Wikipedia:Teahouse

I recently submitted an article on a living author, and it was declined on account that “This draft appears to contain text generated by a large language model.”

I wrote the article myself based on the sources listed in the References section. I’m reaching out to ask if you can tell me specifically what type of changes or what sections of my article I need to change to meet Wiki standards. I would very much appreciate any direction you can offer before I start re-working the text with the aim of resubmitting it and getting Wiki approval. Thanks!

Here is the link to my draft: Draft:Justin Gold#cite note-:0-1

~2026-52671-69 (talk) 00:17, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Courtesy ping: EaglesFan37 ^{In solidarity,} 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 ^{(They/them • Talk • Contribs)} 00:26, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Your article lists attribution repeatedly, which automatically causes suspicion of LLM usage. The capitalization of headers is also indicative of LLM.

Even if I WP:AGF about LLM-usage, the article reads as extremely promotional. @Jéské Couriano made a bunch of comments over at the AfC help desk, but to be completely honest, you may be better off just starting from scratch. EaglesFan37 (talk) 02:47, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

I rewrote a couple paragraphs to address what I believe you mean by “promotional.” Am I on the right track?

This is my original text:

J Jaye (Justin) Gold is an American author, speaker, and founder of the nonprofit The Center for Cultural & Naturalist Studies, which engages in service projects in the United States and internationally.^[7] Gold’s work has focused on the study of human behavior.^[8] His books have received coverage in publications including the Los Angeles Times,^[9] Fort Worth Star-Telegram,^[10]The San Diego Union-Tribune,^[11] the Dallas Observer,^[12] and the Santa Barbara Independent.^[13]

This is my revised version:

J Jaye Gold (Justin Gold) is an American author and founder of the Center for Cultural & Naturalist Studies (CCNS), a nonprofit organization that does international service work and natural disaster relief. (1)

This is another section of the original text:

The Center for Cultural & Naturalist Studies (CCNS)

Gold founded the Center for Cultural & Naturalist Studies, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, in 1983. CCNS international service projects have included building an eye clinic for Burmese refugees in Thailand, a birthing clinic in rural Cambodia, and upgrading a school for Syrian refugee children in Turkey. In addition to participating in hurricane relief work in the US and Puerto Rico, CCNS helped newly arrived Afghan refugees settle in Sacramento, California, after the U.S. troop withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021. They also perform puppet shows for children as part of their outreach.

This is my revised version:

The Center for Cultural & Naturalist Studies (CCNS)

Gold founded the nonprofit the Center for Cultural & Naturalist Studies in 1983. CCNS international service projects have included assisting Burmese refugees in Thailand and Syrian refugees in Turkey, in addition to hurricane relief work in the US and Puerto Rico. CCNS members have also performed puppet shows for children as part of their outreach.^[14]

------------

I cut out some specifics and listed fewer details. Is this in the right direction for sounding less "promotional"?

Thank you so much for your help! ~2026-52671-69 (talk) 21:51, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

The citations in the body here are malformed. @ChompyTheGoat: removed the talk reflist but that just moved the errors to the bottom of the page. I put the reflist back but it is kinda jarring so I don't know if that's better. OP, can I go through and fix the formatting on these? You're referencing sources that you didn't actually include original citations for so the page is barfing errors. (also sorry if I have made a mess. I was trying to clean one up) Packrat3860 (talk) 23:38, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Ugh. I don't understand why it has to force it onto the page like that. We don't need the full reflist when it's just copypasta. Better to just remove them from the comment entirely. ChompyTheGogoat [ Bleat | Munched ] 00:06, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello again, EaglesFan. As for repeatedly using attribution: I was trying very hard not to insert any personal opinion and aside from direct quotes, I was under the understanding that anything other than very simple facts (like the title of a book and publication date) needed to be carefully and specifically attributed to the source where I found the information. I’m concerned that if I eliminate the attribution, how do I document his notability? If there is a preferred way to do this on Wiki, please give me a suggestion. Much appreciated. ~2026-52671-69 (talk) 22:03, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Using citations is proper, but there are correct ways to do so and AI often doesn't get them right. I also see MOS:CURLY and unnecessary use of quotes, which are also LLM hallmarks. ChompyTheGogoat [ Bleat | Munched ] 15:30, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Also, you don't appear to have ever edited that draft from this temporary account. If you are User:RenGV please log in and reply from that account. ChompyTheGogoat [ Bleat | Munched ] 15:37, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

@RenGV Promotion is not a style. Promotion on Wikipedia is writing things that you want the public to know. To make it not promotional, you have to stop wanting to get any certain ideas across, and instead just write what's in the significant, independent, reliable sources. This means articles that don't contain any answers the subject gave, and that were not meant to announce anything. Ignore announcements and ignore all articles where Gold was allowed to contribute ideas. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 22:22, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

If you want to document his notability, see if there are sources that meet WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV. If that coverage exists, that use that coverage as the foundation for the rest of the article. The article also shouldn't have entire sections that barely discuss Gold but an organization (just make an article for the organization if it complies with WP:NCORP. EaglesFan37 (talk) 00:13, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-52671-69/presumably @RenGV, you say I wrote the article myself based on the sources listed in the References section. Did you or did you not use AI as part of that process? Athanelar (talk) 00:29, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I haven't merged articles before so I want to make sure i'm doing this right. I have come across two articles on the same thing, the Hydrus and Ichneumon are on the same topic (the reason there are two names for the same thing is a translation error) both pages are low urgency,

how does one go about merging articles together, should I propose it first? if so where.

Assuming its OK to merge them how do you merge them without losing the edit history of any info that needs to carry over ? Aberrant construction (talk) 03:34, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

There are full instructions over at WP:MERGE including when and how to merge; hope that answers your questions? Athanelar (talk) 11:43, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

@Aberrant construction: You should definitely seek consensus for the merge (see WP:MERGEPROP) before performing it. Personally, I don't think the articles are about "the same thing", since Pliny, for example, refers to both beasts. Deor (talk) 12:57, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

I will propose it then, thanks for your help. Aberrant construction (talk) 17:27, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi, are Discogs & MusicBrainz reliable sources for retrieving information about an album? I'm working on some articles for albums that dont have pages and i want to double check, thanks in advance. N1ghthwk (talk) 05:10, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Welcome to the teahouse, @N1ghthwk. Both of those sources contain user-generated content, which makes them unreliable. Discogs in particular has a strong consensus among editors against its reliability. Chess enjoyer (talk) 05:15, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

You might find good advice on sourcing your album articles with the like-minded folks at WP:WikiProject Albums or WP:WikiProject Music. The latter maintains a manual of style for music articles. In my experience as an editor, WikiProjects can be a great help for finding resources and collaborators. Happy editing! --Civilbeard (talk) 17:18, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you so much! To further clarify, i mainly edit/create articles related to Japanese music, which is a very very niche music genre, but i will take the pages into account!! N1ghthwk (talk) 19:25, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

So I published an article named: List of Turkey tornadoes and I wanted to know how can a weather article get a good article badge? ⚡ StormL00ver ⚡ 05:58, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello @StormL00ver. Only articles can be listed as a good article, so that list is ineligible. It can still be a featured list, though. Wikipedia:Featured list candidates has steps for nominating it to be one, in the green box labeled "Nomination procedure". The first step is to make sure that it meets the criteria for a featured list, so I recommend you complete any major edits before you nominate it. Chess enjoyer (talk) 06:15, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

@Chess enjoyer Turkey has 700+ tornadoes that happened. Do I need to add all of them before I nominate? ⚡ StormL00ver ⚡ 06:28, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

I would assume yes, if practical. One of the criteria is as follows: It comprehensively covers the defined scope, providing at least all of the major items and, where practical, a complete set of items... Chess enjoyer (talk) 06:51, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

But how can I keep up tho? I am the only editor who edits this page. Also since ESWD blocked access to the public only a few people can look at the tornado archieves in eswd. ⚡ StormL00ver ⚡ 06:54, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

I think one good reason for the completeness requirement is to keep out stupid topics like "list of all houses in the world" or "list of long things" - the first because the list would be much too long to create, the second because there's no agreement on how to define "long things" so it's impossible to know if it's finished. They're also both useless. "List of tornadoes in Turkey" is - as far as I know - a useful list with a reasonable definition and a reasonable expectation of finishing it. BUT: The fact that it seems like a reasonable project doesn't mean it must be done, and it certainly doesn't mean that you must be the one to do it. You always have the option of doing less, and you always have the option of not working on that project. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 20:40, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

This isn't my area of expertise, but I imagine the "where practical" bit is important. You might want to ask this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Severe weather Chess enjoyer (talk) 07:20, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the help! ⚡ StormL00ver ⚡ 07:22, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

You're welcome :) Chess enjoyer (talk) 07:30, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

@StormL00ver I'm not sure what a Turkey tornado is. 'List of tornadoes in Turkey' would be clearer and more consistent. Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:52, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

How can I Change its name? ⚡ StormL00ver ⚡ 08:07, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

It can be done by moving a page. You’ve already moved it. Versions111 (talk • contribs) 08:35, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

I have requested Rollbacker permissions, my request has been stuck in an administrative backlog for quite a time now. Are there any tips to get it reviewed faster/how long should I expect it to take? Strongshorts (talk) 10:11, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi Strongshorts. Your account is a little over a month old and you've made a little under 600 edits so far. Is there any pressing reason why you need rollback permission sooner than later? Is there anything you really can't do now through just regular editing that requires you having this permission? I'm just asking out of curiosity, not to be mean. Lots of new users seem to think that a special user permission means some kind of special status, but it doesn't really. Wikipedians tend to be assessed by the quality of their edits, not how many special permissions they have. You requested the permssion less than a week ago on Septemeber 30. Will waiting to an admin gets around to reviewing your request somehow make it hard for you to continue to seek out and address vandalism? -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:29, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

No, sorry... Strongshorts (talk) 10:33, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

I was wanting it to use tools such as AntiVandal and huggle Strongshorts (talk) 10:47, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

For now, the closest thing you can get to rollback is installing RedWarn. 16dvnk (talk) 11:16, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Okay, I'll try that while I wait for it to be reviewed. Thanks, Strongshorts (talk) 11:37, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Twinkle has rollback-like features as well, but doesn't grant access to special tools that require the rollbacker perm, because those are easier to misuse. ChompyTheGogoat [ Bleat | Munched ] 15:22, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

•  Courtesy link: Anja Al-Erhayem

Hello. I am the subject of the Wikipedia article about Anja Al-Erhayem, so I have a conflict of interest and do not want to edit the article directly.

I have posted proposed updates on the article’s Talk page and disclosed my COI. Dennis Brown kindly suggested that I ask for help here, as the Talk page may not get much attention.

Would an independent editor be willing to review the proposed changes and advise whether they are appropriate for the article?

Talk page: Talk:Anja Al-Erhayem Aja Jessen (talk) 10:50, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi Aja Jessen. You might want to take a look at Wikipedia:Edit requests for general guidance on making edit requests. You seem to be requesting a major rewriting/expansion of the article, which is something that's almost never done. Even though the current article about you is bascially nothing much more than a WP:STUB, it would probably be better to focus on small requests that are easy to answer and easy to understand. The main issue is that it's not clear how you satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (people), and a lack of Wikipedia notability is something that really can't be WP:OVERCOME. (It's a bit surprising (at least to me) and perhaps a bit lucky that the article has lasted as long as it has since it's basically the same as it was when created back in 2009.) Anyway, try to assess which of the sources you cited in your request meet Wikipedia:Reliable sources and best demonstrate the type of Wikipedia:Significant coverage that a subject is considered to need to for a Wikipedia article to be written about it/them. Once you've done that, make an edit request using the Wikipedia:Edit Request Wizard to add content to the article based on those sources. This might be a better approach to asking someone else to basically rewrite the article from scratch. You might also want to seek input from Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red, Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers and Wikipedia:WikiProject Denmark since the members of those WikiProjects might be able to help you assess your Wikipedia notability. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:26, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi again 😊Thank you, this is very helpful.

A significant part of the independent coverage of me and my work dates from the early 2000s, when much Danish newspaper coverage was still primarily in print. For example, my book Solen græder over Irak was reviewed in several major Danish newspapers, including Politiken, Jyllands-Posten and Weekendavisen, and there was other press coverage connected to my documentary work.

Some of this material is registered in Danish library databases but does not appear to be freely available online.

Would such offline/archived newspaper coverage count toward establishing notability, provided that the publication details can be documented?

If so, I will focus first on identifying the strongest independent sources before making any further edit requests. ~2026-53362-82 (talk) 12:49, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

We don't need sources to be online (see WP:OFFLINE), provided they are from reliable published sources. Websites like newspapers.com are now excellent for scanned and searchable content but I don't know whether there are any Danish equivalents. The template {{cite news}} shows you the sort of information we like to include, including translations of article titles and any quotes. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:56, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, Mike. That’s very helpful. Denmark does have newspaper archives, including Retriever (formerly Infomedia) and the Royal Danish Library’s Mediestream archive. I will look into the older coverage there and make sure to record the full publication details for any relevant articles I find. ~2026-53362-82 (talk) 15:54, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, Mike. This was very helpful.

I have now gone through some of my old press material and found several pieces of substantial independent coverage that are not readily available online.

For example:

• Politiken, 15 January 2003 – substantial coverage of me and my documentary work in Iraq.
• B.T., 28 April 2004 – Jytte Kjærgaard, “Vi blev alle en del af løgnen” (“We all became part of the lie”), a substantial profile about me, my documentary work and my book.
• Femina, no. 22, 27 May 2004 – a multi-page profile/interview about me and my work.
• Weekendavisen, 19 May 2004 – Pernille Bramming, “Næste år i Bagdad” (“Next year in Baghdad”), covering my book and work.
• Frederiksborg Amts Avis, 15 January 2003 – Toni Rasmussen, “Bagdad før bomberegnen” (“Baghdad before the bombing”), about my documentary work in Iraq.
• Kristeligt Dagblad, 25 August 2007 – Kristine S. Hestbech, “Rejse til den anden side af fordommene” (“Journey to the other side of prejudice”), covering the six-program DR television series I made in the Middle East.

I have the original printed copies of most of these.

There also appear to be reviews of my 2004 book in Politiken, Jyllands-Posten and Weekendavisen registered in Danish library databases.

Would these be the kind of independent sources that could help establish notability? If so, I can provide fuller citation details and brief relevant quotations from the strongest sources before making any further edit requests. ~2026-53362-82 (talk) 07:34, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

@Aja Jessen, please log in before you comment, so editors will be able to see all your edits. Temporary accounts like ~2026-53362-82 are device-specific and only last 90 days. These sources could well be good, provided they aren't based on interviews. We want significant coverage from people who have chosen to write about you without prompting. At present, you have a large group of suggestions at Talk:Anja Al-Erhayem, which will be a bit daunting for anyone to follow up. Better to choose one suggestion at a time, using the edit request Wizard and giving the full citation using {{cite news}} that backs it up. You could offer to send scans of the originals by email to editors who wanted to verify the source. You may find this tricky, and slow, if Wikipedians need to be fluent in Danish. It might be better if we WP:DRAFTIFY the article, or even delete it entirely, and start again via the WP:articles for creation process, when you would be allowed to edit a draft directly even with your COI, before it was reviewed by an experienced editor for potential re-inclusion. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:43, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, Mike. This is very helpful, and I understand your points about the sources and about making one edit request at a time.

I will make sure I am logged in as Aja Jessen before commenting in future. I think I will take some time now to consider the best way forward before making any further requests.

Thank you for taking the time to explain the options to me. Aja Jessen (talk) 13:44, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Unfortunately Mike Turnbull, I think the article is too old to be draftified, unless someone sends it to WP:AFD and the resulting consensus is to do just that. This was one of the reasons why it's surprising the article has survived so long in the mainspace; in lots of cases, an article like this does get draftified. There's also really no reason to try and start again in my opinion. Either a valid claim of Wikipedia notability can be established or it can't. If it can, then the current article can be improved; if it can't, nothing's going to help. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:49, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi Aja Jessen. In order for a source to be considered reliable for Wikipedia's purposes, it needs to be published and reasonably accessible. As pointed out above by Mike Turnbull, sources aren't required to be online or even required to be in English (though both things tend to be really helpful), but they do need to be published and there does need to be a way for someone to verify/access them if they want to. If the sources you possess are available via some sort of archive collection that someone can access (even if it costs them time and money), then those might be OK to cite. If, however, the only copies available on in your possession and everyone has to go through you to access them, then that's most likely not going to work. Even if you were to post them online to make them more convenient to access, there could still be issues for Wikipedia to deal with. You could see whether any of the members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Denmark can access the sources and assess them. You could also see whether anyone at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request can access the sources. I'm not sure, though, that emailing copies/scans to individual Wikipedians is a good approach though because it still basically limits access to a few people and also raises concern about accuracy of the source.

At some point, you may just have to leave the article to whatever its Wikipedia fate is and give up any attempts to actively improve it yourself. Trying too hard could attract attention, which might turn out to not be a good thing. Is there an article written about you on any non-English Wikipedia? Just asking out of curiosity. If there is, then there might be sources cited in that article could be used on English Wikipedia too. At the same time, if not even a Danish Wikipedia article about you exists despite all the sources you've found so far being in Danish, then perhaps those sources might not be enough to establish your Wikipedia notability regardless. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:49, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, Marchjuly. That makes sense. The newspaper and magazine articles I mentioned were originally published in established Danish publications and should be accessible through Danish library/newspaper archives, rather than only through my personal copies.

As far as I know, there is no Danish Wikipedia article about me.

I take your point about not trying too hard to actively improve the article myself, and I think I will leave things as they are for now. Thank you for the advice. Aja Jessen (talk) 08:17, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

Help people build real things without getting scammed Rabiu Ayuba (talk) 17:32, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Is there anything that we can assist with? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:34, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

@Rabiu Ayuba: Welcome to The Teahouse. Did you have a question about using or editing Wikipedia? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:34, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Is there an equivalent of the <details> and <summary> html elements in wikitext? I've seen those collapsible sections in Wikipedia articles and would like to learn how to add them. -)Anypup(- (talk) 18:15, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @-)Anypup(-, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Please see WP:COLLAPSE - but note that it says: Templates should generally not be used to store relevant article text, as it interferes with editors' ability to find and edit it. Moreover, content in an article should not be collapsed by default ColinFine (talk) 18:28, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Wrote up Krzewina Zgorzelecka railway station almost a year ago so unfortunately it's too late to nominate for DYK. Any tips to get it nominated in a different way? There's nothing much to add in terms of expanding. Fortek67 (talk) 19:15, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

If 5x expanding isn't a realistic option, you can nominate an article for DYK within a week of it being listed as a Good Article, after passing its peer review process. ScalarFactor (talk) 19:31, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Sounds good. Fortek67 (talk) 15:22, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Dear community, my first English article was marked as orphan. As I can't find a direct wikilink to Mr Ernst, what should I do? Any help is much appreciated by this newbie, thanks in advance. Best regards, Hubich Hubich (talk) 21:31, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Lots of articles about people, especially academics, can be successfully de-orphaned by adding them to a list of alumni of their place(s) of higher education (college/university/etc). Additionally, as a professor, he would likely fit into a list of academic staff like the one at University of Zurich § Notable alumni and faculty. ScalarFactor (talk) 21:48, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, this is very helpful. Best, Hubich Hubich (talk) 06:16, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

I linked the article to its dewiki counterpart (de:Karl-Heinz Ernst (Chemiker)). I had hoped from there I could check "what links here" to find inspiration for German-site articles that could help us find where to mention him here in English. All they have is from a list of biographical articles. DMacks (talk) 00:28, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Could you please upgrade the refs to journal articles? They are currently using {{cite web}}, which means they are regular webpages. Instead, {{cite journal}} has the correct fields for page and volume. Because there is a DOI, you can also omit the URL altogether, further simplifying things. See for example this edit of mine.

Overall, this article really needs cites to independent sources describing his work, not just lots of cites to his own articles themselves. The awards are a start, but having additional secondary refs would help readers understand the context or impact of each of his areas of work. For example, if there is a review article that highlights his work on molecular motors, then it would be reasonable to mention his work in the molecular motor article. Adding links to his topics (and other generally relevant terms) in the article would help readers understand those topics and possibly find places to link this article. See for example part of this edit of mine. DMacks (talk) 04:40, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! This brought another possible link to my mind to be added, and thank you for the citing tips (this was due to my newbie ignorance). Best, Hubich Hubich (talk) 06:13, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Black_Panther_Party&diff=prev&oldid=1378581245

Is he correct in doing this? ~2026-52125-29 (talk) 03:29, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi, and welcome to the Teahouse. As explained in the edit summary, the section headings are shared, and you should not assert any form of ownership over them.

Thank you. Shield ^{\\ |T| - |C| - Solidarity \\} 03:31, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

And is "Should be changed to far-left" an inappropriate heading? ~2026-52125-29 (talk) 03:32, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Yes. Per these guidelines, that heading is inappropriate and should be avoided. Shield ^{\\ |T| - |C| - Solidarity \\} 03:33, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Of pages of sports events, the infobox would include official language(s) of the host country(-ies) translations of the event name. What is (or is there any) standard on which languages should be included? Please see the discussion. HEY! Hindi (talk) 03:54, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi @HEY! Hindi, welcome to the Teahouse! As the editors already replied in the discussion page you linked, there is no official material for the competition in the language you would like to add. If those sources exist, please link them in the talk page to build consensus for the inclusion. The right place for such discussion is the talk page itself and not the Teahouse. Broc (talk) 07:33, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

I have been researching William George Waters (1844–1928), usually cited as W. G. Waters, an English historian of Italian Renaissance art, translator, writer, and biographer.

He published a number of books, including The Novellino of Masuccio (1895), a seven-volume collection titled The Italian Novelists.(1901), Piero della Francesca (1901), Five Italian Shrines (1906) and Italian Sculptors (1911). He was also the subject of an obituary in The Times (18 June 1928).

I was surprised to find that he appears not to have a Wikipedia article. Given that many far more obscure Victorian translators and antiquarians already have articles, I am wondering whether there is a specific notability concern regarding Waters, or whether his absence is simply an oversight. Clio XIX-XX (talk) 07:19, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Clio XIX-XX! Wikipedia is run by volunteers, and therefore there is no obligation to write an article on any subject. If you believe the subject meets the notability criteria, you can write an article yourself by using the article wizard. You can also check out Help:Your first article to familiarize yourself on the best practices for article writing. Broc (talk) 07:26, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Clio XIX-XX, and welcome to the Teahouse.

In addition to what Broc said, note that Wikipedia has many many articles which if they were submitted today would not be accepted: see other stuff exists. Thus the fact hat "a more obscure translator or antiquarian" has an article tells you nothing about whether an article is appropriate for Waters. This depends on whether he meets the definition for notability. (Though if you've found other questionable articles, improving them, or deleting them if they cannot be made acceptabe, would improve Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 16:16, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

@Clio XIX-XX

Hello, is this the same W.G. Waters who ist mentioned in

The Cook's Decameron as husband of

[Emily] "Waters, who died in 1928, was also a skilled classicist and collaborated with her husband, William George Waters, in translating Italian Renaissance literature."? Maresa63 ^Talk 18:37, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Yes I think so: https://arthistorians.info/watersw/ Clio XIX-XX (talk) 12:39, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

ive seen pigeons do their burp thing and my pet rat always responds with a squek im getting worried bcuz my pet rat is having full conversations with pigeons Dfssdcds (talk) 08:25, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

This is definite not the place for such questions Piccionaia (talk) 10:07, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

The Teahouse isn't the best place for this kind of question; perhaps the Reference desk can better help you. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 10:52, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Please don't send this to Reference Desk. Simonm223 (talk) 15:59, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Salutations! I suggest you don’t ask such things on the Wikipedia Teahouse, since the Teahouse is for questions about Wikipedia and how to contribute to it. Agar!! - Talk with me, im sad and lonely :( 14:50, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

And no, pigeons cannot talk with mice, or rats, or any other rodent. Shantavira|^{feed me} 15:02, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

This is utterly hilarious but absolutely not the place to ask such things, best go to an Internet forum. Goetia [She/They] (talk) 15:56, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Generate information for my page which does not exist yet

My webpage is called "thepeoplesvoice.online", based in the uk, an ideas generating forum for the government to access from the general public. It has nothing to do with "thepeoplesvoice.tv" an American fake news tv site from 2014. I knew nothing about them when i bought the domain name.

I would like to generate a webpage explaining the difference between the two sites, as an AI bot has already linked us together. so a primary source such as yourself would help to address this issue. I would have no problem in someone else making a page for us. We have been operational since 16 August 2026.

Many thanks for your suggestions.

Ivor Cogdell

Web Admin

Ivor Cogdell (talk) 11:57, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

@Ivor Cogdell That's not what Wikipedia is for. We are not a "primary source" either. The best place to put such a disclaimer of non-affiliation would be on your own website. Athanelar (talk) 12:04, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi there,

Thanks for getting back to me so quickly. Yes, I have already added the disclaimer on to our website this morning, but if people see the bot information first, they will see the fake news headline and they will not even bother to click on our website to find out that the AI bot got it wrong.

The problem we face is that their website was all about disinformation and we are trying to get the ideas from the people into the Government ears, totally at cross purposes. If we have a legitimate wiki entry and proper google search info that should go a long way to sorting the error the bot is creating. It is not finding enough genuine pointers to us to find that we are different from them. AI searches are not the best in being accurate without a little help.

I can see the point about you being for major players, but that is what we are striving to become, a national conduit for the people to contact the Government and put forth their ideas that can be fed back into the system and improve things for everybody. We realize we are not going to reach that level of interaction straight away, but we have made a start and got the ball rolling. The more people that find out about the website and contribute, the better we can pass on good ideas to the people who can act on them. Everybody wins.

Regards all,

Ivor Ivor Cogdell (talk) 12:50, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not for promotion, which includes purposes like improving your SEO or making sure people find information about you rather than a similarly-named alternative. To put it frankly, we have absolutely no interest whatsoever in making sure people are able to find you, or in helping you accomplish your mission, however noble. We're an encyclopedia, we have articles about things which meet our criteria for inclusion (WP:NORG in this case). We're not an SEO service. Athanelar (talk) 12:59, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Welcome the Teahouse, Ivor Cogdell. Wikipedia is a tertiary source, which summarises what secondary and (to a lesser extent) primary sources say about topics. See WP:PSTS. In this instance, your website would be considered a primary source and Wikipedia would only have an article about it if significant coverage in secondary sources (e.g. media coverage) about the website existed. 12:06, 5 October 2026 (UTC) Cordless Larry (talk) 12:06, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

@Ivor Cogdell People do tend to search on Wikipedia for every kind of information, but (to be perversely blunt about it) that's their fault. In "the old days" (let's say before 1990), it was common knowledge that an encyclopedia, a telephone directory, a magazine, and a newspaper (and a business directory, to add the one I should have put first) were each for different purposes, and nobody would pick up the wrong one by mistake. But now, people do often search the wrong one by mistake. The concept of "encyclopedia" has admittedly expanded somewhat, but not that far. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:20, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I found a draft that meets the criteria for A7. However A7 isn't applicable to drafts, so what should I do with it? Strongshorts (talk) 12:27, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

You seem to have answered your own question. A7 isn't applicable to drafts, so unless a different CSD applies (one of the Gs) there's nothing to do. Athanelar (talk) 12:38, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

The main point of a draft is that it is a work in progress, and as such it may not necessarily demonstrate importance immediately. You could theoretically bring it to miscellany for deletion, but you would have to make a very persuasive case that it needs to go now; asserting it doesn't show importance wouldn't work, you would need some other reason. 331dot (talk) 14:42, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Dear Wikipedia and friends,

I paid a group to update my personal biography page and then the page was edited by an unknown person to me and all the correct and updated information was removed. I now am being asked by another person to restore the page - for $1000.

1) How can I get my correct page restored?

Leslie A. Lyons

2) This seems like a scam. Someone is out there destroying pages and then another person comes along and says they will repair it for $1000. Lytonsla21 (talk) 16:06, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi there, and welcome to the Teahouse:

I am very sorry to hear that this has happened, but your intuition is correct, and you have been scammed. There are many paid editors violating our guidelines on paid editing, which is strictly regulated, including several groups of chronic long-term abusers and scammers (see also WP:Sock farming, although it is a bit incomplete) that consistently violate our guidelines and scam individuals. We unfortunately cannot do anything about this for several reasons. If the correct version of your page is well-sourced and follows our guidelines, it can be restored by the community (see edit requests), but if it is promotional or violates our guidelines (i.e., by being made by a blocked user), there is sadly very little we can do.

I apologize for the inconvenience and hope this does not deter you from further working with our community. It is unfortunate that there are individuals willing to scam others in this manner. Feel free to reach out for further help. Shield ^{\\ |T| - |C| - Solidarity \\} 16:15, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

What is the easiest way to restore a previous version that I can begin to update?

I am a scientist, so many of my accomplishments are in published papers, most are open access. Can these be used to support my statements? Lytonsla21 (talk) 16:22, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

If you still have the communications you have received from scammers, please see WP:REPORTPAID for how you can forward them to us. 331dot (talk) 16:37, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

The way that a page about you is updated is summed up as "not by you, and not by your friends, associates, or employees".

In a formal meeting, if the topic of Person X needs to be dealt with, Person X must recuse themselves from that part of the meeting; this is essentially the same thing done for essentially the same reasons. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:55, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

You can make requests for changes to the article on its talk page, however, Lytonsla21. Please see WP:COIREQ for how to do this. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:57, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

@Lytonsla21 Note that biographies of academics are not mainly lists of their papers, whether open-access or not. Bibliographies should be limited to those papers which can be shown to have made an impact on their subject area (e.g. by citation metrics like the h-index). Wikipedia wants its articles to show how the academic is notable by meeting specific criteria. Please read that linked page and decide which one of that list you are most likely to meet, then provide evidence on Talk:Leslie A. Lyons using the edit request Wizard. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:20, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Sorry to make this thread longer, but looking back at the original message: Much as in car-insurance scams, the person who removed information and the person offering to add it back were most likely both in on the scam - or even both the same person. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:30, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

+1. I intended to add this bit of info to my original reply, @Lytonsla21. It's not a coincidence that it's been hit by an attack. Shield ^{\\ |T| - |C| - Solidarity \\} 17:32, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

@Lytonsla21 To add (even more) to this since I've not seen other people point it out; anyone who contacts you and offers to "update" your page in response for payment is a scammer, even if they don't do this extortion routine. If your page is truly in need of "updating" the many volunteers here will happily do it for free; that's how Wikipedia works. There is never any good reason to pay somebody to update, maintain or restore any existing article. Athanelar (talk) 17:40, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

To which edits do you refer? What specific content did you have added, and to which content's removal are you objecting? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 21:05, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Based on page history, it appears the original paid editor inserted a bunch of promo slop, which was then correctly removed by experienced editors and the article was re-stubbified.

FWIW the editor is still active, and it appears their paid editing has been addressed in the past but I don't see any actions regarding the AI use. ChompyTheGogoat [ Bleat | Munched ] 23:32, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

@Lytonsla21 In practical terms, this means that the minimal version IS the correct and updated version, and the version with your changes and additions is a corrupted version that will not be restored. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 00:42, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

There may or may not be additional information in reliable sources that could be added, but obviously not in the slop version. I know there are a few editors who hang around here that are willing to help out when people have been scammed - maybe one of them would be willing to take a quick look to see whether or not that's the case here. ChompyTheGogoat [ Bleat | Munched ] 10:51, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

$1,000?! No. One grand is NOT worth it! Trust me. Look, I'm sorry that this happened to you; I really am. But a thousand dollars is not worth it. That is 100% a scam. From what I have seen, they take your money and don't edit your page. Do NOT do this. Please. ~2026-50193-88 (talk) 07:20, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

WP:CITEVAR notes that CS1 is not necessarily preferred and that an article that consistently uses another style should not be changed to use CS1 without establishing consensus for the change first.

I frequently come across articles that use a mix of different citation styles, some older alongside some in CS1 style. Generally this seems to be a result of different folks editing over time and potentially with different editing software without having established a consensus. In such a case is it reasonable to convert the other citations to CS1 to establish consistency or should it first be discussed on the talk page? My concern is that a lot of these don't appear to be well trafficked articles and so if I assume that the lack of consistency is intentional (which is possible, but probably rare) then a lot of them will just stay that way forever for lack of input to establish consensus to do anything else. Packrat3860 (talk) 18:07, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Also as an addendum to my own question, I frequently see on more contentious topics that one person will make a change and someone else will revert and cite WP:ONUS to establish consensus. If I'm not particularly sensitive to having my changes reverted and I suspect that nobody is particularly attached to the existing style can I just make the edit and then invite anybody reviewing to revert if they want to challenge the consensus I don't have?

I apologize if this seems like I'm trying to game the system. I really don't want to ruffle any feathers. I just also want to be realistic about the presumption that the current state of the article reflects consensus when in a lot of cases it seems more in line with just nobody paying much attention. Packrat3860 (talk) 18:14, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

I think if it appears that a majority of the citations are in a given style (CS1 or otherwise), it's fair to go ahead and change the rest of the them to match that style, and then follow BRD.

I would be more cautious about applying this to contentious topics, though--I'm only answering the citation part. ~~ SomeoneDreaming (talk) 18:53, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Is citation style a common issue in dispute resolution? If it was, I would wish (just my opinion obviously) that every such case receive an automatic "This article's citation style is now CS1; please make all changes required to accomplish that. Closed." TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 21:31, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I need help creating a page for the CancerResearchFoundation.org. A 501(c)(3), Non-Profit, Public Charity 501(c)(3), Non-Profit, Public Charity We know that research is the only path to a cancer cure. We are dedicated to raising awareness about the importance of cancer research and to funding innovative cancer research centers. Working together to eliminate cancer for good. I need some help creating the corporate page and helping us to manage it... I can offer a tax deduction donation receipt for the aid. Please reach out if you can help. - Michael Ferrara | CTO CANCER RESEARCH FOUNDATION (talk) 18:49, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

@CANCER RESEARCH FOUNDATION Unfortunately, you (like many other people) have misunderstood what Wikipedia does. We do not create articles on behalf of companies or to publicly represent them in any way. We are an encyclopedia, articles here are neutral records of what sources entirely unaffiliated with the article's subject have written about it. Athanelar (talk) 18:56, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

In addition, please note that help from real Wikipedia volunteers is always free. We will never ask for money or other compensation. You will likely be contacted by scammers as a result of this post; please read Wikipedia:Scam warning. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 18:57, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

If our corporate page is created for our site I would be happy provide a USA tax deductible donation receipt for who ever creates the page... How about $1000 donation receipt... if you have concerns about our charity please visit or charity at https://cancerresearchfoundation.org/ CANCER RESEARCH FOUNDATION (talk) 19:16, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

This might be a bona fide request, but this bribery attempt leaves a bad taste and makes me wonder whether this is a scam. Like lots of Wikipedia's readers, I don't pay USA taxes. I've removed the hidden mailing link. Bazza 7 (talk) 19:21, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Personally, I wouldn't donate to a charity that gives a grand away for such a trivial matter. In any case, Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause. 7amiþ = reform(solidarity).__init__(t, c) 20:17, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

They don't seem to have been offering to pay anyone $1000, just to give a tax deductible donation receipt to that value. I.e., they would issue you a receipt saying that you had 'donated' $1000, and you could then use that receipt when filing your taxes to lower the amount of your income which gets taxed. It would cost the charity nothing. Athanelar (talk) 21:50, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

ah that makes sense. I'm still new to the world of taxation... 7amiþ = reform(solidarity).__init__(t, c) 22:21, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

If a page was created, it would never be yours even though it would be about you. Everything about the organization that ever received coverage in reliable sources, including anything out of date, disadvantageous, distasteful, controversial, off-message, etc, would be kept in the article and you would be powerless to change or remove it. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 21:54, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

What Is in your best interest to do next I would say, Is putting your article request on Articles for creation where you can request an article to be made by neutral editors (the teahouse was a good first place to go this would be a good second step). Then I would notify a relevant wikiproject, finally, if you still want to do the tax deductible, I would post a message to the reward board .

PS I would advise making an email available to find on your account if you don't plan on checking your talk page often

Also I'm very close with some people from the cancer research foundation and really hope and think that yall can get an article and if you need any help with the steps I've lined above I'm always free Goetia [She/Her] (talk) 02:48, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

I do see you were banned for your username If you don't get let back in after changing that I would take this small part of requesting other editors upon myself except of course the 1000 dollars part Goetia [She/Her] (talk) 02:57, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

postscript to this add-on I would just name your account Michael Ferrara or Michael Ferrara at the CRF Goetia [She/Her] (talk) 03:01, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello everyone! I am in the process of reviving WikiProject Panama, and have added a Wikipedia Ad banner to the top of the page. The only issue is that the gif does not seem to be playing.

I am modeling our banner off of WikiProject Colombia's. Could somebody possibly assist me here? Thanks Theedecemberblues (talk) 20:48, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Having a look at the guidelines for creating ads, it says To ensure that the template works properly and all ads are uniform, however, please set the dimensions of the said image to be 468 pixels wide by 60 high. Wondering if this could be the issue, as it's animated on the file page but not in the template? nil ^nz 21:38, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi Theedecemberblues. commons:File:WikiProject Panama banner.gif says: "Note: Due to technical limitations, thumbnails of high resolution GIF images such as this one will not be animated. The limit on Wikimedia Commons is width × height × number of frames ≤ 100 million.". PrimeHunter (talk) 21:45, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

@Theedecemberblues Personally, I hate, hate, hate animated ads. Please don't! David10244 (talk) 04:58, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

camera would not verify chittyrell as name

~2026-53622-70 (talk) 21:12, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

We are not associated with Reddit and cannot help you with your issue. Do you have a question related to Wikipedia? Mikeycdiamond (talk) 21:16, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

In Rosa Maria Assing, how do I move the footnote up to under "References"? Maurice Magnus (talk) 22:33, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Use the template reflist - under the references heading, type two curly brackets like this "{", then the word reflist, then two closing brackets like this "}". If that doesn't work, let me know. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 23:10, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

It worked. Thanks. Maurice Magnus (talk) 23:22, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi, can someone pleas review my draft for the new Wikipedia page I'm trying to create and accept it if possible

Draft:Average Height of Nepal

Unbiased Informat (talk) 22:47, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not for this sort of miscellaneous statistical information; I've rejected your draft accordingly. Athanelar (talk) 23:01, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

I don't think this is fair because there is a Wikipedia page for human height by country presenting information in the same manner as my draft

Human height by country. Unbiased Informat (talk) 23:19, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

At best, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. You're probably better off discussing the draft through the AfC process if you're convinced it's important (although that's no guarantee it doesn't get rejected anyway). Packrat3860 (talk) 23:24, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Human height by country is a list of related statistics, not merely one statistic. Athanelar (talk) 23:48, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

I reported average heights across different locations and demographics in Nepal, so the data represents multiple related statistics rather than a single statistic Unbiased Informat (talk) 02:20, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

you could try making a list but i wouldn't bet on it Goetia [She/Her] (talk) 02:34, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

I see his point now. I won't try to make it into a separate Wikipedia article any more

Instead I added the height statistics to Demographics of Nepal. Unbiased Informat (talk) 03:12, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

iPhone 11 Pro battery problem Mohammad Yeabir (talk) 00:53, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

@Mohammad Yeabir: Please use a search engine of your choice and be more specific with your 'battery problem'. We unfortunately cannot help you here. Phoenix ‣ _Talk // ^{Contributions} 01:29, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

man im sorry i cant help you i dont even have an iphone im broke😭 ~2026-50193-88 (talk) 06:49, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

How important are mainspace edits? I mean obviously the main reason we're all here is to improve Wikipedia anyway we can but I've noticed a few accounts with the majority of their edits being to userpages and user talk pages and I'm wondering how to go about this. Do I leave them alone? It's not like they are harming anyone and they aren't being disruptive really or do I say something? Eh-st-h☆r^{Did that}_{Said what?} 01:37, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

I would normally want to draw a firm line between "doing something bad" and "just not helping much". If they're doing something clearly against Wikipedia policy, of course say something to them about that. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 01:41, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

Being "not here to build an encyclopedia" is a widely-cited reason for account blocks, and one of the things which is considered "nothere" on that page is "Focusing on Wikipedia as a social networking site".

If I see someone whose only (or the vast majority) edits are to userspace and talkspace, particularly if those edits are just general socialising or otherwise not contributing to the encyclopedia, I'd at least give them a gentle nudge in the direction of this information and let them know that what they're doing isn't really in the spirit of the project. Athanelar (talk) 01:58, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

Also note Wikipedia:User pages#What may I not have in my user pages? PrimeHunter (talk) 02:06, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

There are generally two types of non-mainspace editors some are only socializing and not here to build an encyclopedia like @Athanelar mentioned but othertimes those editors are doing very important yet still not mainspace edits and can be everything from editing categories/essays/wikipedia:... articles, helping newcomers, helping here on the teahouse, or a billion other helpful behind the scenes work

Basically, it's good to take non-mainspace editors on a case-by-case base and to check in with them if you suspect they are off track before I would take action Goetia [She/Her] (talk) 02:32, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

The thing is the accounts I have seen are either signing guestbooks or sending WikiLove messages which are obviously allowed. It's not like there's anything out there that says "there's such a thing as too much WikiLove" and I don't really want to discourage anyone from it. Eh-st-h☆r^{Did that}_{Said what?} 02:45, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

have you seen accounts doing mostly only those two things? if so I'd nudge them such as athanelar mentioned to edit wikipedia, as well as send wikilove and such if they desire Goetia [She/Her] (talk) 03:03, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

because after all we arent a social media its good to have balance of these things Goetia [She/Her] (talk) 03:04, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I've interacted with some of the same editors you're talking about, because last month or so I sent an editor a notice about exactly the same thing. That sort of thing definitely comes under WP:NOTSOCIAL/WP:NOTFORUM. Athanelar (talk) 09:41, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. I've sent a message now. Eh-st-h☆r^{Did that}_{Said what?} 05:15, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

I believe I have found an article (Liberty International (organization)) that I believe has been heavily edited with AI, but am not sure what to do next. It has references, but all are unlinked. The same edit that added the unlinked refs also added 22k bytes of text, came from a temporary account and appears to have failed to use proper syntax for some headings. Should I revert to previous state before the AI edit? Should I escalate to a noticeboard? Should I try communicating with the temporary user on their talk page? Pastaenjoyer3213 (talk) 05:13, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

The only way of determining if it's AI is comparing how an AI speaks and to how Liberty International (organization) sounds. Compare it to Gemini and how ChatGPT sound. They're the most likely candidates because millions use them every single day. The user may have rephrased part of it, so watch out for that. Ask about the organization and compare the two. If they sound the same and/or look the same and it doesn't say they used AI for it, once you're 100% sure it was written mostly or entirely by AI, report it to Wikipedia:AI noticeboard. There, the page will be reviewed by editors from the AI Cleanup WikiProject to determine if it violates the Wikipedia Policies Large Language Model generation. That's what I would go for. ~2026-50193-88 (talk) 06:37, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

One more thing I would like to add on: Do NOT go into AI detectors. They are highly unreliable, and most of the time, from my experience, say things that were AI generated, it says they weren't AI generated. It does the same thing the other way around: It calls things that weren't AI generated, says they were AI generated. Hope this helps! ~2026-50193-88 (talk) 06:44, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

Completely understand this and thank you for this advice. I've personally grown weary of AI detectors after facing far too many false positives in my personal life. Your tip re: Gemini and ChatGPT will certainly be helpful moving forward. Pastaenjoyer3213 (talk) 16:19, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Pastaenjoyer3213! I took the liberty of reverting the edit; it was a significant addition of unsourced material and the promotional tone make it appear like a possible conflict of interest. Broc (talk) 08:29, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

Sounds great! Thank you for your help. Pastaenjoyer3213 (talk) 16:20, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

I need help rephrasing an article on the sinking of the John Rutledge. I have already made one, but it was declined. I'm fairly new and Draft:Sinking of the John Rutledge was my first ever article I've made. Not surprising it was declined, but can you guys edit some things, I do my part in editing as well, and see if it can get published? I also need help with the reference stuff. The only reason I was able to do it sometimes was because of Gemini. (Yes, I did say I used AI, but only for help navigating things such as referencing things.) All research was done by me. Thank you! If you have any questions, feel free to ask. ~2026-50193-88 (talk) 06:22, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

It doesn't need rephrasing, so don't try that. What you need is to find several big long articles in Wikipedia:Reliable sources that each already tell the entire story by themselves. If those are not found, your draft will unfortunately never make it. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 07:10, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

I do believe it will never make it. New to Wikipedia so I don't know how to do a lot of things lol. Anyways, thank you for the help. ~2026-50193-88 (talk) 07:30, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

This one looks like the main problem was not you - you would not invent a title and author name for a probably nonexistent book. It sounds like your helper is to blame. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 09:23, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

If you find three of those Wikipedia reliable sources where every single one of them tells the full story of this ship, then you're getting somewhere. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 07:16, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

Search tools cannot find:

• Murphy, Brian (2024). The Fifth Boat: In Search of a Story Lost at Sea. New York: HarperCollins. ISBN 978-0063251717.

and the ISBN appears to be for a different book. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 07:29, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-50193-88: If you wish to re-draft the article, I've found a few sources you may wish to use:

• https://cdnc.ucr.edu/?a=d&d=SDU18560503.2.18
• https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/12984511?searchTerm=John%20Bow
• https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/retropolis/wp/2018/09/22/long-before-the-titanic-another-tragedy-in-ice-alley-helped-changed-atlantic-crossings/
• Adrift: A True Story of Tragedy on the Icy Atlantic and the One Who Lived to Tell about It by Brian Murphy & Toula Vlahou
• https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?p=BNCN&u=kccl&id=GALE%7CBC3204005115&v=2.1&it=r&sid=bookmark-BNCN&sPage=2&asid=70a7e232

Cheers, Phoenix ‣ _Talk // ^{Contributions} 12:41, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

Ver contar Ajudar ~2026-53596-37 (talk) 06:55, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

With what do you need help? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 09:58, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

I can't change these sentences because I'm a normal user, but can one of the 'higher ups', I guess you'd call it, change this sentence in Sinking of the Titanic please? In the first paragraph, it says, "resulting in the deaths of up to 1,635 people." I don't know WHERE they got 1,635? We have already narrowed down how many were on board and how many survived, thanks to Encyclopedia Titanica, where we now know 2,208 passengers and crew were on board (not 2,224), 1,496 perished in the disaster, and 712 survived. I just recently changed the numbers on Lifeboats of the Titanic. I would also like if someone changed, "but was travelling at a speed of roughly 22 knots" to 21 knots (because that was Titanic's service speed. I may be missing something though). It also says 710 survivors, but there were, as we know, 712.

In one sentence, it says that Titanic had a crew of 892 and 1,320 passengers, but Encyclopedia Titanica states that there were 891 crew members and 1,317 passengers made up of:

324 in First Class 284 in Second Class 709 in Third Class 891 crew members

In the section "Iceberg, right ahead!", it says, "Murdoch is generally believed to have given the order "hard a-starboard"..." It is not "believed," it is known, because in Quartermaster Robert Hichens' testimony, he was asked by Sir Rufus Isaacs, "Had you had any instructions before she struck? Had you been told to do anything with your helm before she struck?" Hitchens replied, "Not immediately as she struck; the ship was swinging. We had the order, "Hard-a-starboard," and she just swung about two points when she struck." Issacs asked again, "You got the order, "Hard-a-starboard"?" Hichens replied, "Yes." You can read the rest at https://www.titanicinquiry.org/BOTInq/BOTInq03Hichens01.php

Next, in the section "Preparing to abandon ship," the last sentence in paragraph seven says, "A lifeboat drill had been scheduled for the Sunday morning before the ship sank, but was cancelled by Captain Smith for unknown reasons." But this is simply not true. Smith cancelled due to weather conditions that would make the boats rock and be unsafe. We know this because of testimony from lookout Archie Jewell. It was not "unknown reasons."

In the section, "Last minutes of sinking," the second sentence of paragraph four says, "It was said to have reached an angle of 30–45 degrees...", but modern consensus says she reached an angle of 20 to 25 degrees before splitting according to Titanic: Honor and Glory.

Those are just my things. Would really like it if someone changes them. Thank you! ~2026-50193-88 (talk) 08:43, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

Okay, a lot to unpack here.

1) you did not change anything in the lifeboats article. You first removed information claiming "we don't know" and then I fixed that information. And THEN you added the wrong information as well as misinformation about "6 people dying on Carpathia" (when in fact it was likely one; even that we are not completely sure about). See here for the actual confirmed numbers: https://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/titanic-passengers-and-crew/ (not counting one person whose presense is dubious and seriously in doubt as of now)

2) A lot of these "errors" aren't errors but rather covering the fact that the recollection is not the same as the other. Just one example: Archie Jewell may have said "weather was bad" but another witness disagreed and said something "It was probably church service" - since the man who actually made the decision died, "unknown reasons" is, in fact, right. Cherry-picking sources is not the way to go about this as you seem to be doing here with inquiry testimony AND with the numbers.

3) This should have been taken to Talk:Sinking of the Titanic to get relevant scrutiny, not to the Teahouse. I and others already keep that article updated as best as we could while keeping it as neutral as possible. The information you are disputing is based on multiple books and research and cross-checking.

The only issue I have with that page is the numbers are not matching the modern research of 2,207 with 1,496 deaths and 712 survivors; the admin is not yet convinced. Omnis (talk) 09:53, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-50193-88 Encyclopedia Titanica itself likely can't be used as a source, because it appears to consist of user-submitted content. I haven't checked, but maybe if its content has reliable, independent, published references of the kind that would be accepted in Wikipedia, then those souces could be used as references for, as an example, the number of people on board. David10244 (talk) 05:06, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

I see no reason why this should be discussed here, rather than within Talk:Sinking of the Titanic, which is likely to be watched by a greater number of people who are familiar with the relevant sources and their relative reliability. -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 11:11, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

I happened to read 2026 Alberta independence referendum and saw a pair of Lua errors in the infobox (given that it's calculating percentages off of 0 votes, probably a division by 0 error?). I played around with some of the arguments in the template but couldn't get the error to go away, so thought I'd let this place know so that someone more technically inclined could take a look and figure out how to fix it. Thanks for everything you editors do to keep Wikipedia running! Conuropsis carolinensis (talk) 12:44, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

Fixed (by removing the "0" figures and leaving the fields bank). Thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 12:52, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

Someone has fixed this. Issue caused by including a result for a referendum that hasn't happened yet. CMD (talk) 12:52, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

Greetings,

I was about to create a draft on Bilal Siddiqi, an Indian author and screenwriter, today, when I was warned by Wikipedia that already a draft of the same name had been deleted because the user was banned or blocked . Is it safe to create draft with same name i.e. Draft: Bilal Siddiqi?

Regards, Honeybrowneyes (talk) 12:51, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

Yes, go ahead. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 12:52, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your prompt response! Now I can write the draft without worrying. 😊💜 Honeybrowneyes (talk) 13:02, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

Over the years I've written several articles that, when I went to publish them via Article Wizard, writing in the title prompted a notice that an article with the same title had been deleted due to copyright violations. Each time I got that notice I published the article, and just to make sure there'd be no further problems, went to the article's Talk page and stated I'd gotten the notice, but I had never seen the deleted article, and that this was a new article with no connection to any former articles about the subject. Adding that to the Talk page is probably unnecessary, but it makes me feel more comfortable. Write a reliable article about Bilal Siddiqi, follow all the rules, and you'll be fine. A former editor messing up doesn't mean your article can't be published. Karenthewriter (talk) 17:09, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your guidance. 💜💜💜 Honeybrowneyes (talk) 06:37, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

Occasionally an article has been deleted and re-created many times in an abusive way, and the article title will be "salted" so that it can't be created anymore. Even then, if you have a good draft it is no problem to get an admin to unsalt the title when the draft is ready for publication.

If this ever happens to you (or any Teahouse reader), please do contact an admin. Don't try changing the title a bit so as to avoid the salt, because this will cause you to be mistaken for the joker who got it salted in the first place! M kuhner (talk) 22:05, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

That is good advice, but I wouldn't know how to contact an administrator. There is likely a standard way to do so, but that's not something I've ever attempted. Karenthewriter (talk) 01:54, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

Placing {{admin help}} on your talk page, followed by a request to unsalt the page and a link to your draft, should do it. Details at WP:Requests for administrator attention. (In general, if I don't know how to do something, I put "Wikipedia:Thing I don't know how to do" in the Wikipedia search bar. This works more often than not.) M kuhner (talk) 03:08, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi,

I'm an associate of page.dwn, a new EDM music duo. Since I have a conflict of interest, I thought I would come here to ask questions about notability and whether or not the duo currently meet Wikipedia's requirements.

Current independent coverage:

https://electronicmusic.news/why-a-garage-rhythm-under-a-trance-melody-works-on-change-your-mind-the-page-dwn-debut-single/

https://musicaltouch.wixsite.com/music/post/best-of-september-2026-community-releases---week-3-1

Other material:

https://pgdn.music/

https://open.spotify.com/artist/4Kpe3NPmzc27yCB2j1KN93

Is this enough to qualify? If so, would an experienced editor be willing to advise on or create an independent AfC draft?

Thanks in advance! Page.dwn (talk) 19:04, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello. First, you will need to change your username so it represents you as an individual, not your band. Your real name isn't required, just something unique to you; please make a request via Special:GlobalRenameRequest. 331dot (talk) 19:05, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

Submitted. Thanks! Page.dwn (talk) 19:07, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

Got approved to "Alexdshapovalov" ~2026-53739-47 (talk) 20:17, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

You can find the standards for notability for musicians here: wp:Notability (music)#Criteria for musicians and ensembles. If you think the group meets the requirements for notability, you might get some traction on article creation with the folks at WP:WikiProject Electronic music. --Civilbeard (talk) 20:41, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

I need help finding references for Draft:Cumberland County League I originally submitted the draft for review on October 1st. It was denied the same day. All the references I have are databases though and I need help finding suitable references like articles. I need someone who truly can help me though, not just somebody who replies "Read this article" and then I spend another 2 hours looking for sources. I need help not just an guide. EzYop (talk) (contributions) 20:57, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

Do you think the good sources exist? Nobody can help find them if they don't exist. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 21:27, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

I believe that they do, but I just don't know where to find them. I can find databases but not articles. EzYop (talk) (contributions) 21:29, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

@EzYop If you're unable to find any sources after intense searching, that's a good indication the subject simply isn't notable. Alternatively, if you're not sure what sources to look for, then that's a skill you need to obtain before you start writing articles. It's no good if every time you want to write an article, other people have to do the legwork for you.

If that's the case, it's completely fine. There's a lot to do on Wikipedia other than writing articles, and it's the single hardest thing to do. Athanelar (talk) 21:30, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. Do you have any advice on where you search for sources. EzYop (talk) (contributions) 22:02, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

For sports in general Google News is still pretty good ime. You could also look at social media (I know reddit has pretty active sports discussion) but it may not lead to usable in depth sources. Also since this is a local league you might look into local publications (smaller regional newspapers for example) that might document the league. Packrat3860 (talk) 22:07, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you so much for this EzYop (talk) (contributions) 23:06, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

I found a local news publisher called Cumbria Crack that has tons of articles the link is https://cumbriacrack.com/?s=Cumberland+county+league Is this enough information? How do I know which articles to use? EzYop (talk) (contributions) 22:35, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

the {{find sources}} template gives a useful bunch of links for a start. Add archive.org to those and, if all else fails, ask at a local library assuming this league is local to you.

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Athanelar (talk) 22:16, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

Oh my gosh thank you so much for this. EzYop (talk) (contributions) 23:05, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

Further to the above, see WP:LIBRARY for places where you can find, or get help finding, sources. You may also get help at your local public library (or your school or college library, if you are a student). Remember that paper sources, as well as those found online, can be used. Help:Find sources also has some good tips.

You might also find WP:Referencing for beginners useful. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 16:55, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

Big rec for local libraries. Also if there are museums or archives in the area I've had good results just asking them if they have anything in their collection about niche topics. It's probably easier if you're a local and can go there in person, but even over email I've found most places like that are very happy to help even if the collection is not technically public.

Some promising leads from List of museums in Cumbria

* Ruskin Museum

* Museum of Lakeland Life & Industry

* https://thebeacon-whitehaven.co.uk/

* Dock Museum

* https://maryportmaritimemuseum.org.uk/ (website is maybe under construction)

* https://www.helenathompson.org.uk/

Another angle to consider for museums and archives is larger collections that might have information on this and other local leagues, like for example the UKs national football museum (as it is a football league) or the museum of the north of England (where the league is located). Packrat3860 (talk) 18:00, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, I don't live locally there though. EzYop (talk) (contributions) 22:36, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

May I ask if a series has been released on Netflix for advance episodes before the actual release on tv. Should the advance release date of netflix and Netflix be added on the infobox under release date and original network, even though its not a netflix original or exclusive to netflix only? ~2026-53838-36 (talk) 04:28, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

I think you should first try to do this the way it has been done in the past, so look for other shows where Netflix had advance episodes and see what they did. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 05:40, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

This user User:Hotwiki added Netflix on this The Master Cutter this is the only one that does this. The rest like Pulang Araw and Incognito are not using it. ~2026-53800-37 (talk) 06:02, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

This was already discussed in Talk:The Master Cutter. Per Template:Infobox television#Parameters: "The original network(s) or streaming media services (such as Netflix) on which the show first appeared in the country of origin. Use links if articles are available." The IP user (who is seemingly jumping through different ip addresses) clearly doesn't want Netflix to be added in the infobox, simply because Netflix isn't the production company of the series, but that's not what the "network" parameter is about. Netflix is releasing the episodes of The Master Cutter first. Hotwiki (talk) 07:03, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

I'm just basing it on facts here since this series is not a Netflix original nor an exclusive for Netflix. I think the network parameter should be based if the network is exclusive that's why it's called original network not network for advance episodes. If it didn't say advance episodes then it would count. It's just confusing that it's called original network and yet it can be added even though it's not an exclusive or original. And the original network should should base on the source of who the production company is and which network the production company actually made it for. For this series that would be GMA Network since it's the original network in this case. This is why I'm asking for more info because the network parameter is so confusing that i need a confirmation. ~2026-53800-37 (talk) 08:09, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

What facts? The fact the episodes of The Master Cutter first aired on Netflix before GMA Network hence why Netflix is written as a network in the infobox, in the first place. I'm merely following the guideline from Template:Infobox television, I suggest you follow it too. Also, no one in that article is labeling the series as "a Netflix original" and "exclusive to Netflix". Please read the article, as GMA Network is listed as "Network2" in the infobox. Hotwiki (talk) 14:36, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

I see the Korean articles that released on Netflix but original network doesn’t have Netflix on original network section like Crash Landing on You. Shouldn’t we follow that format instead? ~2026-54174-89 (talk) 23:14, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

No. We should follow the guidelines published on Template:Infobox television which you STILL keep ignoring and not acknowledging and following. The the template is the one being used in a lot of tv show articles, not Crash Landing on You. Hotwiki (talk) 05:11, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

Also to the IP user, also do some fact checking. I have watched Crash Landing on You and it first aired on TVN in its originating country (South Korea), not Netflix and thats clearly reflected on the Wikipedia article of the show. Hotwiki (talk) 05:13, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-53800-37 "I think the network parameter should be based if the network is exclusive that's why it's called original network not network for advance episodes." I think your opinion on this is not echoed by the guideline that was linked. "Original network" doesn't mean "production" or "exclusive" network; it seems to want the network where the episodes were originally shown. I believe that your opinion is incorrect.

And why do you call them "advance" episodes? Those are the first-broadcast-date (or first-streamed-date) episodes. David10244 (talk) 05:15, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

hey can i make a page about whiteboardfox

i know its not that popular but please

Simple Online Whiteboard - Whiteboard Fox

Beta ~2026-53890-63 (talk) 06:54, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @~2026-53890-63, and welcome to the Teahouse.

The answer to all questions of the form "Can I make an article about ... " begins with: Only if the subject meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability, which mostly come down to "have several people totally unconnected with the subject, and without any involvement from people connected with the subject, chosen to write in some depth about the subject, and been published in reliable places?" (see WP:golden rule).

If the answer is "Yes", then you can probably create an article (for a new editor you must use the article wizard to create a draft), by setting aside everything that you know about the subject and writing a neutral summary of what those independent sources say.

If the answer is "No", then no, no article on that subject is possible at the moment.

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 10:13, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello Teahouse, Does Iranian websites/news channel consider as invalid resource for Wikipedia? I am writing about persian hip-hop/rapper, problem is in their early time news agency didn't really had coverage of news as you may know or not, in Iran Rap was forbidden and become more like underground thingy. thats why i ask, for example their music careers joining bands or making one wasn't really a coverage. here is the link: User:Quiethend/Dariya & Sorena current stage of my writing is the most simple i can do without any promotional purpose, for writing more deeper details, source become less and less as there wont be much news channel to cover.

I already talk to ThadeusOfNazereth about draft as being denied and I am re editing it again, as I know I need to change my Discography too. I've been redirected to this page to ask my question. It would be good if any advice can help me to publish my first article aswell, I am ready to hear. Quiethend (talk) 07:01, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

yes ~2026-53922-32 (talk) 07:14, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Quiethend, and welcome to the Teahouse.

I'm afraid we cannot answer the question "Are Iranian websites/news channels reliable sources for Wikipedia?" any more than we can answer the question "Are British websites/news channels reliable sources?"

In the case of Britain (and other Western countries) the answer is "Some are, some aren't", and we have to look at each. I guess that the same is true for Iranian sources.

Please go to the reliable sources noticeboard, where you will find several resources:

• WP:RSP has a list of sources which people have often asked about. There are a few Iranian sources listed there, but I'm afraid that most of them have been rated as "not reliable".
• You can search the archives of WP:RSN to see if a particular source has been discussed before.
• You can post a question at WP:RSN asking about a particular source.

Please read the "Overview" at WP:RSN, especially WP:RSCONTEXT: a source might be reliable about architecture, but not about music, for example. So if you ask about a particular source, make it clear what kind of information you want to use it to verify. ColinFine (talk) 10:23, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

If this question is about coverage, we do not cover what is not covered in reliable sources. It is ideal to write based on sources you have, rather than write content and then try and find sources to back it up. CMD (talk) 13:18, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Quiethend. I looked over your article. Firstly, Wikipedia:Notability (music) is important here. I would also recommend you read User:ColinFine's comment here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse#c-ColinFine-20261007101300-~2026-53890-63-20261007065400.

If you still want to go ahead with the article, you need to find independent sources about the duo and their career. Most of references you use in your article are not good enough. The BBC interview has some info about Dariya's background (he got introduced to rap at 13 years old, he got into the Iranian music scene in 2004), so it a good source for that. However, it is only a very short and surface-level promotional interview, and it is not about the duo. Have any other articles been written by local newspapers? or Iranian music websites? They need to be independent articles, not promotional interviews like the 2006 BBC source.

If you speak Farsi, you could ask for help looking for reliable sources on the Farsi-language Wikipedia. Foreign-language references are accepted on the English Wikipedia, but they need to be reliable. sahebkhabar.ir seems to be AI-generated and is not a good source. The sources about the Chaos music video are okay but they are not about the duo. I hope this has been of some help to you. — LeastConcern ^{(they) talk contribs} 16:21, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello! I submitted a COI edit request on the Talk page of Talk:Roorkee Institute of Technology 20 days ago, but it hasn't been reviewed yet.

Could a volunteer please take a look at it? I want to make sure I am following all guidelines and that my request is formatted correctly.

Thank you! ~~~~ Juhiad (talk) 07:08, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

@Juhiad One of the reasons it hasn't been taken up is that you have added lots of suggestions but not used one of the templates that draws attention to the request. There is guidance at WP:COIREQ, which you should read. One key point is that it is much easier for editors if you format the citations correctly and specify exactly what you wish to add or change as in "Please add this exact text based on {{cite news}} from this source", one piece at a time. I suggest you also read WP:PAID, in case your COI needs a fuller, mandatory, disclosure. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:32, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Juhiad, and welcome to the Teahouse.

I'm afraid that you are probably wasting your time.

Basically, your concern is to make the article say what your employers want it to say, while Wikipedia's concern is to make it report what independent commentators say about it, and hardly at all what your employers want it to say - which at present it utterly fails to do, as the existing maintenance notice says.

There are only two things worth doing to this article: if the required independent secondary sources exist (see WP:golden rule) then they should be cited, and the article rewritten to summarise what they say, not what the Institute wants people to know; if those sources do not exist, then it should be deleted for failing notability.

The changes you are requesting are "rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic".

Please read WP:BOSS and show it to your superiors. ColinFine (talk) 10:45, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

In 2004, the page for same-sex marriage was demoted for, in my opinion, the dubious reason that the article was "Heavily biased towards gay rights POV". Looking at the state of the page in 2004, I'm not sure that was a fair assertion, and for context, this was an action done by an admin who, judging by the talk page, seemed to have a very strong opinion on the subject (and sometime in the 22 years since, has added a "factoid" to his user page implicitly supporting some form of conversion therapy), and also seems to have made the decision unilaterally, with no other editors in the articles nominated for featured article/removal page supporting his claim, even if they were open to removing its status. Granted, I know nothing about how Wikipedia operated in 2004, but this seems like an obvious example of admin abuse. While I'm not trying to arguing an admin should be demoted for a questionable decision they made in 2004, is there any way to change its status as a former featured article, without making it a featured article again? Apologies that this is a bit pedantic. Atriskofmistake (talk) 07:40, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

It would need to be reassessed, not least because it has changed this much since the end of 2004. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 12:56, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I'm a new Rollbacker. I've been using AntiVandal And I noticed unlike Interceptor it doesn't let you put a reason for the revert. I've been making quick keybinds for different revert reasons, (ie: unreferenced addition to BLP) but it doesn't put that reason in the edit summary of the Rollback, which is technically against the guidelines for Rollback. So what should I do, only revert vandalism using anti vandal? Strongshorts (talk) 08:41, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi, could someone have a look at Draft:Normandale Shopping Center before I submit it to AfC?

The AI-generated tag was added to an older version, and the draft has been changed quite a lot since then. I just want to make sure there aren’t any obvious problems left with the sourcing, wording, factual accuracy, or anything else.

Do you think the AI-generated tag is still necessary?

Thanks. Louloureagan9 (talk) 08:43, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Louloureagan9, and welcome to the Teahouse.

You're essentially asking for a prereview, and we don't do that (why should one draft get preferential treatment?).

Please submit it, and wait for a reviewer to get to it. ColinFine (talk) 10:48, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

The AI-generated tag remains proper. You should not be using AI as an assistant to help you find existing, hallucinated information, since AI is the cause of the hallucinations in the first place. It's like me asking one of my cats for assistance in preventing glasses from the counter from falling onto the kitchen floor.

In any case, it's quite obvious that this draft is still a gigantic AI homunculus. Most of the article still consists not of reporting of facts but reporting of the reporting of facts, a notorious AI quirk and almost never seen in actual human writing to this degree. If anything, it appears you've added more AI than you've removed. Example:

By March 2026, WSFA reported that a few businesses remained at Normandale while most of the property was vacant. The City of Montgomery has published a redevelopment visioning study for the former shopping center property. The study explores redevelopment of the site as a continuing-care retirement community, with plans encompassing active-adult housing, independent living, assisted living and memory care.

I think this mall has a good case for notability, but this article needs to be WP:TNTed and rewritten in line with Wikipedia's expectations. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:09, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

"reporting of the reporting of facts, a notorious AI quirk and almost never seen in actual human writing" Really? I've been removing that from articles since longe before AI was an issue. A search for "times reported that" in article space currently has over 6K hits. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 17:37, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

Well, I meant the degree that it is used. Nearly everything is conveyed through a report of a report in this article. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 17:40, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

I noticed that there are users who have interesting talk pages. Are there any particular rules about what can go in and what cannot? BoldedExclamation (talk) 09:21, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

Your talk page is for communication with other editors. See WP:OWNTALK. Meters (talk) 09:32, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps you actually meant your user pages in general, rather than your user talk page specifically. If that's the case, see WP:UPYES. Meters (talk) 09:37, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, I did mean my user page. Thank you for the help :) BoldedExclamation (talk) 17:56, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

You are welcome. Meters (talk) 21:45, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

Where do I find a Wikipedia article that acually needs revision? SilkyDePistachio (talk) 12:44, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

Try Category:Articles needing attention. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 12:51, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

Another option is to join a WikiProject on your area of interest, if there is an active one; they may have lists of articles they'd like to see worked on. You can search for WikiProjects at WP:WikiProjects. Not all are active, but active ones can be quite helpful for this. M kuhner (talk) 21:58, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

It says "Villageinfo.in is blacklisted and is currently not allowed. please remove the link". But even i removed the link, I cannot save the page because the same blacklist warning appears. Rajdhani Fan Person (talk) 13:50, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Rajdhani Fan Person, and welcome to the Teahouse.

It's difficult to help you if you don't tell us which article you were trying to edit. ColinFine (talk) 14:13, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

I am creating an article about villages, and i named it "Talaburu". Unfortunately, this error happened when i was publishing the new page. Rajdhani Fan Person (talk) 14:26, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

Hitandrunner (talk) 15:51, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi Hitandrunner, welcome to the Teahouse. Do you have a question about editing Wikipedia? 7amiþ = reform(solidarity).__init__(t, c) 15:53, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

they said when I changed Thomas Pain to Paine they changed it back in am dissaponted in this system!!! Hitandrunner (talk) 15:57, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

There is a hidden comment there that says discuss on the talk page before changing, which it appears you didn't do, meaning it was changed back to the WP:CONSENSUS 7amiþ = reform(solidarity).__init__(t, c) 16:01, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

You need to stop disrupting the Thomas Paine article. 331dot (talk) 16:02, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

What has been changed? Goetia [She/Her] (talk) 15:56, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

This editor has changed a sourced birth name , then proceeded to post incoherence , and has now moved on to childish vandalism . Any more and I'm fairly certain this editor will find the biggest change will be their ability to edit Wikipedia. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 17:35, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:Abbott & Co.

Hi, I work for Abbotts and have a declined draft, and am willing to pay a disclosed editor.

We have a really interesting history (est 1870 and still going) with, according to AI, lots of good external references. It needs a bit of research and someone who knows how to present a Wikipedia draft.... and I clearly don't, hence the rejection...

Is there anyone who could help me, I'm contactable through the company

Kind Regards

Henry

Pressure vessels (talk) 16:15, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

Please do not offer to pay editors. Not only is that unnecessary, but it could attract scammers to you. Please read the scam warning and never pay anyone money to edit Wikipedia.

Legitimate editors will not normally contact you off wiki regarding Wikipedia matters, they are typically discussed on wiki for openness and transparency. 331dot (talk) 16:21, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

I would not rely on anything an AI tells you with regards to Wikipedia; it doesn't understand how Wikipedia works in theory or in practice. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Look out it's Jimothy!} 16:31, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

@Pressure vessels It's likely that, like many editors coming here to write about their company, you fundamentally misunderstand what Wikipedia is for. Wikipedia is not a place to promote or publicise your company, or to tell the world what you would like us to know about your company. A Wikipedia article should primarily be a summary of what people completely unaffiliated with your company have written about it; which means that in the majority of cases a company's article is really quite boring and not at all flattering or promotional. With that in mind, I encourage you and your company to carry on as if you'd never heard about Wikipedia. Having an article here really offers you no benefit. Athanelar (talk) 16:48, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

You need to show how the company meets the criteria at WP:NCORP (which it might well do). WP:42 gives a simple overview of how we determine whether sources are adequate to do so.

BTW, did Henry Price really write all but one of the sources mentioned in your draft? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 16:48, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for taking time to reply .. No, Henry Price (Me) didn't write ANY of the sources - they are all legit and 3rd party, I didn't understand the link instructions.. and that may not have helped ... realising my ignorance caused me to reach out to someone with more knowledge.... thanks again Pressure vessels (talk) 17:49, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Pressure vessels, and welcome to Wikipedia.

I'm afraid that the chances are, you are on a hiding to nothing.

Most companies in the world do not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, which are not directly about what the company is, or does, or has achieved, but mostly about what people wholly unconnected with them have chosen to write about them without any involvement from the company.

A few years ago, when I heard that the company William Anelay Ltd, a 300-year-old stonemasonry and building company in York (originally Doncaster) had gone into receivership, I tried to write an article about them - but came to the conclusion that despite their historical interest and imporance, there simply wasn't enough independently published about them, and gave up the attempt. (I'd even tracked down a copy of a book about them, but then realised that they had published it, so nothing in it was independent).

Please have a look at WP:BOSS. ColinFine (talk) 16:48, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

On the contrary, a company established in 1855, discussed in the UK Parliament (it seems), and with such an extensive entry on Grace's Guide stands a good chance of being notable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 16:59, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi Andy, as you may have gathered that I'm rather clueless at this sort of thing, but passionate about the history of my company, how do you suggest I progress with this? Kind Regards Henry. Pressure vessels (talk) 17:58, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

Start with sources; see if you can find three (recent or historic) that meet the requirements I gave above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 18:17, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

There are some legit companies who do COI edit requests for clients, see this list. I'm sure there's others, so to make sure that any firm not on that list is legit, make sure they link a to user-page wherever they advertise and link to those advertisements on their user page. ^MetalBreaks_AndBends (One for all) 16:49, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

I would clarify for the benefit of the original poster that Wikipedia does not endorse or recommend any paid editing service; we're simply letting you know that legitimate ones do exist, but it is up to you to make sure that if you go that route that they abide by our disclosure requirements. 331dot (talk) 18:39, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello everyone, I am relatively new to English Wikipedia and am looking for assistance in submitting a new draft for an automated social deduction game bot called "Almex Pro Mafia." It has gained significant traction, operating in over 1,500 active communities within 5 months. I have already prepared the complete article using the appropriate Wiki markup and the Template:Infobox software structure to ensure it meets Wikipedia's layout guidelines. The subject is well-documented in independent secondary sources, including a detailed analytical case study on vc.ru and a technical release report on Medium. Since my account is very new and lacks editing history, I am concerned about potential speedy deletion or layout mistakes if I submit it directly through the Articles for Creation (AfC) wizard myself. Could an experienced editor please review my prepared markup text and help me submit it as a formal draft to the AfC queue? I would be happy to share the ready-made wiki code and secondary source links here. Thank you so much for your guidance and time! Sarah Shahi k (talk) 16:49, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

Let's start by seeing your sources. Without good sources, everything else is a waste of time. URLs, please? DS (talk) 17:07, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your help, DS! Here are the independent links for the project. Detailed case study on vc.ru: https://vc.ru/life/3181060-fenomen-almex-pro-mafia-kak-tekstovyi-bot-v-telegram-avtomatiziroval-klassicheskuyu-igru-i-za-5-mesyacev-zahvatil-1500-grupp

I have been closely following this Telegram gaming sector because automated text games are becoming extremely popular right now, and there is a massive audience interested in this niche. Sarah Shahi k (talk) 17:38, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

It looks like vc.ru allows its members to edit, or maybe even allows the public to edit. Wikipedia does not accept sources where editing is allowed; for example, the Артём who posted that material could be anyone, and there is nobody checking his work.

This is explained at Wikipedia:Reliable sources. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 18:54, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out, and I apologize for the mistake. As I am completely new to Wikipedia, I don't know all the rules and guidelines well yet. I did not realize that vc.ru functions as an open, user-generated platform without editorial oversight. If possible, could you please teach or guide me on which tech magazines or sources are accepted here and which are not? This would really help me learn the standards. I will stop here and look for proper alternative sources. Thank you for your time, patience, and for correcting me. Sarah Shahi k (talk) 06:28, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

On my talk page, I have the archive machine set up. However I don't know where it starts archiving. I don't want it to archive everything because all the headers and things will get caught too. Does anybody know? Thanks. PixelsRCool (talk) 22:53, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

How do you have its archive parameters set up? (more specifically, how old does a thread have to be for the bot to archive it?) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Look out it's Jimothy!} 23:00, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

Posts with 14 days of inactivity are archived 5 or more at a time if there are more than 4. PixelsRCool (talk) 23:01, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

If you have specific discussions you don't want archived until a specified date, you could apply the {{DNAU}} template. You can also always revert or restore the discussion it if it archives something you didn't want archived. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 23:41, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

It's alright. I will manually archive them instead. Thanks! PixelsRCool (talk) 23:43, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello,

There is a page related to the 'weaponization of antisemitism'. Will there also be a page dedicated to the weaponization of islamophobia?

Regards,

Abraham ~2026-54138-95 (talk) 00:34, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

If it is the topic of major reliable mainstream coverage, yes. If it is the topic of unreliable coverage, or if it's not getting major treatment but more minor mentions, then no. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 00:51, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

What is Elizabeth Smarts house blueprints. AnnetteMonnett (talk) 00:58, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia. We don't have any information about Elizabeth Smart that isn't publicly available on the article Elizabeth Smart. ^{In solidarity,} 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 ^{(They/them • Talk • Contribs)} 01:09, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

I'm thinking of creating an article on a piece of proposed public law legislation that would affect a population that include myself. Provided I adhere to the regular NPOV requirements, am I required to make a conflict-of-interest disclosure? I do not have a direct professional/financial connection with the sponsor of the legislation, other than the law may affect me. WP:COI doesn't seem to cover this scenario, so asking here just to be sure. Redwolf Milkshake Fox 🦊 02:13, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

The first things I would consider are not the COI. My main concern is that - almost every time - a "proposed thing" is also "not a thing" (if you know what I mean). Not yet anyway. If this proposal is already getting national front-page coverage, that would prove me wrong, but there are quite a few situations that would not be enough to prove me wrong.

Wikipedia is for history. It is not for presentation and debate. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 03:12, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

It's not on the front page. Probably a small corner in a regional newspaper. Redwolf Milkshake Fox 🦊 03:14, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

Obviously you and I don't know each other, so I could easily be making a wild mistake here, but it's possible for things including WP:RGW or Wikipedia:Advocacy to apply in a situation like this. Please have a look in case they do, while remembering I might be off base with this suggestion. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 03:31, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

Gotchu. I'll use WP:AfC to have another pair of eyes on my draft to be sure. Redwolf Milkshake Fox 🦊 03:38, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

I agree with TooManyFingers that a proposed but not enacted law is unlikely to be suitable for an article.

Supposing it passes and is found to be notable, I think--this is an opinion--that "this law would affect me as a citizen" is not COI. If my city passed a mandatory insurance law, it would affect me but I wouldn't consider that COI. I'd only be concerned about COI if I worked for an insurance company, or a lobbying group (for or against), or sat on the City Council--something on that level. M kuhner (talk) 03:26, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I was thinking about the fundraising issues Wikipedia has.

I was thinking. What if Wikipedia released a phone app? It could a Wikipedia access app, but its main page could also access a YouTube streaming channel and people could be asked occasionally to watch it to add to it's user numbers, and to donate a dollars to the app directly, while keeping the streaming page completely free but accepting donations on it too, and super chats, which could be responded to live on the streaming page.

The streaming page on YouTube could consist of volunteers giving their time to give media to contribute to fundraising for Wikipedia to keep it open. Ranging from historians, engineers, English majors. They could be volunteers on a talk show that Wiki could run with volunteers. Everyone who goes on could be paid minimum wage for their each hour of their time, rounding up, out of donations if their is a surplus of donations to cover costs.

And people who don't get paid right away could be recorded in a backlog to help them out potentially in the future, or their pay could be a bit "higher" and they could agree to "donate" it to Wiki to help with it's costs. Letting them choose between the two options of either a lump sum payment for the day or week that would assume they were working every day of the week and donating that time to wiki, and paid at minimum wage for their area, IF they are going to donate it back to wiki. And if they need the cash then just pay them literally only for each hour they were working (using honor system).

I think a streaming channel doing interviews would be great because then the videos could be preserved on the YouTube page and cross referenced with wiki articles even if they are relevant. It could even lead to a sub section of Wikipedia just to reference all the media, guests, topics and videos on that channel.

And if that channel and the app both lead to funding wiki, wouldn't it be worth it? People are short of money always, but the easier it becomes to pay, the more often it's there and they are definitely getting more and more for it. Plus people are more naturally inclined to tip or pay someone they see or hear vs just a text. For instance. I am poor. Could I have 20 dollars please? I really do need a job and to make some serious income?

Now if I was in video and in person and providing a really entertaining speech and talking about things you didn't realize how fascinated you were just because my voice is soothing or seeing me actually interested and enjoying the conversation with other guests, the tip jar just gets money tossed in. All time the year it's sitting there and easy to click on.

(I really am poor I would give more money if I could, haha, work has not gone well for me which is sort of funny. Someday it will though. Have a great day. I will donate something then along with paying all my debts.)

Its a pretty good system that's all set up and YouTube is a huge money revenue when it comes to donations. I would suggest avoiding commercials unless you personally get the advertisers to pay you directly to put the commercials in the middle of your streaming shows.

Respectfully Aleksis Pakarinen. ~2026-54270-98 (talk) 02:53, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

Ideas for new features can be raised at the Village pump. Since fundraising is handled by the WikiMedia Foundation, not Wikipedia itself, perhaps WP:Village pump#WMF. M kuhner (talk) 03:30, 8 October 2026 (UTC)