User talk:MWFwiki

Hi Mark,

I dearly hope you are well.

I am kindly chasing the rendering of your third opinion regarding the aforementioned subject.

I left a substantive reply that I considered extensively. Please note, for transparency, that I did use an LLM to connect my arguments with Wikipedia Policy. I imagine this is discouraged editorially, albeit, I do find it empowering.

Kind regards,

Bill — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-17366-04 (talk) 03:58, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

I responded, thank you for reminding me.

I understand that LLMs can be helpful, for numerous reasons, but they are strongly discouraged, and anything written by or mostly by an LLM may be ignored as-if it were never written. LLM-generated content is generally excluded from being considered within community consensus. LLMs do not understand Wikipedia policy; I'm just warning you, they truly do not understand how each policy ties-in with each other, how community consensus works, how we assert that "verifiability, not truth" matters, nor does it understand WP:IAR. LLMs may be able to generate a reasonable analysis of a single policy, or possibly even two, but otherwise, it can be wrong for numerous reasons.

I understand that it may be easier to communicate via an LLM, but we as a community want to hear your voice and opinion, not a machine's. There are administrators that will block your account/IP for excessive LLM-use, just so you're aware. Don't worry about how you sound of if you feel Wikipedia is intimidating. The only way you'll get better at all of this is by actually doing it. Even if you don't plan on sticking-around, I would rather have a discussion with a real person over a machine.

For transparency, any discussion pertaining to the article in-question should take place on the relevant Talk page, but you are welcome to ask me any questions you may feel the need to here, otherwise.  — MWFwiki (talk) 05:02, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. And thank you for the constructive feedback.

With that feedback, I'll reserve the application of LLM to understanding specific Wikipedia policies, before deeply researching the policy and applying it myself. If there are any further queries or concerns, and if I need an editor's hand, I trust you're kindly receptive. Thanks again.

To clarify and iterate, the content and arguments I tabled were painstakingly curated. What started with challenging the removal of critical content (after the seeming establishment of editor consensus within the article's editorial history), escalated to critically assessing the article as it stands in full. LLM was only applied to link my points to Wikipedia Policy, of which I have little, but growing, understanding.

Thank you again for your attention to the matter. I'll see you on the other page. ~2026-16389-36 (talk) 08:29, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

President of Real Madrid Incumbent Assumed office 1 June 2009 Preceded by Vicente Boluda In office 16 July 2000 – 27 February 2006 Preceded by Lorenzo Sanz Succeeded by Fernando Martín Álvarez (unofficial) Ramón Calderón Born Florentino Pérez Rodríguez 8 March 1947 (age 78) Hortaleza, Madrid, Spain Alma mater Technical University of Madrid Occupations Businessman, civil engineer, sports club president Known for President of Real Madrid Chairman of The Super League Political party Union of the Democratic Center (1979–1982) Democratic Reformist Party (1982–1986) Board member of Chairman of Grupo ACS Spouse María Ángeles "Pitina" Sandoval Montero ​ ​(m. 1970; died 2012)​[1] --Kevin rodrguez (talk) 19:26, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Do you have a question, or? MWFwiki (talk) 01:42, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello there! Thanks for taking time with this question. I was wondering how exactly the citation works. Is it better to add it mid-sentence when a specific thing is mentioned, or together at the end of the sentence? And any general tips for a new wiki-editor? --Sneha Tijo (talk) 17:48, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

@Sneha Tijo, hello! Sorry for the delayed response, I thought I had already replied. So, as for "where" to add a citation, it depends. Generally speaking, it's alright to add it at the end of the sentence or even paragraph. If, however, you are citing a fact or statement that may be contentious or controversial, it is best practice to place the citation immediately after it. Same goes for quotes. As far as general advice:

•Don't take anything personally. Remember that the editor that you may be arguing with on the other end doesn't actually know who you are or why you hold the position that you do. Additionally, I have found editors making arguments that I agree with personally but I cannot agree with on Wikipedia. Policy needs to be our first.

•If you're engaged in a discussion with another editor and have reached an impasse, seek a third opinion via WP:THIRD.

•It's also important to remember that many, many people don't understand the mission, here. They prefer to utilize Wikipedia as a means to further their agenda. Even though others may do this, it's important to have integrity and not fall into this. We are not here to "right great wrongs". We are here to build an encyclopedia.

•There are some quirks to our manual of style. For instance, we place punctuation outside of quoteation marks unless it is explicitly part of the quote. If you're an American like I am, this may seem unusual at first, but it does make sense. Speaking of quotation marks, we use " - straight quotes, not "curly quotes".

•Just edit. There's no substitute for simply doing it. The more you edit, the more experienced you'll become (obviously) and the quicker you'll pick-up on things.

•Don't be afraid to engage in deletion discussions, merge discussions, etc. If you have aspirations to be gain user rights and/or become an administrator one day, this sort of experience is invaluable and it doesn't hurt to get your name seen "around town".

•Make yourself a promise that you will never add unsourced material to Wikipedia. Yes, it can be frustrating, especially when you know something to be the truth. It doesn't matter. For the purposes of our encyclopedia, it needs a source or it may as well not be true.

•Don't use AI/LLMs to write discussion replies for you, much less articles. It's very obvious when someone is using an LLM and it is frowned-upon strongly, here. AI tools may have very niche applications on Wikipedia, but they should mostly be avoided, at least at this time.

•Stick to editing what interests you, at least at first. You need to develop a passion for Wikipedia to make editing stick, and the easiest way to do that is to edit what you care about. Over time, you'll move-on to topics that don't necessarily interest you in real-life, but interest you on Wikipedia for several reasons.

I could probably keep going, but I think that is the more basic and important aspects of being part of this community. Let me know if you have any questions! MWFwiki (talk) 22:30, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Quriouslyatsky noticed you changed your name - see reply above! Cheers MWFwiki (talk) 22:31, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes, decided to go with another name :)

Thanks for the detailed answer, this is very insightful! Quriouslyatsky (talk) 11:55, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Did you decide not to propose Hotel detective for deletion? I agree that it has very limited independent notability and would support your deletion nomination. I may send to AfD myself if you decide not to. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hotel_detective#Value_of_Page/Merger?

-- Regards, Lexiconaut (talk) 22:51, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Wow, old! I had forgotten about that puppy. Something needs to be done... not sure if straight deletion is warranted, perhaps a simple merger. But I agree that it has very shaky notability. Give me some time to consider. I'll make a decision within a day and I'll ping you here. MWFwiki (talk) 01:57, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

@Lexiconaut All set, merged to security guard

cheers MWFwiki (talk) 21:51, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! --Lexiconaut (talk) 23:53, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

What do you think of merging store detective into loss prevention? MWFwiki (talk) 02:28, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Something needs to be done with "store detective." Right now it is under-referenced and looks like OR or an essay. A couple of sentences in "loss prevention" seems about right. --Lexiconaut (talk) 23:16, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

hello i can't find the thing i want to edit it's harry potter --Oisi1 (talk) 05:22, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

For the topic in-general, see Harry Potter. For the character, see: Harry Potter (character). For the film series in its entirety, see: Harry Potter (film series). For the HP universe, see: Fictional universe of Harry Potter.
For each film, see:

• Philosopher's Stone (1997)
• Chamber of Secrets (1998)
• Prisoner of Azkaban (1999)
• Goblet of Fire (2000)
• Order of the Phoenix (2003)
• Half-Blood Prince (2005)
• Deathly Hallows (2007)

For all other uses, see: Harry Potter (disambiguation)

MWFwiki (talk) 06:47, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Welcome to Phase 2 of the January–February 2026 NPP drive. During Phase 1, we reviewed 16,658 articles and 4,416 redirects, and there is currently a backlog of 16,475 articles and 23,782 redirects in the queue. Fantastic job! Completing 22,502 patrols in the first phase made a significant dent in the backlog. Let's keep our foot on the gas for Phase 2, and I hope we can achieve even more reviews than Phase 1. Best of luck!

You are receiving this message because you added your name to the participants list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:21, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Good evening my name is Isa Isiyaku I'm ready to join 666 I am a River State Port Harcourt --Isa Isiyaku (talk) 14:57, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand? MWFwiki (talk) 21:49, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Why is it so difficult to contact a primary Wiki author, to offer advice, or to correct mistaken "information"? --Jamey D Allen (talk) 20:57, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

@Jamey D Allen; Whom are you trying to contact? The author of which article? MWFwiki (talk) 22:47, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

It does not matter. Contacting ANY author is complicated or impossible. My point is that it should be possible and easy.

JDA. ~2026-87365-3 (talk) 00:18, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

I guess I'm just not clear on why you feel it's "complicated." You go to an article, click "view history" and you go to the oldest entry. That usually shows the author. There are some instances where you'll need to look at the second-oldest entry. Then, you leave them a message on their Talk page. If they don't respond, it can be for a variety of reasons; They have stopped using/"retired" from Wikipedia, they've passed-away, or the just don't want to talk to you, for whatever reason. If they don't respond, go to the article and make the change you want to see, yourself. Is that something I can assist you with? Or can I help you get in-touch with a particular editor? MWFwiki (talk) 00:54, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. You have provided the information I need, but did not have (!). ~2026-87365-3 (talk) 21:43, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Buena tarde, ¿cómo es posible publicar un artículo en modo Taller o Sandbox? No lo quiero lanzar de inmediato a versión pública y quisiera ajustes de la comunidad --LeonEscanor (talk) 22:14, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Please see User:LeonEscanor/sandbox for private work. To invite public participation on a draft article, please follow the directions found at WP:AFC. Thanks! MWFwiki (talk) 22:47, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello, Mentor. I did write a brief article in my sandbox space! Are there any chance that you can look at it and give me some advices, plx? (it is and spanish contribution) --LeonEscanor (talk) 06:09, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

@LeonEscanor - well, without commenting on the content yet, where are your sources? That will be the first question any reviewer asks. Also, are you planning on publishing this article here or on es.wikipedia.org? MWFwiki (talk) 02:03, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

How to edit in filmography --Nidhin07calicut (talk) 05:02, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Balachandra_Menon&action=edit&section=4 — MWFwiki (talk) 05:13, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello! I have 2 questions at the moment. 1. I was wondering how do you write information on a page relating to a topic that has little to no information on the web (no citations possible), but you do know information about.

2. In Source editing, how do you link a Wikipedia page that is in anoter language? --Kh4led08 (talk) 20:35, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

1. You don't, not officially. I know it's frustrating, but any un-sourced content is subject to removal by any editor at any time.

2. As follows:

Erich Anders [de]

So, {{interlanguage link|Erich Anders|de}} — In other words; {{interlanguage link '''then''' | '''then''' the article title | '''then''' the language code}} — there are other ways to execute these links, but see Help:Interlanguage links for more information. MWFwiki (talk) 22:32, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

hi --Justaneditor825 (talk) 22:19, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello! — MWFwiki (talk) 22:32, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello, How can i submit my draft for review? --KamalAhmedd (talk) 01:41, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Please review WP:AFC and let me know if you have any questions! MWFwiki (talk) 02:30, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

¡Hola! Buenas noches

Siempre me he preguntado ¿Cómo las palabras destacadas en azul nos llevan a otra información? y como próximo editor y curador de información ¿Cómo lo puedo hacer?

Saludos --ExploraLogiaWiki (talk) 04:12, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

No se si @MWFwiki hable español, entonces te respondo yo.

Las palabras en azul te llevan a otra información ya que son enlaces a otras páginas, usualmente siendo en el mismo Wikipedia.

Hay dos formas de crear estos enlaces.

1. Si estas en Editor Visual, selecciona la palabra que quieres que lleve a otro artículo. Aprieta Ctrl+K. Esto te va a dejar buscar la página que quieres poner enlace.
2. Si estas en el otro modo (no me se su nombre en español), usa el formato siguiente: [[enlace]]

Espero que ayude! Kh4led08 (talk) 19:46, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

¡Hola! @MWFwiki

Gracias por responder, y claro que me sirvió

Saludos ExploraLogiaWiki (talk) 03:38, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

How are you doing? --Calvinthu (talk) 16:39, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Another question; what counts as a reliable source on Wikipedia? --Kh4led08 (talk) 20:25, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Please see WP:RS — do you have any specific examples you wish to confirm whether or not they may count as a reliable source? MWFwiki (talk) 21:49, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

for example the official website of a place. Kh4led08 (talk) 23:11, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

That would be a primary source. Primary sources may only be utilized to confirm basic, non-controversial facts. MWFwiki (talk) 23:24, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

What counts as basic? Kh4led08 (talk) 23:29, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I have a question regarding questionable wording and sources of one Wiki article and the procedural technicalities.

.............. A bit about myself: I am not a Wiki editor and do not strive to be one. First of all, I don't consider myself knowledgeable enough in order for me to provide information for everyone to refer to. I think it's a huge responsibility. I am a teacher with more than 32 years of teaching experience and am here just for the experience. I noticed that something was worded incorrectly on one particular Wiki page and I am trying to change it due to the fact that I think it should be more neutral and more factual rather than poorly sourced. I care only about that one article because I actually know something about the event - I followed it five years ago as it was unfolding. ..............

I didn't try to change the article myself, but did raise the issue on the Talk page. The editors told me that they agreed on the specific wording and it follows the WP: agreement protocol so they are not going to change anything. If the information provided is factually wrong, is there another way of me trying to dispute it? Would it be possible to find a neutral party to solve this? I have created a dispute, but it was not worded correctly by me and I didn't follow the correct procedure. I didn't know how many editors were involved and didn't list them all. So the dispute was dismissed.

One more question, if I may:

If you compare two articles, one on Cha Eun-woo and another one on Kim Seon-ho, the one about Cha Eun-woo is clearly more neutrally worded. Yet it is labeled "This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these messages) This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. The specific problem is: Large portions read as an indiscriminate list of events rather than a true biographical article. (April 2025) This article may be written from a fan's point of view, rather than a neutral point of view. (July 2025) Some of this article's listed sources may not be reliable. (January 2026)"

While the article about Kim Seon-ho has more biased content, is it not labeled as having multiple issues and is even nominated for Good Article in media and drama. Why is there such a huge discrepancy? Who provides labels for multiple issues? Because the one about Kim Seon-ho definitely needs one. Where can I request it to be checked for multiple issues?

-- NothingbuttheTruth101 (talk) 11:45, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I will answer you questions today! Thank you for your patience, @NothingbuttheTruth101! MWFwiki (talk) 11:12, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

@MWFwiki Thanks! NothingbuttheTruth101 (talk) 15:31, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi, NothingbuttheTruth101; So, very broadly, Wikipedia doesn't necessarily care what the "truth" is. All Wikipedia cares about is what is written in reliable sources, preferably secondary sources, but primary sources will do in certain circumstances. If there is a dispute over the content, we settle it via consensus. I understand that all of this can be frustrating to someone that is very knowledgeable about a particular subject, but we cannot make exceptions to these rules, lest anyone write whatever they wish while claiming to be an expert in the topic. If you wish to raise a dispute further, and it is only between you and another editor, please seek a third opinion. If it involves more that two people total, seek mediation at WP:DRN.

As for the differences between articles... two different articles, two different sets of local consensus. Yes, there are often disparities between articles; One article generally does not impact another. See WP:OTHERCONTENT. As far as where you can request a "check..." on the article in-question's Talk page, generally. MWFwiki (talk) 22:01, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for writing back. That was a very honest statement. I have some other questions, if I may. What if some reliable sources quoted an unreliable source, for example a reliable source such as South China Morning Post published an article stating that a Korean tabloid Dispatch made certain claims, while Dispatch is not a reliable source and the Wiki article does not mention the original source (Dispatch)?

Also, a media outlet (a tabloid) made an investigation and cited unnamed sources. Another media outlet quoted that tabloid's findings. Wouldn't the second media outlet be considered a tertiary source?

One more question: let's say (hypothetically) senior editors came to consensus that (again, hypothetically) a certain opinion is correct. Wouldn't facts outweigh that opinion?

So basically, Wikipedia cares more about editors' consensus rather than facts. Am I understanding this correctly?

Would it be okay to raise neutrality issues over a certain article while it is nominated as a GA? NothingbuttheTruth101 (talk) 22:26, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

That is a good question, regarding a reliable source using an unreliable source. I would say that context matters, here. If the reliable source was merely quoting the unreliable source and discussing the unreliable source's coverage of the topic, I would say it's okay. If the reliable source was using the unreliable source as a source itself, and based their article on the unreliable source, then that is closer to unacceptable. However, reliable sources are generally considered to have editorial teams, etc, so one could make the argument that that they make that information reliable.

Regarding your second question, Wikipedia asserts that tertiary sources are encyclopedias and the like (Wikipedia itself is a tertiary source, for example). So, no, a secondary source doesn't transform into something else. It can only transform into a primary source if it's talking about its own publication. A publication's reliability may always be questioned, however, usually at WP:RSN.

Regarding your third question; Wikipedia cares more about what reliable sources say than anything else. Consensus needs to be supported by reliable sources and/or by Wikipedia policy. Consensus without these items is generally not "good" consensus. But yes; Apart from common sense situations (the sky is blue), we take what sources say over anything else. Broadly: We repeat what reliable sources say, guided by consensus, and within the bounds of policy & guidelines.

As for your GA question, yes, broadly and lacking specific context, I would say that broaching questions of neutrality are appropriate within a GA nomination discussion. MWFwiki (talk) 22:44, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you one more time.

Could you please clarify this:

"I would say that context matters here. If the reliable source was merely quoting the unreliable source and discussing the unreliable source's coverage of the topic, I would say it's acceptable. If the reliable source was using the unreliable source as a source itself and based its article on the unreliable source, then that is closer to unacceptable."

The reliable sources were both quoting the unreliable source and using it as a source itself. They based their articles on the unreliable source by mostly quoting it. So the whole article is essentially quoting and summarizing the unreliable source's findings, which effectively makes it a source. I can provide the content of the article here for clarification.

Also, concerning reliability, how do you determine whether a source is reliable or not? Both sources are not Korean, and as far as I know, both are only considered reliable when it comes to news about their own countries. Since they cannot conduct their own investigations outside their countries, they rely on news sources from other countries, so I would say they are more or less borderline when it comes to entertainment reporting.

Basically, to report on a matter that happened in Korea involving a Korean actor, the Wiki editors chose a media outlet from the Philippines and one based in Hong Kong. It's like using French and German media outlets publishing the findings of a British tabloid. The editors chose not to use reputable Korean sources, as those sources were much more careful in wording the issue, which makes me question the neutrality of that particular segment of the article.

I am sorry for getting technical here, but I see a distortion of the truth by overriding it with consensus and providing semi-reliable sources. I understand that Wiki does not focus on the truth, only on consensus, but I question the reliability of the sources and the wording of the Wiki entry. NothingbuttheTruth101 (talk) 23:31, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

I suppose what I mean is... let's say the New York Times (NYT, a reliable source) states that The National Enquirer (TNE, an unreliable source, I think) "said X." Specifically, something like "TNE claims that X happened." I think that's okay, especially if it's just a quick mention or quote. However, if the NYT says "According to TNE, XYZ," and the entire article is based on this premise, then yes, it may be unreliable. However, you need to overcome the fact that NYT is considered a reliable source. Does that make sense?

If you want to challenge a source, you can either do-so in the article in-question's Talk page or at WP:RSN, those are really your only avenues of attack. MWFwiki (talk) 00:04, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes, it does make sense, thank you one more time.

Here is a quote from the first so-called reliable source:

"[ ] However, a new report released on Tuesday by Korean media outlet Dispatch – best known for breaking celebrity dating rumours and investigations into the entertainment industry - reveals his side of the story.

Through a timeline of events, a series of text message conversations, and a variety of other information – much of it allegedly provided by Kim’s friends – the report shows Kim’s kindness appears to have been taken advantage of by a former girlfriend, who previously worked in the news and is now an influencer."

Here is another one: "Korean media outlet Dispatch published a story on Oct. 26 and directly named the actor’s former girlfriend."

Would you consider both sources reliable or unreliable based on their wording?

I would like to challenge the editor's choice for the source if that's appropriate. I believe, the sources should be both reliable and Korean. Because right now it's more like the New York Times provides the summary of the Daily Mail (the British tabloid).

Anyway, there will be no more questions from me regarding this topic - I apologize for asking too many.

Thank you for your thorough, thoughtful, and clear answers. Maybe you should edit the articles about Korean celebrities instead; it seems that you have a very logical approach to things. NothingbuttheTruth101 (talk) 00:22, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

I would have to see both of the articles in their entirety. From what I can see, they would likely retain reliability. As far as English versus Korean sources, as per WP:NONENG, English-language sources are indeed preferred. However, if there are very few English sources available about a specific event, then non-English sources become far more acceptable.

You're most welcome, I'm happy to help; Please feel-free to ask all the questions you like. — MWFwiki (talk) 03:15, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi there, I was wondering about adding information to certain articles. I'm a fan of the Japanese show Kamen Rider and think it would be fun to add information regarding it to other articles that may have related content, and was wondering the best way to go about it. An example being adding notes to articles about various Suzuki and Honda motorcycles that have appeared in the series, like how the article about the DMC DeLorean mentions it's appearing in the Back to the Future series or how the Winchester Model 1887/1901 article mentions it's appearance in Terminator 2: Judgement Day and Jumanji. Any tips or recommendations for just smaller little "trivia" style additions? --Betsytheridernerd (talk) 01:53, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Betsytheridernerd; As long as you have a reliable source which states the vehicle appeared in the show, then you could add a "In popular culture" section to the vehicles' article and add "XYZ appeared in seaoson X, episode Y of Kamen Rider in February 2026." (Followed by the source confirming it)

You need a source — merely "knowing" it appeared is not enough. Let me know if I can assist you with any of this.  — MWFwiki (talk) 01:59, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

I wanted to take a moment to thank you for your help with Bahamian English. I know emotions, pride, and egos can run hot and it can be a nuisance for everyone (even the mediator, I suspect) when a discussion gets to the 3O level. Anyway, I appreciate you devoting some time to helping us keep more level-headed than our typical operating procedure. I don't take lightly the real humans that keep our free global encyclopedia afloat. All the best! Wolfdog (talk) 16:13, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

I very much enjoyed assisting both you and Mmemaigret, and enjoyed seeing two obviously knowledgeable and intelligent editors working-on a subject they were passionate about. If you need me to chime-in on any further disagreements, please feel-free to ask. I hope to see you both around.  — MWFwiki (talk) 23:13, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you MWFwiki. It was a pleasure working with you and I appreciated your patience and insight throughout. 🤗 MmeMaigret (talk) 00:22, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

hello what does mean and how do i create a citation,info box and sandbox? --Abdurezak Hassan (talk) 23:56, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi MWFwiki! I have been making modifications to the Apollo/Skylab spacesuit article over the past few days and have some questions about preferred use of short footnotes and its interaction with the visual editor.

According to the Help page for sfn, list-defined references are incompatible with the visual editor. The page in its current form uses list-defined references. Though this is not a major issue as the page citations display correctly in the preview, this might pose a problem to future editors who want to make edits but are more comfortable with the visual editor.

Could you provide some suggestions on how I can reorganize the references so that the short footnotes are visible in the visual editor as well? --OwlCritique (talk) 15:00, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

@MWFwiki: Another thing I wanted to ask is if, without using list-defined references, it is possible to define a reference somewhere separate from the rest of the article contents without it displaying so that the ref name can be reused elsewhere? OwlCritique (talk) 04:36, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi, OwlCritique; Those are all excellent questions and I wish I could provide you better answers. Unfortunately, I exclusively edit in the "source" editor and have little to no (read: no) knowledge of the "visual" editor. You could try the teahouse or the MOS Talk page (I think the latter... or both, if you're feeling bold).

Regarding your second question; I would assume that might be a possibility. Maybe "hiding" it in the source? See: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Hidden text.

The other option would be to possibly define the reference within the reference list... does that make sense? That may work, never tried it.

All of this being said, for single references, I urge you to keep things simple  — MWFwiki (talk) 05:58, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice! OwlCritique (talk) 11:22, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello @MWFwiki!

I was wondering what counted as "an already existing article" on the Help:Your_first_article article. I'm planning to write an article on the Gatun Lake/ Gatun River droughts, although there already is an article (List of ports in the United States) that explains a bit of my topic (2 sentences about it). Does a new article about the topic qualify for the Help:Your_first_article requirements? Kh4led08 (talk) 13:51, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

@Kh4led08; That would likely be alright, quick mentions on an established article don't preclude a new article. Do you feel you have the sources to support a stand-alone article?  — MWFwiki (talk) 20:48, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

@MWFwiki I have drafted a page in Google Docs. I just have to find where to put the number citations because I didn't include them in the draft. Would you like me to send you the draft via a .txt file? Kh4led08 (talk) 00:41, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

And to your question; yes, I have sources. Kh4led08 (talk) 00:42, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Sure, but why don't you just create the draft here? Either in your sandbox or via WP:AFC?  — MWFwiki (talk) 01:06, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Sultan Kamal --Atjeh0 (talk) 07:33, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Did you have a question?  — MWFwiki (talk) 08:51, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

I did an edit in Wikipedia, it was there at the time but gone the day after. No message, no info why it happened. Do you have any clue? /Matts --Mattslin (talk) 07:48, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Can you link me to the page?  — MWFwiki (talk) 22:28, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Dear MWFwiki

I hope you are doing well, I have a few questions for you as I am starting Wikipedia such as where to find reliable sources for a certain article topic and how to gradually improve my editing skills.

Best wishes

From KnowledgeCorp86 --KnowledgeCorp86 (talk) 19:07, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Sure; what can I assist you with?  — MWFwiki (talk) 22:29, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for getting back to me, I a few questions for you such as the sandbox feature,reliable sources and what did you do to increase your editing skills? KnowledgeCorp86 (talk) 22:51, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

KnowledgeCorp86; Your sandbox is located at User:KnowledgeCorp86/Sandbox; Just start editing there to create it.

Everything you need to know about "reliable sources" (RSs) can be found at WP:RS. I can answer specific questions concerning sources, if you have them.

As far as general advice:

•Don't take anything personally. Remember that the editor that you may be arguing with on the other end doesn't actually know who you are or why you hold the position that you do. Additionally, I have found editors making arguments that I agree with personally but I cannot agree with on Wikipedia. Policy needs to be our first.

•If you're engaged in a discussion with another editor and have reached an impasse, seek a third opinion via WP:THIRD.

•It's also important to remember that many, many people don't understand the mission, here. They prefer to utilize Wikipedia as a means to further their agenda. Even though others may do this, it's important to have integrity and not fall into this. We are not here to "right great wrongs". We are here to build an encyclopedia.

•Secondary to the point above, we only care about verifiability, not truth. This can be hard for some people to grasp, and some never do. It is, however, one of the most important tenets of Wikipedia.

•There are some quirks to our manual of style. For instance, we place punctuation outside of quoteation marks unless it is explicitly part of the quote. If you're an American like I am, this may seem unusual at first, but it does make sense. Speaking of quotation marks, we use " - straight quotes, not "curly quotes".

•Just edit. There's no substitute for simply doing it. The more you edit, the more experienced you'll become (obviously) and the quicker you'll pick-up on things.

•Don't be afraid to engage in deletion discussions, merge discussions, etc. If you have aspirations to be gain user rights and/or become an administrator one day, this sort of experience is invaluable and it doesn't hurt to get your name seen "around town".

•Make yourself a promise that you will never add unsourced material to Wikipedia. Yes, it can be frustrating, especially when you know something to be the truth. It doesn't matter. For the purposes of our encyclopedia, it needs a source or it may as well not be true.

•Don't use AI/LLMs to write discussion replies for you, much less articles. It's very obvious when someone is using an LLM and it is frowned-upon strongly, here. AI tools may have very niche applications on Wikipedia, but they should mostly be avoided, at least at this time.

•Stick to editing what interests you, at least at first. You need to develop a passion for Wikipedia to make editing stick, and the easiest way to do that is to edit what you care about. Over time, you'll move-on to topics that don't necessarily interest you in real-life, but interest you on Wikipedia for several reasons.

•Once you're more experienced, begin applying for user rights, such as WP:AFCP (I'd start there, as a first right to request once you're more experienced).

I could probably keep going, but I think that is the more basic and important aspects of being part of this community. Let me know if you have any questions! — MWFwiki (talk) 23:47, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Hey! How do I assign myself an article to edit? --Sadielue (talk) 20:20, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Typically, you can pick one, but I can pick one for you, if you'd prefer. What are you interested in?  — MWFwiki (talk) 20:40, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

im hoping to edit the Colombian Americans wiki page for my class. It would be awesome if you could assign that to me! Thank you so much Sadielue (talk) 20:42, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Apologies for the confusion; We as mentors are not involved in the Wikiedu project. We're just here to answer questions. Who assigned your article to evaluate? Or was that self-assigned?  — MWFwiki (talk) 20:51, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

self assigned! Sadielue (talk) 20:52, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

If you wish to continue with the Wiki Education program, I believe you need an instructor to assign you the course. I would enroll as an instructor, but I, quite frankly, have too many tasks on Wikipedia already. If you want me to evaluate your article evaluation and to assign you some tasks pertaining to Colombian Americans, I can do that. Just be aware that it wouldn't count towards class "credit" for the education program. However, I never participated in that program and most editors I know haven't, either, so. But I'm happy to whatever you're more comfortable with. If you want to continue with the official class you'll need to seek-out an instructor, I believe.  — MWFwiki (talk) 21:25, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

okay! i will email the instructor directly! thank you so much for your help. Sadielue (talk) 22:12, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi!

I am part of a global organization and need to create a Wikipedia page. I have articles, books, and other evidence that can help with notoriety. I am having trouble disclosing the COI, could you help me get started please? --RGGEditor (talk) 23:04, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

RGGEditor; So, first, review WP:COI and specifically WP:COIEDITING. At the very least, you'll need to place a notice on your page. See this as an example which I recently place on someone's page:

{{User COI|1=Carmela Conroy|text=This user did not self-declare their COI. This user only [[Talk:Carmela_Conroy#c-RiverHouseWriter-20260314231500-MWFwiki-20260314225600|declared]] their COI when questioned. The COI is [[WP:APPARENTCOI|"apparent"]]; User denies a personal or professional relationship with Conroy. [[User:MWFwiki|MWFwiki]] placed this notice, placed appropriate notices at the relevant article, and checked relevant edits for neutrality.}}

"1=" should be the article name and obviously, replace the "Text=" parameter with whatever you feel appropriate. If you need some help, let me know!  — MWFwiki (talk) 23:10, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi!

I am unable to declare the COI in my page. How long after creating my account and editing some articles can I declare the COI?

Thanks! RGGEditor (talk) 03:47, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

I'll do it for you. What is the COI you wish to disclose? It doesn't need to be an article that exists yet, just tell me the entity's name and what your relationship to it/them is.  — MWFwiki (talk) 21:36, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

The organization is FAO-ICARDA CactusNet. (It is a global technical cooperation network of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and ICARDA; International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas)

I am part of the FAO-ICARDA CactusNet Steering Committee. (Something like the organization's board of directors)

Thank you so much!! RGGEditor (talk) 02:41, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

I forgot to add that I want to write and publish the Wikipedia page on FAO-ICARDA CactusNet. :) RGGEditor (talk) 17:25, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Well, you can either start at your sandbox: User:RGGEditor/sandbox (don't worry about the link being red, you have to "create" it first) or via "articles for creation" at the article creation "wizard".  — MWFwiki (talk) 20:12, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

More information Wrong recipient Rand Freeman (talk to me) 00:20, 19 March 2026 (UTC) ...

Wrong recipient Rand Freeman (talk to me) 00:20, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article. You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles. A tag has been placed on User:RGGEditor, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information. If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Rand Freeman (talk to me) 00:15, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Close

Oops, Twinkle sent that to you and not to RGGEditor. Disregard this. Rand Freeman (talk to me) 00:17, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

No worries  — MWFwiki (talk) 00:28, 19 March 2026 (UTC)