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)

Hi @MWFwiki,

Dearly hope you have been well.

Kindly requesting your attention to Talal Yassine's editorial history, as the serial beautifier is, once again selectively sanitising the page. Highly suspect COI editing.

Unsure on how to escalate.

Very best,

Bill ~2026-21736-54 (talk) 01:28, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Bill,

You could file a protection request (see: WP:RFPP), although I am not convinced that the article would qualify for protection, even at a low-level... but a request wouldn't hurt anyone. Now, with that being said, I do think something suspicious is going on with the article. It barely averages 10 views per day (which means, excluding technical views, it's probably closer to 5-8 views per day), and I strongly doubt that such an article would attract such controversy without there being some sort of COI going on. However, this is purely speculative on my part.  — MWFwiki (talk) 02:04, 13 May 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)

Hi!

Thanks so much for your help with the COI. However, the page was deleted. :(

Is there a way to make this informative page without it being deleted? I'm including sources and not being promotional by any means. The tone is neutral, but somehow ended deleted.

Any help will be greatly appreciated.

Thanks!! ~2026-18167-06 (talk) 04:13, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-18167-06/@RGGEditor: You can't make your userpage into anything even resembling an advertisement or endorsement of a particular business; it simply is not allowed on your userpage. Even if it doesn't otherwise seem promotional, as I said. See WP:UPNO#PROMO. You have far more leeway if you either use your sandbox:

User:RGGEditor/sandbox (again, don't worry about the link being red, you have to "create" it first)

Or, you follow the directions at WP:AFC to create a slightly more "official" draft article.  — MWFwiki (talk) 05:22, 24 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)

Note: Dragonhawk12's mentor Relativity is away.

Hello, I am currently trying to make the Rube Goldberg article into GA status. I was wondering if it’s appropriate to delete the section that lists other artists or works that are similar to Rube Goldberg machines around the world. I couldn’t find reliable sources for a lot of the sections and a lot of the sections fit better into the Media part of the article. I also wanted to make a section about how Rube Goldberg machines have been used to teach STEM and engineering principles, but I am not sure what to call that section.

Thanks! -Dragonhawk --Dragonhawk12 (talk) 02:06, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Dragonhawk12; Your mentor is away, so your question was assigned to me. So, first, regarding the section you wish to delete; Wikipedia prohibits original research and synthesis of disparate sources. So, in the section-in-question, each entry must have a source, and the source must explicitly compare it to the RGM or state that it's similar. If it doesn't have a source, delete the entry. If it does have a source but said source doesn't explicitly state what u mentioned, delete it. If you find that none of the entries meet this criteria, yes, delete the section. If you're left with one or two entires, perhaps they can be mentioned elsewhere in the article.

As far as what to call the section, I'd have to see the content, first. However, based on what you're telling me:

• Use in education
• Educational applications
• Applications within education
• STEM and engineering applications
• Use in STEM and engineering education

I could probably come up with more, but again, I'd need to see the content. Just be bold and throw the content in with a placeholder section title, we can always figure it out later. — MWFwiki (talk) 02:27, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I have edited the article further. I would like to know if there is any other things that should be tweaked or added to make the article eligible for GA status. I also just added the educational part into the "History" section, as I don't think adding a whole section for education is necessary. Thanks! Dragonhawk12 (talk) 05:30, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

I edited the media and contests section to be in bullet points, but it got tagged as being better in prose style. Would it be better for me to revert it back to its original form, or keep it as is. Dragonhawk12 (talk) 15:40, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, I would convert the "Similar expressions and artists worldwide" to prose. The "In media" section, I would argue is fine as a list, but you should make that the last section of the article and change it to "In popular culture". "History" is good. As far as GA, I can do a pre-review of the article tonight.  — MWFwiki (talk) 20:46, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I’ll try and edit it later in the day Dragonhawk12 (talk) 20:47, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

can I add images of drawings in the public domain? I want to add the 1914 drawing of the automatic weight-reducing machine, but I am not sure if I can due to copyright. And the website says to only put images you own or have permission to put Dragonhawk12 (talk) 00:42, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Dragonhawk12; If they're in the public domain, you should be all set. Just give attribution (when you're uploading, fill-out things like "author", etc). You can upload things here; just follow the instructions. You shoul be able to login to Wikimedia Commons with the same username and password you use here.  — MWFwiki (talk) 00:46, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

@Dragonhawk12; Regarding the RGM article, it's probably roughly in a place to be nominated as a "Good Article." One or two of the sources might not be reliable (lambiek.net may be questionable), but I didn't look too closely, I just did a quick pass over the article. The GA reviewer will do a much deeper dive.  — MWFwiki (talk) 06:22, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

I believe I have everything ready to submit a new article for The Arlington Memorial Gardens in Cincinnati, but the blue "publish" button doesn't seem to do anything. --Mark solution (talk) 12:38, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

@Mark solution; You submitted the article via the "articles for creation" process. It requires a review before being moved to the article "mainspace". While I am a reviewer, it would likely constitute a conflict of interest for me to review it. Give it 7-30 days, someone will look it over, perhaps sooner if you're lucky.  — MWFwiki (talk) 20:48, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks...it finally worked when I submitted with the visual editor. ~2026-18696-00 (talk) 01:29, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks - I’m all good --DominicLeoSmith (talk) 00:35, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Note: Dragonhawk12's mentor Relativity is away.

Hello! I think it would be cool to have the article for Game Changer (game show) be a Good article. Are there any tips on editing it so it passes review? --Dragonhawk12 (talk) 05:28, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

I actually think that article looks decent, though I don't really edit pop-culture article much, so my experience there is limited. The biggest issue you may have is lack of "illustration." However, a GA reviewer may be inclined to forgive this, as copyrighted material can be difficult to source images for.  — MWFwiki (talk) 06:26, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

What’s the policy with people nominating articles for GA events if they didn’t edit it? I mentioned something about adding a subject on the talk page. Are you just flat out not able to nominate it if you aren’t a top editor? For context this is for the Rosa (sea otter) page Dragonhawk12 (talk) 00:04, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

@Dragonhawk12; Per WP:GANI#N1:

"View history > Page statistics. If the nominator is neither the author of more than 10% of the article nor ranked in the top five by authorship, and there is no post on the article talk page, a reviewer may uncontroversially consider the GAN a drive-by nomination. A reviewer may notify the nominator on their talk page. Reviewers have the discretion to remove any drive-by nominations they come across."

Going off the current statistics, you'd need to make about 55 edits to constitute 10% of the edits on the page. However; There shouldn't be anything technically preventing you from nominating it, though.  — MWFwiki (talk) 01:26, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hardwick, Massachusetts, a link pointing to the disambiguation page Algonquin was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:36, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

You’re the best I appreciate it… Sadly, I don’t think the article was properly read or rejected… I see hundreds of articles that have been published that have extremely weak citations with much less richness as this particular article has… I have no idea how to enrich the article more honestly so unless I can think of something this is all I got… I love, Wikipedia, but I don’t see how I can create mythology where I’ve already put up. All I got, which is essentially 60 Walid citations that honorably massage a very non-sales oriented piece… I literally cut out massive amounts of data that I knew is valid, but I knew could not be properly cited… Maybe you’ll give it another read for me I appreciate the good faith and the well wishes and the kindness… But I don’t think I can make this article any better than already is I really worked on it passionately and with great care. Thank you so much for reaching out. If you come up with any ideas, please let me know. I’d love for you to read it and see how strong it really is… This is a subjective science apparently. --Juxtiposition (talk) 17:31, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

@Juxtiposition; I didn't decline the submission, MSK did. For what it's worth, as a fairly experienced NPR/AfC reviewer myself, I would have declined the draft for the same reasons. It is either largely LLM-generated or you need to brush-up on writing with an encyclopedic tone. Secondly, there are numerous issues with the citations. You can't cite Wikipedia. Citing podcasts is questionable, at best. I'm assuming there are other unreliable sources in there, as well.  — MWFwiki (talk) 21:08, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

I do appreciate the second look thank you so much for your help… i’ll take your constructive criticism seriously and I appreciate it. I’ll step away from this. Give it a fresh eye look next week and locate the better citations… Thank you so much. Juxtiposition (talk) 23:44, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! I'm doing this for a class project, and I'm working on Draft:Rhea_Debussy. I found a forum to ask for some help with reviewing/editing, but I'd appreciate your help too. Any chance you're willing to make some edits so this is strong enough to submit? (I'm working on it until the end of the semester.) --Wgss-spring26 (talk) 03:27, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

@Wgss-spring26; I'll be candid; I am... quite impressed with that draft. I actually think this may be the best first-entry draft I've ever seen, so, really, good job. I really only have two nitpicks:

1. Their name, I think there may be a better way of handling it. Is Dorian their birth name? If so, see MOS:DEADNAME. If it isn't, and it's simply her full name, you can probably just relegate it to the infobox, unless many sources do call her "Dorian".

2. I think we might have a touch of WP:OVERCITE... or at least a bit too much mid-sentence sourcing. It's okay to place sources at the end of sentences. The only time you absolutely need to place source mid-sentence is for direct (quote) attribution, to back a controversial or contentious statement, or for a very specific number or value. Otherwise, end of sentence is fine. Some recommended end-of-paragraph, but if you're sourcing properly, you'll have simply too many citations to throw all at the end of a paragraph, generally. Additionally, recall MOS:LEADCITE; You needn't source statements of fact in the lead which you mention in the body of the article. Save the source for said body.

I think there might be one or two other minor issues but I think it's ready for submission! Great work!  — MWFwiki (talk) 05:24, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

I can't take all the credit. This was an abandoned draft that multiple other people have worked on. I was able to start with that then just did lots of clean-up in different sections. Here are the answers to those two questions:

1. The name is Dorian Rhea Debussy on publications, but the social media and most news articles just go with Rhea Debussy. (The deadname is not Dorian.) What do you suggest that I do here (if anything)?
2. That's definitely helpful. Would you mind helping me clean-up some of the sections, so I can use that as an example on how to edit other parts of the article?

Let me know what you think, and if you think it's good to go for revision after a few more edits, then I'll follow that lead. Thanks so much for the help here! :) Wgss-spring26 (talk) 01:31, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Hey, again! I took that advice and think I did an alright job. Thanks again for the feedback! My semester ends later this month, so I went ahead and submitted. I'm hoping to hear back by the end of the semester, so I can post an update in my final report.Wgss-spring26 (talk) 00:40, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi, Wgss-spring26; I apologize I didn't respond, I wasn't notified of your previous questions. I went-ahead and approved the article, good work. I made some minor changes but it looks good. Great work, again.  — MWFwiki (talk) 00:57, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

No worries at all! Thanks so much for the compliment, and that's super exciting!!! Thank you for the edits to help make it stronger too. (I also did two minor edits where I realized I used a semicolon accidentally in the book title.) Very excited to have something published before my project deadline!!! Wgss-spring26 (talk) 12:17, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello!

First of all thank you for being my mentor. I am new to editing and creating Wikipedia articles.

I had created this article page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Gajam_Narmada. She is the first women to receive a National Handloom Award under marketing category. I do not know this person personally and felt inspired by her work as she support Telia Rumal weaving technique which is rare to be found. She supports handloom products and currently has around 300 weavers working under her as she supports them with their daily livelihood.

Can you please help me with this article by reviewing it. --Sach Isha (talk) 04:36, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi MWFwiki,

Per your user page, I wanted to let you know that I initially clicked on your account because I suspected you were affiliated with the WMF.

Definitely not saying you should change your name or that it's misleading or anything, I just thought that you'd like to know.

Thank you :) Loytra^✨ 10:22, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! Yes, I will probably request a name-change if I get a few more such reports. Thank you, again!  — MWFwiki (talk) 21:14, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

No problem at all! Keep up the great work!! Loytra^✨ 05:08, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi. Just wanted to let you know I finally responded in the discussion on Talk:Germany–Iran relations. Thx. M.S. Asher (talk) 03:25, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello! You are my mentor, so I am sending this question to you. My first edit was adding the common names "Brick soldierfish" and "redfin soldierfish" to the Myripristis amaena article. However, when you search redfin soldierfish or brick soldierfish, the article does not appear. Is there a way I can make an edit so the article appears when you search for these terms? --InfamousBees (talk) 15:32, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

There is! Search the term "brick soldierfish" and/or "Redfin soldierfish". You should get a notice telling you this article doesn't exist, with the names in red. Click on the red names. It will take you to an article creation screen. On it, enter:

#REDIRECT [[Myripristis amaena]]

Youll have to do it again for the other name. Let me know if you need some assistance.  — MWFwiki (talk) 17:53, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello please so what can you help me to get a fixed matches --Ebenezer kuuwileyeng (talk) 16:34, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm sorry? I don't understand.  — MWFwiki (talk) 22:35, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Hey, I want to put out a notice that my English isn't great and that I'm using some help from Grammarly. --Thebigblackbag (talk) 09:54, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

You should probably openly disclose that on your userpage.  — MWFwiki (talk) 22:35, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

How do i edit this to be accepted thank you. These are all verified credits under media, not self published work Melissa Emy Melissa Emy is a Canadian actress, model, and influencer known for her work in film, television, print campaigns, and lifestyle media. Acting Career Emy has appeared in several film and television projects: American Pie Presents: The Book of Love (2009). Link: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1319561/⁠� The Age of Adaline (2015). Link: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1655441/⁠� Back in Action (2025). Link: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt11653920/⁠� Her acting credits are listed on: IMDb: https://www.imdb.com/name/nm3712611/⁠� TV Guide: https://www.tvguide.com/celebrities/melissa-emy/bio/3060305382/⁠� Letterboxd: https://letterboxd.com/actor/melissa-emy/⁠� Amazon Prime Video: https://www.amazon.com/prime-video/actor/Melissa-Emy/amzn1.dv.gti.987d5d7b-a33b-40cd-815b-e11b0aabcecd/⁠� Modeling Career Emy has worked on numerous modeling projects, including book covers, lifestyle editorials, and brand campaigns. Verified credits include: Nice Girls Finish Last (Mills & Boon Modern Heat) by Natalie Anderson, HarperCollins UK. Link: https://harpercollins.co.uk/products/nice-girls-finish-last-mills-boon-modern-heat-natalie-anderson⁠� The Enforcer (Japanese edition) by HelenKay Dimon. Link: https://www.helenkaydimon.com/international/the-enforcer-japan/⁠� Editorial features for Cosmopolitan Korea. Sports Illustrated Extra Mustard, “Lovely Lady of the Day” (2017). Link: https://www.si.com/extra-mustard/2017/06/06/ric-flair-injured-arm-fight-warriors-fan-hot-clicks⁠� Several modeling images are licensed and verified through Getty Images (e.g., Stock ID: 492629930). Uncredited work Emy has also participated in lifestyle and editorial campaigns, including Playboy Golf and other professional shoots, some of which were uncredited or licensed through stock photography agencies. --MelissaEmy (talk) 22:06, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

I'll take a look at this tonight  — MWFwiki (talk) 18:33, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

@MelissaEmy Not a single link you provided works; They are all 404d. Secondly, none of these are really reliable secondary sources. Secondly, see WP:IMDB. SI.com might be okay... but I found the correct link and she is just barely mentioned? See WP:PASSINGMENTION. Lastly, given your username, I have to ask; Are you Melissa Emy? If so, you should not be creating pages about yourself. Please see: WP:Autobiographies and WP:COIE.  — MWFwiki (talk) 23:24, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

it sent the wrong links. They do actually all work. MelissaEmy (talk) 17:53, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

all these are real. The links were most likely written wrong on the urls. MelissaEmy (talk) 17:53, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia is very confusing. Was just fixing the wrong information on here. Someone created whosedatedwho and Listal of Melissa Emy, and other pages so was just updating the accuracy. MelissaEmy (talk) 17:54, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

melissa emy is on Imdb, TvGuide, Sports illustrated, Amazon TV credited with her name. Cosmopolitan, Metro UK, Maxim, are magazines she modeled for, its her in these magazines, she was the model for the article but she is not credited because it was through Getty. .

Melissa emy

https://www.amazon.com/prime-video/actor/Melissa-Emy/amzn1.dv.gti.987d5d7b-a33b-40cd-815b-e11b0aabcecd/?dplnkId=de3e09c1-7ff7-46ce-9b05-106a55928aed

https://m.imdb.com/name/nm3712611/

https://www.si.com/extra-mustard/2017/06/06/ric-flair-injured-arm-fight-warriors-fan-hot-clicks MelissaEmy (talk) 18:17, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

I understand, but all of these are passing-mentions. The secondary sources need to say the information and we repeat it. Using the sources you provided, all we'd have is: "Melissa Emy is an actress and model. She has starred in X and Y. She posed for Sports Illustrated."

Secondly, as I already stated, we cannot utilize IMDB (see WP:IMDB). The Amazon Prime link is likely not usable, either, for multiple reasons. The TV Guide link is probably usable but it simply lists her credits and the fact that she is an actress. The SI link is not usable, as it as, as I mentioned, a WP:PASSINGMENTION. At most we could use it to state she posed for SI.  — MWFwiki (talk) 19:33, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello! I have recently added an In popular culture section to the article "Unlucky Mummy". Can I add an image from a comic book which I scanned or screenshot to illustrate how the artefact is depicted there? --Endrecserna (talk) 10:25, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

What year was the comic published, do you know?  — MWFwiki (talk) 23:15, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

First published between 1989 and 1999 in serial form, in 1999 the full collection in book form. Endrecserna (talk) 16:44, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi! If it was published 1999 is that okay? Endrecserna (talk) 16:19, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi, apologies. Probably not. See: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_rules_by_subject_matter  — MWFwiki (talk) 18:11, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks!! Endrecserna (talk) 18:17, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

This will give you the opportunity to respond, while also avoiding the clutter of the talk page.

Sure. Let's begin, starting with your first comment in the section:

> Frankly, it's perfectly fine the way it is.

This is just a declaration, so not much to address here, other than to point out that it's wrong, and doesn't address any of the numerous concerns raised above.

>Listing them under "belligerents" with a clear line delineating them from the United States and Israel, along with the label of ""Attacked by Iran".

I'd call this a sentence, but it's missing a verb. Not sure how to address this concern.

>This is not only the easiest to understand, in my estimation, but it is also how the sources identify these nations, very generally and broadly speaking ( e.g. AP and NYT).

So, this is how it usually is in the infobox. Countries in an infobox tend to get attacked. This is exactly why I'm asking there needs to be special treatment for only some countries being labeled as "Attacked by Iran" when the United States and Israel have both been attacked by Iran yet mysteriously are not labeled as such in the infobox.

>Indeed, have all of these nations taken "defensive" actions;

Once again, I don't know what to make of this. You place a semicolon at the end here, but your next word is capitalized and appears to be a new sentence. Also, I had to read it a few times to understand wtf you were saying. Next time, put your auxiliary verb next to the main verb, like this: "Indeed, all of these nations have taken "defensive actions." Not sure how this is relevant to the "Attacked by..." labels either.

>Aren't there nations that have had Iranian strikes on their territory yet taken no defensive actions?

Maybe? Maybe not? You should probably establish relevance here.

>On the flip-side; Are these "defensive only" nations permitting the U.S. or Israel to utilize their airspace? Are they utilizing airbases to stage attacks in these "defensive only" nations?

Again, you capitalize the first word after a semicolon. But I've already addressed this grammar/punctuation error, so let's move on.

What is your expectation of address here? Great, you've identified a flaw with the "defensive only" label that has already been pointed out by other users, including myself. Maybe you should have acknowledged that instead of passing it off as your own work.

>"Attacked by Iran" allows us to remain verifable and (technically) factually accurate.

No, because the United States and Israel have also been attacked by Iran but are not labeled as such in the infobox. That makes it inaccurate.

>Anything else (apart from removing the nations, which I don't think should be done) is OR or SYNTH, which isn't permitted simply because we're taking about an IB.

You say removing the nations shouldn't be done. But for whatever reason, you don't offer any reasons why. Again, how do you expect me to address a mere assertion? nuh-uh?

And that wraps up your original comment. Now, let's move onto your reply to me:

>We do, in the article.

So, in case you didn't read the title of this section, this is about what's in the infobox. So the fact that the article contains things is, irrelevant. If you want to discuss the content of the article, and not the infobox, you're more than welcome to create a new section. Your response of "We do, in the article." fails to provide any sort of real explanation, because the very obvious follow-up question is... those other countries are also mentioned in the article as being attacked by Iran, so why should they be labeled in the infobox? You've failed to identify a clear differentiation.

>I'll note that you didn't even try to address my concerns, address the soruces, or answer my questions.

I hope that after this comment, you'll consider your concerns, sources, and questions addressed.

>We're trying to over-complicate the IB by utilizing some vague assertions of NPOV-issues as justification.

I assume you're using the exclusive we here, because I sure as hell am not trying to over-complicate the infobox. I'm arguing for making it very simple. Also, "vague assertions of NPOV-issues as justification", I assume, is in reference to the "Defensive only" label, which isn't presently in the article. If you read my initial comment in this section, I only raised NPOV-issues in regards to the "defensive only" label. My issue with "attacked by Iran" is that it's inaccurate when it doesn't include the United States and Israel.

> Speaking of NPOV... "Hosts of belligerent US military forces used in the US/Israel attack on Iran"... you're comparing apples to broccoli. These nations were attacked by Iran. It's the simplest way to describe the situation, otherwise we just need to change the IB layout completely.

So, you seem confused here. I was not suggesting that label in earnest. I was pointing out the ridiculousness of having such labels in the infobox. My stance remains the same as in my initial comment, which is option D, to replace all of the variety chocolate countries with an "Others" wikilink (or, "other parties" as suggested by one user).

I hope I was thorough enough to address everything you wrote. JasonMacker (talk) 04:56, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi, so I'm a novice editor on Wikipedia and I would like to know how to create proper citations? (I'm not confident with what I can do regarding citations) --Agayman19 (talk) 04:45, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

One of the easier ways to do it is to utilize a tool such as this where one enters the parameters and it creates it for you. It gets easier with practice. Do you have a specific question?  — MWFwiki (talk) 05:27, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm just worried I'll put in the wrong citations. Agayman19 (talk) 06:00, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Other than that, I don't really have anything specific. Agayman19 (talk) 06:06, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

If you make a mistake, someone will correct it. It's not the end of the world. This is a living and breathing encyclopedia, you're not going to harm it and you won't learn unless you try  — MWFwiki (talk) 06:22, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

I do have another question.

In articles like this https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Niels_Shoe_Meulman&action=edit&section=3&editingStatsId=64e43sor6ddif09qjg73mit40f9lam17&editingStatsOversample=1&gesuggestededit=1 , with the name specific to "Anthon Beeke" What does it mean when the template is an interlanguage link? Agayman19 (talk) 06:32, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

It just means than no English-language Wikipedia article for the subject exists, but an article in the relevant language does.  — MWFwiki (talk) 10:25, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello Mark! I was told you are a good person for me to ask this question. I have completed a draft for the Draft:United States Table Tennis Hall of Fame. I have worked to ensure it meets notability guidelines by including independent secondary sources, such as a historic piece from the New York Times and a 2024 report from Marketplace (APM). I am guilty of walking before I can crawl and have run into some issues with a couple of articles Ive published to the mainspace, I would appreciate it if you could do a final check of the formatting and citations. If it looks ready, I plan to move it shortly. I have been accused of having a COI on some of my pages and really dont know how to defend myself and I am hoping to avoid that and other issues in the future. I hope this is where I should ask for this advice. Thank you for your time! Mel496 (talk) 22:10, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, happy to help; Purely out of curiosity (and a bit of egoism) who or what directed you to me? Regardless, I can take a look at the draft. As far as a COI, that gets a little bit more tricky. Do you have a direct connection to the USTTHF? Or a close indirect connection? A mere interest is not a COI, even a hobby or even a profession is not (necessarily) a COI (lest I be unable to edit military- or law enforcement-related pages).

Now, if you have some vague to moderately-indirect connection to the USTTHF, then I would, depending on the circumstances, likely advocate placing some form of COI-disclosure on one's User page. Again, depending on the "strength" of the COI (or apparent COI) would be the deciding factor as to whether I believe you should place a formal COI notice on your page or whether an informal mention somewhere on your page is best... if at all. Anyways, yes, happy to look-over the draft.  — MWFwiki (talk) 22:35, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Kinvidia recommended you. Its a pleasure to virtually meet you and thank you for taking the time to help

I’ve been using my downtime while recovering from an injury to help document the table tennis scene—I’m a retired Desktop Architect and a certified USATT umpire, so I’ve got a deep interest in getting the sport’s history right on here.

I’ve had a couple of other pages flagged recently for COI and notability, which was frustrating because I don't actually have a conflict. I’m just a member and official like thousands of others. I really want to avoid those "sour grapes" conversations and just get the work done right this time.

Could you take a look at Draft:United States Table Tennis Hall of Fame? The HOF is actually independent of the USATT, and I have no personal connection to it, but I want to be 100% transparent. Do I need to bother with a formal COI statement just because I'm an umpire in the sport?

Also, I’ve pulled in some solid independent sources like the New York Times and Marketplace to help with the notability side. Does this look ready for the main page to you, or is there anything else I should tweak to make sure it passes the "sniff test"?

I dont know if it would be kosher to discuss my other pages while they are in discussion about deletion Mel496 (talk) 23:17, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

oh, I've edited other general Table Tennis pages about equipment and rules with know problems Mel496 (talk) 23:18, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

So, regarding the COI, I would probably just add an informal statement somewhere on your User page that states that you serve as an umpire with the USATT and that you have read and are aware of WP:COIE. I don't think a formal COI template is needed at this time. I think it's borderline as far as whether it constitutes a COI. Which could put it into the "apparent" COI category. If someone ever gives you a hard time about it, just direct them here and I'll take the heat. You're clearly not trying to hide anything, so. I think a quick mention is enough given everything. Now, editing articles or even sections which concern players you may have umpired over... that might be best-advised to be avoided.

Out of an abundance of caution... what do you think is your or could be your closest COI?

I looked-over the article and copy-edited it a bit. I think it's a tad light on sourcing but that it is probably just about ready for mainspace. But it otherwise looks good. In-future, try to avoid "fluffy" or "peacock" terms... "famously", "legends", "abruptly scrapped", "snub", and "finally", for example. Just remember that the goal is an encyclopedia (which I'm quite sure you're aware of, to be fair), not necessarily an op-ed or an essay. But, otherwise, good work.  — MWFwiki (talk) 23:41, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, when I umpire I keep it light. Only local tournaments and I keep it to beginner events only. It’s tough creating pages for table tennis in the USA because it’s such a niche sport here. That’s why I started doing articles about Major League Table Tennis. That’s where my problems popped up. I did a COI saying I had no real COI.

It’s generated some discussion and now someone has accused me of Self Published…I don’t get itll.

Heres a link to the article that started my self doubt

Major League Table Tennis

Thank you so much for your advice Mel496 (talk) 01:32, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

I already made a comment on the deletion page, but thank you. On Wikipedia, "self-published" doesn't mean you wrote it, simply that, per WP:SELFPUBLISHED:

"Anyone can create a personal web page, self-publish a book, or claim to be an expert. Self-published material, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), content farms, podcasts, Internet forum postings, and social mediapostings, are largely not acceptable as sources." When we say "self-published" we usually mean that... it's simply content that doesn't have a third-party publisher, editorial team, etc. Or did someone explicitly accuse you of having published it?

I do want to add... if you happen to be utilizing an LLM, I would - in the strongest possible terms - advise against it. Its "speech" patterns are very clear and Wikipedia does not take kindly to LLM use as of now. I fully recognize and understand that Wikipedia can seem like a complicated, bureaucratic, and even intimidating place, with someone throwing new rules and policies at you every other sentence. As tempting as it may be to utilize an LLM to "gather one's thoughts" or what have you, I would recommend against it for numerous reasons. The only reason I bring this up is because it seemed like a couple of things you wrote could have been LLM/AI-generated or assisted. If you want to see what happens with excessive LLM use, take a look at this user currently fighting to have their indefinite ban overturned link. LLMs are also awful at interpreting Wikipedia policy. Truly, awful. — MWFwiki (talk) 03:49, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

I usually start with an outline and ask AI for news source's for references or to remove superlatives. I’m fortunate, my wife was an editor and head of a publishing dept for a well known company. I usually send her the final draft. It was funny I once sent a draft of an article after she corrected to webpage that is used to detect AI. Before the correction it said it had a 10% chance of being AI generated after she was done it said 60% chance of AI generated. Trust me she doesn’t use AI she hates it. Mel496 (talk) 13:02, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi Mark,

May I use you as my mentor? Your guidance has been so extremely helpful.

Thanks

Mel Mel496 (talk) 14:23, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Mel496; I "claimed" you as a mentee! I understand, regarding your/your wife's writing styles. It wasn't the article(s) that caught my eye, though, it was one or two of your responses on some Talk page. Not terribly important. I don't think it's a tool that is wholly inappropriate for use, and it will only continue to improve, but it's not terribly useful at the moment when it comes to discussions.

I will say; I have messed-around with Co-Pilot in creating references. Co-Pilot has settings where, as long as you are logged-in, it will save your instructions, so as long as you "teach" it precisely how you want the references done, it will simply take the information and spit-out a correctly-formatted raw citation. That being said, you learn how to do it manually pretty quickly, and it becomes quite simple to do-so. There are also very handy tools such as this that are non-AI and incredibly useful when learning (note that you don't need to fill-out every single parameter, just the ones you can).  — MWFwiki (talk) 01:32, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Well this is embarrassing. I’m so used to using MS Word from my IT days that I still use it for drafts and responses. Now that Copilot is integrated, I often accept its suggestions without much thought as if it were spellcheck. My wife also prefers Word so she can use the Track Changes feature. I didn’t give it much thought until you mentioned Copilot. I do use ChatGPT for formatting references and, lately, for finding independent news sources. This brings me to another issue, my sources are being flagged as unreliable because they are Chinese state-run media. From my understanding, they are acceptable for 'light news' and sports. Is this correct? Mel496 (talk) 09:57, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

What outlets? Yes, generally speaking, you are correct. However, there are one or two Chinese state-run news entities that are deemed unacceptable for any sourcing.  — MWFwiki (talk) 10:02, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Global Times and The People’s Daily Mel496 (talk) 10:14, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

WP:GLOBALTIMES is indeed deprecated, so, probably not acceptable for anything. People's Daily seems a bit different from what I've found, and is probably acceptable for, as you say, light/sporting news. Has anyone engaged you in discussion regarding these sources? If-so, where?  — MWFwiki (talk) 18:55, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

On the Major League TT deletion discussion, CoffeeCrumbs and thebirdshedtears each cited poor sourcing.

Two people recently voted to delete because they say the article lacks merit. The "lacking merit" argument has me perplexed since an MLTT article already exists on the French Wikipedia. Over 19 million Americans play table tennis recreationally, 25,000 competitively. Expand that worldwide, and it balloons to over 300 million. There are also over 250 clubs nationally. There are multiple professional leagues in China and Europe. How an article on the first US pro league lacks merit or fails to meet the notability requirement has me flustered and confused. Mel496 (talk) 20:41, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Am I wasting my time trying to debate and defend the article? I assume the discussion is for debate or am I making a Wikipedia faux pas? Mel496 (talk) 21:22, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

From my reading, CoffeeCrumbs' objections seemed to be over the MLTT sources. Corporate-fluffery, as it were, not to mention WP:PRIMARY. Particularly when those sources are half the article. But perhaps they can clarify their position, I don't want to put words in their mouth (this is in-regards to this)

No, I don't think you're being inappropriate. Asking the last question, for instance, is appropriate. I don't think relatively vague assertions of "lacking merit" or what have you are appropriate when an article's "life" is on the line. There is a point where WP:BLUDGEONING can come into play and one should WP:DROPTHESTICK but you're not quite there  — MWFwiki (talk) 21:51, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

I was hoping to get it back into draft and adding more external references. I’m assuming that would address her concerns. Now that I’ve discovered the French page they have references I never saw. They’re from French news sources. I could have used them. The French have a young pair of brothers setting the table tennis world on fire. The sport has become bigger than ever there. Mel496 (talk) 22:04, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

I’ve found 3 sources in France about MLTT. Apparently it’s a big deal in France. I assume these could be used in my article Mel496 (talk) 23:05, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

For sure. Just keep in-mind WP:NONENG (in this case, they would appear appropriate).  — MWFwiki (talk) 23:18, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

My objections are definitely mostly WP:PRIMARY and WP:CORPTRIV. Basically all the references were about MLTT's daily business activities such as sponsorship or funding agreements.

I'm also skeptical about this draft. Basically all the sources are either by people associated with the Hall of Fame (Tim Boggan was a former president) or, like the Tahl Leibovitz mention, which says nothing about Table Tennis HoF other than that he is in an inductee when introducing him in a sentence, are passing mentions.

I think both MLTT and the TT HoF are possibly notable. But Mel496 is having great difficulties sourcing actual notability. They've sourced a lot of bare facts, but next to nothing about why these organizations are significant or what people not connected with the organizations say about them. If TT HoF came up at AFD right now, I'd vote Draftify there as well.

Mel496, English Wikipedia has probably the highest standards for notability of any of the different language versions of Wikipedia. French Wikipedia articles can't confer notability on subjects for English Wikipedia articles (and vice versa). CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 00:19, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

You're not doing anything inappropriate. Civilly debating these points for and against content is how Wikipedia is supposed to work. I simply disagree with you that these two articles meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability; your disagreeing with me doesn't make your opinion improper, only incorrect in my opinion. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 00:30, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your responses. For comparison, I looked at the references for India’s largest table tennis league, Ultimate Table Tennis. It currently has six references: two are from sources often deemed unreliable (Sportskeeda and Firstpost), and one is from their own official website. This leaves only three truly independent, reliable sources: ESPN India, The Hindu, and Sportstar (a sports magazine also owned by The Hindu Group). I believe MLTT is as notable as they. In my humble opinion, The HOF has an obvious notability, but not outside of the table tennis community. I knew finding sources for The HOF would be difficult outside of Mr.Boganns 20 volume history of table tennis in the US. Thank you all for your input and please forgive me for my ignorance. I’m becoming a bit bleary eyed, so for now I’ll respectfully say goodnight. Mel496 (talk) 01:57, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Please read WP:OTHERSTUFF. We don't compare articles to other articles this way as it would lead to a permanent death spiral of article quality in which the bar continues to lower based on the worst of thse articles. There are more than seven million articles on English Wikipedia, and many of them are inadequate by our standards, but nobody has dealt with them yet. If you compare an article to an article, while that's still not a great practice, you should compare to a WP:GOODARTICLE or WP:FEATUREDARTICLE.

And in this case, these are more independent sources that offer more substantive coverage than the sources you provide. And this article is current rated as WP:STUB CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 07:28, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

UTT and The ITTF were my inspiration when I first started this endeavor. I think I understand stubs but I’m not quite sure. Could MLTT benefit from being (for lack of a better word) downsized to a stub? Is that even a possibility? I’m going to take a breather over the weekend and let everything I’ve learned sink in. Thanks again Mel496 (talk) 10:28, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

ARBITRARY BREAK FOR FORMATTING

A "stub" is probably not beneficial, no. "Stub" status is merely a status, it doesn't necessarily impart any meaning beyond letting people know that it should either be expanded or considered for deletion. I would argue that it is probably a negative label, although I hesitate to say this, as that would mean opining that roughly half of all Wikipedia articles have a "negative label" on them.

All of this being said, "downsizing" an article can be beneficial, yes, if you're removing statements that are only verified by primary/weak sources. And again, to be clear, we may utilize primary sources in articles, but best-practice is to limit them to backing simple statements of fact that are unlikely to be controversial, contentious, or questionable. For instance, simple dates. Dates of incorporation, birth, death, etc. Or, for example, simple assertions such as "players of X rank are required by regulation to wear Y color" and then link the regulation. What we cannot do with primary sources, however, is something like "Google had its most profitable year ever in 2026" and have the source be directly from Google. In a pinch you could directly attribute the statement... "Google claims to have had their most profitable year in 2026, as per a corporate press release/internal memo/etc" but this should be avoided if at all possible. Removing primary sources and replacing them with secondary sources will almost always be positive, assuming the latter are reliable.

It may be hard to accept or understand at first, but an associated concept that I feel is important is that Wikipedia — for better, or for worse — concerned primarily with verifiability not truth (see: WP:VNT). Without hyperbole, I can say that I have seen reactions to this concept range from shock to contempt to horror to confusion and everything in-between. It's just something one needs to understand and accept in order to edit successfully and happily.  — MWFwiki (talk) 02:41, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Yep a stub wouldn't be helpful. I went back to see how and why Ultimate Table Tennis is listed as a stub and I cant figure it out. I don't see where its using the stub template nor do I see how they meet the definition stub (not comparing, referencing). I chalk it up to my ignorance of all things Wikipedia. I'm just going to let the deletion vote play out and I'll "play it where it lies". My convalescence ends Monday and though I wont stop working on articles, I'll just have less free time to do so. Its been interesting. Mel496 (talk) 21:34, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I didn't respond to your previous introduction as my mentor. I would now like to participate. Could you advise me on first steps. John Kellett --Jaarn9 (talk) 14:00, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

It's alright, Jaarn9, you were under no obligation to respond. As far as mentorship, it's usually an informal, ask-questions-as-needed arrangement. However, if you feel you would benefit from more "structured" mentorship, please let me know  — MWFwiki (talk) 01:33, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi Mark, if you remember, I asked you about the controversial article before. I have checked today and all the "talk" was completely removed. The talk contained my concerns about the validity of the claims. What could be the reason why the talk was removed? Am I allowed to voice my concerns one more time after everything has been removed? Please advise. The article is on Kim Seon-ho. Thanks in advance. --NothingbuttheTruth101 (talk) 08:59, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

It was archived. Once a Talk page becomes long enough, it gets archived at certain intervals. See here. To find it otherwise, go to the Talk page, scroll-down slightly or CTRL+F for "Archives" - there will be page numbers and a search bar.  — MWFwiki (talk) 09:06, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! 😊 NothingbuttheTruth101 (talk) 09:49, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Of course  — MWFwiki (talk) 23:18, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

How do I create my page --Anthony villagracia (talk) 13:55, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Just click/tap on your currently-red name and you'll be taken to the page creation screen!  — MWFwiki (talk) 18:23, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Should I use complicated words in edits

By me aka owly --Owlynotafurry (talk) 06:48, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Do you have specific words in-mind? You should try to use relatively simple words.  — MWFwiki (talk) 18:24, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Hey, how do I know that my edits have been approved? --Alexpaloalto (talk) 00:29, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Only certain pages require newer editors' edits be approved. 90% of pages do not have this protection and your edits should be visible immediately upon saving/publishing them.  — MWFwiki (talk) 00:34, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

How do I give my thanks? Alexpaloalto (talk) 01:51, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

If you want to send a simple "Thanks" notification, go to the article in-question, select "view history" and find the edit you wish to send thanks for. There should be a small "thank" button you can select. Otherwise, you can leave an editor a Talk page message. Or, you can leave a WP:BARNSTAR  — MWFwiki (talk) 22:35, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Hey, I work for a company who want me to edit a few of the wikipedia pages. I'm the digital marketing manager for these businesses. I know there is 0 marketing on here so for acc liverpool for instance, i've simply raised a talk and asked for edits, is this the correct process? Thank you in advance --Danreado (talk) 11:57, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

You'll need to review WP:COI and WP:COIE. It is strongly discouraged that you edit in such a manner, as this would would be considered conflict-of-interest editing and probably "paid editing" since the company in-question is your employer. It isn't prohibited, but you will probably get a lot of pushback. You'll also need to disclose your COI on your User page. — MWFwiki (talk) 22:37, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Okay, where and how do I start with repairing the Major League Table Tennis article? --Mel496 (talk) 14:51, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Ive done a few edits on the draft. I added two sections and added and deleted some sources. Whenever you get a chance would you mind giving me some feed back. Thanks Mel496 (talk) 23:46, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, of course! I'll go through it this evening  — MWFwiki (talk) 23:49, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

So, it looks better. I will do a deeper dive on it later today, but I found some additional sources you could use... even if some statements you double-up the sources, "one is none, two is one."

• https://www.sportico.com/business/finance/2026/timothee-chalamet-major-league-table-tennis-1234884788/
• https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20260331-us-pro-table-tennis-league-blasts-niche-sport-into-spotlight
• https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/Articles/2025/12/11/deals-set-table-tennis-league-on-path-to-crack-sportsbook-menus/
• https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/Articles/2025/09/15/major-league-table-tennis-enters-third-season-with-business-momentum/
• https://www.kalw.org/2025-08-28/lily-zhang-and-the-rise-of-major-league-table-tennis
• https://www.opb.org/article/2025/10/02/think-out-loud-table-tennis-ping-pong-major-league-portland-oregon/
• https://www.koin.com/news/portland/kohr-explores-major-league-table-tennis-comes-to-the-oregon-convention-center/amp/

Anyways, I could keep going, but this topic is clearly notable. If it gets nominated again, I'm going to have to argue a bit more forcefully.  — MWFwiki (talk) 08:48, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Did I accidentally remove one of your edits? I have a habit of working on my edits in my sandbox, then copying to the article. Throw back to days in IT of not working on a live system. I see a comment “what happened to wh?” Sorry unintentional. Anyway, I’m looking for that one big reference to put the article over the top. I think we are pretty close. Mel496 (talk) 17:38, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Added a bit. I think it's good, though there is a section that doesn't have any sources  — MWFwiki (talk) 02:32, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

I just checked, it’s the Spindex section. It’s their rating system. The only source is the leagues website. I think I removed by accident when I was purging the references of MLTT. I’ll put it back now that I understand when it’s appropriate to include references from the subject. Mel496 (talk) 09:30, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

That's a good use of a primary source, yeah. But I was actually referring to the "teams" section. However, each team is Wikilinked, so, it's okay for now, in my opinion. Frankly, this was a bad deletion. I think the reviewer at least partially recognized this (though I don't wish to put words in their mouth) and hence their willingness to draftify upon request... but I think it was a bad reading of consensus. All that said, I should have pushed back harder. This is 100% a notable subject. I am perhaps being overly paranoid, but I am curious to see if it gets nominated for deletion again. Regardless, I would submit it when you feel it's ready.  — MWFwiki (talk) 10:21, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

I’m a bit “gun shy” about submitting it just yet. I’m going to take a little more time and try to find one more source that will put it over the top without just adding fluff. Once again thank you so much for support, I might have given up on the project all together without it. Mel496 (talk) 10:35, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

I can add a link about the leagues expansion to the team section.

What’s Wikipedias stance on using YouTube videos as a source? MLTT players do a lot of media spots on local and national news. Mel496 (talk) 10:39, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Ehhhh. See WP:YOUTUBE... strongly discouraged, essentially. Not prohibited, though. Case-by-case.  — MWFwiki (talk) 22:53, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

I used WGN (local Chicago tv station)as a source. They offloaded the video from their site to YouTube. I’ll look at the YouTube policy

so, do you think the article is ready to be submitted for review? Mel496 (talk) 23:01, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, it looks great. Do you have a source for the SPINDEX sub-section?  — MWFwiki (talk) 23:40, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Yes I do. I’ll add it tomorrow and submit it for review. Fingers crossed. Mel496 (talk) 23:56, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

It'll pass review. I've passed drafts that weren't nearly as good  — MWFwiki (talk) 00:01, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Here’s a pared back version of the article I knocked out. I quoted the source just to make it stand out. Perhaps you can use some of this

User:Mel496/sandbox4 Mel496 (talk) 10:25, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Good, that looks good. I'll work on it tonight  — MWFwiki (talk) 22:13, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

@Mel496 I'll work on this soon, I promise; just got busy. Doesn't look like a ton work needs to be done, anyways.  — MWFwiki (talk) 23:37, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

No worries,I really appreciate everything. There’s absolutely no rush. Mel496 (talk) 23:57, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

		The Helping Hand Barnstar
		I never gave you something for helping me with the Rube Goldberg machine article. Take this barnstar as a token of my appreciation! Dragonhawk12 (talk) (Guestbook) 07:51, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! It was my pleasure  — MWFwiki (talk) 18:26, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi there, I am new to this and am trying to get my client's wikipedia page published. It was rejected initially, and i have resubmitted it. However my client received a weird screenshot. The person claimes to be an admin and gives this phone #706-696-4348. He leaves a text saying I have your page for review. Something seems strange --RoadSafetyWiki (talk) 14:18, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

That is not an admin, it is a scammer. This is not uncommon, unfortunately. Please cease contact with this individual.

Secondly, please make sure you review WP:COI, WP:COIE, and WP:DISCLOSECOI.  — MWFwiki (talk) 18:26, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! I will review everything. RoadSafetyWiki (talk) 19:21, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi,

I'm looking for guidance on this question I posted over on the Archaeology project:

I was also wondering if there is an easy way to import academic publication data to Wikidata. Does some kind of tool exist where I can just paste a bibtex entry I verified and it creates the according Wikidata items? The closest thing I could find is this "papers" tool mentioned on Wikidata's page about SourceMD, but it creates Wikidata directly from DOIs. I want to manually verify the data before it is uploaded.

Also, are there any current projects under way to import academic publication data to Wikidata en masse?

Thank you in advance! --Chivalrous Breadfruit (talk) 11:59, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

So, I don't have much experience with Wikidata, but I asked-around. This is the answer I received:

"There's a couple tools that can speak bibtex, like the Zotero wikidata translator, https://citation-js.toolforge.org/openapi/, and some others I know even less about. I can't really speak to how well any of them work. https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:WikiCite are the academic publications on wikidata folks, don't know how much of that is current though[...] a lot of the academic data tools aren't working anymore"

As for your other question... it sounds like an excellent idea, but I have no idea how to answer nor help. Might be best to ask over at The Teahouse. I'm happy to help, otherwise, though!  — MWFwiki (talk) 19:59, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for asking around. That translator tool looks exactly like the kind of thing I was looking for!

As to my question in the archaeology project, I suppose I'll be bold and start adding Wikidata entries and reference them in the infoboxes when it makes sense. I'm just waiting to get autoconfirmed to use the QuickStatements generated by the translator tool :) Chivalrous Breadfruit (talk) 22:43, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Sounds great! I'm sorry I couldn't be a greater help to you. However, you're asking very good questions and I look forward to seeing you work. If you ever have any questions regarding Wikipedia "proper," please feel-free to reach-out.  — MWFwiki (talk) 22:57, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Applejack (drink), a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brewers was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

I am new to editing and working through the feeds. 2 problems: 1. The only way I know how to get my next task is to go to the original notification that says 'try a suggested edit'. If that notification was deleted I wouldn't know how to get back onto the feed. Is there another way? 2. I'm now on the edits that require updating, and the last 2 that I have tackled have been quite complex and I've spent a long time researching the subject and finding references, only to return to Wikipedia to find that I've lost the page that I was editing. Is there some way of saving it? I also had a message from a bot telling me I had not included a title in a reference, but I could not find any way to get the page back in order to correct it. 3. Do I need to create a user page?Would it help? Jaarn9 (talk) 22:58, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

You can access your edit history via:

Special:Contributions/Jaarn9

You can access this by clicking on your username and then "user contributions" on the right. If you click on another person's username, you can look at their contributions. As far as the suggested edits feed, I've never used it, so unfortunately I can't offer much assistance. I can only direct you to: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Apps/Suggested_edits  — MWFwiki (talk) 23:11, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you very much. That's already a huge help, and I think I've seen a way to access my feeds through the same page Jaarn9 (talk) 08:33, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

its fun i guess i had a different account but then i lost the account because, well i forgot the password --Dollarguy10048 (talk) 22:12, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad you're here on a new account!  — MWFwiki (talk) 04:42, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

hello how do I change the title of my wikipedia page --TurtleLover1022 (talk) 00:33, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm not sure what you're asking? Are you asking how to re-name your account?  — MWFwiki (talk) 04:41, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello! How do I create a citation? What sources can I use? --UnpossibIe (talk) 08:26, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

So, you should review Wikipedia:Inline citation. However, there are tools available to assist you in creating cites: https://makeref.toolforge.org/ - as far as what to use, see WP:RS and WP:RSP (that list is not inclusive... but you should avoid the "red" sources and try to avoid the yellow ones).  — MWFwiki (talk) 20:37, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

May 2026 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol
On 1 May 2026, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each review will earn 1 point. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:24, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Note: Deobateuh's mentor Seawolf35 is away.

Hello so im having a hard time putting great smoky ef4 chattanoga ef3 and new harmony ef4 in the 2011 super outbreak and putting their own articles as they have a potential ef5 intensity --Deobateuh (talk) 20:49, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi; your usual mentor is away, so I'm your temporary mentor. I think the main concern is that you have not produced any reliable sources to confirm your assertions. While I was actually once a (semi-)professional "weather dude", I really don't edit the WX side of Wikipedia much, and the associated projects (WX and severe WX) are not projects I'm terribly familiar with. Perhaps TornadoLGS or EF5 can answer your questions a bit better, as I saw you had engaged with them.  — MWFwiki (talk) 22:19, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello! I've been wanting to edit some articles regarding my interests (particularly the MLP 1982 toyline as it's in high priority to be edited by the MLP WikiProject) however I find myself too nervous to edit! Do you have any tips about getting my foot in the door? I worry about making a bad edit and getting my peers upset... What can I do to make sure this doesn't happen? --Plasticponies (talk) 07:08, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

•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".

•For better or for worse, we are not concerned with "truth". We are only concerned with verifiability. Verifiability, not truth. 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.  — MWFwiki (talk) 22:32, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I could use some help if possible. I revised and submitted my changes based on the feedback I received. But I don't see the changes, nor have I heard back. I am not sure how to proceed. --RoadSafetyWiki (talk) 11:20, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

The article is still pending-review. It can take 7-60 days for an article to be reviewed. While I am a reviewer, it would not be appropriate for me to review it given our contact  — MWFwiki (talk) 22:13, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! RoadSafetyWiki (talk) 22:18, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for being my mentor.

I am working on improving the article for Pius M. G. Griffiths by adding sourced biographical details, including his early life, education, naval career, and later government appointments.

I previously made some edits directly which were reverted, and I now understand I should propose changes on the talk page first. I have begun doing that and have also uploaded freely licensed images to Wikimedia Commons.

Could you advise on the best way to structure my proposed additions so they align with Wikipedia’s guidelines and are more likely to be accepted by other editors?

Thank you for your guidance. --Graneek (talk) 03:55, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

So, I see what you added, but what are your sources for this information?  — MWFwiki (talk) 22:12, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your response.

The information I proposed was based on a combination of publicly available sources, including Ghanaian news publications, parliamentary election records, and historical references connected to Pius M. G. Griffiths.

Some of the sources I am working from include:

• MyJoyOnline – “Mahama appoints Commander Griffiths to chair GSA”
• GhanaWeb archives regarding his political and naval career
• The 1992 Ghanaian parliamentary election page
• DBpedia entry for Pius M. G. Griffiths
• Historical articles from ModernGhana and AllAfrica

I also have family photographs and personal historical information, but I understand that Wikipedia requires reliable published secondary sources for verification. I am currently organizing the material into smaller sourced additions before proposing them individually on the article talk page.

Thank you again for your guidance. Graneek (talk) 18:16, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello! How do I add an animation like this code importScript('User:The_Earwig/status_changer.js');

to my page? :3 thanks! --Cenchros Roseus (talk) 14:43, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I'm not familiar with that. Perhaps The Earwig would be so kind as to answer your question?  — MWFwiki (talk) 20:00, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi Cenchros Roseus. Where did you see that? I don't have a status changer script, so that's a really confusing question. Maybe you are looking for something like User:Enterprisey/StatusChanger? — The Earwig (talk) 03:27, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Sry for the delay! I was busy, I think that User:Enterprisey/StatusChanger? would work! Thank you very much for your time! :3 Cenchros Roseus (talk) 20:54, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello I have an old pocket watch from a man who worked on the Slades Green Depot from 1880-1919. It also says S.E & C.R. He was a locomotive foreman. His name was David Blair. I think he’s my great grandfather. --Heather Bradley21 (talk) 00:56, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Well, while that is interesting, I'm not sure what that has to do with editing Wikipedia?  — MWFwiki (talk) 01:32, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I was wondering if its fine to cite two editions of the same book (published in different years, different languages and so on) as to make sure that I am citing the exact page. For example, I might re-use citations of a French edition (to ease off work in trying to find the exact piece of information in my Romanian edition) while also citing my Romanian edition for additional information that I did not borrow from citations on other pages? --Florinel1948 (talk) 09:42, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Good question... Yeah, that's fine. As long as you specify which edition is which and people can determine the exact edition it came from.  — MWFwiki (talk) 01:31, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

My goodness, does it usually take this long for a review? I’m currently working an article about one of the USA’s best professional table tennis players. He walked away from a promising career to pursue a college degree and is attempting a comeback.

I guess sooner or later I’ll need to branch out and away from table tennis, but it’s what I know best. So for now…. Mel496 (talk) 19:39, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

It can, yep. It can take months, technically. But I suspect it should be reviewed, soon. If it's not within a reasonable timeframe I'll ask someone to review it.  — MWFwiki (talk) 21:40, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for offering mentorship. I have just created this account only because I was unable to log in with my already existing account, whose user name is “JonathanPool”. Perhaps I used a now-obsolete email address with it, because when I ask to reset my password I get no email message. Not a big problem; I can simply use this new account. But I was puzzled. If you think there is another explanation, I would be grateful for that. --JonathanRPool (talk) 16:12, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Are you certain that was the account name? User:JohnathanPool doesn't seem to exist. Regardless, welcome!  — MWFwiki (talk) 01:07, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi MWFwiki, thanks for the welcome. I have a COI disclosed on my user page (I'm a paid contributor for a small Greek digital studio). My plan is to:

1. Make ~10 unrelated edits over the next 30 days to build editor familiarity 2. Gather 3+ independent reliable sources for a draft article (currently in my sandbox) 3. Submit via AfC when sources are sufficient

Does this approach align with Wikipedia best practices? Any pitfalls to avoid with COI editing? --Thessbolder (talk) 08:10, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello MWFwiki,

Backlog update

At the time of this message, there are 15,282 articles and 32,951 redirects awaiting review.

After the January–February drive the article backlog was reduced to 15,179 articles and the redirect backlog to 19,053 respectively. Great job! However, both queues are growing rapidly and any additional reviews are highly appreciated.

2024 and 2025 NPP Awards

JTtheOG was selected as the NPP reviewer of the year for both 2024 and 2025, for reviewing the most articles amongst all reviewers.

Hey man im josh and MPGuy2824 won the Redirect Ninja Master Award for 2024 and 2025 respectively, for reviewing the most redirects.

Overall in 2024, one Platinum, two Gold, eight Silver, 12 Bronze and 45 Iron Barnstars were awarded. Additionally, 66 reviewers got the NPP barnstar for doing more than 100 reviews through the year. In 2025, one Platinum, ten Silver, 13 Bronze and 38 Iron Barnstars were awarded. Additionally, 38 reviewers got the NPP barnstar for doing more than 100 reviews through the year.

BoyTheKingCanDance, Rosiestep, SunDawn, and Vanderwaalforces were inducted into the NPP Hall of Fame for having two separate years of 2,000+ article reviews.

January–February backlog drive

The experimental two-month long backlog drive concluded with 183 reviewers patrolling over 27,761 articles and 35,309 redirects, earning over 36,836 points. Congratulations to JTtheOG, who achieved first place with 6,484.6 points in this drive.

May backlog drive

An article-only backlog drive is currently underway. We are hoping to make a big dent in the backlog. You can read more about it or join at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/May 2026.

PageTriage

An attempt was made to get the New Pages Feed to sort by date marked as reviewed instead of date created. However we had to revert it due to bugs. We may try again in the future. You can subscribe to the Phabricator ticket if you're interested in following along.

Reminders:

• You can access live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord.
• Consider adding the project discussion page to your watchlist.
• To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:37, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

I’m really surprised. I really don’t think the criticism is valid, but I guess it is what it is. I have no idea how to improve the article more than I already have without just adding fluff. Mel496 (talk) 22:29, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm mildly surprised, but not shocked. I think some version of TNTing the draft is in order. So, here is what we do:

Collect all of your sources into a list. Exclude sources the reviewer pointed-out. Eliminate the Global Times source. Collect the MLTT sources into another list. These can be used, but only for untroversial statements, like schedules or simple, non-contentious statements (e.g. "we are headquartered in X"). Add newer sources to the list.

Once you've done this, I will try to re-write the article using only "good" sources. I disagree that things like Butterfly Global can't be used for simple self-descriptions, but we will cross that bridge when we get there.  — MWFwiki (talk) 22:55, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Here is my response:

I humbly disagree with your assessment. I’ve used Barrons, CNBC, The Guardian, New Straits Times as references and all considered reliable. As I understand it, Global Times can be used as a secondary source if caution is used to avoid internal politics, foreign affairs or any controversy. I believe coverage of a professional ping pong league meets this criteria. I’ve looked at your page and with the exception of Global Times all of these sources meet the criteria of reliability,they are published, independent and cover the subject

Please explain where I’ve gone wrong with these sources so I can avoid these mistakes in the future.

I haven’t posted it yet but I believe it’s valid Mel496 (talk) 23:15, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your offer. Do I post my sources on your talk page? I really have no idea how my primary sources do not push the article over the finish line.

I know I’m not supposed to compare but, The ITTF article (the largest professional Table Tennis organization) uses itself as a source 14 times, chinadaily.com (a government run news agency)and The WTT (created by the ITTF as the commercial branch of the org) 16 times. Perhaps my knowledge of the sport is coloring my perspective on Major League Table Tennis notability but I don’t think so. Mel496 (talk) 23:38, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

No, I don't think you're wrong. MLTT is notable. I wouldn't respond to the reviewer, there's no point. We can pursue alternative possibilities if it gets denied again. You can post the sources here, your Talk page, anywhere you like, really. This is just a set-back.  — MWFwiki (talk) 23:51, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, I’ll get them together and post them.

I guess I was a bit quick in responding but I was a bit miffed. I know it’s not personal Mel496 (talk) 00:00, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

It's alright, more opinions can never hurt  — MWFwiki (talk) 00:52, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Here are my sources, Ill try to find some more

Independent sources

https://www.barrons.com/news/us-pro-table-tennis-league-blasts-niche-sport-into-spotlight-6cd42bea

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2026/jan/24/ping-pong-american-revival-marty-supreme-table-tennis

https://www.nbcrightnow.com/national/us-pro-table-tennis-league-blasts-niche-sport-into-spotlight/article_1bacaa01-a291-5a10-870e-fa4e87cc6868.html

https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/Articles/2025/12/11/deals-set-table-tennis-league-on-path-to-crack-sportsbook-menus/

https://indiawest.com/indian-american-investors-athletes-driving-major-league-table-tennis/

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/01/29/major-league-table-tennis-signs-first-media-deal-with-cbs-sports-.html

https://deadspin.com/legal-betting/major-league-table-tennis-launching-regulated-wagering/

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/other/lily-zhang-becomes-first-woman-to-top-mltt-power-rankings/vi-AA1U0exN#details

https://www.sportico.com/leagues/other-sports/2024/major-league-table-tennis-add-two-expansion-teams-1234820781/

https://bauerstories.uh.edu/from-boardroom-to-backspin/

nst.com.my/sports/others/2026/03/1407142/us-pro-table-tennis-league-blasts-niche-sport-spotlight

Secondary Sources

https://www.mltt.com/news/mltt-and-pingpod-announce-spindex-collaboration

https://www.butterfly-global.com/en/sponsoring/detail/mltt.html

https://www.mltt.com/news/major-league-table-tennis-launches-spindex-2-0

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Major_League_Table_Tennis

Questionable Sources

https://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/202511/12/WS6913e2a0a310fc20369a493c.html Mel496 (talk) 22:46, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Good, looks great. The one point i rather strongly disagree with the reviewer on is that I feel that Butterfly Global is an okay source for what it's being used for. You're not making any wild or contentious claims, or even one that could be possibly controversial. Merely a "hey, this is a sponsor/provider for X or Y"

I'll look around for additional sourcing, as well.  — MWFwiki (talk) 00:46, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you so much for all this Mel496 (talk) 01:14, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello! How do you cite something that is not in English? Do I translate the title or do I keep it as it is? Also, do I write the journalist's name using the roman alphabet or the way it's originally written? --Pixx4321 (talk) 11:32, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

See WP:NONENG. In short, yes, you may use them. You can keep everything in its original language, just ensure you have a "language=" parameter and mark it with the two-letter language code. I believe you can write the journalist's name any way you wish. You don't need to translate anything. If you do, you should mark it as-such in "postscript="  — MWFwiki (talk) 20:20, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

how do I find my sand box to edit a part of an article there? --GabbyF26 (talk) 02:20, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

User:GabbyF26/sandbox  — MWFwiki (talk) 07:39, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello , i need To make An Article on one of famous Person in our society --Syed Abid Shah Hussaini (talk) 21:38, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the question?  — MWFwiki (talk) 23:21, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello! I would not like any help, but thank you for the offer. This is my alt account. --Nephellium(alt) (talk) 19:38, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Okay, well, welcome!  — MWFwiki (talk) 19:58, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Please Edit The Premier League Table 26/27 For 20th Place As TBC --I'm A Man City Fan And I Hate Arsenal (talk) 18:16, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Good article nominations | June 2026 Backlog Drive
June 2026 Backlog Drive: Do you want to become more experienced in the GA process? On 1 June, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles reviewed. Mentors are available, and new reviewers (<6 reviews) get bonus points! Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talk page.
You're receiving this message because you have participated in a good article review this year or participated in the previous backlog drive.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:59, 25 May 2026 (UTC)