User talk:Qcne/Archives/2026/January

Hi @qcne, regarding your rejection of my my draft on the above topic, I am wondering whether your judgment is based on the topic itself or the content I tried to put out, which I meant to be as objective as possible by merely reporting whistleblower claims, with as many mainstream media sources as possible. Notability of the topic has long been well established for those interested, so I don't see a clear reason for censorship. How much do you know about the UFO topic ? Incidentally it would be nice to read a bit about your own background on your user-page, apart from your role as WP censor... Thank you for your feedback. Houdini78 (talk) 12:26, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Houdini78.

I judge drafts based on their own merits and am a very experienced reviewer of drafts. I see no evidence that the draft meets our very specific criteria for lists of subjects. I also see some real issues with neutrality in the draft; it's clearly pushing an agenda which isn't permitted on Wikipedia.

I would encourage you to instead write a blog or social media post elsewhere. Wikipedia isn't suitable for this sort of thing. Sorry.

Let me know if you have any questions. qcne (talk) 12:29, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

I do have questions. There are written above, but you haven't replied to any of them. Houdini78 (talk) 13:53, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

@Houdini78 I'm not sure I'm seeing any specific further questions, so feel free to ask them again clearly. qcne (talk) 13:58, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

1/ Is your rejection judgment based on the topic itself, or on the content I tried to put out ? In other words, from your point of view, is a UFO whistleblower list worthy of Wikipedia ?

2/ Before passing judgment, one should have some knowledge about the topic. How much do you know about the UFO topic ? In other words, how many books have you read in the topic ?

3/ Before contributing to WP, I was invited to fill in my WP user page to let other contributors know what my professional background is. Your WP user page is empty of any activity apart from WP censorship. Has this been your main professional activity ? Are you paid for this ? If so, who is your sponsor ?

Thank you for your kind replies. Houdini78 (talk) 14:32, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

1. My rejection was based off three things: One, our criteria for inclusion for stand-alone lists requires that lists be sourced to sources that reference the list as a whole. Your draft did not have that. Two, I had concerns the draft was pushing a point of view which is prohibited on Wikipedia. Three, that we have very strict criteria for information about living people and some of the content of the draft would likely be challenged due to unverifiability. To sum up, then, I rejected the draft based off it's content and structure.
2. There is no requirement that reviewers be intimately familiar with the topic they are reviewing: I have reviewed over 10,000 drafts in the last few years on topics as broad as Indian religion, hip-hop music, extinct species of fish, etc, none of which I have much knowledge about. I would avoid drafts that were specifically very technical in nature, but I had no qualms about reviewing your draft as it failed our core policies. I have a deep interest in science fiction, which sometimes can pass over onto UFO-adjacent topics. I do not personally believe that extra-terrestrial beings have ever visited this planet, but my personal belief had no impact on my review of the draft, just as my disinterest in hip-hop music would have any impact on my review of a hip-hop musician draft.
3. User pages are optional and can contain as much - or as little - information about the editor as the editor wishes. I have included some basic biographic information on my user page. I would not be comfortable disclosing detailed biographic information, as you have done on your user page, due to privacy concerns. I do not censor content. Wikipedia is not censored. However, we do have strict criteria for inclusion and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information - as much as I like my cat, she does not merit an article on Wikipedia. As an Articles for Creation reviewer I am a gatekeeper for new articles, declining those which are not suitable for the project. I am in full time employment and edit Wikipedia in my free time because I enjoy it. I have never been paid to edit Wikipedia, I have no sponsor. The only financial compensation I have ever received is $75 on 22 March 2025 and $93 on 25 September 2025 from the Wikimedia Foundation for participating in two research projects.

I hope that answers your questions, but do let me know if you have any further ones. qcne (talk) 14:50, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you @qcne for your quick and thorough replies.

Wikipedia already has a whistleblower list, yet containing no UFO-related whistleblower. This indicates the UFO topic is still surrounded by stigma and ridicule, as I have gathered a list of more than 120 UFO whistleblowers. The UFO topic is considered a serious topic by most people who take time to get informed about it, and that population is growing and reaching the majority in the USA. Yet I suspected Wikipedia would still not be open to a UFO whistleblower list whatever the structure or content, but I wanted to give it a try.

As I wrote to reviewer @TimTrent, the WP censorship (or close-mindedness if you dislike the censorship term) can only reinforce the rumour in the UFO community that Wikipedia, just like mainstream media, is under control of a "deep state" and their secret gatekeepers (call it a conspiracy if you will), but most people don't realise it because of decades of cover-up and disinformation.

Two reasons tend to make me now think this rumour is probably true: 1/ Your lack of transparency about who you are and how you make a living, although I can understand the privacy issue in some rare instances (including intelligence professionals). 2/ Starting a week after @TimTrent implicitly asked me to replace my Youtube links to whistleblower interviews by "more reliable" sources, my computer has been denied access to the NewsNation website, the only news channel bringing regular coverage on the topic, and giving a voice to numerous UFO whistleblowers.

Please show me I am wrong by not deleting the content of my sandbox page and this exchange.

Thanks. Houdini78 (talk) 16:30, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

@Houdini78

List of whistleblowers is a complicated article, but it differs significantly from your draft. You may want to read the FAQ at Talk:List of whistleblowers, which outlines the specific inclusion criteria there.

WP:NLIST states that the notability of a stand-alone list is based on the group itself, and the grouping must be discussed as a set by independent reliable sources. "Whistleblowers" is a broad, established concept, and that article functions as a navigational aid for people who already have Wikipedia biographies. As the article states: This lists whistleblowers associated with events that were sufficiently notable to merit a Wikipedia article about the whistleblower or the event.

Your draft differs in several key ways:

• Fails WP:NLIST and WP:SYNTH: your draft does not present a recognised encyclopaedic set with defined boundaries. Instead, it creates a new grouping based on a specific point of view. Combining different individuals to advance the argument that the government wants to hide the reality constitutes editorial synthesis, which is not permitted.
• Navigational function: a stand-alone list should generally function as a navigational aid for existing content. However, your draft includes individuals who do not have Wikipedia articles. A list cannot be used to bypass notability guidelines for individuals who would not otherwise qualify for an article.
• Biographies of living people: you are using the term "whistleblower" very loosely to include witnesses, commentators, and interviewees. Wikipedia requires strict adherence to high-quality sourcing when labelling living people, particularly when making extraordinary claims.
• Neutrality: the draft is not written as a neutral list; it advocates for a specific narrative. It repeats extraordinary allegations and presents claims of harassment as undisputed fact, rather than attributing them neutrally.

Wikipedia is open: you can read through tens of thousands of discussions stretching back twenty years involving thousands of editors. You can see how our policies, guidelines, and culture has developed over the decades. You can also view the history of all pages, and see who, why, what, and when changes were made. I think it would be difficult for a "deep state" to control and influence a website of users from all over the globe. That is not to say Wikipedia is perfect: we are human-edited and have the flaws and biases all humans have. But the transparent and collaborative editing environment is one of our key pillars.

I have been transparent with you about who I am: an editor with 4 years of experience reviewing articles. My User page contains some biographic information: I do not hide that I am British, that I am gay, that I am on the autistic spectrum. If you look into the history of my User page you'll see details about my relationship, pets, workplace, interests that I removed for privacy concerns. I have nothing to hide, but I also practice internet privacy hygiene: I was brought up in the early 2000s to not tell strangers every facet of my personal life. The social media age has perhaps diluted that concept.

I am sorry you are having website accessibility issues: this has nothing whatsoever to do with Wikipedia. If I, or my reviewer colleagues, were able to influence what you were able to access online we would not be volunteering our free time editing Wikipedia for free: I'd claim a bugbounty from Microsoft or Apple or Linux for an egregious breach of data privacy and would be holidaying in Denmark.

Sandboxes which are not edited for six months are considered abandoned and may be deleted in-line with our deletion policy. I do not have the power to delete articles. I have no intention of erasing this conversation, but even if I did, you would be able to look at my User Talk page history and see the revisions. qcne (talk) 17:05, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Sorry to sound stupid but how do I actually Make a new article --Mouse cells (talk) 21:32, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Mouse cells! I would genuinely recommend not writing a new article as a new editor, as it's very complicated and will likely lead to frustration. Instead, spend a few weeks improving existing articles so you get used to our policies and guidelines.

When ready, you can create a new draft article and it will be reviewed by experienced editors like me.

Let me know if you have any more questions. qcne (talk) 21:40, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

	The Civility Barnstar
	For creating an article for that editor at AFCHD! Helpful Raccoon (talk) 20:59, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! qcne (talk) 21:00, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Seconded! It was encouraging to see the direction that discussion ended up taking. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 02:12, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Wishing you a happy 20^th editiversary!
Valuable from January 2, 2006 (Which is according to your userpage, the day you joined us!)

Cheers, rfqii ^talk! 08:40, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Well, you did make your first edit on the 3rd, but you joined on the 2nd! rfqii ^talk! 08:41, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Oh wow! I had no idea, thank you @Rfqii for reminding me! qcne (talk) 11:01, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Welcome to the twenty-year club, Qcne. I'd like to say congrats, but I'm merely inclined to express my gratitude you are still with us. Remember, you must wear your official club smoking jacket when smoking in the twenty-year club members' virtual lounge. Note: you are the only wikipedian whose CSD log is on my watchlist. That's how highly I value your tags. Thanks, bud. BusterD (talk) 11:08, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

That is high praise, @BusterD, thank you! qcne (talk) 13:22, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Welcome to the club, Qcne! I have confirmed that your official Society jacket has the requisite elbow patches. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 12:28, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Hehe! qcne (talk) 13:22, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

wanted to say thank you here for the movement at the still point article, i would love to send you a copy of the book if this is not acceptable because of coi i totally understand happy new year , best MM Mark Simon Mann (talk) 14:24, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you @Mark Simon Mann, appreciate it :) glad we came to a good resolution. I will gratefully decline the book - just for propriety's sake - but thank you for the sentiment. qcne (talk) 16:07, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Hey @Qcne. Your wiki edit anniversary is today, marking 20 years of dedicated contributions to English Wikipedia. Your passion for sharing knowledge and your remarkable contributions have not only enriched the project, but also inspired countless others to contribute. Thank you for your amazing contributions. Wishing you many more wonderful years ahead in the Wiki journey and a blessed New Year. :) -❙❚❚❙❙ GnOeee ❚❙❚❙❙ ✉ 18:07, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! :) qcne (talk) 18:38, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

	Editor's Barnstar
	For your work rewriting dozens of AfC decline templates to be more beginner-friendly! Ca talk to me! 16:10, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! let's hope they get implemented! qcne (talk) 16:34, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, how do I make this colored blocks in this Table in Wikipedia? --Lernan Min Sover (talk) 19:30, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Lernan Min Sover! I'm not sure which table you mean, but does Help:Table#Setting cell parameters help? qcne (talk) 19:49, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi --ChinggisVodka (talk) 22:09, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

@ChinggisVodka Hi! do you have a question about Wikipedia? qcne (talk) 22:25, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Not now, I just wanted to say hi. I may have one later though. ChinggisVodka (talk) 22:28, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

No worries. qcne (talk) 22:31, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Hey @Qcne, I laid out a detailed follow-up on Princenile here. It basically compiles the data I have uncovered for an explanation, yet this still doesn't prove any motive... Any thoughts? rfqii ^talk! 02:01, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

My thoughts are an over-enthusiastic (younger? ESL?) editor who doesn't understand our criteria and doesn't understand or know about their User Talk page to respond to all the warnings. I assume good faith - these are all real NGC objects after all, not hoax or vandalism. I think if we still don't get any comms over the next week or so we can raise it as a CIR issue at ANI again. Thanks again for your work on this! qcne (talk) 11:43, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes, they are real objects but t meaningless to the encyclopedia under WP:NOTCATALOG. Probably just a younger and excited editor. rfqii ^talk! 19:35, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

I’m getting some extremely strong WP:ICANTHEARYOU rfqii ^talk 20:23, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

I am going to follow up on the ANI and propose a full block. qcne (talk) 09:25, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

I must say, I still have a lot of nervousness when reviewing drafts, and it has not gotten much better after the whole The Great Meme Reset of 2026 debacle (still ongoing). I hope these go away soon, but its tough for me to approve drafts and I tend to get this nervous feeling that I'm making a dumb mistake. I try to leave a long comment when declining drafts to help, but aside from that I've yet to even approve a draft (not counting the one I mentioned earlier), and I feel like a bit of an inept moron in a group full of much smarter people. Sorry if this is bothering you, I just wanted to get this off my chest to the person who is clearly the most experienced in this matter. _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 17:56, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Hey @SignedInteger :) Firstly, don't worry - we only accept a small number of drafts that come through, most drafts are quite easy declines. It's totally normal for the ratio of accept:decline to be around 75:15.

I've seen a couple of your declines and I'm really impressed with the notes you leave, it goes beyond what many reviewers do.

Your answers on The Teahouse prove you've got really good knowledge of our policies and guidelines.

I'd recommend turning on your AfC logging: when the AFCH script is open on a draft, click the preferences link, which will open up a menu for turning on your logging. I'd also recommend joining the NPP/AFC discord server, we have some good chats on accepts/declines amongst reviewers. qcne (talk) 18:07, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

I did turn on the script, I'll consider joining the Discord but I do wish more reviewers left comments when they decline submissions. Most newcomers aren't going to automatically understand what they did wrong just from a simple notification. Thanks for the help! _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 18:15, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

I agree. That's one of the reasons why I've decided to try and overhaul the AfC templates, feel free to have a read through and give some feedback! qcne (talk) 18:16, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Honestly? I love this. The AfC process has two basic purposes, the first is to help Wikipedia function (we're all aware of the Wikipedia Seigenthaler biography incident by now), but the second, and in my eyes, more important purpose, is to help newcomers get the help that they need when making their first article. These changes present a vast improvement to the latter, most newcomers probably wouldn't understand our jargon or why we spell lead as "lede", and as such, it would make much more sense to eschew the formal tone for them. I hope that this comes into effect soon, because as it stands, the process is very flawed. Will it remain flawed after this? Yeah, but it is better to improve on those flaws than ignore them. Also, it goes without saying that any improvement that helps newcomers is a great one, we could always use more good contributors. That's all I have to say, I'm really excited for this. _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 18:29, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. I totally agree - the current AfC process is not newbie friendly at all. I mean, Wikipedia as a whole is very complicated and could probably be made simpler, but perhaps that's a job for another day...! qcne (talk) 18:51, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Hey, remember, the article for Rome (or, to fit the metaphor better, Roman Empire) was not built in a day. The improvements to Wikipedia will not be done in a day either, but this is a good start. I think an effort like that would require a lot of different editors from varying backgrounds and would probably take months if it ever happens. Ideally, Wikipedia would fit its slogan of "The Free Encyclopedia anyone can edit", but at the moment its more like "The Free Encyclopedia anyone could edit." Again, this is a good start, and a great way to improve Wikipedia on what is, as I'm sure you're aware, Wikipedia's silver jubilee. If more improvements like this happen this year, we can call this anniversary the "Year of Reforms". That's all I have to say on that, but yeah! Ambitious as it sounds, I'd love for a long-term effort to simplify Wikipedia to happen. _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 19:01, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

We're in firm agreement there. :) qcne (talk) 09:29, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Hey, I'm super sorry there aren't many sources, unfortunately the species still hasn't been officially described, which is why it doesn't have a scientific name yet. Because of this lack of description it means there aren't actually any scientific journals or taxonomic records on the species yet. The only way I know it's even a real species is because the BBC David Attenborough Documentary and Museums Victoria are extremely trustworthy sources in my experience. The main reason I even made this page is because at some point information about this species was incorrectly applied to a completely different member of the Abdopus genus. I hope my explanation added clarity. Spawn of Hecate (talk) 11:38, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know, @Spawn of Hecate. @CoconutOctopus, any thoughts? qcne (talk) 11:49, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm still new to contributing to Wikipedia, is it normal for a response to take this long? Spawn of Hecate (talk) 09:40, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Ah, I am sure that this was just missed in the Christmas period. Looking at Wikipedia:Notability (species) we either need more sources or official description. Your three sources are average - do you have any text based sources that discuss it in detail? qcne (talk) 11:12, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

It seems the BBC episode that referred to the creature as a "currently undescribed species" aired on the 6/12/15 and inspired the creation of this article 3 days later (9/12/15), that seems to have incorrectly referred to the species as Abdopus aculeatus in a misguided attempt at adding extra information.

From there it looks like all subsequent articles on the specimen have carried over this misidentification and thus I cannot find any accurate text based sources on the species.

Whilst I could add a section to my article that outlines this decade old issue I also understand if this is not enough to qualify for an article. Regardless, thank you so much for your time and for following up. Spawn of Hecate (talk) 01:46, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Frustratingly then, I don't think we can accept the draft at this time. This seems contrary, but it's because Wikipedia is a tertiary source that only summarises existing secondary sources. Once the species is accurately described or a few more accurate sources appear, we'll be in a better chance of acceptance. qcne (talk) 09:24, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Well thanks for the honesty and I really appreciate your help, it means a lot. Spawn of Hecate (talk) 10:48, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what this is. It was first a redirect but I...I'm not too sure if I did the right call here. I couldn't find any info about this. I'm asking for a second opinion to see if I slipped up here. (I did remove the speedy deletion notice, not sure what this is supposed to be yet) _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 18:13, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Interesting. This was a re-direct created in 2011 which was then usurped by @CodeN1234 with some text (which is clearly WP:MADEUP and not appropriate for Wikipedia), then @Dan arndt draftified it without restoring the re-direct.

I think what should have happened is @Dan arndt should have undone the text to restore the redirect. Then it would have never been drafified and never submitted for review.

@CodeN1234: please do not create pages for things you/your friends have made up.

@Dan arndt: probably best to undo the move and restore the redirect, which was a plausible one. qcne (talk) 18:39, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

What a weird case. It should be a redirect again ASAP, good thing I asked you on this. Thanks! _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 18:48, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Why did you revert my move? I specifically moved it to my userspace for a reason, namely that I am going to work on improving it myself over time and I don't want it to be repeatedly resubmitted and declined in the meantime, since it's going to take a little while to get it fully up to standard. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 19:16, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Hia @Taking Out The Trash. Your submission appeared in [[:Category:Pending AfC submissions in userspace]] and by default we move these to draftspace if they've been submitted for review (your draft had been submitted for review). I didn't check the page history to be honest, because I do tens of these moves a day. Sorry for the trouble, you're absolutely free to move it back to your userspace, but please don't submit for review otherwise it'll appear in that category again and a reviewer will move it back to draftspace!

qcne (talk) 19:46, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Oh- so, I think you removed the submission banner just as I moved it. I think it's a timing coincidence. Sorry! qcne (talk) 19:47, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi! I hope all is well.

1. On suggesting edits with a COI

I’m super new to editing and want to make sure I’m following best practice. If I have a potential conflict of interest on a topic, is the preferred approach to use article Talk pages to suggest specific, sourced wording rather than editing directly?

2. On strengthening existing articles

When an organisation is currently mentioned within a group article, is it generally acceptable to suggest expanded, well sourced sections there before any consideration of a standalone article?

3. On notability thresholds

In broad terms, what types of independent sources tend to carry the most weight when editors assess whether a sub organisation or brand is notable enough for expanded coverage or a separate article?

4. On name changes / rebrands

For organisations that change names, is it best practice to document the change within existing coverage first and wait for third-party sourcing before considering page moves or new articles?

5. On timing and editor expectations

Is there any general guidance on how long or how consistently an organisation typically needs to be covered by independent sources before editors are comfortable with structural changes like page splits?

Thanks so much in advance!! --LaurenCanavan-Wiki (talk) 10:29, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi @LaurenCanavan-Wiki. Thanks for these excellent questions.

1. We don't absolutely prohibit COI editors from directly editing subjects they have a COI with: if you are updating non-contentious information (such as basic biographic details sourced to a primary source, or basic organisational fact and figures sourced to a primary source) then that should be okay to do directly. We do ask that you declare your COI first by following the instructions at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.If you are in doubt, or have some bigger changes to want to make, or if you have a very direct COI (such as being an employee of an article subject), you should make a formal Edit Request. This will pop a new topic on the article Talk Page, and an uninvolved editor will come along and assess the request and action the changes if appropriate. We do have a backlog so you may be waiting a few weeks.
2. Without an example it's hard to give specific advice, but in general an article about a topic should mostly cover that topic. If there is a section about a different topic that's related or has important context, you can expand it to a point - but you don't want to overwhelm the primary subject of the article about a different topic. For organisations, only organisations that meet our criteria for inclusion would warrant a stand-alone article. Usually we're looking for a minimum of three strong secondary sources to prove inclusion, so if you do find three or more strong sources then it is perhaps notable for a stand-alone article.
3. The most important thing in assessing sources is evidence there is transformative coverage. We're looking for critical coverage, in-depth discussion, reviews, debate, analysis. This excludes things like listicles, award nominations, credits, database entries, etc.
4. We go with the Wikipedia:Common name for article titles, so the name that is most commonly used in secondary sources. However if an organisation changes it's name, we can usually just process a move to the new title with a primary source evidencing the change in name.
5. The key again is multiple high quality secondary sources that provide transformational coverage. If multiple secondary sources discuss the topic over a few days, that's fine. If it takes a few months for those sources to appear, that's fine too. "Multiple" isn't really defined, but my rule of thumb is at least three. Hypothetically: if an organisation announces a major restructure that might warrant a stand-alone article being created, and that's immediately covered by three or more high quality secondary sources that are very specifically not churnalism or press releases, I would probably be comfortable processing a page split. But like everything on Wikipedia, we work by consensus, and another editor might disagree. For major changes to existing articles it might be better to discuss on the article Talk Page first, and then proceed if there are no replies for a week or consensus to change.

Hope that helps, do let me know if you have further questions at all. qcne (talk) 11:18, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2025).

Administrator changes

• Epicgenius
• Left guide
• LEvalyn
• MPGuy2824
• The4lines
• Yue

Fathoms Below

• BaronLarf
• Firefly
• kelapstick
• Opabinia regalis
• Pbsouthwood
• Sethant
• UtherSRG
• Whouk

CheckUser changes

• Giraffer
• HouseBlaster
• SilverLocust

• Liz
• Worm That Turned
• Z1720

Oversight changes

• Asilvering
• Giraffer
• Girth Summit
• Guerillero
• HouseBlaster
• Izno
• SilverLocust

• Liz
• Worm That Turned
• Z1720

Guideline and policy news

• All general sanctions imposed by the community may now be enforced at the Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard (WP:AE) as a result of a recent RfC.
• Due to the result of a recent RFC, the administrator recall process is amended to extend the deadline for a re-request for adminship to 30 days or the next administrator election, whichever is later.
• Changes to the Access to Temporary Account IP Addresses Policy's disclosure rules include broadening the consecutive-blocks exception to cover all admin actions and removing the requirement to revision-delete permissible disclosures once they become unnecessary (instead requiring only their removal). See WP:TAIVDISCLOSE for more information.

Arbitration

• Following the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been elected to the Arbitration Committee: Aoidh, Asilvering, Girth Summit, Guerillero, HJ Mitchell, HouseBlaster, Izno, Sdrqaz, SilverLocust.
• The arbitration case Pbsouthwood has been suspended.

You Vandalised The Supermarine Spitfire page By removing information About Users ~2026-48778 (talk) 18:01, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-48778 Please do not add fake vandalism notices to my User Talk Page - that is disruptive. qcne (talk) 18:11, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

. No, the wikilink needs to be added to the first source because the page exists: Massimo Montanari (see also Massimo Montanari#Works); can you please add it? ~2026-24604-4 (talk) 12:14, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Good --1.a.3.b.5.c.7.e.9.a (talk) 19:40, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi @1.a.3.b.5.c.7.e.9.a. Did you have a question about editing Wikipedia? qcne (talk) 18:48, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

What is technology's --Abdul abdulaziz umar (talk) 11:47, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Abdul abdulaziz umar. Did you have a question about editing Wikipedia? qcne (talk) 18:49, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

User:Mbteam012/sandbox and User:Lesanimas17/sandbox. These both appear to be related to each other, share a similar subject matter, and are both by accounts that were just registered not too long ago. I want to AGF and say that this is just a coincidence but I'm not sure, there might be something off here. Just wanted to let you know because this is a rather strange coincidence. _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 04:38, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Hia @SignedInteger. We sometimes get themed drafts being submitted after some off-Wiki coordination. For example, a University might task their students to write drafts about X topic. Or there might be an edit-athon to write drafts about Y topic. Or, perhaps more likely in this case, its two users with a COI with the Black Females in Architecture who have been tasked to write about the topic(s). I think we can AGF now, though. qcne (talk) 18:54, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, I just found it a bit too coincidental. While looking at the edit history for Draft:Alisha Morenike Fisher, it appears that there's a third person involved with this. See User talk:Alishamorenike1703 for more information. Similar to these two, they also wrote a draft about Black Females in Architecture here: Draft:Black Females in Architecture. I think that makes it clear that this is just a COI and that all three users are likely either members of, or affiliated with Black Females in Architecture. Again, not much for me to add here, it's probably just a simple COI. _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 19:04, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Probably worth dropping a CoI warning on Lesanimas17's talk page. qcne (talk) 19:15, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Done. That'll probably be all for this one. Thanks for the help :) _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 19:19, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Here is a quick overview of highlights from the Wikimedia Foundation since our last issue on December 5. Please help translate.

---

Highlights

• Wikipedia turns 25: Time to start the party! Join the virtual celebration featuring musical performances, games, and more on January 15 at 16:00 UTC. and The party will be live interpreted into Arabic, Chinese, French, Spanish, and Portuguese.

Join the celebration

Annual Goals Progress on Infrastructure
See also newsletters: Wikimedia Apps · Growth · Product Safety and Integrity · Readers · Research · Wikifunctions & Abstract Wikipedia · Tech News · Language and Internationalization · other newsletters on MediaWiki.org

• Annual planning: Key questions for the Wikimedia movement to shape the Wikimedia Foundation’s 2026-2027 annual goals. Join the discussion on-wiki.
• Hackathon:
  • Apply to join the Northwestern Europe 2026 Hackathon from March 13-14 in Arnhem, the Netherlands. Application will close mid-January 2026 or earlier based on event capacity.
  • General Registration for the 2026 Wikimedia Hackathon is now open! The hackathon will take place in Milan, Italy from May 1 - 3, 2026. Event details can be found here and registration will remain open until March 30th or until event capacity is reached.
• Semantic search: Wikimedia Foundation is working on making it easier to find the information readers want.
• Tech News: Latest updates from Tech News week 50, week 51, and week 52 include that now edit filters can be set to automatically suppress their details which will help oversighters to prevent doxxing.
• Wikifunctions: The first Wikifunctions Volunteers' Corner of the next year will take place on February 9.
• Blazegraph Migration: To support the migration away from Blazegraph as the backend of Wikidata Query Service (WDQS), we are hosting regular calls starting on January 27. Wikidata users and tool maintainers are are invited to join, ask questions, and share migration-related concerns.

Annual Goals Progress on Volunteer Support
See also blogs: Global Advocacy blog · Global Advocacy Newsletter · Policy blog · WikiLearn News · list of movement events · The Wikipedia Library

• Upcoming Conferences: Announcing the six Wikimedia conferences funded for 2026 in the first round.
• Wikimania 2026: A glimpse on what the team is currently working on to prepare for Wikimania 2026 in Paris.
• Public Policy: Explore the resources available for public policy advocacy work, including explainers that describe key policy positions, guides on how to build a campaign or write a policy brief, and examples of open letters submitted to governments.
• Don't Blink: The latest developments from around the world about protecting the Wikimedia model, its people and its values.
• Public-Interest content: The Project Gayatri content expansion program brought 7,656 new articles on Indonesian Wikipedia.
• Wikimedia Research Showcase: The research showcase will return on January 22 at 17:30 UTC with the theme "Celebrating 25 Years of Wikipedia and the Research Behind It".
• Wikimedia Research Report: The Wikimedia Foundation has published its 13th bi-annual Research Report, highlighting the work completed during the first six months of this fiscal year.

Annual Goals Progress on Effectiveness
See also: Past issues of the bulletin for progress on the annual plan

• Wikimedia Enterprise: Read the full annual wrap-up of 2025 of Wikimedia Enterprise and how the year marked a fundamental shift in open knowledge.

Board and Board committee updates
See Wikimedia Foundation Board noticeboard · Affiliations Committee Newsletter

• Board of Trustees: Wikimedia Foundation welcomes two new Board Trustees Bobby Shabangu and Michał Buczyński.
• Affcom News: Read the year-end issue of AffCom News (July-December 2025), the newsletter that distributes relevant news and events about the work of Wikimedia's Affiliations Committee.

Other Movement curated newsletters & news
See also: Diff blog · Goings-on · Planet Wikimedia · Signpost (en) · Kurier (de) · Actualités du Wiktionnaire (fr) · Regards sur l’actualité de la Wikimedia (fr) · Wikimag (fr) · Education · GLAM · Wikidata · Central and Eastern Europe · other newsletters ·Milestones ·

Subscribe or unsubscribe · Help translate

For information about the Bulletin and to read previous editions, see the project page on Meta-Wiki. Let foundationbulletinwikimedia.org know if you have any feedback or suggestions for improvement!

MediaWiki message delivery 00:30, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I wanted to flag that Draft:Luscious Cosmetics has been tagged for speedy deletion under G4. I have contested the tag, as the draft was created via AfC with substantially new sourcing and structure. If you have any guidance on next steps or how best to proceed, I would appreciate it. --DesiResearch (talk) 20:41, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi @DesiResearch. Fundamentally, you need to prove that this company meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion for organizations and companies. The draft requires multiple published sources that:

• provide significant coverage: discuss the subject in detail, excluding routine coverage like product launches, staff appointments, or financial reports and listings in databases or listicles;
• are reliable: from reputable outlets with editorial oversight;
• are independent: not connected to the subject, such as press releases, the subject’s own website, or sponsored content.

Please add references that meet all three of these criteria. If none exist, the subject is not yet suitable for Wikipedia. qcne (talk) 18:49, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I’ve provided international, regional and industry sources. DesiResearch (talk) 20:06, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

@DesiResearch You haven't, though? qcne (talk) 18:04, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Feel free to read my story at User:Interstellarity/My Story and join in for some Wikipedia-related fun. I hope you like it. Interstellarity (talk) 22:11, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Can i make a wiki about myself? --MisterJerry1989 (talk) 09:29, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi @MisterJerry1989. Usually not, no. We have very strict criteria for inclusion and 99% of people do not meet it. Even if you did meet our criteria, we highly discourage writing an autobiographic article. qcne (talk) 09:40, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

I helped make this article! mind if you could check ?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:1979_Wichita_Falls_tornado --Tornado Elliott (talk) 17:21, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Tornado Elliott. A good start! I've added the button to allow you to submit this draft for review. Before you do: you need to tweak the language throughout as it reads quite emotively, and we don't allow emotive language in articles. Words like... violent, extremely, significant, sheer, unprecedented, massive, staggering..: don't include them unless you're directly quoting a reliable source. qcne (talk) 19:19, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

do you think the sources are ok? Tornado Elliott (talk) 23:21, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

also, what should I replace them with? Tornado Elliott (talk) 00:27, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Yep, sources are good. You've got news reports from reputable outlets which is what we need. As for the language, best to just remove any emotive language entirely and don't replace it with anything. Articles should be written strictly neutrally and descriptively. qcne (talk) 09:21, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

great! thanks so much. (ps if you didn't guess already, your my mentor Tornado Elliott (talk) 13:28, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

@Tornado Elliott: note that I have a guide specifically on writing about individual tornadoes here. My main concern would be that the draft is short enough that someone could merge it. This event is 100% notable (has enough sources to make a Wikipedia article out of it) though, and one I've deliberated on writing about for a while. If you have any questions feel free to also post a message at WikiProject Weather's talk page. :) ^EF⁵ 13:35, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

hey your on tornadoes of 2026. we've had conversations before! Tornado Elliott (talk) 14:21, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

yeah I was thinking of adding a set up of the storms as they came in. I have to do school for a while so talk to you later Tornado Elliott (talk) 14:28, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi mentor, I would like to create a new wikipedia page for myself. This is my first time. Could Wikipedia team help me create draft page version for myself. I am happy to share as much information as possible for myself with best of my knowledge. --Yash coder (talk) 05:40, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Yash coder. Wikipedia has very strict criteria for inclusion: we only host articles about people who meet this criteria. You would need to have been written about in multiple mainstream media sources that are totally independent of you. Do any of those sources exist? If not, an article is not possible at this time. qcne (talk) 10:15, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Good morning. I am writing regarding the rejection of the draft for the IRCA page. IRCA is an institute providing treatments for cancer patients and those with similar conditions. It utilizes ZAP-X technology, which is currently quite limited worldwide. This information is highly useful for many users, especially those interested in exploring these types of treatments.

I have explained in detail on the Talk page the changes I have been making to clarify why the content is not promotional. While the tone and language of the page may be somewhat technical, it is at no point commercial or anything of the sort.

I kindly request a review of the rejection. If I am mistaken about any aspect, I would greatly appreciate it if you could let me know here or on the Talk page, which I believe is the appropriate place for such a discussion.

Thank you very much. Hassna Baker (talk) 09:00, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Hassna Baker. I am afraid the draft is still promotional. Wikipedia should not replicate the "About Us" section of a website or advertising pamphlets. Our articles should mostly be a descriptive summary of what secondary and independent sources state about a subject.

Currently the prose of the draft explains the benefits of the treatment and the team specialisations. This is pure promotion and not permitted. You say This information is highly useful for many users, but that's what the Institute's own website is for. Not Wikipedia.

My decline was therefore correct, but I am happy for you to continue to revise the prose as long as you focus only on descriptively summarising what secondary and independent sources state about the institute. Nothing more. qcne (talk) 10:25, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello I'm Pastor Angela Ngozi. I've been given admission to study medicine in Dominica but I need funds to pay my school fees and accomodation fees. Can I get a loan from your organization? 🙏 --Angela Ngozi (talk) 14:43, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello @Angela Ngozi. Wikipedia does not give out loans, you are at the wrong website. Sorry. qcne (talk) 15:09, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

kelvinpablonaira1 "not now " i or am or from or nigeria or oml or state -but -i -was -born -in -benin -city intitle:i intitle:am intitle:the intitle:king intitle:of intitle:kpn intitle:disciple inauthor:i inauthor:love inauthor:my inauthor:brother inauthor:and inauthor:sister inauthor:mother inauthor:father inpublisher:all inpublisher:my inpublisher:happiness --Kelvinpablonaira1 (talk) 08:59, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Kelvinpablonaira1. Did you have a question? qcne (talk) 09:06, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

		The Articles for Creation Barnstar 2025 Top Editor
		In 2025 you were one of the top AfC editors, thank you! --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:12, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you!! qcne (talk) 19:13, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

hi there, i was wondering if you could give my AFC submission some feedback as you recently gave me some pointers which I have actioned and would like to know your thoughts on the improvements Dr.micahel (talk) 21:57, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Dr.micahel. Which three of your sources are your best sources? They need to:

• provide significant coverage: discuss the person in detail, not brief mentions or interviews lacking independent analysis;
• are reliable: from reputable outlets with editorial oversight;
• are independent: not connected to the person, such as press releases, the subject's own website, or sponsored content.

qcne (talk) 09:07, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

https://road.cc/content/feature/beginners-guide-racing-europe-308049, https://www.stickybottle.com/blog/inside-caseys-nations-cup-fight-ag2r-were-going-ballistic-up-the-climbs/, https://www.cyclingweekly.com/racing/theres-blood-on-my-handlebars-inside-one-riders-debut-at-paris-roubaix-juniors, https://www.cyclingireland.ie/news-item/patrick-casey-aiming-to-take-advantage-of-massive-opportunity-with-red-bull-junior-brothers-programme/. these four that i have added are the strongest as they are features and interviews with major cycling news outlets. Dr.micahel (talk) 22:43, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Please note that interviews are not independent sources so confer zero notability. Theroadislong (talk) 22:46, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Dr.micahel.

1. It's an okay source, contains a bit too much interview but has enough transformative analysis I think.
2. A bit too much interview.
3. In-between 1 and 2 on the quality scale - we really need some non-interview transformative analysis, which this has a bit of but not much.
4. As above.

So.. maybe? They're average to okay sources. qcne (talk) 22:50, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

ok, what would your advice be and do you think this is far off being approved as having assessed similar riders with wikipedia pages, Caseys looks very similar now. thanks Dr.micahel (talk) 22:53, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

We have unfortunately tens of thousands of bad articles that no volunteer editor has gotten around to improving or deleting. We don't want to add more bad articles. I'd suggest you try working in those sources and submitting it for review: I would probably decline however if I was reviewing it again. qcne (talk) 22:56, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi,

I am trying to get the HTML for reference 2 on the Monte Verde page to use in another edit I am making. However, when I go to the edit page all I see for the reference is this: ^[1]. When I go to the edit page of References part of the article I don’t get anything. How can I copy the actual HTML of the citation?

The citation is: Pino, Mario; Dillehay, Tom D. (June 2023). "Monte Verde II: an assessment of new radiocarbon dates and their sedimentological context". Antiquity. 97 (393): 524–540. doi:10.15184/aqy.2023.32. ISSN 0003-598X.

Thanks, Katherine --KatherineWall (talk) 12:00, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi @KatherineWall. Wikipedia doesn't use pure HTLM, we use something called Wikitext. If you go into the Source Editor for the article at Editing Monte Verde - Wikipedia, you'll see the code for the second citation is a named reference:

<ref name=":3" /> (with the name being ":3").

A named reference allows an editor to re-use a reference multiple times in shorthand, by first defining the name and then re-using the reference by just adding the ref name.

If you then scroll down a bit, you'll see the named reference is defined as:

<ref name=":3">{{Cite journal |last1=Pino |first1=Mario |last2=Dillehay |first2=Tom D. |date=June 2023 |title=Monte Verde II: an assessment of new radiocarbon dates and their sedimentological context |journal=Antiquity |language=en |volume=97 |issue=393 |pages=524–540 |doi=10.15184/aqy.2023.32 |issn=0003-598X|doi-access=free }}</ref>

In your new edit then, I would recommend going into the Source Editor and copying and pasting the defined reference code.

Let me know if that helps? qcne (talk) 12:24, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes, thank you! KatherineWall (talk) 12:43, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Hey @Qcne i noticed the diff your mention about removed a non-reviewer comment. I wanted to understand the process for becoming a reviewer. Is there a specific procedure to apply for reviewership and does one need to have their own articles created or approved to be eligible? Gujarat Samachar (talk) 09:42, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi there @Gujarat Samachar. The criteria for becoming a reviewer at AfC is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants. You generally need a lot of experience and evidence you understand our policies and guidelines through active participation in article creation, Articles for Deletion discussions, etc. qcne (talk) 12:19, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the explaining @Qcne That’s helpful. I’ll review the criteria and continue gaining experience through article creation and AfD discussions before applying. Gujarat Samachar (talk) 12:45, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I was contacted by B. A. Vansise, about his Wikipedia article photo, he would like it to be changed, how do I do that? Or if you prefer you can change it yourself. Thank you. Leone Tursilli --Leone tursilli (talk) 18:40, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Leone tursilli. The easiest thing is for B.A. Van Sise himself to donate a photograph of himself that he has the copyright over (i.e., he took the photo himself with his own camera) to our sister project Wikimedia Commons. By donating it to Commons he gives up the copyright and makes it freely available for anyone to use - including Wikipedia. We could then update the article with the new photograph. qcne (talk) 19:21, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello there,

I would like to create a new entry for a record label named EverSound (www.eversound.com)

Could you please help me?

Thanks!

Javier --Javier Sanz Alava (talk) 19:48, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Javier Sanz Alava. Does this record label make our strict criteria for inclusion? We would need multiple published sources that:

• provide significant coverage: discuss the subject in detail, excluding routine coverage like product launches, staff appointments, or financial reports and listings in databases or listicles;
• are reliable: from reputable outlets with editorial oversight;
• are independent: not connected to the subject, such as press releases, the subject’s own website, or sponsored content.

If no sources exist that meet those criteria, then a new article isn't possible at this time unfortunately. qcne (talk) 19:59, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello Qcne,

Thank you for taking the time to respond and for providing me with the Wikipedia guidelines.

This is the EverSound website: www.eversound.com

And here are some EverSound artists already on Wikipedia:

Diane Arkenstone

David Arkenstone

Michael Whalen

Suzanne Ciani

In response to your question, the answer is “yes” and below are various sources of significant, independent and reliable coverage of EverSound:

EverSound recently celebrated its 25th Anniversary Celebration, which you can sample through the largest music platforms, such as

Amazon: https://a.co/d/gbf7qGh

Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/album/0hjLJTQMXQHpXEo2l4l6DX

iTunes: https://itunes.apple.com/album/id/1726079909

The Orchard Player: https://promo.theorchard.com/Nsm1I6nA3c8g9Def3OKq?skin=light

YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@MusicEverSound

MVD: https://mvdentertainment.com/ (see screenshot with the EverSound catalog through the Dropbox folder)

New Age Music Guide

https://newagemusic.guide/newagemusic/eversounds-25th-anniversary-celebration/

https://newagemusic.guide/new-age-music-history/the-best-of-david-diane-arkenstone-10th-anniversary/

https://newagemusic.guide/new-releases/strings-of-beauty-the-eversound-guitar-collection/

EverSound is also in partnership with:

1) TimelessToday: https://timelesstoday.tv/en/discover/music/9, and

2) Prem Rawat, providing music for the YouTube video celebrating World Guinness record for the world´s largest audience for a lecture:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIAyFPQGGnM

Here is a link to a Dropbox folder with some screenshots documenting some of the above: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/4gauasnriynwbjz0sfrrh/ANZmHuiYarwpOP0eBcpGdOQ?rlkey=a8dlrpqvs5ynqzalj3hi3c7w1&st=jrezreka&dl=0

Hope this helps, and look forward to hearing from you,

Thank you, and all my best,

Javier Sanz Javier Sanz Alava (talk) 19:19, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Javier Sanz Alava.

Let's go through your links one by one:

1. Amazon is not an independent source, as it's just a place to buy their CD.
2. As above, but a place to listen to their music.
3. As above.
4. As above.
5. As above.
6. A catalogue is not independent or significant coverage.
7. This seems to be a promotional source, just designed to get people to buy the CD.
8. This provides no significant coverage.
9. Another promotional source.
10. A partnership is not independent.
11. A partnership is not independent.
12. Of the dropbox files: 1) a catalogue is not independent, 2) a YouTube screenshot is not a suitable source, 3) a pamphlet is not a suitable source.

None of these sources meet any of the criteria I asked for.

Please very re-read the policy and guideline links I gave you earlier.

qcne (talk) 19:24, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello Qcne,

Thank you again for taking the time to respond and clarify a few things for me.

Could you please describe what you mean by “independent source” and give me an example?

Thank you, and all my best,

Javier Sanz Javier Sanz Alava (talk) 20:05, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

An independent source is a source that has no relation to the subject of the article. So, for example, a mainstream newspaper or magazine that discusses the company in a transformative way, specifically not based on a press release and not based on an interview with clients or staff. qcne (talk) 20:11, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello Qcne,

Thank you again for taking the time to respond and for providing further clarification.

I greatly appreciate your patience.

Here are some independent sources covering EverSound:

New Age Music World: http://www.newagemusicworld.com/tag/eversound-records/

Search of new age music record labels:

https://www.bing.com/search?q=new%20%20age%20music%20record%20labels&qs=n&form=QBRE&sp=-1&lq=0&pq=new%20%20age%20music%20record%20labels&sc=0-28&sk=&cvid=EFC7B177E06A42E9BFDD3D3E923821AE

I am also attaching the link to a Dropbox folder with updated screenshots.

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/4gauasnriynwbjz0sfrrh/ANZmHuiYarwpOP0eBcpGdOQ?rlkey=a8dlrpqvs5ynqzalj3hi3c7w1&st=oyjcddbs&dl=0

Hope this helps, and look forward to hearing from you,

Thank you, and all my best,

Javier Sanz Javier Sanz Alava (talk) 15:17, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, @Javier Sanz Alava. You don't seem to have understood my advice; none of those are viable sources.

1. Is just a press release.
2. Is a Bing search. What are we meant to do with that?
3. We don't accept AI searches nor screenshots.

At this point, I don't think this company meets our criteria for inclusion and an article is not possible. Sorry. qcne (talk) 15:38, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello,

I am new to Wikipedia and I am working on writing an article to recognize a notable person. It was deleted as the reviewer. Can you help me to write a article that follows the guideline presented. I am recognizing the dean of an engineering college. Thanks in advance for your help. Htownengineer (talk) 17:07, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi :@Htownengineer. The deleting admin suggested you used an AI chatbot to write the draft. Did you? We prohibit this. Jim did give you some really good advice on your talk page on how to go about re-writing the draft. qcne (talk) 17:41, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I am reworking it now and have updated the areas GPTzero recognized as AI but it is calling my references AI. I am using the advice he gave to structure the article and have reviewed the your first article resource. If I publish it will you help me to look it over? Htownengineer (talk) 18:19, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

If you wrote any parts with the use of AI, please delete that prose and re-write it in your own words. GPTzero isn't fool proof, and can have false positives. The key thing is that you should have no AI-written text in your draft at all.

Looking at Draft:Pradeep_Sharma_(academic), you appear to have written this backwards? There are no sources at all, so where did all the information come from? You should be finding the sources first, then summarising those sources. That should be the content of your draft, nothing else. We have extremely strict criteria for biographic articles of living people, and unsourced content is liable to be deleted without warning. Currently, your entire draft is unsourced. qcne (talk) 19:38, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) If the article is entirely unsourced (but for the single link), and Htownengineer didn't compose the draft themself, where did the LLM get the information for the statements made? How do we know this work isn't entirely hallucinated? Please read WP:Biographies of living persons. BusterD (talk) 23:41, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello Qcne,

thank you for being assigned as my mentor.

I have a draft biography in my sandbox with a disclosed conflict of interest and a pending request for review. As this is my first article draft, I wanted to ask if you could briefly advise whether the draft is on the right track, or if there is anything obvious I should adjust while waiting for a reviewer.

Thank you for your time and help. Best regards, Vojo0311 --Vojo0311 (talk) 14:30, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Vojo0311. Thank you for the question, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for disclosing the Conflict of Interest.

Unfortunately, as this is the English Wikipedia we can only accept drafts written in the English language. Please provide a high-quality English translation, avoiding machine translation tools (like Google Translate). If you prefer to write in your own language, look for the Wikipedia project in your language on the Wikipedia home page.

On the English Wikipedia, you must place an inline citation directly after any material about living people.

Please edit your draft to support your statements with inline citations. Learn how to create inline citations in the VisualEditor: Introduction to referencing with VisualEditor.

Let me know if you have any more questions! qcne (talk) 17:24, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello! I have been on Wikipedia many times, but I've always wondered "How do Wikipedia editors add the info boxes on their homepage that say things like I speak English native-level, I am interested in football etc.!" --ArcoAotearoa (talk) 20:46, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi @ArcoAotearoa. They're called Userboxes. You can copy the Userbox code and adjust the parameters to your own User Page :) qcne (talk) 20:48, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I am thinking of creating a new page on some pioneer families in old Singapore. How do I proceed ? Thanks --SgNota (talk) 05:58, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi @SgNota, welcome to Wikipedia! New articles need to meet our criteria for inclusion. You should gather at least three sources that that:

• provide significant coverage: discuss the subject in detail, not just brief mentions or routine announcements;
• are reliable: from reputable outlets with editorial oversight;
• are independent: not connected to the subject, such as interviews, press releases, the subject's own website, or sponsored content.

Your sources should be published, reliable, and accessible. This excludes things like social media, most bogs, private archive collections. We do allow non-English language and offline sources.

You would then summarize in your own words a range of independent, reliable, published sources that discuss the subject. That summary should make up the prose of the new article.

I'd recommend going via the Wikipedia:Article wizard which will allow you to create a new draft article, then submit it for review by experienced editors. They'll give feedback on the draft.

Let me know if you had any specific questions? qcne (talk) 12:44, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi qcne, how do i reply to your advice ? Can I draft article in WORD and submit for review ? How ? Seems to be a lot of stuff in the wiki tools page. Thanks SgNota (talk) 07:17, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi @SgNota. There should be a little Reply button on the thread above, but don't worry.

You can't submit a Microsoft Word draft, as that isn't compatible with our editor. I'd recommend you use the Visual Editor which looks and acts a bit like Microsoft Word. qcne (talk) 11:15, 27 January 2026 (UTC)