Wikipedia:Teahouse

Nick Moyes, a Teahouse host

Welcome to the Teahouse!
Your go-to place for friendly help with using and editing Wikipedia.

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

Can't edit this page? ; a volunteer will visit you there shortly!

New to Wikipedia? See our tutorial for new editors or introduction to contributing page.
Note: Newer questions appear at the bottom of the Teahouse. Completed questions are archived within 2–3 days.

Help Wikipedia

Assistance for new editors unable to post here

The Teahouse is currently semi-protected, meaning the Teahouse pages cannot be edited by unregistered users (IP addresses), as well as accounts that are not confirmed or autoconfirmed (accounts that are at least 4 days old with at least 10 edits on English Wikipedia).

However, you can still get direct assistance on your talk page. ; a volunteer will visit you there shortly!

There is currently 0 user(s) transcluding the {{Help me}} template looking for assistance from Teahouse volunteers.

Article title

Should this article's title be "The WRLDFMS Tony Williams" or "The Wrldfms Tony Williams"? dotXK 01:49, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Doubting that many people would say "the double you are ell dee eff em ess Tony Williams" or similar, I'd forgo full capitalization. -- Hoary (talk) 05:31, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

See WP:ARTICLETITLE -- probably the best criterion to use is what reliable sources use. If reliable sources (news, books, etc.) use WRLDFMS, use that. Otherwise, use Wrldfms. Mrfoogles (talk) 03:53, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

AI-generated article

What do I do if I see an article that might have been generated by artificial intelligence?GenericUser24 (talk) 02:52, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

@GenericUser24 If you suspect an article to be made by AI, you can request an administrator to revision delete the edit (if it is entirely copied from somewhere)and also warn the creator of the page so that they don't repeat it. Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ouch} 03:37, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Or if it is page, you can ask for it to be deleted. Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ouch} 03:38, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

There was also this discussion on simple. If you want, you can take a look. Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ouch} 08:56, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

simplewiki is governed by different guidelines and consensuses (conensusi? consensusen?) than enwiki, is it not? Cremastra (talk) 21:07, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

I am just saying, if you want you can read it.--Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ouch} 22:16, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

"consensus" or "consensuses" consarn _{(prison phone) (crime record)} 20:40, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

@GenericUser24 It's complicated. If you could link to the page or send us its name it would be much more helpful. We would start with seeing if the page fits into any of the speedy deletion criteria. If it is completely hallucinated for example, we could WP:G3 it. If not, I would check if the sourcing is correct or not. Its always good to tag {{AI-generated}} if you're not sure. Justiyaya 03:55, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

The article is Free play. I don't think it meets any speedy deletion criteria. so I added the tag. Looking at the sources, they partially (but not completely) support the text of the article. GenericUser24 (talk) 12:37, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

You may also want to mention it on Talk:Free play/GA1#GA Review. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 20:13, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

app.gptzero.me says 99% AI generated. Theroadislong (talk) 20:36, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Follow up question: Can the article creator remove the tag? GenericUser24 (talk) 02:46, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

If this was improper, I will replace this tag if anyone requests. But, as I have explained on the talk, I wrote the article myself so adding a tag saying it was AI generated and needed cleanup seemed incorrect. As I also explained, when you click on the links for most of the papers, you will only see a free preview (which may be why the sources... partially (but not completely) support the text when you click on it), you need to use WP:TWL to access the full versions which normally require payment to access, which I made sure support all claims when I was writing it. I will work on migrating all references to use {{sfn}} (which I did not know about at the time of writing the article), like in my other article Abditibacterium which make it easier to see specifically which page of the full PDF version accessible via TWL that each claim comes from. Thank you for trying to help with this and for your feedback! :) MolecularPilot^Talk 06:38, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Only the fourth and sixth source are partial versions. GenericUser24 (talk) 11:37, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

I think this one probably wasn't AI-generated, but linking WP:WikiProject AI Cleanup, which is centered around exactly this kind of work. Mrfoogles (talk) 05:52, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

User operates an AI bot. See Talk. Mathglot (talk) 16:26, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I operate a DeBERTa based bot to classify Wikipedia usernames if they violate the policy that received WP:VPT consensus for it (I am still testing it in usersapce before filing BRFA). I'm not sure how this is related to accused article generating - something completely different. MolecularPilot^Talk 21:43, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Peer review of Equality (mathematics)

I put up the article for peer review almost a month ago now, but so far no bites. My goal is to get it to GA, but I'm not sure what else needs to be done... This is my first attempt at a GA, so I don't really know what I'm doing. Any advice would be very helpful. – Farkle Griffen (talk) 17:19, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Both peer reviews and Good Article reviews have highly variable wait times. More technical topics tend to have longer wait times than more generally approachable topics. Similarly, the longer an article is the longer the wait tends to be. This article is both on the more technical side and the long side for waiting for reviews. If you want quicker feedback, I would suggest that you leave a notice on the talkpage of relevant WikiProjects (WT:WPMATH appears to be relatively active). Currently the oldest unreviewed mathematics GA nomination is from September, to give you an idea of likely wait times. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 16:20, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

(It can also help your chances of being reviewed to do your own GA reviews: there is a social component to the GA review process, and people do to some extent favour reviewing articles by people they recognise as doing their bit to contribute to the process.) Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 16:25, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

@Caeciliusinhorto-public, I'd like to, but since I'm still new to this, I don't wanna accidentally pass an article that has lots of issues I didn't know to check, y'know? I was hoping to get a GA done before I tried to review anything.

Do people usually do GA reviews without having a GA themselves? How big of a deal is it when someone messes up a GA review? – Farkle Griffen (talk) 16:49, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

@Farkle Griffen: I did 9 or 10 GA reviews before I finally had a GA to my name. My suggestion is to take a look at Wikipedia:Good article mentorship and learn how to do reviews, if you're interested. Cheers! ‍Relativity ⚡️ 00:30, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Is this a good article idea? “The Principle of Collaboration and Cooperation (TPOCo)”

Hi everyone! I’m drafting an article in my sandbox titled The Principle of Collaboration and Cooperation (TPOCo):

It’s an interdisciplinary framework that synthesizes peer-reviewed research from biology, psychology, and systems science. The core idea is that cooperation — across all life forms — is driven by energy capture, coordination, and resource sharing. The article is structured around seven key principles and includes a flowchart visual.

I’ve already shared it with related WikiProjects, but I’d love some broader feedback here.  

• Is this a suitable topic for Wikipedia?  

• Does it appear neutral and encyclopedic?  

• What would you recommend I do next?

Any help or advice is welcome — thank you! Darwipli (talk) 05:25, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Darwipli. Unfortunately, your article doesn't seem too encyclopedic to work as an article (WP:ENCYCLOPEDIA). This page looks more like an essay/research project that would belong somewhere else. I suggest you look at other high quality articles we have (i.e Philosophy, Life, Evolution) and compare. You should be able to see the difference in how you've written your draft and those pages. It'd also be very beneficial to go over a lot of our policies of how our articles should be structured including WP:Manual of Style, WP:Verifiability, WP:Original research, WP:Notability, and WP:What Wikipedia is not.

Based on those resources, determine whether this article would truly work in an encyclopedia or if it'd fit somewhere on your own website or something. Whatever happens though, thank you for contributing to Wikipedia! Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 05:37, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Tarlby, your suggested "somewhere else" may already exist: co-operatio.org. -- Hoary (talk) 07:17, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Darwipli. Synthesis is a form of original research, which is not permitted on Wikipedia. Please read No original research, which is one of three core content policies. Cullen328 (talk) 08:05, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you all very much (@Tarlby, @Hoary, and @Cullen328) for your thoughtful feedback and helpful guidance regarding my draft on "The Principle of Cooperation and Collaboration (TPOCo)." Your suggestions and references to specific Wikipedia guidelines and policies have provided clarity on how best to proceed.

I recognize now that my current content constitutes original research, making it unsuitable for Wikipedia at this stage. As suggested, the detailed documentation currently resides on my website, co-operatio.org, which indeed seems like the appropriate place for it right now.

In response to your helpful feedback, I have reached out to Professor Michael Tomasello, whose work greatly influenced my thinking on cooperation, to seek his collaboration or guidance on publishing a peer-reviewed article. This would help to establish external verification and recognition for the TPOCo framework, potentially making it suitable for Wikipedia inclusion in the future.

I sincerely appreciate your patience, guidance, and clarity. Thanks again for taking the time to help me improve my understanding of Wikipedia's standards and practices.

Warm regards, Peter Darwipli (talk) 08:15, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Good luck to you. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 16:54, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

New user on Wikipedia.

Hello there, I’m TechScience2044. I’m very interested in technology, so I might create articles based on this topic and edit articles related to them. In my opinion, Wikipedia is best used for looking on information and technology where it is accessible to anyone. For templates, anyone except for user rights, can use them for unique purposes. Can you please give me the introduction to Wikipedia and what other info do you must present to me based on newcomer contributions and the impact on encyclopedia works? •TechScience2044 (|send me a note|) 09:45, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello! I've posted a welcome message to your user talk page with some links and tips. Feel free to ask any more questions about Wikipedia on the Teahouse whenever you have! ObserveOwl (talk) 09:56, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Alright, but how do I join wikiprojects? •TechScience2044 (|send me a note|) 16:38, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

You start by finding a project you want to work on. You visit its page. There you'll find things like standards, goals, suggested tasks, active collaborations, etc. (As part of this exploration, you may stumble across some wikiprojects that are either officially or de facto inactive -- the dates of the most recent convos on the project's talk page can be a good indication.)

Some projects have a place for members to formally list themselves; others don't. Either way, joining a project mostly just means starting to work on articles affiliated with that project. The project's talk page is a good place to ask questions specifically about the project's work or about articles in its scope. . -- Avocado (talk) 16:50, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Does it include attribution? •TechScience2044 (|send me a note|) 17:19, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Does what include attribution? I don't understand what you're asking. -- Avocado (talk) 19:55, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

The Wikipedia articles that edited. •TechScience2044 (|send me a note|) 19:56, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, every article (in fact, every editable page on Wikipedia) has a "View History" tab. (On some themes it's just called "History", and on mobile it's at the bottom of the page where it says "Last edited <N> days ago by <name>").

Under the History tab, you'll see a list of all changes ever made to the article, and who made them. You can then review what was added/removed/altered with each change. You may find this guide to page history useful. -- Avocado (talk) 20:04, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

@ObserveOwl Additionally, what is behind wiki-coding? Is editing Wikipedia just like science? •TechScience2044 (|send me a note|) 20:13, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Well, it seems you use the VisualEditor, which is a "what you see is what you get" editor that doesn't require coding for the most part. It is, I would say, a bit like making a Microsoft Word document. If you switch to the source editor, you can see that each article includes associated wikitext. Editing this way is pretty much like coding in a lightweight markup language, similar to HTML but simpler. ObserveOwl (talk) 20:53, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Editing Wikipedia is more like writing, but sometimes it's about science, which is fun. Wikitext is basically just regular writing, but if want to make something bold you write <b>bold</b> and you use == Heading name == to make something be formatted as a heading. If you want to see how people made an article look a certain way, you can open the source editor and see what notation they used (I just use visual editors for editing tables though, because the notation there is complicated). Mrfoogles (talk) 03:57, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

<b>...</b> is HTML, and while it works, it's preferable to use wikitext formatting, which is three single quotes on each side of the bolded text '''like this'''. See MOS:BOLD and WP:HTML. The H:CHEAT page lists many of the commonly used wikitext codes. CodeTalker (talk) 18:28, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

@CodeTalker Yep, but how can even templates work? •TechScience2044 (|send me a note|) 19:09, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Templates rely on a feature of the mediawiki software which is explained at Help:Transclusion, which is quite technical and probably not understood by many editors. Mike Turnbull (talk) 22:05, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Any explanation on how to create templates? •TechScience2044 (|send me a note|) 22:34, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

See Help:Template. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:54, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Read it, but for wiki-coding, what happens if you publish you own words in an document? •TechScience2044 (|send me a note|) 08:52, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

@TechScience2044: I'm not sure what you mean. In Wikipedia, "Template" is a specific software feature. Help:A quick guide to templates is a simpler description. Maybe you have another meaning of the word in mind, or maybe you want to call existing templates and not create new ones. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:22, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

That’s fine. •TechScience2044 (|send me a note|) 01:21, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

a page full of puffery

i found this page that has stuff like "This work was accomplished so successfully that Professor Alexander Dallas Bache, Colonel John Charles Frémont, and Senator Thomas Hart Benton used their influence with Sec. George Bancroft to have him appointed professor of mathematics in the navy." with like zero citations should this be tagged for speedy or could this article be salvaged (with a full rewrite and extensive research)

it looks like something a student would write as an essay on this persons achievements and most defiantly breaks npov so should we mark this for a speedy or try to salvage it Localbluepikmin (talk) 12:42, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

It doesn't have "like zero citations", it's cited to Appleton’s Cyclopedia vol.3 p. 292. And appears to be a copy of the text there. So it needs proper attribution, and it certainly needs editing for tone. Not eligible for speedy. Just needs editors to edit it. DuncanHill (talk) 12:50, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

@Localbluepikmin there are no inline citations, but Wikipedia counts a bibliography at the end (i.e., the mention of the Cyclopedia) as a citation. Therefore it can't be deleted under the WP:BLPPROD policy, which would be what would apply (not speedy deletion in this case). I went in and tried to verify that it was a copy of the Cyclopedia text, in which case I would have just put an inline citation to that on every paragraph, but I couldn't find his entry so I didn't. That might help. A rewrite might be necessary for tone -- research, probably not that much, luckily enough. Mrfoogles (talk) 04:11, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

To be honest this sort of article really annoys me. We're supposed to be an encyclopedia, summarising multiple reliable sources with balance, not just a mirror site regurgitating anything that happens to be in the public domain, word-for-word, with a lazy "incorporates text" template. We may as well rebrand ourselves WikiRegurgitation if we're going to do that. At the very least, our readers deserve to know exactly what text is merely a mirror. The current reference is in many ways worse than useless, because by sowing a general feeling that the text probably came from Appletons', it conceals the fact that any subsequent, unsourced edits, are an invisible mutation of the original text. This is just all wrong. But it's also perfectly above-board and according to policy. Annoying. Elemimele (talk) 11:57, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

How to proceed?

Hey, i was monitering recent changes and found a case of a large amount of content being removed by an account with a Battleground edit summary, ive been trying to avoid violating Civility rules and the 3RR, but i genuinely dont know how to proceed from here without either biting a newbie or possibly causing an edit war. Actual conflict is here. Im still quite rusty about how to handle disputes on WP (i mostly just stick to reverting vandalism) -I.R.B.A.T^{(yell at me) (The IRBAT Files)} 13:37, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Im really bad at this, if you supply a diff (or point to the particular edit(s) in some other way), then somebody here will be able to investigate and comment. -- Hoary (talk) 23:20, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

@Hoary if you would take a look at the history of the page he linked you would get a good idea what IRBAT is talking about. Yeshivish613 (talk) 11:29, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the prod, Yeshivish613. I must have somehow missed "Actual conflict is here." The IP's edit summaries are pugnacious but I don't find them rude (other than where he addresses the subject of the article). I'm unfamiliar with most of the sources within the deleted-restored-deleted-restored passages and have no great enthusiasm either for studying and evaluating them or for submerging myself in a sea of celebs, but even to me it's obvious that some of these sources are unsatisfactory. (Instagram? Please no.) -- Hoary (talk) 12:06, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

CrowdTangle draft input

Hello editors,

It looks like a bot archived my previous post thinking it was settled, but I'm still looking for constructive feedback on the CrowdTangle draft I proposed. The previously reviewing editor suggested seeking feedback here. I am eager to make this draft better, so I want to make a request for feedback again.

To recap: From the rules the replying editor linked, for corporate notability, the sources in the draft need to:

• Contain significant coverage addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth.
• Be completely independent of the article subject.
• Meet the standard for being a reliable source.
• Be a secondary source; primary and tertiary sources do not count towards establishing notability.

I think that the articles from Business Insider, The Verge and Poynter show clear interest from when CrowdTangle was first created and in use. Further articles from Bloomberg, Axios and Reuters covered CrowdTangle up until it was disbanded, showing a continuous, sustained interest in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.

All of these articles listed are in-depth, independent, secondary, and reliable.

Could someone please offer additional guidance on how to improve this draft? The language in it is supported by these sources in a neutral, unbiased way while also trying to not violate copyright. Thank you very much!!. Brandonsilverman (talk) 17:29, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Brandonsilverman, and welcome to the Teahouse.

The Business insider piece says very little about CT that is not quoting a spokesperson from CT. The Verge piece is almost entirely quoting what FB says. This means that neither of them is independent. I didn't look further.

Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 18:04, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you ColinFine this is exactly the type of feedback I was looking for!

I think you'll find that Axios and Reuters articles I mentioned don't lean on quotes from the company or spokesperson and the Poynter starts with a quote but provides independent research later in the article.

A few journalistic articles I did not mention above but are independent include Fast Company, the Associated Press, and more Axios coverage].

If you have a chance to check them out, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on those. Brandonsilverman (talk) 20:17, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Feedback on an article

Hi there everyone! I recently submitted this page and it was declined due to insufficient reliable sources. There are 14 sources from reputable US media outlets that span several years. Does anyone have advice about how to improve the sourcing for the page? Thanks so much for your help. Draft:Collier Prize for State Government Accountability Kapparently (talk) 19:39, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi, @Kapparently and welcome to Wikipedia! The main problem I see with your draft is that the sources don't establish the notability of the award. For example, look at the Academy Awards. It has content (and sources) about the award itself. Most of the sources in your draft talk about Χ receiving the award. If I have time later I will see if I can find you some sources. Good luck, CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 00:34, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

@Kapparently I took a look on newspapers.com and found one useful clip, which I have saved for you. There may be others, although even this one doesn't have a lot of details about the prize. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:59, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

... and this one which relates the prize to a descendant of Peter Fenelon Collier. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:07, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

This was extremely helpful - I added some statements and links to support the notability of the award. I just resubmitted it for review. Appreciate your help! Kapparently (talk) 20:28, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

This was extremely helpful - I added some statements and links to support the notability of the award. I just resubmitted it for review. Appreciate your help! Kapparently (talk) 20:28, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Edit

I made a change to a page and I just looked at it and it says "reverted" does that mean my changed were removed? Mccoyjacob22565 (talk) 20:46, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Mccoyjacob22565! Yes, it was reverted here, with the explanation that "Controversies" sections are a discouraged section type, and that the source is not reliable (it appears to be a self-published blog). If you disagree, you can start a new talk page section explaining your changes while notifying the reverting user (SounderBruce). ObserveOwl (talk) 21:51, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Draft:Street_Football_(TV_series)

Hi! I tried to publish this article, but it was pushed back to the draft space because the resources weren't reliable enough. Can someone give me a bit of advice on what exactly is wrong with my resources? Also what other resources would I need to make the article good enough? Thank you. GrimaldiiSolace (talk) 21:39, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Would this source be something worth inserting? https://www.raiplay.it/programmi/streetfootball GrimaldiiSolace (talk) 21:42, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

I've found these sources. Would this be enough? https://www.leparisien.fr/seine-saint-denis-93/l-inspirateur-de-foot-2-rue-encourage-les-joueurs-15-05-2006-2006985155.php

https://cinecittanews.it/11-00-la-compagnia-dei-celestini-su-rai2/

https://www.20minutes.fr/podcast/4049157-20230821-foot-2-rue-dessin-anime-inclusif-raconter-vie-jeunes-passionnes-foot

https://web.archive.org/web/20241210155223/https://www.caviarmagazine.fr/foot2rueretoursurpetitecran/

https://web.archive.org/web/20191208043623/https://port.hu/adatlap/film/tv/street-football--street-football/movie-136797 GrimaldiiSolace (talk) 22:27, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

GrimaldiiSolace, it's rather odd to talk of a source being worth inserting (or anyway it's odd when the context isn't understood). Rather, you might ask whether the source says something that's worth summarizing for the article, whether it's reliable for that purpose, and whether the material within it that's worth summarizing is already in the article and adequately referenced. -- Hoary (talk) 22:34, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Worth inserting, meaning a viable source to adequately take the place of the non-reliable sources I had previously used. Maybe you missed where I explained the context above. Sorry for the misunderstanding. GrimaldiiSolace (talk) 01:41, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

I was too hasty, GrimaldiiSolace. I've looked at the draft, at Timtrent's comment that "Your sourcing is all unreliable with the likely exception of Le Monde", and (in an unsatisfactory, monoglot way) at three sources. There seems to be an implication here of a non-trivial probability that the Le Monde source is unreliable. I don't understand how. (Are there now questions about the reliability of Le Monde?) The problem with this web page that it says very little. In the version of the draft that Timtrent declined, it's cited for (A) the start date and for (B) a description of the general situation in which the story takes place. It certainly backs up (B), but I don't see how it backs up (A). The port.hu page says even less; I've no particular reason not to think that it's competent at this kind of coverage. The Le Parisien article (currently cited, but not yet cited in the version that Timtrent declined) seems competent too. And yes, this Parisien article does verify what you attribute to it. -- Hoary (talk) 08:38, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

@Hoary, thank you for taking a closer look at it! Hopefully, I've updated the sourcing enough to show notability. GrimaldiiSolace (talk) 19:09, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Dismissed legal charges

This isn't the first edit I've seen like it, but this edit removed information about a criminal charge from a BLP on the grounds that it has been dismissed. In the past, my instinct has been to revert those kinds of edits. I couldn't find anything in WP:BLP or the MOS about dismissed criminal charges - should I continue to revert similar removals in the future? Anerdw (talk) 06:52, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Anerdw, BLP policy calls for us to be very conservative and cautious about including content that might imply criminal guilt. In this case, the individual was arrested four years ago for an offense that is a misdemeanor but is considered highly embarrassing, and the charges were dismissed by a judge three years ago. The person was a notable politician but left office 12 years ago. I see no benefit in keeping this content in the article. Cullen328 (talk) 07:30, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Meeting other editors, making friends, collaborating on articles

Have you ever gone to a Wikipedia article and felt like you've stumbled upon an ancient cairn that hasn't been disturbed for years? Its a cool feeling traipsing Wikipedia and finding long lost articles to improve, but it does feel a bit lonely sometimes. I like venturing off like this but its not the only kind of editing I want to do here. I want to actively collaborate with other editors, not just build upon an article that hasn't been touched by other editors in years. The only "contact" I've had with other editors is through automated bots. I love the idea of Wikiprojects, but they don't give any clear instructions on how to get into contact with other editors on the project, and I don't want to bother them on their talk page with unsolicited requests for a collaboration. I know about the GA article review process as a way of working with other editors and I am planning to both review GA candidates and submit one myself. I was wondering if anyone here knew of ways to meet, talk, collaborate, and make friends with other editors organically and without it feeling forced.

Thanks, Surfinsi (talk) 08:57, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

@Surfinsi: What are your areas of interest? Some WikiProjects can feel like active communities while others are more like ghost towns. If you have a particular article in mind that you want to improve and there seems to be an active WikiProject on the subject, then by all means start a conversation there – the WikiProject's Talk page is usually a good place to start.

There are also a number of Wikipedia and Wikimedia channels on Discord (which is very social) and IRC (which tends to be more solution-oriented). These platforms are moderated but not controlled by Wikimedia volunteers, and discussions about improving Wikipedia content should take place on Wikipedia itself, but Discord in particular does have a kind of collegial coffee-break-room atmosphere that might be what you're after. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email · global) 09:53, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Although the Teahouse is oriented to somewhat more nuts-and-bolts topics, @Surfinsi, I think you’ve raised a great question. After all, meaningful connections help foster not just warm fuzzies but also useful collaboration.

I’ve been amazed to find many new friendships through Wikipedia. And all very organically, mainly at “tables” in the Teahouse, then later at the Help Desk and Village Pump. I'll offer my experience in hopes that it may help inspire you to see possibilities right here.

Almost every friendship with other editors I can think of during my nearly three years as a Wikipedian developed initially in some way, shape, or form through a discussion thread at one of these tables. I don’t know whether more friendships began by me picking up on another editor’s message, or another editor picking up on one of mine. What I do know is that incredible feeling of “Yessss!” when something has deeply resonated with me. It could be a unique shared interest or concern, or an idea proposed to solve a problem or offer fresh perspective. It could also be in just coming across such an insightful and delightful dash of humor that it brightened a week’s worth of clouds.

Often what began in one of these "table" discussion threads was the beginning in turn of further conversation on a Talk page, mine or another editor’s. Or in Discord (which I’ve only recently come to know of: a good place to chat that’s less "out in the open" than a Talk page but not a personal e-mail account).

Now, @Surfinsi, after having made a case for you to think of the Teahouse and other help venues as good places to connect with other Wikipedians, I'll leave you with a much less organic but what looks like a good way to look for groups focused on a particular project, as @ClaudineChionh mentioned in her earlier reply to you: the Find a WikiProject search box. Augnablik (talk) 13:52, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Please help to publish the article if it looks promotional

Please suggest edits for this article Draft:ULYSTAR Satishmnavy85 (talk) 09:50, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, @Satishmnavy85, it has already been speedily deleted by an admin as unambiguously promotional. You will need to start again after reading Help:Your first article. We know from much experience that newcomers to editing who jump straight into creating drafts almost always fail: start instead by improving existing articles on topics that interest you until you have learned how things work here. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:39, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

@Satishmnavy85 You have now restored a version of the article. However, it is clear at a glance that it does not demonstrate that this company, of which you are the CEO, is notable as defined by Wikipedia. Without sources which are in depth, from reliable publications entirely independent of the company, no article is possible. It is likely that it is simply too soon to create one. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:17, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Satishmnavy85, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid that if you continue trying to use Wikipedia to promote your company, you are likely to find yourself blocked.

A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what reliable independent sources have published about its subject, and very little else. What the company (or its personnel or associates) say or wish to say about itself is of almost no interest or relevance to Wikipedia. If you, as a paid editor try to write an article about your company, you will find that this makes it even more difficult than the already challenging task of creating a Wikipedia article, because you will basically need to forget every single thing you know about the company, and write only information which has appeared in independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 14:39, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

@Satishmnavy85: Welcome to the Teahouse. In addition to what users have said above, do not use AI to generate article content. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:56, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Redundancies of content cut. Other stuff cut. Still too soon for any evidence this company meets WP:NCORP. David notMD (talk) 14:44, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Expanding articles

How do I expand articles with adding new information? How to get new articles accepted if they were a stub? - ParticularEvent318 home (speak!). 09:51, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

@ParticularEvent318 Thanks for wanting to improve Wikipedia. Everything here is based on finding appropriate reliable sources and summarizing their content into our articles. So, I suggest you look at topic that interest you and think whether you can find more relevant information that could be included. So, for example, you could look at articles about places near where you live and use local newspapers for new content. Or take some pictures to upload to Wikimedia Commons. Failing that, try the WP:Task centre. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:44, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Good then. What can be a reliable source? - ParticularEvent318 home (speak!). 20:52, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

To answer your second question, as long as articles have sufficient sources to establish notability and they provide sufficient context, stubs have no problem being created. Yeshivish613 (talk) 12:27, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Can stubs be expanded if they have only one sentence? - ParticularEvent318 home (speak!). 20:52, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

@ParticularEvent318 Yes, and they should be! It would be relatively rare to be able to show that a topic was notable in just one sentence. As to reliable sources, please read the page I have linked about that. Mike Turnbull (talk) 21:35, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Ok, can it be blogs or listicles? - ParticularEvent318 home (speak!). 09:28, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

With few exceptions, no. David notMD (talk) 14:45, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Reasoning? - ParticularEvent318 home (speak!). 00:58, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Blogs and listicles are generally not considered reliable sources. There are exceptions, though, for example a blog written by a respected researcher in a field relevant to what is being written about. Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 03:20, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Help on Article

Hi everyone! I am a part of an online communities class, and we have been tasked to create a new Wikipedia page or add onto an existing page. Any help, guidance, or suggestions are welcome as I work to perfect my article. Thank you :) Bubblegum111 (talk) 16:25, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

@Bubblegum111 Welcome to the Teahouse. As you will see if you read some of the other threads on this page, writing articles from scratch is quite difficult for newcomers. Some of that is discussed in this essay. So, my advice would be to spend your time initially adding to existing articles on topics which interest you or where you have some expertise and can recognise gaps and new reliable sources. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:46, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @[[User:Bubblegum111|Bubblegum111], and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia. I'll say it more strongly than Mike: 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) 10:35, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Bubblegum111 Your instructor should review the Wikipedia Education Program materials; requiring the creation of a Wikipedia article is not the best assignment, as much of the process is outside of the control of those undertaking it. Adding to an article is better. 331dot (talk) 10:46, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

You appear to have succeeded in creating PopUp Bagels. Congrats. Still needs work, as has been tagged as having promotional content. David notMD (talk) 14:50, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

By the way they actually have an extremely experienced and proficient instructor, if you look at their contributions. Yeshivish613 (talk) 01:40, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

draft:jsky

Hello, can you kindly review this latest submission. Draft:Jsky

The 3 notable secondary sources used are UK Regional print newspapers which solely discuss Jsky and his achievements:

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/showbiz-news/jsky-stephanie-davis-hollyoaks-celebrity-9091344

https://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/news/25012680.bbc-star-jsky-featured-new-bolton-museum-exhibition/

https://www.burytimes.co.uk/news/20287465.bury-star-jsky-first-carry-commonwealth-baton/ Humphrey.Mulberry (talk) 17:09, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

It seems that Draft:Jsky has had a long history and was rejected (which means "stop trying: this topic is not suitable for Wikipedia") in 2022. The more recent sources still fail to reach our notability requirements, since they are local newspapers giving limited information based mainly on interviews. We need three or so sources which meet the golden rules for good sources. These may appear after his single is released later this year. Mike Turnbull (talk) 21:44, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Tags on my edits

I've had "Tags: possible BLP issue or vandalism" as tags on two of my most recent edits and I'm wondering if I am doing something wrong, or is this expected? Footballcrazyguy (talk) 21:38, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Footballcrazyguy. The filter tags these edits because they may add WP:UNSOURCED content to articles about living people or other problematic stuff. I suggest you read WP:BLP and make sure you're not adding anything against policy. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 22:26, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

@Footballcrazyguy Welcome to the Teahouse. I don't see any problems with the edits [1] or [2] in question. They were marked automatically by software, not editors, and they have not been reverted. I think that the filter may have worried that you have <30 edits and were using foreign-language sources. Mike Turnbull (talk) 22:29, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, I'll keep doing what I'm doing in that case. Footballcrazyguy (talk) 00:03, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

This is not unusual, and wouldn't be considered a negative. I can be specific about both edits here. One is that you say someone has been fired. In many biographies this is worth flagging for a quick review (for review, not reversion). The second is a bit more obscure, and relates to the club name Petrocub Hîncești. If you speak English well, you may be able to see why this was picked up. Filters are coded by humans and not perfect. You'll find you'll hit the filters less after you've made more edits. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:43, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, those explanations make sense for both. I didn't notice the club name until you mentioned it, lol. Footballcrazyguy (talk) 00:03, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Uploading an image for a draft article

I have a draft called Draft:Stewart (brand), and I tried to upload Stewart's logo for the article, but it says I can't upload a image for a draft article when I get to the "What article is this image for" part. How do I upload it? Liam9287 (talk) 21:55, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

@Liam9287: Once your draft is moved to the mainspace, you can upload the image then. Because you want to upload a logo, it’s probably going to be WP:NONFREE content, which only allow such files in the mainspace. cyberdog958^Talk 22:07, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Ok thankk you 😄 Liam9287 (talk) 22:15, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Do you think my draft so far is good? Like the citations? Draft:Stewart (brand) Liam9287 (talk) 00:47, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

No. Three of your four refs are to the company website. You must find refs about Stewart that are independent from the company. David notMD (talk) 14:53, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

User signatures

How can I create a colourful signature for my username? ComeAndJoinTheMusic (talk) 00:44, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Go into Special:Preferences and look for the signature box, where you can edit your signature. ‹hamster717🐉› ^{(discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌🌠)} 02:45, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

There's also a helpful guide at Wikipedia:Signatures. Cheers! ‍Relativity ⚡️ 00:37, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

How do I know that my question has been asked earlier?

Hello all. I am a newbie and still learning "walking steps", so to say. I have a question "Can a stamp be copyrighted"? For instance, today, when I was searching for stamps on HIV, I came across this - https://www.alamy.com/discoverer-of-the-hiv-virus-luc-montagnier-on-stamp-image593202402.html. It shows a stamp issued by Bhutan and is related to HIV. I need to use it in one of my academic works. But it is supposed to be copyrighted by ALAMY. In the past too, I have seen several such stamps copyrighted by them or by some other agencies. My question is "Can someone simply put its logo on a stamp and assert it is copyrighted by them? How do we know for sure, it is copyrighted by them? Can a public image, like that of stamp be copyrighted?" Now my related question. Before putting this question in this group, I was very much aware that this is a common question, and probably has been asked [and answered] in this forum. Since I did not want to clutter up this space, with duplicate questions, I wanted to search for this question. But could not figure out how. For one thing, people might have asked the question using different words. Then how do I search? Are there any keywords or similar things to search for? How? Kindly explain. Thanks. Neotaruntius (talk) 04:24, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Neotaruntius, it's a good idea to "bookmark" c:Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory, from which you can easily reach c:Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Bhutan. And from c:Commons:Stamps you can easily reach c:Commons:Stamps/Asia, though unfortunately all this says about Bhutan is "No information available". ¶ Take "No information available" to mean "Lack of clear evidence that these are anything other than conventionally copyright ('all rights reserved')". If they are, or might be, conventionally copyright, they cannot be used on Wikimedia Commons; and if they can't be used there, they also can't be used on English-language Wikipedia, other perhaps than via a claim of "fair use". ¶ Alamy says that this image was contributed by "Peregrine". Click on the link on that page to "Peregrine", and one sees that this person has uploaded over a hundred images, of which most (all?) are of stamps from a great number of nations. I find it hard to believe that Peregrine has the rights to these. But this is the kind of thing that a website (whether Alamy or Wikipedia) can expect when it invites the carefree/optimistic/feckless to upload what they say is their own. ¶ The best place to ask about image copyright and related matters -- other than "fair use" -- is c:Commons:Village pump/Copyright. -- Hoary (talk) 05:29, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Hoary, thanks. This is as detailed a reply as can be, although at this moment, I can't claim I have understood your answer completely. Instead of a binary yes or no, it is a much nuanced reply and I will need to understand this properly after visiting all these sites you mentioned. I have heard about Village pump, but I did not realize it had sub-sites also. Thanks again. Neotaruntius (talk) 08:23, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

And more, Neotaruntius. "Can someone simply put its logo on a stamp and assert it is copyrighted by them?" If an image is in the public domain, then yes, I believe that someone can do just that. (Making the claim doesn't necessarily mean that the claim will be taken seriously.) And if the "can" in that question is in the epistemic sense (a matter not of authorization but of probability, as it "It can snow in June", or "Nitwits can vandalize Wikipedia"), then yes. ¶ "How do we know for sure, it is copyrighted by them?" You could email Alamy to ask. ¶ "Can a public image, like that of stamp be copyrighted?" I don't know what you mean here by "public image"; but yes, many nations copyright their stamps. -- Hoary (talk) 05:46, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Hoary thanks for the second part. Come to think of it, I also have only a vague idea of what a public image is or should be. I would imagine that the image of sun should be a public image, because it is available for everyone to see and photograph freely. Probably a Bhutan stamp (but not an extremely rare stamp, or, say, the Kohinoor diamond) is also a public image, but I know you will now easily drag me onto a slippery wicket. Well, another important part of my question has remained unanswered. How do I know this question had been asked earlier? I might be asking a question already answered. Sorry, I sound so naive. Actually I am. Thanks. Neotaruntius (talk) 08:35, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Neotaruntius, in this context, "public image" is an unfamiliar term to me. I think that you mean by it something like "image of a sight available to the public". The outside of the building where I live is available to the public (you can come here and view it, or anyway one side of it). The inside is not: If I don't invite you in, you can't come in. But, however incredible it may seem, even the exteriors of buildings facing public streets/roads are, in many parts of the world, not available for published photography, because those areas don't have what's called "freedom of panorama". In many (most?) nations, you also have no right to publish the photographs you take of new statues that anyone is free to view in public places, etc etc. Publicly available/visible stamps, banknotes, posters, etc, must also be assumed to be conventionally copyright ("all rights reserved") unless there's a clear reason for them not to be (public availability/visibility of what's photographed is no reason at all). -- Hoary (talk) 08:49, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

File:Independence Monument (27506800337).jpg is a "fun" example of FOP rules, read through the Licensing templates. Bonus "fun" at [3]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:07, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Hoary, this is really interesting. I would have imagined that I had a right to publish [on my own Facebook page] my own image taken in front of, say, "Statute of Liberty" and someone could have questioned its validity. I do not visit social media sites often, but whenever I do, I find so commonly people post their pictures by the side of, or in front of, famous sights, and no one takes it seriously. Well I think it may also depend on where you are posting it - in an informal Whats-app group or in an academic book available for sale. I realize "copyright" is a big area of law, and probably cannot be discussed in a series of questions and answers, certainly not with a beginner like me, who knows nothing about it. But your statement "In many (most?) nations, you also have no right to publish the photographs you take of new statues that anyone is free to view in public places, etc etc. " really astonished me. I shall keep learning, although currently it seems like an incredibly large ocean for me to swim across. It is fun to learn anyway. Thanks very much. Neotaruntius (talk) 10:50, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

@Neotaruntius To answer the search part of your question: there is a search box that works over the Help pages. You'll find it near the top of this Teahouse page. If you use the keywords "stamp" and "Bhutan" the search returns this hitlist, from which you can see that related questions have been asked and that this thread is already indexed as a hit. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:04, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

... see also Postage stamps and postal history of Bhutan and File:Stamp Bhutan Punakha Dzong bridge 2009 FDC.jpg, which suggests that the stamps are the copyright of the issuing authority, as is the case in very many countries. For the purpose you mention, it will depend on fair use rules in your territory. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:31, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Note that Alamy should not be trusted on matters of copyright. Many of the images which it offers for sale have been copied, without due credit, from Wikimedia Commons. Maproom (talk) 12:36, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes Maproom, this was actually the "core" part of my question. Honestly I wasn't very much worried about Bhutan stamp/its copyright, as much as was the authenticity of Alamy's claim, and the way to check it. I think there are several other similar companies which make similar claims. I think one is Shutterstock or something like that. Not pointing a finger on any one; they may all be making right claims. Just wondered if we can take these claims on their face value, or is there a genuine way of checking it. Thanks to all, who took time to answer a complete newcomer's genuine enquiry. Neotaruntius (talk) 15:11, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

My. Kushwaha of Nepal article is not accepted yet

 Courtesy link: Draft:Kushwaha community of nepal

Please accept it fast Bhaskar sunsari (talk) 06:38, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

@Bhaskar sunsari: What's the rush? Wikipedia is a volunteer service and you cannot make demands on reviewers' time. You can see at the top of the draft submission box that there are over 2,300 drafts waiting for review. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email · global) 07:06, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

sir /mam i understand but this is my first article please accept it fast it will motivate me to write more article please Bhaskar sunsari (talk) 07:09, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, that's now how this works. It's better that you spend some time learning our rules and style guide before trying to create your first article. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email · global) 07:36, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

sir / mam some one decline my article saying it is a copy but i have made it for the kushwaha community of Nepal not India it is different please check it again kushwaha page exist it is for kushwaha of India not nepal I have made it for Nepal kushwaha are present in Nepal also Bhaskar sunsari (talk) 08:09, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Bhaskar sunsari: Now I see that this falls under the Contentious topics procedure so I reiterate that you need to spend more time learning the rules and style guidelines. You will not be allowed to edit or create articles in this area until you have more experience. (This rule applies to all new editors, not just you personally.) — ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email · global) 08:33, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

i understand sir mam but look at once in my article( kushwaha community of nepal ) once it will help nepali kuswahas in study too it have listed their poplulation in different states of nepal and different districts too it is not related with kushwaha of india please sir/mam it will not harm wikipidea if you accept it and if you accept it it will even motivate me do more contribute to wikipidea please accept my article Bhaskar sunsari (talk) 08:46, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Bhaskar sunsari: You have been told why this is not going to happen. Continuing to resubmit it without any changes is just wasting everyone's time. If you think there needs to be a separate article from Kushwaha then you can make a suggestion on that article's talk page. Only do this if you have reliable sources to support your claim. — ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email · global) 09:05, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

ok sir /mam please tell me what changes i have to do to make it accepted i will do changes you will say please ... just tell mei just want to be my article accepted. Bhaskar sunsari (talk) 09:08, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Please slow down. There's no rush, there's no deadline. 331dot (talk) 09:12, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

but sir/mam just tell what changes in have to do i will do please i beg you Bhaskar sunsari (talk) 09:17, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Please read the advice that you have already been given here and on the draft page by Theroadislong, DoubleGrazing, and myself. (By the way, my preferred gender pronouns are in my signature and you do not need to address me as Ma'am.)— ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email · global) 09:18, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

sir i have done too much changes to my page kushwaha community of nepal please accept it now if there is any mistake please suggest me i will correct it ...but look at it once please i m like your brother.... Bhaskar sunsari (talk) 12:50, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

I have declined your draft we already have an article on the topic here Kushwaha. Theroadislong (talk) 07:58, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Stop imploring at Teahouse to have your draft approved. Teahouse hosts are here to advise, not review drafts (although some also serve as reviewers). Repeatedly asking/begging to have your draft approved is just annoying. David notMD (talk) 14:56, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Need to contribute to Wikipedia

I’m an inexperienced editor on Wikipedia. I have been introduced to wiki editing. How do I get started then? Is there a game that introduces me to contributing to encyclopedia? CoolWeb092 (talk). 09:21, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

There is indeed a game! You can find it at The Wikipedia Adventure. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email · global) 09:26, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Is the Wikipedia Adventure new or old? CoolWeb092 (talk). 19:35, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

You can also look at WP:TASKS. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:11, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

I can see this. CoolWeb092 (talk). 23:20, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Keeps getting logged out

MediaWiki keeps logging me out after browsing a few pages. -- Least Action (talk) 13:43, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Incorrect re-edits to updated pages

Why should an author be allowed to revert to an old version of a personality page when the page has been especially re-edited to add updated achievements and information on the given personality? Jashnetalat (talk) 15:44, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Other editors have as much right to aim to improve an article as you have (or more, for a while, now that you've got yourself blocked for edit warring). When your block ends, you should discuss the issues on the article's talk page. Maproom (talk) 18:47, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Question about an article

This article [4] has some issues with it. It needs additional citations for verification and such. But, when I try to do a proposed deletion, it was already nominated. So I was wondering if an article can be re-nominated to be deleted or not. Thanks, Editz2341231 (talk) 16:12, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Editz2341231. Improvement of an article about a clearly notable topic is always preferable to deletion. If you go to Google Books and enter the character string "water weights load testing", you will find quite a few high quality reliable sources on this topic. Select and summarize the best of them, create references to them, and you will have dramatically improved the article. Cullen328 (talk) 19:03, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

@Cullen328 can I still add references to the sentences that are already in the article? Does the amount of content in an article determine it's notability? Editz2341231 (talk) 19:40, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Editz2341231, you are welcome to improve the article in any way you wish. Aside from a very few exceptions, articles don't have notability; however, an article should demonstrate the notability of its subject. Adding to the content of an article goes towards demonstrating the notability of its subject (or increases the obviousness of this notability), as long as the additions are sourced reliably (and, for many kinds of subject, are independent of the subject). -- Hoary (talk) 20:52, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Editz2341231, notability is a property of a topic, not a property of a Wikipedia article about that topic. A poor quality article about a clearly notable topic does not make the topic any less notable. It just means that the article cries out for expansion and improvement. Adding references to reliable sources that devote significant coverage to the topic is a good start. Summarizing those references and adding new content is even better. That's why we are here. Cullen328 (talk) 05:33, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

How to get to extended confirmed

500 edits or 1000? ~ [[User:ComeAndJoinTheMusic|Music]]&nbsp;^{[[User talk:ComeAndJoinTheMusic|''what music?'']]} ~ (talk) 22:23, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi ComeAndJoinTheMusic - As stated at WP:XC "A registered editor becomes extendedconfirmed automatically one edit after the account has existed for at least 30 days and has made at least 500 edits." - Arjayay (talk) 22:27, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Is undoing enough

If I was just testing AFC submissions, was undoing the afc edit to stop the submission? Special:Diff/1283011776 Justjourney (talk) 22:34, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Nominate for deletion?

While expanding stubs I saw an article that doesn't seem to meet requirements based on what I've read. Can I nominate it for deletion as a newbie, or should I do something else? Don't want to overstep. Thanks. Milkywaythegodfather (talk) 23:02, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

@Milkywaythegodfather Absolutely you can - the "worst" thing that will happen is somebody finds better sourcing and makes a snarky comment at you. To mitigate the chances of that, make sure you do a proper WP:BEFORE to determine if the subject might be notable, despite the state of the article. That's going to probably involve looking through Google News, Google Scholar, Google Books, or other similar platforms. If the article's about an academic, however, make sure you look at ou guidelines for determining academic notability. They're very different, and even experienced users get caught out by that. Don't be afraid to withdraw if somebody finds better sourcing, and good luck on your Wikipedia journey! GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 23:16, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Editing on high profile pages

Hello editors, I really wanted to edit articles that are metropolitan related, but for pages, such as Boston, Philadelphia, and New York City, it seems that these articles are monitored and patrolled by extended confirmed editors. Can you please explain how to start an edit to these articles without being it patrolled? Is there a way for an edit to be made un an article without being undone? (Magnent)”Harold” (talk) 23:47, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello @MagnentHarold. Assuming you don't mean the articles aren't extended protected, you can try to be bold and just make the edit and improve the article. If it's reverted, that's okay, because you can always discuss with the reverting editors on the article's talk page. Discussion is how Wikipedia grows. If you really aren't sure your edit will be an improvement or abide by guidelines, you can open up a section on the talk page and ask for advice. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 23:56, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

How can discussions grow on Wikipedia? (Magnent)”Harold” (talk) 00:48, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

What I meant is that discussions is how Wikipedia grows. In a collaborative environment, there will always be conflict. That conflict is settled in discussions. Those discussions are how we find how to improve articles. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 04:37, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Why would there be always conflict? (Magnent)”Harold” (talk) 05:10, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Because human nature leads to conflict. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 05:12, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

A question I would like to ask

Let's say you are new on Wikipedia,then you want to start your own page in your own language,then you start to have some doubts about the language you chose because not everyone knows your language for example myself my language is Sepedi since I live in South Africa so not everyone knows my language

My question says: if you consider the factor could it lead you into no longer creating a page on Wikipedia? Lou tshimo (talk) 00:50, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Question About A Submission

Hey All - I asked 4-5 weeks ago about a submissions "Thomas Haugh" he's a basketball player at the U of Florida. In my initial page, I did not indicate "Thomas Haugh (Basketball)" was hoping somebody could help edit. He's been on a tear during March Madness. Working to prove he's notable! Thanks!

- Grassroots Talk 101 GrassrootHoops101 (talk) 02:15, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Name

Can I change my Wikipedia name? Vestrix (talk) 04:11, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, see Wikipedia:Changing username. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email · global) 04:35, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Pls review Wikipedia:Changing username Moxy🍁 04:35, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

How to cite.

Hi people, how can I cite information from pages? I need assistance on citing articles. SegmentYork390 (talk) 06:19, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi @SegmentYork390, do you mean how do you add a citation/reference to article? Is this what you are looking for? Knitsey (talk) 06:23, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, that is my question. SegmentYork390 (talk) 06:59, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

This might be helpful. Knitsey (talk) 07:05, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Also, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources whilst not exhaustive, can help when choosing a source. Knitsey (talk) 07:08, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

please check my article ( kuswaha community of nepal) and please tell me if i have to do anything changes but fast review Bhaskar sunsari (talk) 07:13, 30 March 2025 (UTC)