage of the subject. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:49, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NOTABILITY for when things get articles (it's usually three or more). However, you seem to have inserted several fictitious references, which does not give me confidence that the ones that I can't verify are legitimate or cover the draft's subject matter. Based5290 :3 (talk) 09:50, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Molems Your draft would be much better if it used inline citations so that readers can verify which statement is backed up by which reference. In view of the suggestion that some references are fictitious, this would seem essential. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:23, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The current opening sentence use a lot of words to say little. How about starting with something like "A number of the railway stops of the Federated Malay States Railways (FMSR) network in British Malaya during the late 19th and early 20th centuries are no longer used or have been demolished"? 27.134.48.132 (talk) 11:04, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An editor is stalking me and reverting my edits claiming that articles that deal with military history should not be edited by editors who are not extended confirmed protected. Please see this and [4] - however, the articles I edited are not extended confirmed protected. Where should I report this?-Baangla (talk) 11:33, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They are correct. You may not make any edits to any page or article on Wikipedia related to Indian military history until you are extended-confirmed.(your account is 30 days old with 500 edits). The article itself does not need to be protected for these restrictions to apply. It is not harassment to inform you of this. 331dot (talk) 11:35, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Am I not allowed to pass comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2005 Ram Mandir attack#2005 Ram Mandir attack?-Baangla (talk) 11:40, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The 2005_Ram_Mandir_attack is about a terrorist attack - is that part of Indian military history?-Baangla (talk) 11:42, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, you may not edit any page or article on Wikipedia related to Indian military history until your account is 30 days old with 500 edits(while your account is 30 days old as of today, you are far from 500 edits). Terrorism is usually responded to by the military; the topic area is interpreted broadly. Even if it's not military, the subject still falls under the editing guidelines described on your user talk page, you must edit carefully in the South Asia topic area. 331dot (talk) 11:46, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to argue that this topic is not part of Indian military history, please bring that up with the other editors involved. If there is disagreement about that, it may need to be brought to WP:AE for a ruling. 331dot (talk) 11:47, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have also edited about Direct Action Day, which seems to have a stronger connection to Indian military history. 331dot (talk) 11:59, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So, if I make 500 edits with reliable sources, can I revert what has been removed?-Baangla (talk) 13:28, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You may contribute in the topic area once you have 500 substantive edits(i.e. not edits made simply to reach 500). They don't have to be adding large sourced passages, they can be grammar and spelling corrections. The point of the requirement is to demonstrate a basic understanding of Wikipedia guidelines through editing, and also to show you can civilly act and collaborate with others. 331dot (talk) 13:37, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is that while the extended-confirmed restriction is correct, I think this more accurately falls under social groups of South Asia, not Indian military history. Lashkar-e-Taiba is a discrete group of individuals advocating for specific political ends in a violent way, with an explicit political party, the Milli Muslim League. Given the political and religious angles both being involved here, I think this easily fits within the broadly construed framework. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:20, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone,

I'm very glad to join this wonderful community. My name is Hakan, and I'm deeply interested in contributing to Wikipedia in a professional and ethical way — especially in areas like biographies, company pages, and verified sourcing. I’ve been studying Wikipedia’s content policies, notability rules, and reliable sources guidelines, but I still have a lot to learn from experienced editors.

I would be truly honored to connect with senior contributors or mentors who could guide me on how to grow as a trusted editor, avoid common mistakes, and build a positive reputation within the community.

Could you please share some advice or steps on how a new but serious contributor can establish themselves and collaborate effectively in Wikipedia?

Thank you very much in advance for your time and kindness. Warm regards, **Hakan**

Same text in Turkish.

Herkese merhaba, Bu harika topluluğa katıldığım için gerçekten çok mutluyum. Benim adım Hakan ve Vikipedi’ye profesyonel ve etik bir şekilde katkıda bulunmakla derinden ilgileniyorum — özellikle biyografiler, şirket sayfaları ve doğrulanmış kaynak kullanımı gibi alanlarda. Vikipedi’nin içerik politikalarını, kayda değerlik (notability) kurallarını ve güvenilir kaynak yönergelerini dikkatle inceledim; ancak deneyimli editörlerden öğreneceğim hâlâ çok şey olduğunun farkındayım. Deneyimli katkıcılar veya mentorluk yapabilecek kıdemli yazarlarla tanışmak, güvenilir bir editör olarak nasıl gelişebileceğim, yaygın hatalardan nasıl kaçınabileceğim ve topluluk içinde olumlu bir itibar nasıl oluşturabileceğim konusunda rehberlik almak benim için büyük bir onur olurdu. Yeni ama ciddi bir katılımcı olarak, Vikipedi’de kendini geliştirmek ve toplulukla etkili bir şekilde iş birliği yapmak isteyen biri için paylaşabileceğiniz tavsiyeler veya adımlar var mı? Vakit ayırdığınız ve desteğiniz için şimdiden çok teşekkür ederim. Saygılarımla, **Hakan**

Youtuberhakankeles (talk) 16:54, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’d recommend writing in your own words, instead of using an LLM. ScrabbleTiles (talk) 16:57, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your advice, I really appreciate it. I understand your point — I actually wrote it myself, just trying to keep it clear and polite. I’m here to genuinely learn and contribute, and I’ll keep improving my communication style as I go. Thanks again for taking the time to guide me. Youtuberhakankeles (talk) 17:01, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We can see it's an LLM. It's very easy to identify. Osa Akwamarynowa (talk) 21:22, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there - a warm welcome to the English Wikipedia! :) there is no definite nor perfect way to become an active editor, and you can focus on any niche you want - but if you want to connect with other people, discussion areas like Teahouse is a great place to start! WP:AfD is where we discuss whether to delete, keep, merge, or redirect articles - this is another great place to get familiarized with how Wikipedia typically functions, and to meet established editors. I do recommend reading some AfDs and being familiar with notability guidelines, particularly WP:GNG, before participating. You can also check out WP:RfC to join and comment/vote on a decision. My favourite board, personally, is Wikipedia:Dashboard - it has a little bit of everything, and shows other boards or avenues where you can contribute to the place! Once again, welcome :) jolielover♥talk 17:01, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for the warm welcome and kind words! I really appreciate your encouragement. I’m excited to keep learning and contributing to the community. Youtuberhakankeles (talk) 17:04, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have a concern that I’d like to share.

In my country (Turkey), even when we create well-researched and properly sourced articles, local administrators and translators often delete them very quickly.

Despite following Wikipedia’s notability and verifiability guidelines carefully, we’ve noticed that our pages are sometimes removed or our accounts are blocked, usually with very strict reasoning.

I truly respect the volunteers and the effort that goes into maintaining the quality of Wikipedia, but it feels quite discouraging when good-faith contributions are deleted without a fair discussion.

What would you recommend to contributors like us who want to publish accurate and notable content, but face overly strict moderation in their local Wikipedia community? Youtuberhakankeles (talk) 17:11, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is the English-language Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a decentralized collection of platforms, and we here have no control over what happens on the Turkish-language Wikipedia. If you have any concerns about unfair deletions here or on the Turkish Wikipedia, the first step is usually to ask the admin about why your article was deleted. Hope this helps. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:15, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome! Jolielover above gave some great advice, but here's one more thing I think you will find useful: the Task Center. It's a beginner-friendly list of things for editors to help out with. Also, if you plan on adding any content to our articles, you'll want to familiarize yourself with how to cite your sources. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. Thanks, QuicoleJR (talk) 17:12, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to reply and for caring enough to help. I’ll definitely review the sources you shared. However, in the Turkish Wikipedia, some senior users sometimes delete our articles even when they are written carefully and with reliable sources. I hope we can move past this strict and personal approach in the future. Youtuberhakankeles (talk) 17:20, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On the English Wikipedia, very few articles are deleted without a community discussion at Articles for deletion (AFD), so you shouldn't have to worry about that. If you write an article and it is deleted without an AFD discussion, most admins will be willing to explain why if you ask them. I don't know how deletion works on the Turkish Wikipedia, but you won't have articles deleted on the English Wikipedia without knowing why. Hope this helps. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:23, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In some cases, I’ve noticed that well-sourced articles in the Turkish Wikipedia are deleted very quickly. One administrator has reportedly made around 5,320 user blocks, 19,103 deletions, 610 page protections, and 1,271 revision deletions. This seems quite concerning. I fully respect the hard work of administrators, but I would like to better understand how such decisions are made and reviewed. Could someone please explain the correct way to discuss or appeal these kinds of actions in the Turkish Wikipedia? I truly want to approach everything respectfully and in line with Wikipedia’s rules and community guidelines. Thank you for your time and attention. Youtuberhakankeles (talk) 17:30, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said above, I'm not familiar with the specific processes at the Turkish Wikipedia, but a good first step on any wiki when you have concerns about an administrative action is to ask the admin about it on their talk page. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:35, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

and please note that whilst we tend to assume good faith, your edit here [5] looks like vandalism. Theroadislong (talk) 17:46, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It does not look like vandalism; see WP:NOTVANDAL. More like a mistake. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:45, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Youtuberhakankeles. I'm afraid that that question is rather like "I'm having trouble with the authorities in Turkey. Can you in your country advise me how to deal with the Turkish authorities? For most of us, the answer is, No, we can't.

As for your original question: I agree with what others have said; but I caution that "a strong reputation" is not really likely or meaningful. Obviously few (if any) Wikipedia editors are known at all outside the world of Wikipedia editors; and even within that world, there are so many different areas that people specialise in that I doubt if there is really a useful concept of "Reputation". I spend a lot of time on help pages like here, WP:HD, and WP:AFCHD, so I know the names and contributions of a number of editors who you can see contributing to this thread, for example; but I rarely look at WP:AFD or WP:SPI, so I probably won't recognise the names of many of the people who do important work there. I will probably also not recognise the names of some of the most prolific creators of articles.

I suggest you drop the goal of achieving reputation, and simply concentrate on the quality of your contributions to Wikipedia, whatever they may be. ColinFine (talk) 21:29, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, thank you very much for your valuable advice. It was very useful. I wish you a good night. Youtuberhakankeles (talk) 21:32, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I’ve just created a new article about Swedish accordionist Lars Ek, based on verified sources and his contributions to Nordic music. I would appreciate any feedback or suggestions for improvement. The article includes biography, discography, awards, and historical preservation efforts. Thank you! LarsEkMusik (talk) 17:09, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit history indicates no edits by you other than the above; could you link to the draft? 331dot (talk) 17:14, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you are not the person you wrote about, you will need to change your username as you shouldn't use his name if you are not him. See Special:GlobalRenameRequest. 331dot (talk) 17:15, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict):Hi LarsEkMusik - I don't know where this article is, but this is the only edit you have made to the English Wikipedia. Moreover, your user-name suggests that you may have a WP:Conflict of interest in writing such an article. Please explain where the "article" is and what your relationship with Lars Ek is - Thanks -Arjayay (talk) 17:15, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's a long history of creations and abandoning drafts of that name. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:18, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the article: Lars Ek. LarsEkMusik (talk) 17:19, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No references means no article. Take a look at WP:REFB which is a small tutorial on how to create them. WP:SECONDARY sources are needed for WP:BLP's to prove notability, i.e. folk who are talking to other folk about the subject and don't know them. Hope that helps. scope_creep^Talk 17:43, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The current lack of references results in a draft that could be mere fiction, for all the reader knows. 27.134.48.132 (talk) 20:20, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Now at Draft:Lars Ek. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:57, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I would like to request the move of my completed sandbox article User:LarsEkMusik/sandbox to the main article space under the title Lars Ek.

The article is a fully translated and wikiformatted version of the approved Swedish Wikipedia article , which is now live. It includes verified references, neutral tone, and structured sections covering biography, publications, awards, and cultural contributions.

As I am not yet autoconfirmed, I kindly ask for assistance from an experienced editor to move the page.

Thank you in advance for your help!

— User:LarsEkMusik LarsEkMusik (talk) 19:26, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft is not suitable for publication. Please improve it (see WP:Your first article and WP:Referencing for beginners), including declaring your Conflict of interest, then submit it for review, via the process described at WP:AFC. If the reviewer deems it ready, they will publish it as an article. If not, they will give you further advice.

Note that you have two versions; the other is at Draft:Lars Ek. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:39, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @LarsEkMusik. This has no sources at all? I have added a button to allow you to submit for review, but it is not suitable for mainspace at the moment.

Since you are writing about yourself - which we strongly discourage - you are required to declare a conflict of interest. Please also read Wikipedia:Autobiography qcne (talk) 19:39, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sources are present, but malformed, and not inline. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:43, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They must be extraordinarily malformed, as they are invisible! (Mobile view.) 27.134.48.132 (talk) 20:25, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps inspired by the article on the "legendary" Pietro Frosini, which has existed for 18 years with virtually no referencing. 27.134.48.132 (talk) 20:45, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• LarsEkMusik, please stop making duplicate sections here. Beyond your first request, you have tried to post essentially the same text two more times (and all of these are somewhat redundant with your prior posts from earlier today). Other editors have already explained the shortcomings of this draft and how you can work towards improving it, as well as the need for you to properly disclose your conflict of interest. Continuing to make identical posts is disruptive and will have consequences if continued. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:45, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hej, @LarsEkMusik. Jag hittar ingen artikel som heter "Lars Ek" på svenska Vikipedia. Jag hittar bare sv:Användare:LarsEkMusik/sandlåda/Lars Ek. Deras referenser räcker inte för engelska Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 22:33, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. How can I get my edit count up without making needless edits?
2. Editing in my school would be nice, but I already forgot my password and my school is blocked from editing. What can I do?
3. How can I keep a neutral point of view? I typically struggle with using the "sterile" sort of language used here.
4. What really defines notability?

I do realize some of these are probably a few clicks away, but I have no idea what clicks that would be, so oh well.

Thank you. - Pss.master (talk) 21:45, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I'm wondering why you want to get your edit count up.

Most blocks on school IPs allow the use of accounts.

Notability is described at WP:N.

I'll let someone else answer the third point. 331dot (talk) 21:48, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure how much reputation really matters here. Just want to be sure and try to get a positive track record early.

Everything else is good from here.

Thanks again. - Pss.master (talk) 21:51, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The quality of your edits matters much more than the number of edits. 331dot (talk) 22:00, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Make needed edits.

(2) Edit from home.

27.134.48.132 (talk) 21:56, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(4) WP:N

27.134.48.132 (talk) 21:59, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. This really doesn't matter. Make edits that you think are needed and, most importantly, are actually good.
2. I'm not too tech savvy regarding Wikipedia, but my school does allow me to edit (in fact, that's where I am right now). Perhaps you just need to log in on your device at home so that it'll stay that way at the school.
3. I'm not too sure what to say with this one, and it looks like others are struggling with answering this too. Interesting.
4. WP:N Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 22:17, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Pss.master, and welcome to the Teahouse.

I'll try and answer 3: Find reliable independent sources, and summarise what they say: don't put in what you think, know, or believe about the subject, or what the subject or their associates say, but what these independent sources say.

The sources themselves don't have to be neutral, as long as they are reliable; but you should try to find a range of sources. If the sources disagree, you can say this sot of thing: According to Joe Bloggs in [1], "XXXXX". Fred Smith at [2] described it as "YYYYY" ColinFine (talk) 22:41, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to ask more experienced users to take a look at the Table, that I made here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kidney_dialysis&action=edit&section=19 , and fix the formatting issues, that I cannot figure oput myself. Thank you in advance. ApoieRacional (talk) 22:51, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i created Roman bellic and edited Nico bellic pages but it will "rewind" or delte the page Djmaxcz (talk) 23:55, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, @Djmaxcz!

The edit summary of the edit that redirected the Roman Bellic article to GTA 4 explained the reasoning. Your article was "completely unsourced, entirely plot summary, and copied directly from Fandom." If you can demonstrate notability using reliable sources, then you might be able to get it published. But as of now, you have yet to do that. Fandom is not considered a reliable source.

PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 00:01, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did sorce it but 100% wrongly And I agree with the Fandom Djmaxcz (talk) 00:05, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Djmaxcz:

Whether or not you agree with what the Fandom says is none of the matter - has this information been published independently in reliable sources? You could use news articles, press releases, books, mainstream magazines, etc. All of these would count as sources that would warrant the topic having its own article.

Find the three best sources for the subject - which would mean the information is verifiable and the publisher is trusted, and then build on those with additional sources and information.

I do not wish to come off as harsh or difficult, but this is the reality of writing Wikipedia articles. Information must be from trusted sources and be able to be verified. If we can handle these now, it's less to worry about later on down the road. PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 00:25, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Thanks a again Djmaxcz (talk) 00:27, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was reading the Touch Typing page: Touch typing

which notes that:

"Dactylographer" redirects here. For the racehorse, see Dactylographer (horse).

Which..... is great, but completely unrealted? From looking it up, Dactylography is the analysis of fingerprints for identification. Looking up fingerprints: Fingerprint

It mentions dactylography under the "Fingerprint identification" heading. It would make more sense to redirect Dactylography to this page. (I don't really know how to do that, and really should be working rather than learning to edit wikipedia - but I thought I'd ask here) Quentin Christensen (talk) 00:05, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Quentin Christensen. You can access Dactylography with this link. You can then edit the page and move the redirect's target if you so wish. PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 00:27, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Link: User_talk:Interstellarity#Deletion_of_births_and_deaths

On my talk page, 5 editors in the discussion on my talk page are so upset with my edits. My goal is to work with the editors to try to achieve some form of consensus that makes everyone happy. One person told me to stop my vandalism. However, I don't believe my edits meet the definition of vandalism, since I believe the other editors think I have made good faith, but unhelpful edits. Can you figure out what's been going on here and how I can set this right? Interstellarity (talk) 00:39, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that your edits were in good faith, but I think they were also disruptive, and I can understand why other people would be surprised. I think the best way you can show good faith would be to revert your edits now that they've been deemed controversial, and try to build consensus before making such large changes in the future. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 00:48, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]