Wikipedia:Teahouse

F Killa
F Killa
	File:F Killa.jpg
Background information
Also known as	F Killa
Born	Mohamed Ahmed Mohamed; 29-05-1989; Egypt
Origin	Cairo
Genres	Hip Hop - Rap
Occupations	Rapper and Songwriter
Years active	2006

Shortcuts

Pigsonthewing, 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? Just use this link to ask for help on your talk 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.

To read the newest questions, skip to bottom
About the Teahouse

Most recent archives
1260, 1261, 1262, 1263, 1264, 1265, 1266, 1267, 1268, 1269, 1270, 1271, 1272, 1273, 1274, 1275, 1276, 1277, 1278, 1279

New Year's happy birthday world 🌎 you 2026

Hello! Editors and communities of the English Wikipedia! Today is a great day, New Year's Day is widely celebrated on Wikipedia, and perhaps all over the world, as a global holiday! Never tire of developing and protecting Wikipedia! We wish you all a happy New Year 2026! We appreciate every edit!😍 Thanks! (Iluziya7 (talk) 17:00, 31 December 2025 (UTC))[reply]

@Iluziya7: Happy New Year! 2026 will mark Wikipedia's 25th anniversary! Yup, a quarter of a century of existence, I don't think Jimmy Wales ever thought that this project would last past its first year, let alone 25 years. Let's hope that this 25th year of Wikipedia's existence will be a great one! _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Contributions)} 17:03, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SignedInteger. Oh, so be it! I believe Wikipedia will last forever! (Iluziya7 (talk) 17:07, 31 December 2025 (UTC))[reply]

Me too! 72011copperfan2 (talk) 19:06, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, its been 25 years since this has started? Guess I chose the right time to join.

(happy early new year) Starry~~(Starlet147) 02:07, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

lol Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 02:08, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Whyiseverythingalreadyused. Thank you, thank you, and may you be blessed! Now 2026 has arrived! (Iluziya7 (talk) 04:21, 1 January 2026 (UTC))[reply]

You too lol

(It was already 2026 for me when I said that) Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 04:22, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Me to! 72011copperfan2 (talk) 02:09, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@72011copperfan2, @SignedInteger, @Starlet147, @Whyiseverythingalreadyused: We appreciate your contribution to Wikipedia! Thank you. Today is the first day of 2026, January 1st. Can you imagine? Let's all imagine, this gives me some great motivation, great, may this year be a good one for you on Wikipedia and in life! Good luck to you all! Thank you! 🌍👋 (04:24, 1 January 2026 (UTC)) Iluziya7 (talk) 04:24, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

2026! 72011copperfan2 (talk) 14:52, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@72011copperfan2. Thanks! (Iluziya7 (talk) 15:12, 1 January 2026 (UTC))[reply]

@Starlet147. Okey, Thanks, 2026 New Year's happy (Iluziya7 (talk) 04:20, 1 January 2026 (UTC))[reply]

Happy New Year all! Ajron Bach (talk) 08:09, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little late but happy new year! DominikTuazon (talk) 17:43, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

God Bless /) Ajron Bach (talk) 21:13, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Welp, 1 week and 2 days passed since. Versions111 (talk • contribs) 02:28, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If those 9 days were bad, there are still 356 days to work to compensate for that, and to end up with a positive year "score" 😁 ~2025-41312-06 (talk) 02:43, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hahaha! Well, yes, there is mate! Let’s make it a good one for the Wiki. Ajron Bach (talk) 07:48, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Belated happy new year ;-) — SimmeD (talk) 08:07, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Next up is Burn’s Night if your Scottish. Ajron Bach (talk) 08:16, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Same to you. Cheers! DominikTuazon (talk) 22:21, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

HAPPY NEW YEAR ~2026-16002 (talk) 13:20, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's Jan 12, and people are still celebrating. Forgive me if it's timezones, but wow. Not complaining, though. Starry~~(Starlet147) 13:45, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability of BBC

How reliable is BBC, compared to others? ~2026-10251-8 (talk) 22:54, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @~2026-10251-8! This is not the place to ask that question (at least I think it isn't, could be wrong here), but according to Wikipedia's own discussions about the BBC's reliability, the answer is "generally reliable". _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 23:00, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The Teahouse is rarely the only place, but it is always a suitable place for newcomers to ask questions about Wikipedia. jlwoodwa (talk) 05:01, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Jlwoodwa, @SignedInteger, Thanks for your answers! Very true. (Infinitywiki2 (talk) 15:10, 9 January 2026 (UTC))[reply]

In the future, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard is a great place for questions regarding the reliability of a specific source. You can also check Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources to see past discussions regarding a source, and a helpful chart for the consensus of sources that are frequently used. Jcgaylor (talk) 21:02, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

bias in talk sections

obviously editors can't be biased in arcticles, but is it okay/normal to state your opinion, bias, and even background in talk sections? and what are the rules for innapropraite behavior in talk sections? sorry if this is already answered somewhere. thanks! 295rain$drop (talk) 01:02, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on talk pages is only about how the page can best be improved according to Wikipedia's regulations and guidelines, not for discussing the topic itself.

Does that help? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 01:09, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

To answer the title, indeed it's allowed: if it wasn't, our articles would be terrible because of the lack of varied view points and different discussions (alliteration unintentional). The most important rule is to be civil and respectful to your fellow editors (it's policy!). — Preceding unsigned comment added by ImMrCarZigzag (talk • contribs) 03:18, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is an encyclopaedia. The aim is to document facts. It’s not an outlet for opinions. So no. While it would certainly be good to know any biases you have, people are more likely to take them into account in reverting your changes. You can put a (brief) explanation of your background on your own user page if it’s relevant to your edits. MmeMaigret (talk) 01:41, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

TooManyFingers is correct in that talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article, not it's topic. ImMrCarZigzag (talk|contribs) 03:18, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Tag?

Someone had put a "needs citations" tag on an article. I've added a lot of context and links to it, but I'm not sure if it's enough to remove the tag. Could someone take a quick look and remove the tag if they feel it's good enough now (or let me know what I should do to make it better). Thanks!

Brooklyn–Queens Greenway. Robin the Bobbin (talk) 00:21, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any facts in the article that a reader would not be sure which source they came from? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 04:11, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The stuff that I added all has a lot of citations and I feel it's well sourced (let me know if you disagree).

There is some older stuff that talks about the route. It is correct information. I don't know how that would be sourced, other than just pointing to a map, which doesn't feel right. Robin the Bobbin (talk) 14:32, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You're right that if you read the sourcing rules, and think about them for a while, you can conclude that pointing to a map should not be how Wikipedia does things. There was a fairly recent case in which another editor reached that conclusion and, being a rules-are-above-reasons type, he quickly went around deleting anything he found that was based on a map. He didn't misread the rules; he just failed to think. He got blocked from doing that anymore, hopefully before he caused too much damage.

So, you're right to let that map stuff just be how it is. Use of maps is an area where Wikipedia's official rules are not really reasonable. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 20:24, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Robin the Bobbin I'm confused already, in the very first paragraph. First it says "is", then it says "would be". Why is it written this way? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 20:27, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think my problem is that the article is very unclear about what kind of thing the Brooklyn–Queens Greenway is. Is it an unfinished proposal to connect some things that already existed? Is it an unfinished project that was newly planned from scratch? This type of information needs to be in the very first sentence, so people will know what they're reading about. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 18:30, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize the first paragraph was so confusing; thanks for your perspective from someone who doesn't already know about the project! I've re-written it; does it make more sense now?

In short, it's an old plan that has had infrastructure added in fits and starts, but as of yet is not fully completed. The "path" already exists in the sense that you can travel from one point to another along the route, just like any other path you could draw on a map. But the infrastructure to separate people from cars (the "greenway" aspect of it) only exist in certain sections.

Let me know if this helps get the tag off or if you need anything else. Appreciate the help! Robin the Bobbin (talk) 12:42, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It still starts by saying it's a complete path (with unprotected parts), and then says what the path would connect IF it was complete, seeming to prove that it isn't complete after all. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 03:31, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I re-wrote it so it's super clear from the first sentence that it's a plan. Let me know if it's looking better. Robin the Bobbin (talk) 11:45, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

My first article Lemon water

Hello! I created this article and have since improved it with proper formatting and multiple reliable sources. Could someone please review it and, if appropriate, assess it as Start-class? Thanks for your time. Jr·NTR (talk) 23:04, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused with this article. It seems very Wikipedia:BACKWARD to me, that you began with no sources at all, and now you have fifteen (!) - this is a small article, it's not going to get much bigger, and it seems to be mainly original research followed by a huge list of sources that have questionable reliability.

Could you please try getting rid of all the health-magazine-type sources? They're generally not likely to be reliable, they often contain false medical claims which means we can't endorse them, and anyway they're totally unnecessary. You'll get much better and more honest information from food publications anyway. I mean, maybe the Cleveland Clinic is reliable, I don't know, ... but not health magazines.

And you have a ton of sources that seem to be just sitting there unused, which seems odd. Were you planning to expand the article using health information? Any time you write about health and medicine, you have to follow WP:MEDRS, which is extremely strict about what sources are allowed to be used. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 00:14, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you could have (and maybe should have) started and finished this article with just two good sources, instead of starting with zero and then throwing in everything. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 00:17, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. Just to clarify my workflow: I didn’t start by writing content without sources and then search for references afterward. I first collected and reviewed sources offline, noted the information, and then added content incrementally as I formatted and structured the article. The sources were added alongside the relevant content during that process.

That said, I understand the concern about source quality and WP:MEDRS. I’m happy to trim health-magazine-type sources, remove unused references, and keep the article focused on basic preparation, usage, and nutrition from higher-quality food or nutrition sources. I’ll revise accordingly. Jr·NTR (talk) 00:25, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please, with the health magazines: slash and burn them all, don't just trim a little :) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 00:30, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you did plan to use the good sources to expand the article more, then do keep them. I don't want to stop you from continuing to improve this. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 00:33, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

😄 Got it — now i am confused briefly, enlightened eventually. Health magazines are gone. Thanks for the nudge. Jr·NTR (talk) 00:38, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"Health", "Fitpass", and "Dash Water" are that kind too, unfortunately. Maybe even a few more. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 00:53, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Done ✔️ Jr·NTR (talk) 00:56, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The "Economic Times" one is making health claims, so cut it too. Same with "Medical News Today", "EatingWell", and "Vogue". TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 01:01, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve removed EatingWell, Medical News Today, and Vogue entirely. I’ve kept The Economic Times only for the single factual statement that >Lemon water is low in calories< all other health-claim sources have been removed. Jr·NTR (talk) 01:08, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed it - Cleveland Clinic already has calorie info TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 01:15, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks for taking care of that.(: Jr·NTR (talk) 01:16, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

To me, eight sources still seems like a lot, when the article is basically "Water. Lemon. Mmmm, nice." :)

But since the sources I thought were bad quality are gone now, I'm happy enough.

(And by "bad quality" I mean only that they aren't qualified to make health and medical claims, but they do it anyway. A very common type of source to always avoid.) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 02:15, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

One of these days I'll make a wiki for people to write these kinda stupid infodumpy articles, since I like reading them mgjertson (talk) (contribs) 19:06, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jr·NTR, unfortunately it looks like the image you added can't be added to Wikimedia Commons or Wikipedia because the source shows no indication that the author released it under a Creative Commons licence. If you are not the author, you should add {{SD|G7}} to the top of the file page so it can be deleted. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 03:53, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is kind of crazy, as my articles have more sources than a common grocery item. Congratulations, new user. - The Khan of the universe and the Hoofed animals. (talk) 14:52, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Creating a Wikipedia page

Hi, please forgive my lack of knowledge on how this process works. I'm a Retired Navy SEAL of over 20 years, a counter terrorism expert and multi-published author. I wanted to create a page for my public profile as I recently took on another hat of being a CEO. In this process it directed me to write an article for submission. I did that and it was denied, with no reason given and I was told I could not resubmit it. I have articles written about me, but I can't see where I would be able to submit those, if that's even allowed. I say all of this to simply ask for help on how I can go about getting my page created and how to navigate the article submission part. Any feedback, advice or assistance is greatly appreciated. MartyStrong5326 (talk) 17:34, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, dont bother. Trying to write a wikipedia article about yourself is one of the most difficult things you can attempt here.

It is also positively discouraged by WP:COI Walter Ego 17:40, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @MartyStrong5326. Your draft, at User:MartyStrong5326/sandbox, bears no resemblance to an encyclopaedic article. It's pure spam, which is not what Wikipedia is for. qcne (talk) 17:41, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(and I have now marked it for deletion) qcne (talk) 17:42, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Marty. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, we do not host resumés or "public profiles" such as the one you've written for yourself, which seems to be designed purely to promote yourself, something which is forbidden here.

This is rather like wondering why an architectural magazine won't publish photos of your dog, or why you can't get a blurb about your career published as a foreword in a quantum physics textbook. There is no better answer to give than "you're in the wrong place entirely". The kind of thing you're looking to publish is probably better off somewhere like Linkedin or Substack. Athanelar (talk) 17:51, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I would have been so much more bold in my response above if I thought this pile-on would occur. I'll be far less timid next time. - Walter Ego 17:54, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @MartyStrong5326, and welcome to the Teahouse.

A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what the majority of people who are wholly unconnected with the subject have independently chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, (see Golden rule) and not much else. What you know (or anybody else knows) about the subject is not relevant except where it can be verified from a reliable published source.

Do you see how difficult that will make it to write about yourself? You would have to start by finding several places where people completely unconnected with you, and not prompted by or fed information on behalf of you, have chosen to publish at some length about you.

Assuming you can find such sources (which is not true for most people in the world), you would then need to forget everything you knew about yourself (!) and write a summary of what those sources said. Even if they left out something important. Even if they said nasty things about you. ColinFine (talk) 17:52, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the feedback from everyone. I misunderstood the purpose, process and guidelines. Thank you for taking the time to weigh in. MartyStrong5326 (talk) 18:29, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to contribute to the encyclopedia elsewhere, we'd be glad to have you :) mgjertson (talk) (contribs) 19:15, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Good source databases

I want to find reliable sources on a topic, like scholar journals and peer-reviewed publications. Are there any (hopefully free) databases available where I could easily find this type of content? DominikTuazon (talk) 19:45, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Users who have 500 or more total edits, and who are still active (at least 10 of their edits are recent ones), can use Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library for that. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 20:12, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @DominikTuazon, and welcome to the Teahouse.

If there were, it would make editing Wikipedia so much easier ;-)

There may be for particular fields but in general, tools like Google Scholar and Google books are the best we have.

You might want to look through WP:RS and in particular WP:RSP to get a sense of some sources which are and are not reliable. ColinFine (talk) 20:20, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've used Google Scholar many times, but I was wondering if there were any additional/better databases available, which it doesn't seem like. Thank you though! DominikTuazon (talk) 21:41, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@DominikTuazon Note that we have the resource exchange where you can request access to a source you know exists but can't access yourself. Good sourcing varies by topic, so you should certainly look at the Wiki Project pages for the topics you are interested in. Mike Turnbull (talk) 22:19, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:00, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look there. Thank you! DominikTuazon (talk) 22:22, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The Internet Archive is not specifically academic, but it includes some journals. Check out this collection. It will never guarantee to have what you want, but if you can get past the iffy metadata and awkward search facilities, there is a lot of stuff in it. -- Verbarson ^talk_edits 16:28, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! That might be helpful. DominikTuazon (talk) 22:22, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Notability question (Rebrickable)

Per the earlier thread, I submitted Draft:Rebrickable for review. While it waits for review, how is the sourcing so far? Is it notable enough to warrant a page? As I stated earlier, I think it is, although the sources take a bit of searching to find, and there were others I didn't list in the article. NewAccount7295 (talk) 23:55, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Rebrickable is a notable topic for inclusion to Wikipedia WP:ORGIND. The actual issue that that your article is just a stub. Add more information and sources.And also make sure that your sources are reliable and independent. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 03:07, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, NewAccount7295. Wikipedia's notability policy requirement is that there is significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. Are there two or three sources (either amongst those you've cited in the draft or others you've found) that you think are independent and provide some depth of coverage of Rebrickable? If so, could you identify them here so that we can take a closer look? Cordless Larry (talk) 09:01, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I believe so. I added this source to the article from The Direct: https://thedirect.com/article/lego-sets-alternative-builds NewAccount7295 (talk) 14:15, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That source appears to use Rebrickable itself as a source, but I'm not sure that counts as coverage of Rebrickable. Putting that aside though, I asked for two or three sources, and that's just one. Are there others that provide depth of coverage? Cordless Larry (talk) 14:20, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The article from The Direct makes two statements about Rebrickable, aside from mentioning it many times to discuss MOCs from there:

"Luckily, the website Rebrickable allows LEGO fans to look up the sets in their collection and discover new ways to rebuild them."

"All of the instructions for these alternate designs and more can be found on Rebrickable."

Here were some others I didn't list:

Technabob (/blog/2011/09/10/rebrickable-lego-website/); defunct website
https://www.wired.com/2015/04/lego-master/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/parenting/interactive/2023/lego-bricks-colors-history/
https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2023/sep/25/how-lego-bricks-went-from-five-colors-to-nearly-20/

NewAccount7295 (talk) 14:28, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The Wired source is good and is the sort of coverage you need to demonstrate notability. It's an article about Rebrickable, whereas some of the others just mention it in passing. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:32, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources are the most significant (both here and in the article) for notability? NewAccount7295 (talk) 14:37, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't inspected them all in detail, but I'd say the Wired source looks like the best one. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:50, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'd consider The Direct source to be a significant source since it is about MOCs from Rebrickable and mentions the website twenty times. NewAccount7295 (talk) 16:11, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The Wired one tells us more about the website and how it works though, so I think it's more useful for basing content on - which is ultimately what the need for significant coverage come from. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:55, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I used The Direct source in the paragraph discussing MOCs. Regardless of if you can base content from it, I do think it can help establish notability. Would you agree with that? NewAccount7295 (talk) 16:57, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If something doesn't provide much content, then it's not providing significant coverage on its own, though it may contribute to significant coverage when considered in combination with other sources. See WP:WHYN on this. Anyway, let's see what the reviewer makes of it. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:00, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Direct mentions of self-published books

or "I may have restarted an edit war"

The edit war in question is on Fake memoir, concerning the book "Daddy, an Absolutely Authentic Fake Memoir" by Andrea Troy (iUniverse, 2008). There's extensive discussion on the talk page, which I'm linking directly. I removed the book because it was self-published and did not appear to recieve extensive coverage, making it feel like an advertisment. I'm working on overhauling the page for structure and negative tone issues. If the book should be mentioned, I'm happy to restore it, as I'm adding a new section where it would fit better..

Context: "The controversy over falsified memoirs inspired Andrea Troy to write a satiric novel, Daddy – An Absolutely Authentic Fake Memoir (2008).[citation needed]"

Arguments to keep:

Self-published works can be sources for themselves
Notability guidelines do not limit article content
It's a satire of other memoirs mentioned in the article

Arguments to remove:

User who added the book the first time only edited things about the book (and made a spelling correction)
No independent coverage
Current placement in the article doesn't make sense, implying users adding it don't care about where it's going
Low review counts, which imply low readership

Thanks in advance! You've been really helpful. SenshiSun (talk) 01:59, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I don't see evidence of edit warring on Fake memoir--that usually specifically means that people are repeatedly reverting the page. It seems like there were issues back in 2011 but it doesn't look like your edits restarted it. If the problem does reoccur, you could try following some of the suggestions at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, but I feel like it probably will. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 04:04, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. Nobody's reverted that change yet. I'm still not sure if it should be used. SenshiSun (talk) 22:02, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If it’s been uncited for a long time and there’s no independent coverage, I think you’re right to remove it. Others may disagree, in which case you can follow WP:BRD. I wouldn’t stress about it too much! SomeoneDreaming (talk) 02:17, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Finding suitable images to use on Wikipedia for lesser-known subjects

Hi, I have never uploaded an image to a Wikipedia article before and I am writing my first article. How do people go about finding an image for older topics that are lesser-known? In particular, I am trying to write a draft for Soccer Boy, a Japanese race horse. It appears impossible to find an appropriate image that falls within guidelines. The existing Japanese article does not have any images of the horse himself. In such a situation am I SOL? Also is it appropriate to use an image for my article that was someone else's original work? Said image is already in the Wikimedia Commons. Thank you. AVSnewscast (talk) 09:44, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Images are a "nice to have" thing, not a requirement. If you can't find one, don't worry about doing so. If you're going to submit your draft for a review via the Article Wizard, images are not relevant to the draft process, which only considers the text and sources. 331dot (talk) 09:47, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, thanks. Is anything on the Wikimedia Commons just free game though? AVSnewscast (talk) 09:53, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, images from Commons are fine for use. 331dot (talk) 09:56, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, thanks a bunch. AVSnewscast (talk) 10:04, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Since the horse in question died in 2011, I would argue that it would be permissible to use one non-free image of him, as 'fair use', in the article once accepted (but not in the draft) if no free images can be found. However, if there is a photo of him correctly submitted in Commons, that would preclude this. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2025-31359-08 (talk) 11:59, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter if the free-use image has been submitted to Commons. If a suitable free-use image exists we cannot claim fair use of a non-free image. Not a concern in this case, but we can't even claim fair use of a non-free image when no suitable free-use image exists but it would be possible to create one. Meters (talk) 12:29, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I meant to convey that if the image that the OP says is in Commons is actually free-use (though it might not be – mistakes are made) then it necessarily excludes fair use of any non-free image. The same obviously applies if there is a free-use image not (yet) in Commons. I fail to see how, if no free-use image currently exist, it would be possible to create one of a horse that has been dead for 15 years; what have I overlooked? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2025-31359-08 (talk) 15:56, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my mistake. I should have noticed that you wrote "in Commons", meaning a free-use image. And yes, my aside about any possibility of creating a free-use image precluding any fair-use of a non-free image does not apply here. That's what I meant by Not a concern in this case. Meters (talk) 00:45, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Help with deletion nomination for Academy Award & Emmy winner

I am the subject of the page Perry Kivolowitz. It has been nominated for deletion (notability and other issues). I submit I've earned a modicum of notability.

Academy Award (Sci-Tech) winner - tech behind Forrest Gump and Titanic morphs, for example
Emmy (Engineering) winner - SilhouetteFX really is a backbone of the VFX industry
Author of first documented software key logger
Author of first recoverable RAM disk - made development on the Commodore Amiga more livable
Author of early USENIX paper on WORM (e.g. CD and DVD) file systems
Founder of multiple businesses over a period of 40 years including one acquired by a public company (AVID Technology)
A CS Professor and Department Chair for 9 years at Carthage College and 10 years (non-tenure track) at University of Wisconsin.

But the page really has become a time shifting mess as folks added and changed things.

While many independent citations are provided, it needs more.

I am looking for an experienced editor to help improve the sourcing and ensure the page meets notability and sourcing standards.

Thank you very much!

(p.s. I have demonstrated some effort in the spirit of Wikipedia by providing photographs of famous Computer Scientists such as Dennis Richie and Gene Amdahl) Pkiv (talk) 10:29, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you're the subject of an article then you have a conflict of interest and should not be involved in the deletion discussion. I'd advise that you just let it run its course. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 11:35, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is not correct. While they generally shouldn't directly edit the article about them(making edit requests instead) they are allowed to participate in a deletion discussion just as anyone else can, as long as they are open about who they are. 331dot (talk) 11:46, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for any contributions of photographs you may have made to Commons, Pkiv. Now, as for "an experienced editor to help improve the sourcing and ensure the page meets notability and sourcing standards", don't be surprised if you receive applications from people eager to help you (for a fee). Please read and digest Wikipedia:Scam warning. -- Hoary (talk) 11:42, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Pkiv. I am neutral, and remain uninvolved, on the question of deleting or retaining the article (though I wish you luck), but I feel I should clarify one matter.

In terms of Wikipedia articles, "Notability" (an unfortunately misleading piece of Wikipedia jargon) is not so much a question of what you have done or achieved (other than perhaps receiving awards which are themselves notable – which in practice means the awards already have Wikipedia articles about them); it's more a question of whether multiple Reliable sources have actually published material of substantial length about you independently of any involvement by yourself or any person or establishment directly connected to you: see the essay WP:Golden rule for a longer explanation.

It's not infrequently the case, particularly for scholars, scientists and technicians, that although they have significant achievements, no-one unconnected with them has published very much about them. This is a sad reflection on society's, and journalists', attitudes towards such areas, and unfortunately makes it harder to get a Wikipedia article over the "notability threshold."

So, for example, if nobody has written at some length about you being the author of the first documented software key logger, the fact that you are may well merit mention in the article, but it cannot contribute to that article proving your "notability" in the Wikipedian sense. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2025-31359-08 (talk) 16:23, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Pkiv (talk) 22:17, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia articles are designed to be "a time shifting mess as folks add and change things" - that's how it works. No person is in control of an article, and most especially and scrupulously not the person who's the subject. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 03:57, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Social media not being a reliable source

Hello everyone, do you know the reason on why is social media not a reliable source to cite with? Thank you for this. ~2026-20139-4 (talk) 14:17, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because someone could be impersonating the person and anyone could write what they want Bps2 (talk) 15:17, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @~2026-20139-4! We've had this question before so I'm getting a weird sense of Deja vu. But the short answer is: It's not reliable because it is user-generated. There are times where citing social media is allowed (see Wikipedia:ABOUTSELF for example), but usually social media is not a reliable source that can be cited on Wikipedia. As I said before, there are exceptions to this but not too many. _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 15:21, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect we've had this exact question, with the same typos. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 22:55, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@TooManyFingers: Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_1277#Social_media_not_being_a_reliable_source. Literally the exact same question with the exact same name. Are we being played here? _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 22:59, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 23:20, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I need to move an article

I need to move this article User:Bps2/sandbox and call it "BE MORE GRATEFUL (Studio Album)", but it tells me that the name is blacklisted: I'm sure it's not, what's happening? Bps2 (talk) 15:16, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Bps2: I'd recommend moving it to the draftspace instead (ie. Draft:Be More Grateful). Also no need for the (studio album) or (album) distinction, there is no article named "Be More Grateful". Now as for the title, DaBaby's article writes it as "Be More Grateful" (in case caps) and the DaBaby discography article also writes it with case caps so I'd assume that is the correct way to stylize the title, unless another editor says otherwise.

I'll be helping you move it to the draftspace now. _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 15:26, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah sorry I'm pretty new to Wikipedia, also I'm sure it is in caps because every source + Spotify tells it, also I need help: it has been submitted for speedy deletion or something, but there was nothing wrong with it. How do I make it a normal page? Right now I only have the draft. Bps2 (talk) 15:34, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Bps2: I put that tag there because it's now a redirect to your draft (see your talk page for more information, also, redirects to draftspace articles are usually deleted for R2). However, as for the title, I think you can ask for help on that at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums. _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 15:38, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ok: I removed a source that they told me doesn't count (streaming service), now I think that the page is ready: I can't move it as "Be More Grateful", but I would like to do it (and in a permanent way) and make the page stay on the site. How do I proceed? Bps2 (talk) 15:43, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Bps2: I still recommend against moving the article. You may think that it is ready, but I, and very likely a few other editors will disagree and move it back to the draftspace. The draft won't go away from Wikipedia that quickly, in fact, unless you don't edit it for six months, there's a low chance that it will be deleted (or tagged for speedy deletion). The best thing to do when making a new article is to take your time with it instead of rushing it to the mainspace. Otherwise, you may have to go to Wikipedia:Why was the page I created deleted?. I will be giving you a few more handy templates to use when making an article about an album, but I also recommend looking at other articles about albums by DaBaby so that you can compare them to your draft and see what they're like. _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 15:48, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

SignedInteger is right about the title; MOS:ALLCAPS states to Avoid writing with all caps (all capital letters), including small caps (all caps at a reduced size), when they have only a stylistic function. As for moving to mainspace, seconded on the above comment. Jolly1253 (talk) 15:56, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oh ok thanks! Bps2 (talk) 20:47, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons

I noticed it specifically was referring to living people specifically. Why is that? Are the rules for articles on dead people any different? Marksaeed2024 (talk) 17:24, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Marksaeed2024: The reason for why BLP exists is because of the Wikipedia Seigenthaler biography incident, which is also why Wikipedia:Articles for creation exists. As for the rules of biographies of deceased persons, I must admit that I'm not aware of any, but I do think that you should still be careful when making those. (Also see Wikipedia:Notability (people)) _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 17:43, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Marksaeed2024: I should note that I'm not aware of any rules specifically related to biographies of deceased persons. I'd assume that there's a good chance that some if not all of the guidelines for Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons would still apply to biographies of deceased persons. I could be wrong here and for that I do apologise. _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 17:47, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

version original ~2026-20511-4 (talk) 18:01, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If the person has only died recently, like the last couple of years, then BLP still applies. And of course a substantial proportion of biographies of people who died in the last few decades will include biographical information on their living relatives - so BLP still applies at least for that information. Not only that, but the living relatives may not be public figures, hence the concern for caution and strict sourcing. Ϣere SpielChequers 18:35, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

To be more specific by "recently", Wikipedia:BDP uses the range of "the last 115 years". _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 18:37, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You have misread; the relevant section says:

Anyone born within the past 115 years ([relevant date inserted on-the-fly]) is covered by this policy unless a reliable source has confirmed their death. Generally, this policy does not apply to material concerning people who are confirmed dead by reliable sources. The only exception would be for people who have recently died, in which case the policy can extend for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death—six months, one year, two years at the outside.

[my emphasis] Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:52, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. Another mistake by me. Ignore anything I said in this section because as per usual I am an idiot who has no idea what they're talking about. _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 18:59, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm often a literal-minded type, so the question makes sense to me. The answer, as I see it: Living people need to be protected from harm, living people can cause harm (from which we need to protect ourselves), and living people are much more likely to cause controversy or be dragged into it. Taking care of those things is unnecessary (or far far less) for people who died some time ago. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 23:11, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Marksaeed2024 One reason for the policy is that in almost all jurisdictions, libelling living people is a crime, whereas in most it is not a crime to libel the dead. See Defamation#Defamation as a crime for the details. Mike Turnbull (talk) 23:27, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple small edits vs one big edit vs doesn't matter

I suspect multiple small edits trigger "vandalism". On GitHub, everyone subscribed receive a notification for each small change, and they get annoyed with that. Does someone with a higher role or something receive a notification for each edit I (temporary account, or "permanent" account) make? Is every single change literally each user makes analyzed in its smallest details? Hard to think a volunteer-driven site like Wikipedia would have so much work force, but I've already seen it happen in other volunteer-driven places, so it's 100% possible. What about users? Can normal low-rank users subscribe to a topic too and therefore getting annoyed with the notifications they receive from my small edits? Doing "atomic" changes is my habit because it's better to control, better to let summaries, and because otherwise I'd not be doing anything at all (I'd be in that constant "always preparing" stagnant situation when I'm always with a draft and never sending it because I don't want to annoy other people or send something imperfect, while it would be GOOD if I sent it imperfect because other people could collaborate and correct it, which is another reason of doing small changes). I also sometimes only spot mistakes some time after I publish them. This fear of getting tagged as vandalism and having my edits reverted may dis-motivate me from making future edits, but since I'm new I may learn to adapt with time and this thoughts may be temporary.

Context: I'm afraid of getting changes reverted again like it was on my changes on the SimpleX Chat page, the sources were there, I just had to reorganize them (I think it's possible to refer to the same source across multiple sections of the article), and I saw that the page is with activity from other people too, so they would be able to help me to organize better my edits, and that information I added is well known so I trust they would quickly edit. I was literally still working on that page reorganizing the sources in the same moment when my changes got reverted, so I lost my climax, and now I'm just waiting until my will is good again so I try it again

New Wikipedia editor, but reader for ~1.5 years ~2025-41312-06 (talk) 18:53, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I make a lot of small changes. I don't know if that bothers anyone, but it probably isn't bothering anyone badly, because I've done thousands upon thousands of them, and people only complain when I'm actually wrong.

I think it's probably best to NOT do huge complex multiple-aspects-multiple-changes edits all at once. Breaking those into reasonable chunks makes it easier to find any mistakes that crept in. But even if you do a large all-at-once edit, it's not bad, just not my preference. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 22:51, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The general advice, especially for newcomers, is to make relatively small edits. For example, for each source you are citing make the relevant edit which will summarise the information from that source. Then move on to the next source. The advantage is that other editors who disagree with what you have added from any single source can revert just that part and leave untouched your other contributions. Most editors have WP:watchlists where they follow changes to articles they are interested in but can set up the filters on the list to only show the latest revision. Hence they will only in effect "see" the last of your edits, not all the earlier ones, until they actually visit the article and look at its full history. Mike Turnbull (talk) 23:12, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Lots of single issue edits are much easier to deal with. This is particularly true when a combined edit affects multiple sections of an article. Meters (talk) 00:51, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The only time I'd do multiple sections is for really simple stuff, for example one person's name being misspelled many times throughout. Stuff that's easy and very unlikely to need reverting. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 01:39, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

um.

Alright, I’ve been reverting vandalism for about two years now, but this is first time I have ever gotten a death threat on my talk page before. What am I supposed to do here? (On my talk page, it’s the latest topic, titled Idiot)

help Shadestar474 (they/he) ^(talk) 20:16, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I’m aware it’s most likely an empty threat, but I don’t know if I want that just sitting there on my talk page, so. Am I allowed to revert it or something? Should I report them to AIV? (my cvua training never got this far so I have no clue what to do-) Shadestar474 (they/he) ^(talk) 20:18, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Shadestar474: You should report them ASAP. They're going to get blocked anyway since they're clearly Wikipedia:NOTHERE and are only here to troll others. (See their talk page). This can happen since...well it's the Internet unfortunately but the best thing to do is to not take it seriously, relax, remove the personal attack from your talk page, and then report it at WP:AIV. There are few times where this shouldn't be the course of action, like for example where it gets serious (ie. the vandal tries to out you by leaking personal information), then you should contact an oversighter for help on removing that. I know I'm a bit late here, but yeah. _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 20:25, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Luckily, they’ve already been blocked. Shadestar474 (they/he) ^(talk) 20:27, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Though, yeah, I will definitely revert that stuff and report those people from now on, now that I know I can. Shadestar474 (they/he) ^(talk) 20:28, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah but in case it ever happens again, just don't take it seriously. Obviously you should get it purged from the edit history (theoversighters are here to remove things like that). There are few times where it should be taken seriously. It will probably happen again but eh, to quote a user essay: "If a vandal insults you, it is a reliable indicator that you are doing something right." _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 20:31, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, thanks. Like I said earlier, most of the time they’re just completely empty threats. (but wow, that was unexpected) Shadestar474 (they/he) ^(talk) 20:37, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Seems it's already been reverted by Materialscientist but yes, you are more than entitled to revert that sort of thing (you can remove whatever you want on your talk page, but stuff like this you should remove no matter where you see it) and absolutely do report them to AIV Athanelar (talk) 20:21, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I’ll do that from now on. Shadestar474 (they/he) ^(talk) 20:23, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You can also take a look at WP:REVDEL since stuff like that is 100% eligible to be revision-deleted (i.e., purged from the edit history so nobody can see it) Athanelar (talk) 20:25, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also see WP:SOS. CodeTalker (talk) 21:56, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Submitting an article for review.

Hello - I am trying to get my article, which now sits in my sandbox, submitted for review. What should I do next. Jlibbra (talk) 20:28, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Jlibbra: I checked your sandbox. First off, the biggest issue that I can notice is the formatting, but aside from that, the sources used are not good. Do not cite Wikipedia as a source, Wikipedia (rather fittingly) does not consider Wikipedia itself to be a reliable source of information, so citing it is not allowed. _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 20:47, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, got it. Jlibbra (talk) 23:51, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Jlibbra I suggest you take your sources which meet our golden rules for good sources and use them to expand the article List of John Deere tractors. It is often best for new editors to learn how Wikipedia works by expanding existing articles rather than trying to write a new article from scratch, especially when there will be overlap to topics we already have. Mike Turnbull (talk) 23:21, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

But this article is not the same as any Wikipedia article. It is primarily about the research and development project named "The New Generation of Power" that John Deere embarked upon over a seven year period to overtake the competition, primarily International Harvester - the leading tractor manufacturer at the time, to become the world's leader in tractor sales. It is widely regarded by farm machinery historians as the single most import event in not only John Deere's history, but perhaps that all tractor manufacturers, that drove modern farm tractor technology forward into the modern age. The tractors mentioned in the article are only a result of the research project that propelled John Deere forward, as well as competitors in response to the technology that resulted from the research project. Jlibbra (talk) 00:04, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I have written a Wikipedia article before back in 2017. It's called the "John Deere 4010" which is about the single most important tractor that came out of this research and development project and changed everything for John Deere and its competitors. Jlibbra (talk) 00:10, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Jlibbra: I'm assuming that means that @Jmlibbra is you then? Why did you make a new account then? I'm just curious, btw, because the probable answer is that you may have lost access to it. _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 00:14, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I made a new account because it had been so long since I had authored it I could not remember my login and password. And, I no longer have access to the email addressed I used back then. Jlibbra (talk) 00:18, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks for telling me! Good luck with your draft. _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 00:21, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Just for information, Jlibbra, it would do no harm to place notes on the Talk pages of both accounts to the effect of "I lost access to this account and now edit as Jlibbra" and "I previously edited as Jmlibbra but lost access to that account". This would both obviate the same enquiry being made by others in the future, and maintain a more complete picture of your editing achievements. It's a relatively common situation. Happy editing! {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2025-31359-08 (talk) 07:30, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Okay great! Thank much for the advice. Obviously I don't have much experience at this so any help I can get is much appreciated! Jlibbra (talk) 11:25, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Messed up a table and don't know what to do

I genuinely just messed up a table on the page for Grand River Transit and have no clue how to fix it. If anyone knows how or has any tips please let me know. ~2026-20993-7 (talk) 00:16, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I was attempting to correct some outdated information in the section concerning the bus system routes ~2026-20993-7 (talk) 00:18, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Are you @Cuteseal1906? Please sign in every time. You can stay signed in on more than one machine, it's OK.

If you are Cuteseal1906, first sign in, then go to the normal (not editing) view of the Grand River Transit page, and find where it says "Last edited by" or gives a link to the page history. Click on one of those, and you'll see your own edit listed, with an Undo button beside it. A weird looking page will pop up, which is where you confirm that you intend to undo the edit. One line on that page says it's for the reason, and will be already filled with a bunch of stuff. Keep all that stuff there, go to the very end of the same line, and add on your short reason for why you are undoing. (Such as "formatting error" or whatever makes sense.) Then hit the "Publish" button. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 01:33, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

just undid the change, thanks for your help! Cuteseal1906 (talk) 01:41, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

How do I be careful about not getting IP banned?

It's happened to me in the past (I want to say around 5 or so years ago?) and November 27, 2025, I was finally able to make an account again. I don't want this to happen again because I was immature and didn't know what I was doing. I had made a new Wiki page titled "Rowlet" or something and tried to add information on the Pokemon a couple of times, but then I got IP banned for multiple years. I looked for the page recently and saw it was deleted. How do I avoid getting banned though?? I want to keep my account - Weez3rforever (talk) 01:47, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If someone disagrees with you, you have to actually listen, and you have to start by assuming they're probably right and you're probably wrong. That's the biggest part. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 02:11, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@TooManyFingers Makes sense, I think I had thought I was doing right even though I was probably just putting something random like "rowlet is a grass type pokemon!!" Weez3rforever (talk) 02:15, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Weez3rforever: It would be nice to know the IP to see exactly why it was blocked for multiple years. Since IP addresses are private information, I highly recommend not sharing it here, and rather emailing a trusted admin or checkuser privately instead. You can find active admins here and active checkusers here. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 02:14, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@ChildrenWillListen I don't remember the IP, I might have screenshots but I'd have to do a somewhat deep dive. Thanks for the help though Weez3rforever (talk) 02:16, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably, your IP is fairly static if the IP block affected you all the way to the end (or perhaps it was a large rangeblock), so you may simply wish to share your current IP to checkusers or admins. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 02:18, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Using AI

For my draft, i had used AI to find sources. I cross-checked with the reliable sources list thing. I also read the entire page.

Would that be okay? SomnambulantFish _talk ∫ ^contribs 02:47, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't mention how you wrote. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 02:51, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you personally chose every single word (except for the sources), then your chances of success are good. If AI chose some words, then delete the whole thing except the sources, fully delete all of the AI words from your own machine so you can't ever find them or look at them again, and rewrite all by yourself with no AI. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 03:01, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks alot! SomnambulantFish _talk ∫ ^contribs 07:32, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Did you also investigate the AI-supplied references yourself to check that they are (a) real and (b) actually support what you are citing them for? AI frequently 'hallucinates' references; that is, it makes up something that looks like a reference, or adds a genuine item that doesn't actually contain the relevant information. It's OK to use AI to help look for possible references, but never, ever trust everything it tells you to be real and accurate. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2025-31359-08 (talk) 07:42, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@~2025-31359-08, it’s refreshing to find messages like yours that mention one of the often overlooked legitimate and helpful uses of AI in work like ours. There are many more. But they’re often indiscriminatingly tarred with the same brush we use against AI’s questionable or dangerous uses.

Recently I’ve been noticing how often this topic is being discussed in respected news media like The New York Times, with articles drawn from the real-life world of work that show what a difference AI can make when used in an assistive role with human oversight … the more conscientious, the better, but Augnablik (talk) 19:18, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Let's assume that most Wikipedia editors are conscientious ...

That could be the opening of a standup comedy routine. Of course AI can be used for good purposes, but the overwhelming majority of the time it isn't. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 22:35, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

To AI, a few other things could be added in that comedy routine, TMF — things that have similarly received their share of demands to outlaw. At least initially, when they were invented.

For example, the Internet. I once met someone in person who strongly wished that would happen!

Then there was the calculator, that stirred up quite a commotion when it was invented, especially in the educational world. Why? Because people would lose their math skills and become overly dependent on machines!

Going back a little further, the dawn of electricity brought fear that it wasn’t natural and could lead to serious health issues.

Yes, TMF, I’m sure quite a comedy routine could be created if we keep going … Augnablik (talk) 07:42, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

To the temporary account, I in fact did read the entire source. SomnambulantLobster (talk) 12:17, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, i'm SomnambulantFish's alt account, btw.

(I promise i'm not a sock) SomnambulantLobster (talk) 12:18, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

i want to move from sandbox to article

OP blocked as sock ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 13:43, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Extended content

F Killa

Mohamed Ahmed Mohamed, known as F Killa or Flow Killer ( اف كيلا ) AKA El Moukatel born 1989, is an Egyptian rapper, musician, and songwriter from Cairo ^[1] He achieved success in Egypt and the Arab world due to his distinctive style of old-school rap. He is considered one of the top ^[2] rap stars in Egypt. ^[3] He has released two albums: the first with Mak-D and the second solo, which was very well-received by Egyptian and Arab listeners upon its release.^[4]

His Career and Works

He began his artistic journey in 2006 when he met his colleague, Mak D, and together they formed a group called EgySkillz. They released their first album, consisting of eight songs, before splitting up for artistic reasons. ^[5]

In late 2006, he released his first solo single, "Leh Ehna Keda" (Why Are We Like This?), featuring Palestinian artist Jasmine. This song addressed the political situation in Palestine and the Arab region.

In 2007, he met the renowned artist MC Amin, and together they collaborated on the compilation album "Arab Rap Soldiers," featuring prominent names such as Mr. Kordy, E-Money, Gad El-Gallad, Mohamed El Deeb and Afret El-Kalam.

In 2008, he released several songs, including "El-Faqr" (Poverty), "Qoum Ya Arabi" (Rise Up, Arab), and "Mozakarat Muslim" (Muslim's Diary). He also performed in numerous concerts, considered among the first of their kind for Egyptian hip hop,^[6] marking the beginning of a new generation of rappers in Egypt. Audiences were always eager to attend and enjoy his performances. Seeing all these artists on one stage ^[7] ^[8]

In 2009, he released his first music video, "El Moukatel" which the public subsequently nicknamed him. The song resonated widely with Egyptian and Arab audiences, bringing him considerable fame at the time. That same year, he released the song "Enty" with the rap group Asfalt and DJ Feedo, which impressed audiences with its unique romantic style. Also in 2009, he collaborated on "Violence" with Mr. Kordy, the Lebanese-Swiss artist La Gale, and the American artist Benzosa, a song that continues to be popular. He also released a song with the distinguished artist E Money titled "Daman El haa" and collaborated with the Zero group on a music video titled "Slums," which addressed the problems faced by young people in impoverished and marginalized neighborhoods. ^[9] In late 2009, he joined the Arab League, a group that included some of the biggest names in Arabic rap. However, a disagreement arose, and the songs he contributed to were never released. He later returned to work with them. New in 2011, he performed several concerts together, most notably at the American University in Cairo ^[10] and the Planet Festival ^[11]

In 2012, he released the song Kafana Men El Wooud "Enough of the Promises," which reflected the political situation at the time ^[12]

In 2013, he released two songs, "Egmady" and "A Message to Every Harasser," in which he attacked harassment in all its forms, describing harassers as a plague and a lack of morals and values. "Egmady" premiered at a concert by Zap Tharwat and Masar Egbari at the Cairo Opera House ^[13]. He subsequently released several songs, including "System Fall," "Syasa Fargha," and "El Aalam El Sofly." He also collaborated with Arabian Knightz on their song "Fokkak Remix," which featured a selection of top rap stars from the Arab world, such as Don Bigg, Shadia Mansour, and Mahmoud Jreri from Dam. This song was originally scheduled for release in 2007 but was released recently.

In 2014, he released a music video for the song "Nadam" which achieved significant success. It was a huge success and is one of the best songs in the history of Egyptian rap. After that, he released a song titled "Lamma Arhal" ^[14], which was also a huge success.

2015 was Killa's last concert, in which he sang unreleased song called "Betwanes Beek" ^[15]. Then he released a music video for his song "Shbh Mostaheel," and this song was Killa's last work since then.

Reference

^ "F Killa". www.wikidata.org. Retrieved 2026-01-10.
^ Team, SceneNoise (Jun 22, 2016). "5 Egyptian Rappers Killing It in The Game".
^ Rabea, Sarah (June 25, 2018). "5 Underrated Egyptian Rappers Who Deserve More Recognition".
^ TEAM, SCOOP (16 August 2016). "7 Egyptian Underground Rappers You Really, Really Need to Know".
^ matthews11, alexus (January 30, 2019). "How he became "F Killa"".{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
^ Publishing, Bloomsbury (December 2018). Hip Hop Around the World An Encyclopedia [2 Volumes] (Anthony J. Fonseca, Melissa Ursula Dawn Goldsmith ed.). Bloomsbury Publishing. pp. Page 1828. ISBN 9798216096184.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link)
^ Youssef, Adham (23 Jun 2013). "Best of Egyptian Hip Hop artists rap on social ills at concert".
^ Youssef, Adham (July 6, 2013). "Best Of Egyptian Hip Hop Artists Rap on Social Ills at Concert".
^ R. Weis, Ellen (Dec 12, 2015). Egyptian Hip-Hop: Expressions from the Underground Cairo Papers in Social Science Vol. 34, No. 1 (Vol. 34, No. 1 ed.). American University in Cairo Press. pp. 3 of 9. ISBN 9781617978517.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link)
^ فاروق, مصطفى (5 February 2014). "عرب ليج" يفجر الجامعة الأمريكية بحماس الراب".
^ سمير, ناهد (26 February 2015). "26 مارس.. "عرب ليج" في "مهرجان الكوكب"".
^ LeVine, Mark (September 13, 2022). We'll Play Till We Die Journeys Across a Decade of Revolutionary Music in the Muslim World [English] (1st ed.). University of California Press. p. 57. ISBN 9780520975859.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link)
^ فاروق, مصطفى (4 December 2014). ""إف كيلا" مفاجأة حفل مسار إجباري وزاب بالأوبرا".
^ فاروق, مصطفى (11 August 2014). "بالفيديو.. "لما أرحل" أجدد تراكات إف كيلا".
^ فاروق, مصطفى (10 March 2015). "إف كيلا: هغني "بتونس بيك" على طريقتي بالجريك كامبس".

External Links

F Killa Channel on Youtube

F Killa on Facebook

F Killa on Instagram

Dr mohamdd1 (talk) 02:49, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Dr mohamdd1 I have added a banner at the top of your sandbox (User:Dr mohamdd1/sandbox) where you can submit your draft for review. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 02:56, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

After a move, should related pages have their contents updated to reflect the new name?

I recently moved the article for Java bytecode to JVM bytecode after the move request passed. I updated some immediately related articles to use the new name, but I'm wondering if I should seek out other articles that use the term "Java bytecode" and change instances of this to "JVM bytecode". Moiré (talk) 03:30, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, especially when they're links to the renamed article, but other uses where they're obviously referring to this thing. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 03:34, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I guess links are less important because there will be a redirect.

Watch out in case there are times when Java bytecode doesn't have to mean JVM bytecode. I only said that because I don't know the facts. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 03:37, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like case-by-case according to context. Is the real topic specifically Java or is it any JVM-compiling? There's a redirect Java→JVM, so if the topic is Java, a link to the Java term is WP:NOTBROKEN and still gets the reader to the target. That WP guideline page gives several rationales for why that is often preferable to updating the link. DMacks (talk) 10:50, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Navigating topic activity following a topic unban

Hi, I was recently topic unbanned from pages relating to the Marvel Cinematic Universe, and I want to be especially careful about process and tone going forward. I’ve reached an impasse with other editors in an ongoing discussion where I was advised that consensus would be needed before making a change. Given differng interpretations of relevant policies, I’m considering opening an RfC to seek wider community input, but I want to make sure I do so in a way that’s constructive and not disruptive. Is there any best practice around timing or approach in this situation, especially after a recent unban? ChimaFan12 (talk) 03:31, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Best practice after an unban is to admit you're wrong and let it slide, instead of running straight to RfC. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 03:38, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The whole reason you got banned was you kept insisting you were right. You need to stop insisting. That's literally the point.

It's not easy to become that person who immediately folds as soon as they smell an argument, but that's what to do. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 03:41, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If consensus on the issue has not been established, I'd recommend seeking a third party opinion at WP:3O. If someone weighs in, they will be a neutral, uninvolved third party and can help settle disputes between two people.

I disagree that you are forever prohibited from seeking to generate consensus on a debate, or from hosting an RFC. Just ensure that you follow the listed procedures at WP:RFC and read the page thoroughly to ensure your situation is appropriate for one. Ensure that your wording is fair, and your options fully represent the range of reasonable beliefs regarding the dispute. A biased or titled RFC can be off-putting and draw undesired attention to yourself and your involvement.

Happy editing, Jcgaylor (talk) 06:12, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say (and didn't think) "forever prohibited", and it really does seem disingenuous for you to claim that I did. I think "Don't make the stupid move of rushing back to doing exactly what got you banned" is unarguably excellent advice. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 07:19, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@ChimaFan12 If there IS an RFC, be gracious in your own comments, and don't WP:Bludgeon the discussion. Starting with WP:3O sounds like good advice. And, as @TooManyFingers says, try to understand that you might be wrong. Will the difference of opinion really matter, say, 10 years from now? David10244 (talk) 20:03, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your insights (same with you, TMF and Jcgaylor). I agree that 3O sounds optimal for what I'm really looking for here - especially since the other user seems to view RFC as an escalation, which is not how I want it to be utilized or how I want to come across. My concern is that this topic may not be eligible for 3O, as there are more than two of us who have been involved in the discussion. Is there an alternative like 3O that I can utilize, or would RFC be the best way, heeding all warnings and advice from this thread and on the WP:RFC page? ChimaFan12 (talk) 08:31, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

How do I properly add a citation to an existing article?

Hi everyone! I’m new to Wikipedia and still learning how things work.

I’d like to improve an article by adding a reliable source, but I’m not sure about the correct way to do it. Should I edit the article directly, or is there a preferred process for suggesting sources first? Also, are there specific citation templates I should use? Thanks in advance for your help! RoyalHotel30 (talk) 03:33, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In most cases you should edit the article directly. Template:Citation is a common citation template, and in Visual Editor there's a cite button on the top dashboard that makes things easy. ✨ΩmegaMantis✨❦blather | ☞spy on me 04:48, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for Russia article: Cybersecurity capacity during economic isolation

Hello — I am a new editor working on a university assignment and have prepared a neutral, sourced subsection proposal for the Russia article regarding cybersecurity capacity during economic isolation. The Russia talk page is extended-confirmed protected, so I cannot post it myself yet.

Would an extended-confirmed editor be willing to review and, if appropriate, post it on Talk:Russia on my behalf? I am happy to revise it based on feedback. Thank you very much.

Draft subsection:

Please make an edit request at Talk:Russia

=== Cybersecurity capacity during economic isolation === Since 2022, international sanctions and export controls have affected Russia’s cybersecurity sector, including access to security software, hardware, and international cooperation frameworks. Restrictions on advanced semiconductors, networking equipment, and cloud services have limited Russia’s ability to procure foreign cybersecurity technologies and infrastructure components, increasing reliance on domestic or non-Western alternatives.^[1]

Legal and regulatory measures such as data localization requirements and the “Sovereign Internet” framework have expanded state control over digital infrastructure. Analysts have noted that while these policies aim to increase digital sovereignty and continuity of operations, they may also reduce interoperability with global networks and limit participation in international cybersecurity information-sharing and incident response mechanisms.^[2]

Workforce migration has also affected cybersecurity capacity. In 2022, Russian officials estimated that more than 100,000 information technology specialists left the country following economic uncertainty and mobilization orders.^[3] Industry observers have reported that this outflow included software engineers and cybersecurity professionals, reducing domestic expertise in vulnerability management, incident response, and secure systems development.

International cybersecurity cooperation has declined as Russia’s participation in Western-led information-sharing, joint exercises, and capacity-building initiatives has been reduced. Research institutes have noted that Russia has increasingly shifted cybersecurity and technology cooperation toward non-Western partners such as China and Iran, reflecting a broader realignment of digital and security partnerships.^[4]

These developments have been cited as influencing the structure and performance of Russia’s cybersecurity sector, particularly in areas dependent on access to advanced technologies, skilled labor, and international coordination mechanisms.

References

^ Del Giovane, C.; Ferencz, J.; López González, J. (2023). "The Nature, Evolution and Potential Implications of Data Localisation Measures". OECD Trade Policy Papers (278).
^ Del Giovane, C.; Ferencz, J.; López González, J. (2023). "The Nature, Evolution and Potential Implications of Data Localisation Measures". OECD Trade Policy Papers (278).
^ "Moscow Says 100K IT Specialists Have Left Russia This Year". The Moscow Times. 2022-12-20.
^ Sabanadze, N.; Vasselier, A.; Wiegand, G. (2024). China-Russia alignment: A threat to Europe's security (Report). Mercator Institute for China Studies.

EntropyWarden (talk) 04:52, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi EntropyWarden, welcome to the Teahouse. As far as I can tell, Talk:Russia isn't protected; the article is, but you should be able to post to the talk page. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 05:58, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 45dogs, thanks for responding! Would it be possible to later move my post up from the Talk:Russia to the article? EntropyWarden (talk) 04:25, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi EntropyWarden. I would recommend first bringing it up on the article talk page. But yes, I could see it being added to the article. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 04:31, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple accounts not being allowed to edit the same article unless disclosed

According to Sockpuppet policy, this lists Editors may not use more than one account to contribute to the same page or discussion in a way that suggests they are multiple people.

Is there a clear reason on why this is considered to be Sockpuppetry, and doing this will result in a block? Why should alternative accounts not be editing the same article, unless they are disclosed and revealed? What happens if undisclosed accounts were used to contribute to the same page? ~2026-21649-7 (talk) 04:53, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity, I am only using one account and am asking for assistance because I am not extended-confirmed yet. EntropyWarden (talk) 05:09, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Was it you who asked the sockpuppet question? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 05:13, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I did not. Somehow it appeared inside my question right above my references. EntropyWarden (talk) 05:48, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@EntropyWarden And please don't make comments both logged in and not logged in, as you apparently did here. That can look like two different people. David10244 (talk) 20:06, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

EntropyWarden has written above that it wasn't them who asked this question. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:11, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Why isn't it obvious to you? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 05:10, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In the simplest terms, this behavior is deceptive. Another editor would be led to believe that perhaps three different people are contributing to a series of changes to an article when it is only one person in reality. This is an impediment to honest collaboration that could deter an editor from disagreeing because they may incorrectly perceive the situation as three against one. Cullen328 (talk) 05:45, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That's the type of thing I would have said, though you said it better. I started a response in that general direction, I stopped short when I suddenly wondered how it could become necessary to explain this. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 05:58, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Remember to AGF. You're a very active teahouse contributor, be conscious of burnout. Athanelar (talk) 09:35, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Athanelar Thank you. Your comment was exactly the truth. Not the kind of burnout that ruins people's lives, but a temporary frustration-burnout from not staying conscious of where my personal limits are. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 04:17, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It is very likely that if someone contributes to the same page under multiple names, it will artificially create the appearance of more support for anything they're advocating (this can happen even if you don't intend it to.) Likewise, it can result in the perception of WP:BADHAND activity where one account is used for controversial stuff and another one isn't, or can come across as trying to evade scrutiny by dividing things between multiple accounts that would collectively add up to more serious problems if people realized they were the same person - and again, since editors won't always realize their positions are controversial, this can occur even if you didn't intend it. Often these can make the line between legitimate and illegitimate uses of alt accounts blurry; not using multiple alt accounts on the same page serves as a clear-cut red line so we don't have to spend ages digging into the intent of every individual potential sockmaster. --Aquillion (talk) 20:30, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up to Article Sources

Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_1277#Article Sources

I reviewed the advice on the article sources I got from Teahouse, aside from the profiles, which are indeed from independent secondary sources. Most of the news article sources cited are independent, secondary, reliable, and from national news coverage, with stories fully on the subject. Therefore, I am confused about the points raised. I would love some clarification, as I see many equivalent politicians have profiles approved without even a third of the notability. I would love some insight into how I can remediate the identified issues.

Draft:Scott Singer. Lawandpolicy27 (talk) 05:56, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I examined the first dozen references and there is not one good one out of those twelve. High school newspaper - trash. Originally written by the subject or his associates - trash. Really about Mamdani - trash. Not one of the first twelve fits the criteria. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 06:22, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It IS a semi-OK start if you were writing an article about Mamdani though, so that's kind of good I guess. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 06:24, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia needs three very big articles that all carry the plain simple title "Scott Singer", and that do not contain a single word from Singer himself or his publicity people. Or as close to that as possible. Wikipedia does NOT need "Florida Man Dislikes Some Mayor Somewhere Else". TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 06:32, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Help with my draft- No.2

My draft Draft:497593 Kejimkujik currently redirects to the the list of minor planets.

How to stop that? SomnambulantFish _talk ∫ ^contribs 06:13, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there seems to be a contradiction.

There is already a Page with the same name, but its a redirect.

Will i have to do something about that page for my normal draft to get accepted? SomnambulantFish _talk ∫ ^contribs 06:39, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Don't do anything to try to fix this. Just do your own work the best you can do. If your draft gets accepted, the people who know how to fix article names will take care of it. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 06:59, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank alot Mr. TooManyFingers! SomnambulantFish _talk ∫ ^contribs 07:31, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Etiquette for large edits

Hello. As a relatively inexperienced editor (~150 edits and haven't been around for c.1 year), I have just made a large edit to the page Cripping-up primarily due to it being written as an essay. I then detailed all of my changes in the talk page. I've realised this may not have been the best etiquette, with the page's main (historical) author likely to be unhappy (regardless of no ownership). I would appreciate any guidance on whether the edit is okay by policy standards, or if (and how) I should go about undoing it and going about it better.

Thanks. Nonovix (talk) 06:29, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome! First, forget about making one other editor happy, no matter who that one editor is. That's "a fool's errand", as they used to say. Second, sure OK it might have been easier to manage if you'd done several smaller edits, but now it's done, so let's see what happens. If an angry mob descends and undoes it all, then you decide what to do next. If there's no angry mob and it mostly gets accepted, then ... you still decide what to do next. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 06:40, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I did not look at how the article was before your changes. But looking at how it is now, at least in terms of the basic text, it looks right and reasonable to me. (I didn't run to check your references; if they're in order then I think no one can complain.) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 06:47, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Maybe this type of edit, where all or most of the article is replaced, does work better all at once. I've never done one.) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 06:55, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

CC 2.0

Is it possible to use images with Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license without permission from the author on another Wikipedia page? Given that attribution is given (image by [author name]) ? Babin Mew (talk) 08:42, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Babin Mew You can't put such a license on someone else's work, they have to do so themself. If they did, then that is an ok license, see Commons:Licensing#Well-known_licenses, and you can use it where it may fit. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:28, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant is that can an image with such a license be used on wikipedia pages without permission (for example, can an image with CC 2.0 license be used on e.g. the article "Teahouse")? I have no intention of changing licenses. Babin Mew (talk) 09:38, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The license is the permission, so yes. Attribution, if any, is given on the filepage like File:Old-man-and-the-cat.jpg, and is almost never added to the actual article, unless we're talking stuff like Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:04, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

So if I add an image licensed with CC 2.0 on a Wikipedia page without permission from the creator (not mine), would it be ok? Babin Mew (talk) 10:09, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Of course, in our environment, someone might disagree with you that that picture should be there, or discover that that picture didn't actually have that license and nominate it for deletion. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:14, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As an example: [1]. They have added a license we can use, so we go ahead and do that. We don't ask again and again for every image and every article. Or this:[2]. He only has to say it once. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:18, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

25th Anniversary!!!

In a few days (exactly on the 25th — or the 26th in my timezone), Wikipedia will celebrate its 25th anniversary.

I’ve heard mentions of global celebrations, but I’m curious how these usually work from an editor’s perspective. Are they typically real‑life meetups, on‑wiki discussions, or more individual contribution drives?

For those who were around for previous anniversaries, what were they like? And based on your experience, is it generally worthwhile for someone who focuses on technical content, images, and article improvement to get involved?

Thanks in advance for any insight.

Kind regards, Xyqorophibian (talk) 12:23, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We need to add a Main Page banner to the Main Page as a honor of its 25th annivesary. ~2025-40346-02 (talk) 13:57, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

When you work in Wikipedia on your computer rather than your phone, you’ll see the banner. I was surprised not to see it on my phone because some editors seem to always work on their phones, but then again a banner would take up precious screen real estate. Augnablik (talk) 17:02, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wait … the banner is here on the phone after all. Just had to clear up a little problem to see it. Augnablik (talk) 06:46, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Xyqorophibian See meta:Event:Wikipedia 25 Virtual Celebration for what is planned. Your watchlist should have a banner with that link. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:08, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

... sorry, I now see that you were already aware of that link. I don't recall previous anniversaries but they should be described in the archives of the Signpost. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:11, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Watchlists are only available to registred users. ~2025-40346-02 (talk) 14:13, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wow…… ~2026-23709-7 (talk) 04:58, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

New Year's Day

Goodbye 2025 and New Year 2026 Noahnainggol (talk) 12:24, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

11 days late my friend, better late than never I guess. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 13:33, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Noahnainggol may be invoking the Julian Calendar, or one of its derivations such as the Berber calendar's New Year of Yennayer, or the Eastern Orthodox liturgical calendar's New Year of Malenka.

Chinese New Year is also coming up in ten days' time. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2025-31359-08 (talk) 23:17, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see, I completely forgot about other calendars, well then Happy New year to you @Noahnainggol Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 10:00, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Issue on my draft

How can i fix the link on my draft:Draft:Ferraria (Campo Largo)? ~2025-40346-02 (talk) 13:40, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, ~2025-40346-02. Is there a reason why the access date on the citation is set to 9 October 2019? Is that when you accessed the source at the URL given? Cordless Larry (talk) 13:46, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Basically its because i made this as English version of this: pt:Ferraria (Campo Largo) ~2025-40346-02 (talk) 13:49, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the source is no longer available at that URL (presuming it was back in October 2019). When translating content between editions of Wikipedia, you need to check that source links in citations both work and verify the content they're supposed to be supporting. You're also required to credit the Wikipedia article you're translating - see Wikipedia:Translation#Attribution requirements. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:54, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Okay... ~2025-40346-02 (talk) 13:55, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Request for review and improvement suggestions on draft articles

Hello, I’m still learning Wikipedia’s content and sourcing standards, and I’d really appreciate your help. If you don’t mind, could you please review the following drafts and let me know what improvements or changes are needed?

-- ItsEthanP (talk) 14:19, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For the first draft:

You can’t have the person’s company website to establish notability but you can use it in minimal amounts for mundane things (like the company’s founding or employee count). For a living person notability requirements are tougher, however I do like the last source, so if there were a couple more of those ones (a full rundown on the person), then that’d be great. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 14:49, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

any suggestion for second one? ItsEthanP (talk) 15:06, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

i did edit on that article i added about his interview with Al Bawaba. thanks for your advice. ItsEthanP (talk) 15:17, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews can’t be used too often, if it is a mundane thing (such as his birthday) then it can be used but primary sources (from the person/company being described aren’t to be used too often), if you can find more secondary sources (EG. A business magazine/article or a newspaper on the figure, or a book etc.) that would be great.

For the second one I’m not sure as I’m unaware of notability requirements for Ransomware, perhaps direct your queries to a Wikiproject on coding or hackers (Wikipedia:WikiProject Hacker and Wikipedia:WikiProject Computing) Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 10:23, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

My edit

Someone reverted my edit to Wikipedia:Historical archive/Template:Not a forum/doc and on my talk page they said it wa svandalism. Come on, it isn't vandalism. i just literally rewrited it. ~2025-40346-02 (talk) 15:38, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I agree your edits are not vandalism. Perhaps User:Materialscientist has not read that page.

Nonetheless, if your edits are not accepted, please follow WP:BRD (i.e. start the "D" part of that process). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:51, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Image

I need to change the main image on this page sv:Christer Strömholm. Stesod (talk) 16:13, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Den här är den engelska Wikipedia-n. Fråga på sv:Wikipedia:Fikarummet. ColinFine (talk) 16:29, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Advice with balance in an article.

Hi, I'm looking for advice on getting an article accepted. I admit, it's a learning process and things are moving in the right direction with the article. There's some further changes I could make, to the article to (hopefully) get it over the final hurdle. As I see it, where I'm a now with it is balancing the validity of the subject/topic against the article seeming promotional. Am I being overlay cautious? Where should the line be? The software was the first serious application of it's kind for Android platform and widely praised and hugely popular.The article is Draft:Caustic (DAW)

It's a piece of software, very different from, say, an article on a historical event. For reference, I've been using the sister software articles as models... Reason (software) and LMMS

Any help will be gratefully accepted here! Pounds Kitchens (talk) 17:32, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Pounds Kitchens Hello and welcome. The whole url is not needed when linking to an article or page on Wikipedia, I've fixed this. (you just need [[LMMS]]) I wanted to caution you against using any random article as a model, as it too could be inappropriate and you would be unaware of this. As this is a volunteer project, it is possible for inappropriate content to go undetected and unaddressed, even for years. If you want to use other articles as a model, use those that are classified as good articles, which have received community vetting. 331dot (talk) 17:41, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Content on Wikipedia is guided by coverage in reliable sources. Every claim must be verifiable. This should guide your content: if it did not appear in a reliable source, I caution against including it. Also review WP:SS and WP:NPOV for more guidance. Jcgaylor (talk) 21:24, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Articles are promotional because of who they're written for. Potential customers or investors look for quite different things in an article than history-book readers do. To be not promotional, cater exclusively to the history-book readers; make the article intentionally useless for investors and customers. One possible way to accomplish this could be to take strategies used by people who intend to use Wikipedia as a marketing tool, and check off step by step that the article is a complete and utter failure by their standards.

Of course this can't be done cleanly or accurately, because some of the relevant information does still belong in a history article. But you've seen history books before, so you probably know the difference better than you realize. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 02:25, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Request for experienced editor to draft article

Hello,

I am a newer editor. I attempted to create a draft article about Dakota Tipi First Nation, but my drafts were declined and deleted.

I understand that I should not continue drafting this article myself. I am asking whether an experienced editor would be willing to create or oversee a neutral draft using independent, reliable sources.

I am happy to provide source links if requested, but I will not write the article text.

Thank you for your time. K83873 (talk) 18:21, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This request should be made at Requested Articles, but it is backlogged to the point of uselessness; it's not likely a request like this will persuade a volunteer to take up the topic you are interested in.

Your draft was deleted as unreviewed LLM content- meaning that you used an AI/LLM to write it. As long as you are willing to do the work yourself, you may create and submit a draft yourself. It is true that writing a new article is the most difficult task to perform on Wikipedia, you should first gain experience and knowledge by using the new user tutorial and editing existing articles in areas that interest you, after a time, you will be then better suited to attempting article creation. 331dot (talk) 18:32, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You might also consider joining a relevant Wikiproject and placing your request there. Having done a very quick search, perhaps Wikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America might be useful. Feline Hymnic (talk) 18:43, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this. So long as you are not relying on AI to do the hard work for you, there is nothing stopping you from writing the article.

Editing existing articles, reviewing the user tutorial, reading over the WP:MOS and other policies like WP:NOTABILITY, WP:NPOV, and WP:RS, are great ways to build the skills necessary for article creation. Jcgaylor (talk) 21:13, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Considering your article was deleted for consisting of unreviewed AI output, you would think you'd find it counterproductive to post an AI-generated question about it.

Please communicate with us in your own words. Athanelar (talk) 11:49, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Coi on a article about the historic Light Gallery.

User:Mark Simon Mann/sandbox

Hi im the son in law of Tennyson Schad, ive created an article about The light Gallery that im sure meets all the requirements for an article .

Im unsure if I should submit for AFC or if another editor would be willing to take a look and advise..

THANK YOU..

Best

MARK Mark Simon Mann (talk) 19:10, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I moved that to Draft:Light Gallery.

Please submit the article for review, via the process described at WP:AFC, using the big blue button for that purpose. If the reviewer deems it ready, they will publish it as an article. If not, they will give you further advice. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:42, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

thank you very much

Best M Mark Simon Mann (talk) 22:23, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Moving an article on mobile

Is there a way to move an article on mobile? Mesocyclonic93 (talk) 19:37, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Use the link at the bottom of the page to switch to desktop view. There will be a link in the same place to switch back to mobile view.

Or make a request per Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting technical moves. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:34, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Mesocyclonic93 @Pigsonthewing It's entirely possible to move pages on mobile. In the top right of the page you'll see 3 dots right next to the edit button. Hit the 3 dots and you get a dropdown of tools including the 'Move' button. Athanelar (talk) 11:45, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Add information to Denise Dowse bio page

Add to Denise Dowse: An endowed scholarship fund to benefit theater and theater technology students at W.T. Woodson High School (now C.G. Woodson) in Fairfax, Virginia was funded by Denise’s high school friends and family: https://www.cfnova.org/scholarship/denise-dowse-drama-scholarship-fund ~2026-22972-6 (talk) 20:01, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Done—In future, please use WP:Edit Request Wizard, and be sure to declare any connection you may have to the subject, the school, or the fund. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:12, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

How long for edits to appear?

Hi everyone. I've just made a basic edit on my band's Wikipedia page. I've updated the line up. How long does it take to come through on the page? All the best GB Kiosk2 (talk) 22:15, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It was reverted because it didn't have a source. Please check your talk page for more details. SenshiSun (talk) 22:48, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Kiosk2, and welcome to the Teahosue.

You refer to "my band's Wikipedia page". Please note that, as you have a conflict of interest, you should not directly edit that article at all, but instead should make edit requests for changes you would like to see, and an uninvolved editor will review these, and implement them as they find appropriate. ColinFine (talk) 11:20, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Yorath

Terry Yorath died around 10.30pm on January 7th My daughter Gabby Logan OBE had a press release put out at 9am on the > 8th but he died on ward J16 at St James hospital Leeds on the 7th > having been there since December 12th. > > Any published obituaries have taken the information from one > inaccurate piece of information. > > It is well published that Gabby left a live tv programme,MOTD, when > my son called her to say we were at the hospital where Terry had just died. > > If Wikipedia keeps the wrong info available then others will use that > source of information and it will continue to be inaccurate

Please can you change the date of his death to January 7th Thank you Christine yorath (talk) 18:56, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've move this here from Wikipedia talk:Independent sources. Can a kind editor please help this grieving family with the article Terry Yorath? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:23, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like a lot of sources either have the 8th or list no date. Does "night of the 7-8" (current phrasing) work? SenshiSun (talk) 22:47, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@SenshiSun: That's WP:SYNTH. None of the sources given contains a specific date or range of dates, so neither should Wikipedia. I've removed the specific date from the article until a reliable source stating a fact can be found. Bazza 7 (talk) 10:12, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@WhatamIdoing, @SenshiSun: This is being discussed at Talk:Terry Yorath § Date of death. There is currently only one reliable source which states a date (The Daily Telegraph gives 8 January). I have removed the unreferenced information but Govvy has replaced it, apparently unaware of the requirement for such information to be sourced properly. Bazza 7 (talk) 18:27, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the ping. I am happy to continue discussion there if needed. SenshiSun (talk) 21:21, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for your loss and the additional stress that this is causing, Christine yorath. While it does put some of the burden on you, I reckon that the best way for this to be fixed is for you to tell a newspaper or other online news source what Terry's correct date of death was, and for them to publish it. Wikipedia is reliant on what published sources say about something, so getting it correct in a published source is the easiest way to correct it here. If there's a newspaper that you know is still to publish an obituary, for example, maybe they'd be willing to include the correct data if you request that? Cordless Larry (talk) 18:33, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Cordless Larry: Or wait. The article about him currently states just "January 2026", which is accurate. There is no WP:DEADLINE. I think at least two reliable publications will be needed to counter the single one I've found which states 8 January. Bazza 7 (talk) 18:39, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's true about the interim solution. I was considering mentioning that. I've been looking for sources that specify that he died on Wednesday night (instead of specifying the date) and have found this and this. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:41, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've now used these sources to include the correct date in the article. Pinging Christine yorath. Thanks for highlighting this issue and sorry again for your loss. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:52, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Pointers for Draft on U.S. Soprano Opera Musician

Curious if anyone is willing to review this draft (Sydney Kucine) before submittal. I reviewed guidelines, but would love a second opinion. Thanks! DimTheLightsTV (talk) 22:33, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not going to "pre-review" it. But I did glance at it. "Selected Operatic and Concert Repertoire" lists seven items. Six of the seven are unreferenced. Why should the reader trust that the six are factually correct? -- Hoary (talk) 01:59, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I can add the references for the repertoire items. thanks! DimTheLightsTV (talk) 03:37, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That's the spirit, DimTheLightsTV! -- Hoary (talk) 04:55, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Reversing a redirect: LETS and Local Exchange Trading System

New academic research (^[1]) reveals that the redirect from Lets (disambiguation) to Local exchange trading system is inappropriate, and much of the content on the Local Exchange Trading System may benefit from updating in light of the published research. The linked research is announced on the page as starting in 2019 and published late 2025.

Advice on strategies to manage the realignment of pages (and content) to better reflect the relation between LETS and the Local Exchange Trading System would be appreciated. Very appreciated.

Just for clarification, there are LETS, and LETSystems. LETS is short for Local Exchange Trading Scheme. LETSystem is short for Local Exchange Trading System. There appears to be much confusion between the similarities and differences between the two and the newly published paper will help to distinguish (the history between) the two approaches to developing community currency. Each may benefit from having its own separate page on Wikipedia. Thank you. Pattern.Detail (talk) 00:05, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The linked paper explicitly uses "LETS" as an abbreviation of "Local Exchange Trading System"; this seems to be a standard abbreviation after a brief search, so the link from the disambiguation page seems fine to me. The paper uses "LETS" and "LETSystem" almost interchangeably, using "LETS" to refer to the general concept and "LETSystem" to refer to a particular implementation. I also can't find any description of a distinction between "Local Exchange Trading System" and "Local Exchange Trading Scheme"; are there any sources that describe such a distinction? Helpful Raccoon (talk) 01:43, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://doi.org/10.1002/sea2.70024

Inquiry on Citizenship Counts…

I believe there is an unannounced COI on Citizenship Counts . The talk page shows that a deleted user by the same name of the organisation has prominently edited on this page. Furthermore, there are little to no sources which back the evidence of the page up, and there isn’t a lot of content on this page to begin with. This leads me to query the notability of Citizenship Counts. What should I do? WorldwideParasol (talk) 00:33, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, well the article does seem to lack sources on the Notability front, if you want you can put the page up for deletion (AFD or PROD). Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 10:07, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

how to keep a change I made

I tried to change my grandfather page and was told what I wrote is wrong but I'm literally the most qualified person to fact check his page.. what should\can I do to fix this? Sobrielle (talk) 01:33, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The problem, Sobrielle, is that anyone can claim to be an expert (or even "the most qualified person"), and such claims are therefore not taken seriously, regardless of who makes them. What to do? You were told: "Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed." (To "reliable, reputable", I'd add "disinterested".) So try searching online and, if time and energy permit, in libraries; and post your findings (complete with which-bit-comes-from-which-source) in Talk:John Paris Jr. -- Hoary (talk) 01:55, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'd shout, but you need a reliable source WP:RS - Walter Ego 10:10, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You were not told what you wrote is "wrong," you were told that it could not be verified because it was not sourced to a reliable source.

Imagine that what you wrote was changed by somebody else also claiming to be Mr. Paris' othet grandchild. They say that he actually has 5 children and that you're a liar. Which one of you are we supposed to believe?

This is why verifiability is a core policy on Wikipedia. All factual information here must be verifiable, and that means it must be referenced to a source that somebody could go and check to see if it's true. It doesn't need to be online or easy to access, it just needs to be theoretically possible for someone to go out, find that source and make sure the claim is actually true. "Trust me, I'm his grandchild" is obviously impossible for any of us to certify. Athanelar (talk) 11:38, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot my password.

I am User:Cliavn the anagram user but I forgot my password a while ago and just now discovered the teahouse. I do not have my passwords saved anywhere. Is there any way I could get my account back? ~2026-23420-4 (talk) 02:17, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

When you're trying to sign in, at the bottom there's a link "Forgot your password?" Wondering if you've already tried that. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 03:25, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Philippines

How do I contribute to WikiProject Philippines? But, how can I get the Filipino company, person, and city article featured in good articles, where can I find Filipino news sources to cite with? UniqueWorld2026 (talk) 02:45, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

UniqueWorld2026, by improving articles related to the Philippines, and by looking now and again at Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines and responding helpfully when you are able to do so. Incidentally, the notion of getting an article "featured in good articles" is rather confusing, as there are "Featured" articles, there are "Good" articles, and there are of course good articles. And alas there are very, very many poor articles (over the last few days I've been wrestling with one myself, and it's still poor). -- Hoary (talk) 04:52, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymity of temporary accounts

Why are temporary accounts less anonymous than a named account? Are temporary accounts anonymous by their username? Could they be recognizable for sure? ~2026-23709-7 (talk) 02:51, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @~2026-23709-7! To partially answer your question, they are less anonymous because there are users (admins and non-admins alike) who can see the IP addresses that these accounts belong to. See: Wikipedia:Temporary account IP viewer for more information. There's probably more information that I'm missing here, but that's the first thing that popped to my mind. _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 03:05, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@SignedInteger Why would they see the IP address of a temporary account? ~2026-23709-7 (talk) 03:55, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@~2026-23709-7: I assume that you mean why would they want to see the IP address of a TA. The answer to that is Criteria 4 mentioned on Wikipedia:Temporary account IP viewer. Agree to use the IP addresses in accordance with Foundation policy, solely for the investigation or prevention of vandalism, abuse, or other violations of Wikimedia Foundation or community policies, and understand the risks and responsibilities associated with this privilege. The people with this right (as well as admins) are expected to only use it to prevent long term abuse by TAs. That, and when an admin blocks a TA, they're in effect blocking the IP address that the TA was editing from as well. As such, TAs that do not make non-constructive edits do not have to worry about this. _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 04:01, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As a TAIV, no it isn't expected to only use it to prevent LTAs. But yes, if you are making constructive edits you shouldn't worry about being looked at. You could also just create an account in order to have further privacy. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 04:14, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As a TAIV, no it isn't expected to only use it to prevent LTAs. Ah, yet another mistake by the most inept user to ever live, me. I'm such a god damn idiot, sorry for slipping up for the ten billionth time. _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 04:18, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't expect a non TAIV to perfectly describe the policy. Thankfully, the policy gives quite a bit of wiggle room. I would also recommend against self deprecation. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 04:24, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No offense, but your recommendation is highly unlikely to be accepted. (Nothing to do with you personally, I'm just not mentally well, on top of being inept). _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 04:26, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@SignedInteger @45dogs How would this unlikely be accepted? ~2026-23709-7 (talk) 04:53, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@~2026-23709-7: Uh...I'm afraid you're mistaken. That was not referring to any comment made by you. _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 04:55, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, there are also CheckUsers who can see IP data for registered accounts but it's a small trusted group with strict rules. PrimeHunter (talk) 05:01, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

How do I translate a page?

I wanted to translate this Czech page but it says I don't have the appropriate qualifications. How do I meet that criteria, or alternatively, can someone please create the translation and I can add the necessary details? Exiasprip (talk) 03:52, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Exiasprip: Please note, on the English Wikipedia this tool is restricted to editors that are extended-confirmed. You're currently at 485 edits, extended confirmed rights are given after you pass 500 edits (and have an account that's past a certain age but your account has been on here since 2013, so that's a moot thing to mention...) _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 04:42, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You can just do it manually without the content translation tool, and link it to the Wikidata page. Versions111 (talk • contribs) 04:44, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

And following Help:Translation#Attribution requirements when it's translated. (Most people new to translating articles forget that requirement). – Quinn ΘΔ 04:59, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Exiasprip See also guidance at Wikipedia:Translation#Content. If your translation doesn't meet en-WP standards (in-line citations etc) it may be deleted. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:50, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Gråbergs Gråa Sång, I don't think that en:WP requires in-line citations for articles about 19th-century rail disasters. (I wish it did, and would be delighted to be told that I'm wrong.) -- Hoary (talk) 08:08, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Recommended, then. And "they are required for featured articles, good articles, and A-class articles.", so having them is a good idea in any case. But sure, WP:N and WP:RS more important. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:12, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

My name was miss spelled Lore supposed to be Lord

Can I get my name changed please to Lord not Lore thank you Lore Bruce de UBC (talk) 03:53, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The above is your sole contribution so far. In view of this, simply abandon "Lore Bruce de UBC", register as "Lord Bruce de UBC", and make sure you're logged in as the latter when editing. -- Hoary (talk) 04:42, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:RENAME. rfqii^talk 09:27, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: Don't see WP:RENAME. Instead, do what I suggest. This will waste less time. -- Hoary (talk) 11:18, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Help reviewing Draft:Attero Recycling – notability, sources, and tone

I am requesting guidance on my draft article: Draft:Attero Recycling

I have made several attempts to improve the draft, but it has not yet been accepted. I would appreciate help understanding what specific changes are still required. In particular, I am looking for feedback on:

Whether the subject meets Wikipedia’s notability guidelines for companies
Whether the current references are sufficiently independent and reliable, or if additional sources are needed
Whether the article still appears promotional and how to improve neutrality
Any sections that should be rewritten, removed, or expanded to align with Wikipedia policies

I have tried to follow Wikipedia’s content, sourcing, and neutrality guidelines, but I may be overlooking important requirements. Detailed feedback would be very helpful.

Thank you for your assistance. Thegreatidea (talk) 09:50, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thegreatidea Hello and welcome. I fixed your link, the whole url is not needed, just [[Draft:Attero Recycling]].

If you are associated with this company, that must be disclosed, see WP:PAID and WP:COI. General employment is considered paid editing.

Your draft just tells of the existence of the company and what it does. A Wikipedia article about a company must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. "Significant coverage" is critical analysis and commentary about what is viewed as important/significant/influential about the company, not what it sees as important about itself. The vast majority of companies on Earth actually do not merit Wikipedia articles. 331dot (talk) 10:30, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You ask us to tell you Whether the subject meets Wikipedia’s notability guidelines for companies but ultimately as the article creator that is your job to prove to the rest of us. If you don't know whether your subject is notable, you shouldn't be bothering to write an article about it in the first place, because the entire way we're supposed to write Wikipedia articles is by finding sources which support notability and using them for information. What you're doing right now is writing your article backwards, which means you're writing the article first and then trying to prove notability later, which is counterproductive.

The relevant guideline is WP:NCORP and you should pay particular attention to the section WP:CORPTRIV (which tells us that run-of-thw-mill press releases about ordinary corporate activity like expansions, mergers, acquisitions, product releases etc cannot be used to support notability even when reported by a third party) Athanelar (talk) 10:37, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Why did my draft of a micronation get disaprooved?

It was notable to me and a community of multiple people. It would be nice to see it approved. Hopefully, a time will come when Alternia has a page on here! Lemurik the Historian (talk) 13:24, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Lemurik the Historian, and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia.

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 exclusively 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.

Notable, in Wikipedia terms, mostly means that there are adequate sources to meet that characterization - i.e. that it has been noted.

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) 13:28, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks buddy. Lemurik the Historian (talk) 15:36, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring of 2 articles I had previously created

Dear Wikipedia,

This is a request to restore the 2 English Wikipedia articles. Those are the 2 at the bottom of the list https://xtools.wmcloud.org/pages/en.wikipedia.org/Vincent_Mia_Edie_Verheyen namely Thomas Chan and Chung Wah School. Note that the first has been "re-created" meanwhile, but not actually as the subject is a different person. The original article mentioned a politician and businessman from Solomon Islands. Vincent Mia Edie Verheyen (talk) 14:48, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Info: both were actually deleted under criterion G7, asked for by yourself on 14th of november 2015 ("As this article's sole author, I request, in good faith, to have this page deleted, under Criterium G7: Author requests deletion. Lectonar (talk) 15:02, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Vincent Mia Edie Verheyen, since you were the person who asked for them to be deleted, you could try making a request at WP:REFUND. It would probably be a good idea to ask for them to be made into WP:DRAFTs so that you can check to make sure they still meet Wikipedia's notability criteria, and add any new information, before they go back to the main Wikipedia space. The criteria for both people and schools have definitely changed since 2015. The articles are easy to get back now since you asked for their deletion, but will be much harder/impossible to retrieve if they get deleted via a deletion discussion. Meadowlark (talk) 16:34, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Question about AI on user pages.

Hello, I have a question about this. If you find AI on a user page, can you remove it? I know you can't use AI on normal pages, but I don't know about on a user page. BoxOfThings123 (talk) 15:17, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What I mean is like those normal Wikipedia pages, except, It's just lazily done with a prompt. I'm not talking about the normal pages still. I mean like "They are based in [region]", except [region] is not replaced. BoxOfThings123 (talk) 15:21, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @BoxOfThings123.

There's nothing about it either way at WP:User pages, as long as it is not substantial content on your user page that is unrelated to Wikipedia or material that is likely to bring the project into disrepute.

I have no idea what your second paragraph means. Can you give an example? ColinFine (talk) 15:46, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think they mean lazily pasting in boilerplate text without bothering to replace "[region]" with "Middlesex", for example. If I saw this in an article or a draft I'd mark it for WP:G15 speedy deletion, but finding it on someone else's user page would give me pause. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 01:00, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's impossible to give a meaningful specific answer to a general question. Please tell us which page concerns you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:11, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I will just link the user page (talk page because of deletion) User talk:LION RANGE BRAND. BoxOfThings123 (talk) 13:02, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For the benefit of non-admins, User:LION RANGE BRAND was a promotional article posing as a user page. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:26, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I figured it was BoxOfThings123 (talk) 13:56, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That account is already blocked. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:28, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of that, It was before they were blocked. BoxOfThings123 (talk) 13:56, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Question about when its appropriate to send WikiLove.

Hello! I wanted to send a wikilove/food of appreciation thingy to my mentor to introduce myself, but I was unsure if this was an appropriate use of this feature. :) Minnoweu (talk) 15:35, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Minnoweu, welcome to the Teahouse! Yes, that is a perfectly fine way of using the Wikilove feature. Its just a system designed to allow editors to easily show appreciation to other editors. Happy editing :) 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 15:52, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thank you! Minnoweu (talk) 19:29, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As long as you're using it for a real reason, and you're not making anyone think "OMG why is this person spamming", then you're fine. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 22:24, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking help regarding the expansion of my draft

I am seeking help to expand Draft:Jeff Clune this draft is about a well known and notable computer scientist who has made significant contributions in Artificial intelligence and is currently works as researcher at Deepmind. I am requesting for a help to expand this article because I m new to this field. If any experienced editor is there it would be great if they can help to expand this article with proper, reliable and neutral sources that adhere Wikipedia's policies.

Thank you Shamsheer Singh Rajput (talk) 15:41, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the reviewers on this one. If you can find more reliable, secondary sources which focus on him, it may prove notability, but it doesn't at this point. --DollarStoreBa'al ^Converse 16:57, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Shamsheer Singh Rajput You certainly should include his PECASE Award using this citation. That is probably enough to show his notability. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:00, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You can also use his Google scholar profile to list some of his highly-cited articles. An H-index of 61 is pretty good evidence of his impact. I can also see over 100 mentions of him at newspapers.com, if you have access to that. Many of these are based on interviews, so not independent but several are usable. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:13, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

ok thanks for your help I will surely act on the all of the suggestions you gave.

Thank you Shamsheer Singh Rajput (talk) 17:41, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Palau images issue (MOS:SANDWICH)

Hello, I've tried to fix the MOS:SANDWICH issue noted in the article for Palau. I know sometimes edits like this go unreviewed AND I am also not very familiar with the policy/guidelines regarding images. I'd appreciate someone more pernickety to look at what I have done and improve/revert as needed. My diff is here. PS: (The infobox was the real source of pain there) Komonzia (talk) 18:15, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Can COI editors participate in consensus?

Here's the situation:
1. A COI editor requests a change to an article.
2. I agree, and post an explanation to the talk page. There are no other comments.
3. I make the change.
4. The change is reverted four hours later by the original author.
5. I restore my change.
6. It is reverted again, five minutes later.

Do we have consensus? Is either of us guilty of edit-warring? Julian in LA (talk) 18:45, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Julian in LA, welcome to the Teahouse! I'd call that a very minor edit war. I think that, if the original author is the one who reverted it, you should've kept it reverted. Clearly, the author didn't want it on the page. However, the author would be in the wrong if you had made other constructive changes with the page during the same edit, and if anybody else had edited the page in those four hours. --DollarStoreBa'al ^Converse 20:32, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it seems you wanted to make a list here. In this case, if you use <br> at the end of a line, you should be able to get that line break you were looking for. --DollarStoreBa'al ^Converse 20:34, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

My question is whether there is a consensus. Your answer seems to be that it doesn't matter, because the original author got there first and is entitled to keep their wording, and the desire of the COI editor is meaningless. Does it matter if the original wording is not WP:NPOV or is libelous?

There is a page called WP:STATUSQUO which suggests adding tags instead of making reversions. That doesn't work, because the tags get reverted within minutes and the author is then accused of tag-bombing. Julian in LA (talk) 21:41, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Julian in LA First, "the original author doesn't want it" is not valid. That part of @DollarStoreBaal44's response is unfortunately wrong. Original authors of Wikipedia articles have no status and no rights. Especially, they have no right to protect the article from being changed. The article isn't theirs in any way; see WP:OWN for the details.

But "somebody doesn't want it" might mean the consensus wasn't as solid as you thought, and just as original editors have no rights, COI editors have no rights either. It depends whether this person reverting what you did is actually doing it for a valid reason, or whether they're doing it because they have a long obvious pattern of pretending they WP:OWN the article.

Basically, you need to talk to them, while assuming they're acting in good faith. If they won't talk reasonably, then you find out where to make an official complaint using Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 23:29, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Must have misread. I thought it was the COI editor that reverted it. --DollarStoreBa'al ^Converse 23:36, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK, a reasonable mistake to make - the situation is a bit unusual. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 23:38, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement that "COI editors have no rights" is the heart of the issue. You are saying that they cannot participate in a consensus, no matter how well-reasoned the request is, and no matter how completely I agree with it. Julian in LA (talk) 03:30, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Julian in LA They have no special rights, the same as the first editor to work on an article has no special rights. I'm sorry that what I wrote was sloppy and unclear.

I think there's possibly a bigger issue though, that even if it is two against one, that doesn't sound like much of a consensus to me, because I'd hope for noticeably more than just three people to be in on the discussion. I'm not sure if the COI person should be counted or not, but even if they are counted, it's a really tiny sample. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 07:29, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

So let's assume it's one against one, and hope that more people have something to say. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 07:31, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification. Funny you should ask about what others say. The subject is a practically-unknown consulting firm that has become a target for a right-wing pressure group. And yes, I have gone through third opinion, dispute resolution, etc., etc. You can get a flavor of the contrary consensus here, if you're interested: Talk:Arabella Advisors#Removing Fiscal Sponsorships section. There are other pages with the same situation, where a COI editor is blocked by ideologically-motivated opposing editors. Julian in LA (talk) 18:26, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming you're really right that the consulting firm is "practically unknown", then it should be easy enough to get the article deleted and call it a day.

But maybe that wasn't what you meant. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 18:46, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that the issue has nothing at all to do with any rules about a COI editor (who of course must themselves stay out of any debate), and is really a content dispute that also involves some editors' bad conduct, where those editors happen to have some skill at concealing their bad conduct and just enough "strength in numbers" to get away with it.

And, phrasing it another way, I think it would be very wrong for a COI editor to serve as tie-breaker in a content dispute. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 19:01, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding of the consensus policy is that it is not based on majority vote, but rather on agreement following discussion. I am not aware of any rule barring a COI editor from participating, since this discussion began with a detailed post from a COI editor. The problem with these pages is that they attract very little interest from disinterested editors, but a lot of interest from ideologically motivated editors. There are four in this case, and I suspect they know each other and have an undisclosed connection to the right-wing attacker.

As for whether this practically-unknown organization can have its page deleted, its attacker succeeded several years ago in having a story published in the New York Times and syndicated to the Boston Globe. I don't know if that's "sustained coverage" but I doubt that an AfD recommendation would succeed, and these four editors would immediately create a new page. Julian in LA (talk) 19:18, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

So, here's my opinion:

1. COI editors are getting blocked from changing their articles. Good, I'm glad.

2. Some editors appear to me to be engaging in underhanded tactics to influence article content. They seem to me to amount to COI editors themselves, but opposition ones. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 19:14, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

COI editors are not being blocked. They are being asked to follow the COI procedure. Sooner or later, they will realize that their requests are not being treated in good faith and only fools follow the rules. Julian in LA (talk) 19:21, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It was you who said they were being blocked, I just repeated it. (You wrote "There are other pages with the same situation, where a COI editor is blocked by ideologically-motivated opposing editors.") But I understand the distinction you're making.

I don't know how to try to solve this other than to take it to dispute resolution. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 05:55, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The current backlog of COI edit requests is found here. It's shameful that they have to wait so long for a response, and then be treated so shabbily. User:AnomieBOT/COIREQTable Julian in LA (talk) 19:24, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think COI editors should be fully shut out of Wikipedia rather than just filtered through requests. But I also think that what's going on on that page is severe tendentious editing and opposition COI and should be shut down and reverted. But I'm not an administrator and I don't make rules. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 06:00, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your opinion. Here is an example of a page that I improved based on a conversation with a COI editor. Don't miss the link where His Lordship's dog got a full-page picture in the Daily Mirror. Greg Barker, Baron Barker of Battle

Here is a meaningless article whose COI editor wanted to update the name of the current CEO and their reported earnings. My deletion request was rejected. Articles for deletion#Rackspace Technology Julian in LA (talk) 18:32, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the very first thing at any dispute resolution is "prove how hard you tried to work this out on your own". TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 23:40, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

redwarnRules.json

My watch list tells me that I have updated my User:Langcliffe/redwarnRules.json page. What exactly is this page, and how is it used, please? Langcliffe (talk) 19:10, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be a Subpage of yours. If you did not create/edit this page, then change your account's password immediately, and make sure that every device with access logs out when you do so. That is, of course, unless you gave somebody explicit permission to use your account. In that case, ask them if they created it first before changing it. --DollarStoreBa'al ^Converse 20:44, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Langcliffe. Don't worry. In 2021 you created User:Langcliffe/common.js with a command which loads a counter-vandalism tool called RedWarn when you are logged in. RedWarn sometimes makes automatic updates to settings for the tool in User:Langcliffe/redwarnRules.json. It happens while you are logged in so the edits are assigned to your account. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:13, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Guys. I thought that I had better check.Langcliffe (talk) 21:40, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

They really should just have it be a bot with it's own page, instead of it looking like your account was hacked. --DollarStoreBa'al ^Converse 21:43, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@DollarStoreBaal44 No need for you to panic or scare other new users. Experienced editors who have spent some time doing anti-vandalism or using user scripts would recognise or be able to guess that this is a configuration file for a well-known anti-vandalism tool. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 01:03, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was truly trying to help and It seemed odd that his account had edited the page but he didn't know. Again, really sorry. --DollarStoreBa'al ^Converse 15:03, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Making Wikipedia Page for Sugar Foods LLC

Can someone help me edit my draft for Sugar Foods LLC? It has gotten declined 4 times and I cannot fix it. Dillonfontana (talk) 19:13, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You were given very clear feedback in a comment on Jan 8th. If, after giving that feedback due consideration, you cannot find any better sources, you may unfortunately have to consider that the subject of your article is simply not notable enough for inclusion, and go ahead and edit something else. Athanelar (talk) 19:26, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Draft:Openly, Inc.

Hello everyone, I recently submitted a draft article Draft:Openly, Inc. that was declined because the references were not considered independent. I researched this topic for about a month, and my understanding is that independent sources should not be owned, published, or controlled by the company itself.

Could someone please confirm if my understanding is correct and share any examples of sources that are usually acceptable?

I want to make sure I follow Wikipedia’s rules and guidelines correctly, as I am still learning. Thank you for your time and help. WhiteFactLoom (talk) 19:24, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @WhiteFactLoom, and welcome to the teahouse. If you want a full list of everything that makes a source 'independent', please see WP:INDEPENDENT. --DollarStoreBa'al ^Converse 20:37, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @WhiteFactLoom, and welcome to the Teahouse.

I recommend you also read WP:CORPTRIV.

The great majority of companies in the world do not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and cannot have articles written about them. I don't know whether that is true of Openly or not, but your current sources do nothing to establish that it could.

A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what the majority of people who are wholly unconnected with the subject have independently chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, (see Golden rule) and not much else. What you know (or anybody else knows) about the subject is not relevant except where it can be verified from a reliable published source.

Unless you cite several sources that meet those criteria, you cannot establish notability. ColinFine (talk) 21:44, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Should there be a page for all of SZNZ by Weezer?

I've noticed that all of the SZNZ have individual articles (SZNZ Winter, SZNZ Spring, SZNZ Summer, SZNZ Autumn) but the overall albums don't have a collective article, which would be something like SZNZ (Weezer album series). Does one actually exist that I haven't noticed ?? Weez3rforever (talk) 20:03, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. Are there writers who have discussed the whole seasons series as a whole (besides this one that sticks out to me and was published before any were released)? -- Recon rabbit 20:26, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Reconrabbit Fair point, it's just that on the actual Weezer page they bring up the concept SZNZ and the four albums, but it doesn't link to the actual like pages with similar titles (I don't know how to describe it, I only started actually editing like yesterday). Weez3rforever (talk) 20:33, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

While the lede mentions the EPs without links, further down in the article they are linked within the text. I would argue, that they shouldn't be mentioned in the lede at all, linked or unlinked. -- Mike 🗩 20:47, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We already have SZNZ. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:58, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Pigsonthewing oh whoops. thanks for letting me know Weez3rforever (talk) 16:54, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Too many tabs!

Hi all! A bit of a trivial matter but I figured I'm not the only one experiencing this and I figured there may be some wisdom out there from more well versed editors.

Any time I'm contributing to discussions, I end up middle clicking plenty of tabs to investigate matters thoroughly.

It doesn't take very long until a very large amount of browser tabs have been opened. And I just can't stand having that many tabs open!

How do you guys manage your browser tabs? MEN KISSING (she/they) T - C - Email me! 20:13, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@MEN KISSING: Truthfully, I don't. My poor RAM cries every day and every night because it has to deal with so many browsers...

Okay, jokes aside, I only have my watchlist open usually, but my browser has nearly crashed in the past due to too many tabs being open.

I recommend closing tabs after you're done with them and only saving the ones that you think should always be open (watchlist, bookmarks, etc), hope this helped :) _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 20:19, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It gets so annoying when you have so many tabs that the 'x' disappears, and you have to manually click through each tab to close it. Also, while I'm here, I also don't manage my tabs. And I have only 4GB of RAM. --DollarStoreBa'al ^Converse 20:39, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think at some point it is faster to just press Alt F4 and restart the browser. But then you risk losing the tabs you actually did want to keep open, and then when you look through your history you realize that the tabs you wanted to close are actually very important still, and you still want to keep them open and somehow you end up with even more tabs open instead of less tabs. I know that was a mouthful, I remember that something like this happened to me like two years ago and my poor dinky little laptop crashed. Moral of the story: If the tab count is past 50 tabs, you might have a problem. (I know I do...) _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 20:45, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

FYI to everyone on this thread, in most browsers now you can group tabs into collapsible groups that only take up the space of 1 tab. Athanelar (talk) 20:55, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I use the OneTab browser extension on Firefox. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 20:49, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@SomeoneDreaming: Oh my God, thank you! This is a RAM saver. (Akin to a life-saver, I guess...). I'll keep this nifty little thing alongside all the other nifty little things I have on my browser. _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 20:54, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my gosh, I can already tell this is going to be an absolute lifesaver. Thank you so much! MEN KISSING (she/they) T - C - Email me! 21:13, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Article for my upcoming projects

:(
Radica1Rex (talk) 21:08, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Radica1Rex: We have no interest in being a marketing outlet for you. We also generally do not want articles on upcoming projects unless those projects have already come into some form of notoriety (such as with Rust (2024 film) or Deadpool 2). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 21:15, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

But it's not marketing and it's also for me; I'm just talking about my stuff, it's nothing important. Radica1Rex (talk) 21:23, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia isn't the place for you to do that. 331dot (talk) 21:25, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that even you said it was “nothing important” demonstrates that your article is not notable enough for creation. Awesomecat (✉ / ✎) 21:34, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a web host for your personal use, sorry. Athanelar (talk) 10:14, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:Alternative outlets for a list of places where you can write about your projects. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:52, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy link: Draft:The Brodells SomeoneDreaming (talk) 21:15, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome. It was rejected, not deleted. Wikipedia is not social media for people to tell about themselves. Please use actual social media for that. 331dot (talk) 21:15, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

How to create a new article, I have the draft I'm just trying to Ctrl+c Ctrl+v it

uh TheDailyWall (talk) 21:33, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You can make a draft using the wizard at WP:AfC. Awesomecat (✉ / ✎) 21:36, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

TheDailyWall, I have moved "User:TheDailyWall/sandbox" to Draft:Greüv Draagen. Please do not submit the latter for promotion to article status until you have thoroughly revised it, bolstering it with references to reliable sources that are independent of this seemingly obscure rock band. -- Hoary (talk) 22:17, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Hoary: I have added some wikilinks to your comment :) CiaPan (talk) 10:25, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Draft

I created Draft:Brickit because I found a lot of sources mentioning it while researching Draft:Rebrickable (still under review if anyone cares). I think Brickit undeniably passes notability with all the in-depth, independent sources that discuss it. However, I was advised to submit it through AfC over at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests. What would you recommend? Does it require an AfC review in its current state? NewAccount7295 (talk) 21:37, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @NewAccount7295, and welcome to the Teahouse.

As yours is a new account (not yet four full days old) you are not autoconfirmed and do not have access to the Move function to move the draft to mainspace.

In about eighteen hours, you will have the technical ability to move a file. But I very strongly recommed that you use AFC for new articles until you have a track record of successful new articles.

In some ways your draft isn't bad. But a draft that consists of one paragraph, supported by ten different one-paragraph reviews, is not up to much. (I haven't looked through all of them - maybe some are more substantial. If so, jettison all the trivial ones).

While you have rightly kept to what those sources say, there really not much you can say. A Wikipedia article should be based on multiple independent in depth coverage - if that is all there is to say, then I don't think Brickit is notable. ColinFine (talk) 21:58, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@ColinFine In many cases, Brickit is the main subject of the article, so there is significant coverage and more than just one paragraph talking about it. If you scroll down on their website (brickit.app), there is a row showing media coverage. NewAccount7295 (talk) 22:30, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Significant coverage has to be independent - it can't use any info from the company. If the company is showing links to things that really are independent, and that really are significant - no interviews, no announcements - then that material would count to making the article better. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 01:00, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

AFC

hi there, I have an article pending approval, it seems to be taking a while and i am just wondering if i have done verything correctly as i have made minor edits afew times after having submitted it initially. Dr.micahel (talk) 21:42, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Dr.micahel, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Yes, you successfully submitted Draft:Patrick Casey (cyclist) ten days ago, and it is awaiting review (it suggests at the top that it might take 2-3 weeks, though there is no guaranteed time). ColinFine (talk) 22:02, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Dr.micahel, I've made minor changes to one section of Draft:Patrick Casey (cyclist); you might make similar minor changes to the other sections. -- Hoary (talk) 22:08, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Bhutia request to protection from IP Edits

Bhutia

please see this edit, this IP address continuously damaging this page. Mr.Lazy Guy (talk) 23:02, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@獅眠洞 - What is wrong with that edit? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 23:09, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

sorry I mean this one edit, I have updated it see with quote. When you look previous edits, you see this happens simultaneously by new/ip users. Mr.Lazy Guy (talk) 23:12, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Am I understanding it right, that this person deleted a source just because they say the source author isn't one of the group who the article is about? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 00:14, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

And Scheduled Tribes Census 2011- India, also give stat on Muslim population amang bhotias. It's clearly conflict of interest. Mr.Lazy Guy (talk) 00:36, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not asking if they're telling the truth, I'm asking if they deleted a valid source just because they think it was written by non-Bhutia. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 00:56, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

i can't say surely,i feels that that ip user can't accept that among the natives group of Sikkim have some followers who are Muslim. Mr.Lazy Guy (talk) 03:19, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I know, some people have do it, they can't digest it. Mr.Lazy Guy (talk) 23:13, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

An IP user should not be editing articles about Indian social groups anyway, because they're extended confirmed restricted by WP:CT/SA Athanelar (talk) 09:23, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for page protection should be made at WP:RPP. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:50, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

thanks. Mr.Lazy Guy (talk) 12:39, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Editing articles

Sock. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:40, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I’m new on that, how do I edit articles and pages, but where can I start with? CrystalBall5081 (talk) 23:44, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@CrystalBall5081 You can click on the "edit source" button located at the top of the page on desktop or if you are on mobile, click the pencil button. You can start on whichever article you want to edit. See WP:HEP for more information. --Prothe1st (leave me a message)-- 23:48, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

To add to that advice: Don't ever edit anything that's about yourself or your business, and don't edit any controversial topic at all until you have a lot of editing experience first (I'd recommend months at least). TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 00:07, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Why is social media unreliable?

Sock. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:39, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Please explain, and what happens if you cite them? What about press releases? ~2026-25369-8 (talk) 00:29, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Social media is usually unreliable for most purposes. but there are exceptions. For example, a verified social media account of a notable person can be used as a reference for uncontroversial information about that person. Examples might be their date and city of birth, the high school they graduated from, or a recent marriage or divorce. See WP:ABOUTSELF. The problem with most social media posts is that there is no fact checking or reputation for accuracy. Any random person can post any deranged crank theory, such as perennial "Einstein was wrong" nonsense. That does not belong in our articles about Einstein or his discoveries. Cullen328 (talk) 00:46, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As for press releases, similar caution is called for. They are worthless for establishing the notability of any entity. But a press release announcing a new CEO issued by a notable company that is already the subject of a Wikipedia article is an acceptable source for that fact. Typical promotional language used in most press releases has no place in Wikipedia articles. Cullen328 (talk) 00:51, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

help me

i’m very scared. i don’t know what to do. everything seems so hard. how do i edit football. i want to edit football. i’m scared and i need help badly. how do i do it. my mentor no answer me why is this happening to me. help Jerodrodman (talk) 00:34, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's normal to feel scared when trying a new thing, like editing an encyclopedia! Have you read any of the introduction guides, like Help:Edit, or played the tutorial game The Wikipedia Adventure? I'd advise you start out with small edits and take time looking at what kind of edits other people do, as well as reading essays and policies in the Wikipedia namespace (pages that start with Wikipedia:) and Talk pages as well -- that helped me get a good grasp on how people handle problems on Wikipedia and find ways to make the best articles. But if that feels like too much now, just start out small with minor tasks like fixing typos! Here, I'll help you -- edit out the typo in this sentence. ;) ✨ΩmegaMantis✨❦blather | ☞spy on me 00:56, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

did i do it right? wait, where do i edit football articles? are there articles about syria i like syria i support ac milan Jerodrodman (talk) 01:03, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, you did it right!

Wikipedia:WikiProject Football has info on football articles, and Category:Association football has pages and subcategories related to football you can edit.

There are articles about Syria, but because it is designated a contentious topic, you can't edit them yet until you have 500 edits-- you can make an edit request on their talk pages but only for typo fixing and stuff like that.✨ΩmegaMantis✨❦blather | ☞spy on me 01:09, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@OmegaMantis: Just as a quick note, I think they probably meant Serie A, the top-flight of Italian football. Serie A is sometimes mispronounced as "Syria" and the two words can sound similar. The reason I think they meant that is because they mentioned supporting AC Milan, one of the biggest clubs in Italian football. There is a task-force focused on Italian football here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Italy task force.

@Jerodrodman: Does this help? :) _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 01:13, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

oh thank you. yes, i meant serie a. where are the best sources for football articles? Jerodrodman (talk) 01:15, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Such in what you need? ~2026-25444-5 (talk) 03:31, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Footnotes referencing album liner notes

Are album liner notes appropriate as footnote sources? If so, can anyone point me to a good example? Rdog2010 (talk) 00:54, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the purpose of the footnote. Which liner notes are you talking about, and what would be in your footnote? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 01:05, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Rdog2010. Yes they are. See Template:Cite AV media notes and use the parameter "type=liner notes". I wish the template had some nice examples of this, but check articles that link to the template. StarryGrandma (talk) 01:20, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Rdog2010, using liner notes as references is OK for non-controversial information such as the composer and lyricist of a song, and which musicians performed on a track. Promotional fluff should be left out. Cullen328 (talk) 02:47, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

How can Wikipedia help?

Learning ~2026-26241-3 (talk) 03:11, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is a free knowledge project. It is a tool to help you learn. Cullen328 (talk) 03:15, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm finish

Already had a moment to research and realized I am what I mind myself to appreciate and approve me all by my honesty and self control ~2026-25444-5 (talk) 03:29, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to help. jolielover♥talk 03:30, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Good evening, I am thinking about creating an article :)

I would like to make an article for the 1994 Powerman 5000 album True Force, but I fear I may find myself once more thwarted by my seeming inability to find anything of note enjoyable. So I ask here: would the notability for True Force be sufficient to warrant an article's creation? I have found something interesting to use for the article and the album is frequently referenced in brief overviews of the band's history and sound, but likewise I have found similar things for Bombshell, Supernova Goes Pop, and Dorian Heartsong, all of which have had their notability challenged (Supernova Goes Pop still is, though I think, with due time, it should leave that status). With this in mind, should I get to work on an article, or should I simply add it to the PM5K article proper? TheSaturnLover (talk) 03:47, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

TheSaturnLover, your "something interesting" is an interview with a member of the band and thus not an independent source. And you seem to be saying that the album is frequently mentioned. That's nowhere near enough. It may be no less than what somehow has, until now, sufficed for a number of other articles; but, notoriously, en:Wikipedia has many feeble articles and their number should be not increased but reduced. If you have reliable, independent sources about this album, you could add what you derive from them to the article about the band. -- Hoary (talk) 04:45, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @TheSaturnLover, and welcome to the Teahouse.

A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what the majority of people who are wholly unconnected with the subject have independently chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, (see Golden rule) and not much else. What you know (or anybody else knows) about the subject is not relevant except where it can be verified from a reliable published source.

So you need to start by finding examples of sources that meet that description: if you can find some, it's probably notable, and worth continuing. If you can't (or can only find one or two) it's probably not notable, and best to stop and do something else. ColinFine (talk) 15:14, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone is different. I sometimes just enjoy the editing itself, just to improve something. The two articles that probably contain the largest number of words typed by me are one on a scandal decades ago in American college football, and one on a deceased Brazilian politician. I have no interest in American college football or in Brazilian politics; I stumbled on the articles at different times and said to myself "This could really use some fixing up, and unlike some other articles, this one I think I can actually handle".

But it's totally fine to edit only things that interest you, as long as you don't have a conflict of interest on them. (Conflict of interest is when an article is about your friend, your enemy, your business, your business associate, or when you're such a big fan that you might refuse to lose an argument.)

It's really possible that a lot of what you like already has a Wikipedia article. You can almost always make those articles better though, especially for topics that are less well known. Topics with extreme popularity and a huge fan base are often the hardest to improve, because tons of work has already gone into them and there are lots of opinionated people involved. So if the only thing you like is Star Wars, ... <grin> TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:49, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

English

I want to practice my english ~2026-26580-1 (talk) 11:42, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia itself is not the place to do that, other than by reading its content. See WP:Social for places where you can chat to other Wikipedia editors.

Another way you can improve your English vocabulary is by translating articles from English into your native language. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:02, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That can be very helpful for learning, I do that sometimes to learn, or read foreign articles, Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 12:15, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a page on Wikipedia

Courtesy link: Leon Angel

hello Im sorry for the inconvenience but can you delete (Leon Angel) page on Wikipedia. This is my maternal great grandfather and he is Egyptian Greek Jewish actor and used to be called Chalom and my father and family are asking me to hide his identity or keep it private and if you don’t mind deleting it or putting it in draft section. I’ve tried many times to edit - delete on it but didn’t worked out. Olmenfun (talk) 12:26, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You may nominate the article for deletion, but, frankly, why should we? He appears on the face of things to have been a notable and public figure, whose biography is supported by reliable sources. Wikipedia is not censored, especially on the whim of one descendant.

If you have concerns about a specific aspect of the article, ask for a change on its talk page, citing a source or sources for the change you wish to see made.

You must also abide by our conflict-of-interest policy when it comes to editing that article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:42, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately "someone asked nicely" isn't really a reason to delete something. You can see WP:DEL-REASON for a full list, but if someone is a notable public figure, they deserve an article and thus it won't be deleted. Imagine if any celebrity's family could ask for their relative's article to be deleted — there wouldn't be much of an encyclopedia left. JustARandomSquid (talk) 12:46, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add one more thing: Wikipedia articles summarise what reliable sources have previously published. There shouldn't be anything in this article that doesn't come from such a source (and if there is, you may make an edit request to point that out). Therefore, even if we were to delete this article, those sources would still be out there, so deleting this would be the equivalent of locking one of the doors in your house but leaving the others wide open. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:42, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Leon Angel is a deceased historical figure (died in 1973), so privacy-based removal does not apply under Wikipedia policy. The article content is drawn from published academic and historical sources about Egyptian cinema and Jewish cultural history. Wikipedia’s role is to document historically sourced information, not to suppress it, especially when the subject has long-standing scholarly coverage Anonymous FASE (talk) 19:53, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

you might also want to think about how you are now bringing attention to the article. For example, I had never heard of this man before. Now I read the article and learned all about him due to this message. Best thing might be to simply give up :) Osa Akwamarynowa (talk) 12:55, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Reiner

I saw here on Wikipedia that Rob Reiner had been murdered. I wondered if there is a place here on Wikipedia to discuss things like that? I know people want to discuss things. There is a natural tendency to want to discuss things like that on here. It would be a very popular aspect of your site. People just want to discuss things. Foundation360 (talk) 13:42, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. Imagine if people randomly walked into the editorial office of the Encyclopedia Britannica and said "yo guys did you hear Rob Reiner is dead?" There are plenty of other places to discuss things on the internet—that's mostly what it was created for. Try Reddit or Twitter. JustARandomSquid (talk) 13:54, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No; Wikipedia is not a social network. See Wikipedia:Alternative outlets#Discussion forums for a list of some places where you can chat to other people about topics of interest. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:55, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You asked basically the same question just under a month ago, right? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:14, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Reddit. Reddit is literally the perfect venue for this. jolielover♥talk 17:56, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

How to a add a qualification bit on the final rankings table

Hi, I just rehauled the 2026 European Men's Handball Championship Final ranking table so that it is more detailed. However, how do I add the qualification part of the table on the right as done here to the new table? ILoveSport2006 (talk) 13:54, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

One suggestion: go to the one you like, click Edit, and copy their work. (Then close without saving.) There's no copyright on how to make a table - re-using it is fine. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:10, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply but I think you might have misunderstood. What I mean is how can I add the qualification part without deleting the final result bit? Essentially, how can I merge them? ILoveSport2006 (talk) 17:16, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You're right - I misunderstood. I'm over my head in a table like that. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 18:40, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DO

I have a question about WP:DO.

When you click the 'Random orphan page' button, it usually redirects me to a page with links, and without any orphaned page template.

How do I stop this? SomnambulantLobster (talk) 14:26, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@SomnambulantLobster Orphaned pages are those without incoming links from other articles. They are in an orphan category and won't necessarily have an orphan template. Shantavira|^{feed me} 14:55, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I meant links coming in.

I checked them, they have quite a few incoming links. SomnambulantLobster (talk) 15:19, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@SomnambulantLobster: can you give us an example of such an article, so we can see what you're talking about?

It's worth noting that many articles are linked to from user, talk and/or project pages, but those don't help most readers find them, so for the purposes of de-orphaning you should only consider incoming links from other articles. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:42, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Help, there is a problem with a link in "south korean humidifier disnifectant case"

Help, there is a problem with a link in "south korean humidifier disnifectant case", where the link after the 10th source shows text instead of embedded and i dont know how to fix it ~2025-43053-85 (talk) 15:15, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I finally fixed it myself, anyways i highly reccomend to look at this topic ~2025-43053-85 (talk) 15:19, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well done for helping out, perhaps consider editing and helping out around Wikipedia some more. Thanks Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 15:45, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, i also did some digging into this topic to find stuff about the South korean humidifier disinfectant case, most horrible case of health neglegience by dozens of companies and corporations by the way, along with Thai Boon Roong Twin Tower World Trade Center, yes it's a real skyscraper project in Phnom Pehn, Cambodia that will be 567 meters despite how dubious it sounds and it is a kind of a mystery on its own because there isn't much information about it along with it being in a coma state due to lack of money and they stopped it to wait so that the money will come in to have enough money to restart construction, which led to some misinformation about it being cancelled despite it not being cancelled at all, but i did found lots of stuff about it and i wrote my findings of mostly chinese but also khmer and english news articles, web pages and videos in the talk page and in the user talk page of Alalch E., the reason for saying this is because it would be too much for me to edit Thai Boon Roong Twin Tower World Trade Center because of how much stuff i found, so i ask you to help me and Alalch E. with it, what do you think about it? ~2025-43053-85 (talk) 16:13, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo Wales talk page

Sock. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:44, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Is this page unprotected? How? ~2026-26901-9 (talk) 16:34, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No. As it says on that page, "This page is semi-protected and you will not be able to leave a message here unless you are a registered editor. Instead,

you can leave a message here" Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:39, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Repeated Vandalism

If someone is repeatedly vandalizing a wikipedia page, is there a way I can protect the page, or ban the vandal? Thefrogofthenight (talk) 21:38, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Thefrogofthenight! To answer your question, if something like this happens, you should report it at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. As for protecting the page from editing, that is something that an admin decides on doing if they feel that it is appropriate. Same goes for "banning" a "vandal", though technically the admins don't ban them, they block them. Hope this helped and happy editing :) _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 21:42, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for the info Thefrogofthenight (talk) 21:54, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Thefrogofthenight, hello! To add to the answer above, if you want to request page protection, you can do it here: Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 21:46, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Thefrogofthenight: To add to this, it must be heeded that unless there have been multiple instances of vandalism or disruptive editing or any other cause that I may fail to mention, it is unlikely that an admin will protect a page from being edited. Oh, and more importantly, you should try to acquaint yourself with what is vandalism and what isn't vandalism here: Wikipedia:NOTVANDALISM. This is very important when dealing with vandals because a bad call can seem like a failure to assume good faith on your end to other editors, as labelling another editor a "vandal" can easily be taken the wrong way if it is clear to others that their actions are not vandalistic in nature. Again, hope this helped and happy editing :) _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 21:52, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to respond to my requests. Thefrogofthenight (talk) 21:54, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No problem :) Just remember to be careful, sometimes an edit that seems like vandalism may just be a mistake that another editor made. Again, consult the page I linked in my comment and if you still need help, feel free to ask me or other editors for it. I'm sure they'll be glad to help you. Also, if you are interested, you may want to check out the Counter-Vandalism Unit. _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 22:01, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

AI pages

What should I do if I encounter an ai page? Should I delete it, or mark it some way? Is there a standard procedure I should follow? and what should I do if I'm not entirely sure? Thefrogofthenight (talk) 22:05, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, @Thefrogofthenight! There's a few things that could help here, here's Wikipedia:Large language models and Wikipedia:Signs of AI writing. If you're not sure if an article was made by an LLM, you should ask another editor what they think. Also as for deleting it, you can mark what is a clear AI generated article for speedy deletion under G15. As for marking an article that may not be deleted under that, you can use this template: Template:AI-generated to mark it as being likely AI generated. Hope this helped :) _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 22:11, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

thank you, again. Thefrogofthenight (talk) 22:13, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You should be careful here as well though. G15 is not for anything that's AI generated, it is for something that was clearly generated by an AI and was never reviewed by a human, amongst other things. There are times where things that seem AI generated are not AI generated, and in these cases, it is best not to jump the gun. Again, other editors will likely be willing to help you with these sort of things. _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 22:17, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

AI-generated content by itself is not a deletion criterion on Wikipedia. What matters is whether the article complies with core content policies such as verifiability, reliable sourcing, neutrality, and notability. If a page appears to be poorly sourced, promotional, or contains factual errors, it should be tagged appropriately or discussed on the talk page. Deletion should only be considered if it meets existing deletion criteria (e.g., WP:GNG failure, copyright issues, or other policy violations). If you are unsure whether content is AI-generated or policy-violating, it is best to avoid acting unilaterally and instead seek input from other editors through the talk page or relevant noticeboards. Anonymous FASE (talk) 22:11, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Draft of a new article, trying to make it completely neutral

Hi- I’m working on a draft article about a company I’m affiliated with and want to make sure it complies with Wikipedia’s neutrality & notability standards. I got feedback that earlier versions were too promotional, so I’ve significantly shortened and neutralized the draft (removing any funding and awards entirely). Could someone take a look at this sandbox draft and advise whether it’s appropriate, or what further changes would be good to make? I’ve disclosed my conflict of interest and am looking for independent editor guidance.

Here is the draft: User:Willetling/sandbox

Thank you Willetling (talk) 23:51, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I've placed your draft at Draft:Swoogo, draft space is the preferred location for submissions, which can be accessed via the Article Wizard.

Please disclose your status on your user page; if your affiliation is employment, you are considered to be a paid editor, see WP:PAID.

Wikipedia is not a place for companies to tell about themselves, their offerings, and their routine activities. A Wikipedia article about a company must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. Significant coverage offers critical analysis and commentary as to what sources view as important/significant/influential about the company, not what tbe company views as its own importance. The vast majority of companies on Earth actually do not merit Wikipedia articles. Please see WP:BOSS, and show it to your colleagues.

Writing a new article is the most difficult task to perform on Wikipedia, and it's harder with a conflict of interest. Frankly, most people in your position fail at what you are attempting, because it is difficult to set aside what you know about your company and limit yourself to summarizing what others say. Are you one of the rare people who can? Possibly, but the odds are against it, especially without prior experience editing. 331dot (talk) 00:06, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral is good, and required of course, but neutral-sounding promotion is still promotion.

Making an article where the boss shouts "This is no use at all!" is exactly what's needed. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 01:19, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Willetling, and welcome to the Teahouse.

A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what the majority of people who are wholly unconnected with the subject have independently chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, (see Golden rule) and not much else. What you know (or anybody else knows) about the subject is not relevant except where it can be verified from a reliable published source.

If it tells what the subject wants people to know, and not (almost exclusively) what people unconnected to the company have said about it, then it is promotional

Unless it cites, and is almost entirely based on, several sources that meet the requirements above, it will not be accepted. ColinFine (talk) 16:40, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Not receiving email notifications for Watch List

I have strong indication that I am not receiving notification emails when changes are made to articles that I am watching. This has been the case for some time. I *am* receiving some notification emails but not from the majority of articles I am following. Is there a technical issue or a limit on the number of watched articles? Jp2207 (talk) 00:15, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There isn’t a fixed limit on the number of articles you can watch, but email notifications can be affected by user preferences and system behavior. I’d suggest first checking Preferences → Email options to confirm that watchlist email notifications are enabled for all relevant actions. Also note that not all watchlist changes trigger emails—some notifications are shown only on-wiki. If settings look correct and the issue persists, this may be a technical problem, in which case reporting it at Phabricator (via “Report a bug”) would be the best next step. Anonymous FASE (talk) 03:25, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Anonymous FASE. I'll follow up with your suggestions. Jp2207 (talk) 19:49, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a test email, to check you can receive Wikipedia emails in general. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:42, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Pigsonthewing, I received two emails: One titled 'Wikipedia email from user "Pigsonthewing"' and one as notification for your reply here. I have also double checked that under Preferences > Email Options, this is checked: "Email me when a page or a file on my watchlist is changed". Jp2207 (talk) 19:54, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

How can I be able to make an article about "waterdrinker4life"

How can the article of "waterdrinker4life" be created? My request has been denied within a span of a few minutes, and to create a biography it seems very promotional, which is not what I choose to aim for. How can I make my article sound more neutral and allow for it to be accepted? Waterdrinker4life|2w5bottle 02:18, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Before creating an article, the subject must meet Wikipedia’s notability guidelines. This requires multiple, independent, reliable secondary sources with significant coverage (not social media, self-published sites, or interviews controlled by the subject).

If the draft was declined as promotional, it likely relied on primary or self-authored sources or used promotional language. To improve neutrality:

• Write in a factual, third-person tone

• Avoid praise, marketing language, or claims of importance

• Base every key statement on independent reliable sources

• Do not write about yourself or someone you are closely connected to (see WP:COI)

If such sources do not exist, the subject may not yet be suitable for a Wikipedia article. Anonymous FASE (talk) 02:38, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I was the one who declined the draft. Please do not recreate the content. It had to be oversighted. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 02:58, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

De facto.wav

File:De facto.wav

Shouldn't this file be on Commons instead of Wikipedia? - Bᴏᴅʜı Hᴀᴙᴩ 05:15, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This file cannot be hosted on Wikimedia Commons because Commons only accepts freely licensed media. File:De_facto.wav appears to be copyrighted audio and is therefore hosted locally on English Wikipedia under the non-free content policy with a fair-use rationale. If a freely licensed version becomes available, it could then be moved to Commons. Anonymous FASE (talk) 05:45, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

But Commons does accept CC-BY-SA files, not just public domain files. - Bᴏᴅʜı Hᴀᴙᴩ 05:49, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Commons does accept CC-BY-SA files. However, this file does not have a verifiable CC-BY-SA (or other free) license from the copyright holder. In the absence of an explicit free license, it must be treated as copyrighted audio and is therefore hosted locally on English Wikipedia under WP:NFCC with a fair-use rationale. If the rights holder releases it under CC-BY-SA or another free license, it can then be moved to Commons. Anonymous FASE (talk) 07:42, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the file usage to a reference, as it may only by used on article pages (and then only with a justification). -- Verbarson ^talk_edits 14:20, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Great work for updating the file usage and for the clarification. That makes sense under WP:NFCC. Anonymous FASE (talk) 14:28, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As it was a self-uploaed file, what is your basis for claiming it "does not have a verifiable CC-BY-SA license from the copyright holder"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:38, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nils Molin

Courtesy link: Draft:Nils Molin

Hello! I wrote article about Nils Molin, Swedish vocalist, but my article was denied. They said that I made unreliable references. What can I do? I have to proove notability of subject but I see only interviews and can't find reliable articles. Evgeniia Kaplan (talk) 05:46, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Now I found website with discography, made a reference and submitted one more time. But I'm not sure that it solved a problem. Evgeniia Kaplan (talk) 05:51, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia only accepts the parts of a person's story that have already been published in reliable independent sources. Here's a silly but important example: If the independent published sources don't say he loves football, you can't write that he loves football. Everything you wrote that didn't come from reliable published sources, must be cut out. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 06:10, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thank you. Evgeniia Kaplan (talk) 06:47, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"If the independent published sources don't say he loves football, you can't write that he loves football."—Yes you can. See WP:ABOUTSELF. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:31, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Evgeniia Kaplan Sorry to bug you again ... One of the requirements is that sources are independent of the subject. When Molin gives an interview, that does not count as independent, because it's him giving the information. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 08:45, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Such sources can have some use per WP:ABOUTSELF, but they don't help with WP:N. Also, in WP-article text, it's "Molin", not "Nils". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:40, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible that no reliable sources exist. Most people do not qualify for a Wikipedia article, and Nils Molin might be one of these people. Sometimes they will qualify later on in their life, even if they don't at the moment. But if you can't find any good sources, it's time to give up and move on from the draft. Sorry. Meadowlark (talk) 14:04, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You might also want to look at the notability criteria listed at WP:NMUSICIAN. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:34, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What should I do if someone is advertising using their username?

What should I do if someone is advertising using their username? Should I use a standardized warning template or should I report them. If I should report them how would I report them?

Core1223e (talk) 05:47, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Core1223e, welcome to the teahouse. If you are referring to promotional usernames, then you should report to usernames for administrator attention. It seems like you do some anti-vandalism work; I would recommend getting twinkle, as it makes combating vandalism a lot easier. It also allows for easy reports to UAA and AIV :) 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 05:58, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A promotional username combined with promotional editing leads to a block. You can report such situations to the Usernames for administrator attention noticeboard. I am an administrator. If you give me the username, I will investigate. Cullen328 (talk) 06:02, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It username has already been deleted but I still don't understand on how to report something to the Usernames for administrator attention noticeboard yet. Could you explain how?

Core1223e (talk) 06:09, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Core1223e, I suggest using the source editor on the desktop site. When you click on "edit" in the "User reported" section, you will be presented with a simple template to fill out. Speaking as an administrator who frequently processes these reports, specific information is better than vague information. Cullen328 (talk) 06:33, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively, install and use Twinkle. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:29, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The Devil and the Daylong Brothers

Hello! I recently created the article The Devil and the Daylong Brothers. This is my first full article, and the review/assessment seems incomplete. I’m more interested in working on sensitive topics, but since this account is still new, I felt that starting with a film article would be good practice. I’d appreciate any feedback on structure, sourcing, or areas that need improvement. Anonymous FASE (talk) 08:01, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

On first look it looks pretty good, you have used sources directly about the film in question (as opposed to trying to fill the article with sources on the makers and other miscellaneous things which I’ve seen many do before), the review sites are good because they are secondary sources, and I believe all the sources aren’t deprecated (but don’t quote me on that, I checked the RSP list and none of the sources seemed to be on there in a negative way). Overall I think it’s a good page for your first Wikipedia article. Well done! Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 08:51, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, you can upload the movie poster to Wikipedia (directly to Wikipedia at Wikipedia:File upload wizard) to be used on the article page, per WP:NFCI. It just has to be resized, as explained in WP:IMAGERES. I've done it for the article you created, but it's something to keep in mind for the future. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 09:08, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@KeyolTranslater and @TurboSuperA+ thank you both for the feedback and encouragement. I’m glad the sourcing and overall structure worked well, especially as this is my first article. Thanks also for the tip about uploading film posters under WP:NFCI and WP:IMAGERES — I’ll keep that in mind for future articles. Anonymous FASE (talk) 10:34, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Saving useful pages

Hello! I originally came to ask the question "Am I allowed to remove a tag once it's no longer applicable?" but then I found this page (Help:Maintenance template removal) IN one of those very tags. I want to keep this in a place (not just my bookmarks) where I can refer back to it (and other pages, too), can I put something like that on my userpage or is that not allowed? Thank you kindly. Itsaclarinet (talk) 11:32, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Itsaclarinet: yes, you can include helpful links on your userpage(s). You may also want mark WP:Glossary or WP:Index. MKFI (talk) 11:45, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is super helpful, thanks! Itsaclarinet (talk) 12:01, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Single use profiles

I have come across two Wikipedia users who have edited exclusively two articles (a husband and wife). For various reasons, which I can explain, I suspect they have created and edited their own pages.

Should I raise this somewhere? Salmon Of Ignorance (talk) 13:00, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You can take this to the conflict of interest noticeboard if you believe that users have a COI and are improperly editing autobiographies. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 13:16, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I might do that. Salmon Of Ignorance (talk) 14:20, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

But can I suggest that you politely ask the users on their user talk pages first? Many people are simply not aware that editors are should edit articles where they have a COI. ColinFine (talk) 16:46, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A highlighted caution at the top of that noticeboard says "This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue..." Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:03, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Help with my draft No.3

In my draft's Orbital elements template, the absolute Magnitude is different depending on the source, with it being 17.25 according to JPL, and 17.27 according to IAU.

Or should I just write it as '~17.26'? SomnambulantFish _talk ∫ ^contribs 14:37, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Pick one or list both, but definitely don't put an average like that as that's original research/synthesis Athanelar (talk) 14:53, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... I think I'll list both.

Thanks Athanelar! SomnambulantFish _talk ∫ ^contribs 15:01, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as a general question, in WP:CITEIMDB, I didn't clearly understand if we could cite it when stating the general public's opinion on the film/series. SomnambulantFish _talk ∫ ^contribs 15:10, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The user comments for each title (this includes user reviews and ratings), which are pure user-generated content is listed under 'inappropriate uses,' so if you can't list user reviews and ratings then I would say you also can't use it as a source for public opinion. Athanelar (talk) 15:33, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ROTTENTOMATOES is considered generally reliable for its review aggregation and its news articles on film and TV, if you can find them there. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:39, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Would i be blocked for spamming if all of my drafted pages get accepted all at once?

So, my articles were drafted, as my pages formerly had unreliable sources or in-general a bad article. However i have fixed those pages and submitted it to AfC — but an important question, am i getting blocked for spamming articles if all of articles get accepted all at once. - The Khan of the universe and the Hoofed animals. (talk) 14:56, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nope! You did exactly the right thing by submitting through AFC. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 15:01, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Primary topic

Hello everyone,

Not sure if an RFC is needed, but I figured I'd start here. A huge thank you in advance for reading. An editor suggested starting an RFC even though the redirect to Washington University has long led to Washington University in St. Louis has the primary topic. Is an RFC needed for Washington University to be the main topic for Washington University in St. Louis or can this be solved elsewhere?

Full context: For over 110 years (1856-1967), Washington University was the official name. There are currently 100 wikilinks that appear to refer to Washington University in St. Louis. There have been no other schools known as Washington University. Washington University in St. Louis

For 5 years, Rochester Christian University was known as Rochester University. Rochester University now redirects there instead of University of Rochester.

Based on the redirect history, Washington University redirected to the following:

June 2002 - January 2007: Washington University in St. Louis was originally located on the Washington University page
January 2007 - February 8, 2013: Redirected to Washington University in St. Louis
February 8, 2013 - Editor changed redirect elsewhere but editor self-reverted due to many redirects to Washington University in St. Louis
February 8, 2013- May 12, 2015 - Redirected to Washington University in St. Louis
May 12, 2015- redirected to DAB
May 13, 2015 - another editor undid this
May 13, 2015 - November 8, 2025 - redirects to Washington University in St. Louis
November 8, 2025 - December 16, 2025 - redirected to DAB
December 16, 2025 - January 12, 2025 - redirected to Washington University in St. Louis
January 12, 2025 - Redirected to DAB

Previous redirect conversation reguarding another school by Washington University in St. Louis can be found here: Talk:Washington University School of Law#Requested move 16 April 2023

Wozal (talk) 15:10, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I would say the DAB page is the best target, but if this is disputed, we cannot resolve that dispute here. An RfC, or, perhaps preferably, WP:Redirects for discussion, is the way. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:21, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Pigsonthewing - Thank you for your reply. Given it's 100+ year old history, I believe this is the primary topic. Would Redirects for discussion be better equipped to handle this than an RfC? Wozal (talk) 17:46, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects for Discussion is a more lightweight process and uses up less editor time than an RfC. JustARandomSquid (talk) 18:10, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

other than RfD, WP:Requested moves is another venue for moving articles. – robertsky (talk) 18:21, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Copyrighted Images

I found an image for my draft, but I don't know whether it's copyrighted or not.

Where can I find non-copyrighted images for Wikipedia? SomnambulantFish _talk ∫ ^contribs 15:31, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That image is simply a machine rendering of the data that is in a table below it. Such data, and machine renderings of it, are not copyrightable, so you can upload it to Wikimedia Commons as "PD-ineligible".

Also, NASA images are free from copyright, so you may be able to find an image which they made. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:59, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Warning system

Sorry If this is the wrong place to post this, I'm new here. If it it the right place to ask this, I just wanted to know how you correctly add the warnings when reverting. The describe your changes page is full of text and I was just wondering where to put the warnings. Thank you. Abscondrespite (talk) 16:54, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Abscondrespite, hello! Warnings are placed on the vandal's talk page. You can place them manually, using templates such as {{subst:uw-vandalism1}}, or using gadgets, such as Wikipedia:Twinkle, which I recommend installing as soon as possible if you are fighting vandalism. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 17:20, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What Deltaspace said. Twinkle automatically puts you through the usual necessary steps. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:43, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

AntWeb Images

AntWeb is a huge ant database, providing information about ants, images and more. The article I've been working on recently (hypopoponera punctatissima) could do with higher-quality photographs in profile. AntWeb states it's content is stated as being under a Creative Commons Attribute licence (linked). Just wanted to double check that I can upload these images? I've seen them uploaded before but didn't know whether or not there are any other prerequisites to uploading. I want to be especially clear, as I am aware of Wikipedia and Wikimedia's strict copyright policies.

Apologies if this query is better suited to a MediaWiki help forum or a Wikipedia photo forum. This is my first upload of another's work, so I am especially nervous. FranticSpud (talk) 17:38, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It will depend on the individual image. The "about" page says:

Photos and drawings with CCBY, CC-BY-NC or CC-BY-SA can be used without further permission,

Anything using "NC" in the licence is not accepted on Wikimedia Commons.

The other two licences are fine. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:48, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

When inserting a new #1 citation in a current article . . .

I notice that the succeeding citations do not increment by the next number. Has anyone a suggestion on how to fix it?

This is on the page Mihail Chemiakin

Thanks

Alan Alan Lamb - USA (talk) 17:56, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Citation numbers update automatically. If they don’t change, the article is likely using named or reused references (<ref>). New numbers appear only when a reference is first introduced. Make sure your new citation is a unique <ref> tag and the numbering will fix itself on save. Anonymous FASE (talk) 18:00, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I saw it this and you don’t need to fix the numbering manually. Wikipedia numbers references automatically. If the numbers don’t change, it’s because the article is using named or reused references (for example <ref name="paris">). Reusing the same reference does not create a new number. To get a new number, add a new, unique <ref>, or give the reference a different name. Once saved, the numbering will correct itself automatically. Anonymous FASE (talk) 18:04, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I am certain you are right but I think I managed to screw this up anyhow. :-( ~2026-30117-3 (talk) 18:09, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Check it i will fixed citation Anonymous FASE (talk) 18:14, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have noticed that as well. For me, it would always update to the new correct numbers when I published the edit and the page reloaded. Hope this helps! DominikTuazon (talk) 23:02, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Mystery of the lack of japanese coverage of Sogen Kato's case

Sogen Kato's case is a case where a japanese man named Sogen Kato, born on 22th July 1899, was thought to have been Tokyo's oldest man until 27th July 2010, when his mummified corpse was found in his bedroom, it was concluded he had likely died in November 1978 , aged 79, and relatives had rebuffed attempts to see Kato in prepeartions for respect for the Aged Day later that year, citing many reasons from him being a "human vegetable" to becoming a sokushinbutsu (a type of buddhist mummy where buddhist monks while alive were observing asceticism to the point of death), his family had never reported his death to collect pensions, After the discovery of Kato's mummified corpse, other checks into elderly centenarians across Japan produced reports of missing centenarians and faulty recordkeeping. Tokyo officials attempted to find the oldest woman in the city, 113-year-old Fusa Furuya, who was registered as living with her daughter. Furuya's daughter said she had not seen her mother for over 25 years. The revelations about the disappearance of Furuya and the death of Kato prompted a nationwide investigation, which concluded that police did not know if 234,354 people older than 100 were still alive. More than 77,000 of these people, officials said, would have been older than 120 years old if they were still alive. Poor record keeping was blamed for many of the cases, and officials said that many may have died during World War II. One register claimed a man was still alive at age 186, One of Kato's relatives was found guilty of fraud, his relatives claimed 9,500,000 yen (117,939 US Dollars) of the pension meant for Kato, in addition, after Kato's wife died in 2004 at age of 101, 9,450,000 yen (117,318 US Dollars) from a survivor's mutual pension was deposited into Kato's bank account between October 2004 and June 2010, Approximately 6,050,000 yen (75,018 US Dollars) was wdithdrawn before his body was discovered, however despite having coverage in english-language media and having a english wikipedia article, there isn't a single japanese reliable source in the english wikipedia article, not only that, but even if a searched his japanese kanji name as is written in the english wikipedia article, the japanese wikipedia dosen't have a article but it dosen't even mention it once, and also i haven't found a single japanese news article about it, not sure if the kanji in the english wikipedia is wrong because japanese is notorious for multiple different kanji for same-sounding words, of course it dosen't mean it's fake, in fact there was a report on Nippon Television's program Bankisha, so what does that mean? Honestly, i don't know, maybe in Japan stuff like this don't get covered because of out of respect, also is Sogen Kato even a real name? Japanese media have sometimes used fake names out of respect for the individulas rather than the real name, and perhaps the english-language news articles had mistaked it as his real name, honestly it's a mystery of its own, and i don't know what to say more about it, what do you think about it? ~2025-43053-85 (talk) 18:14, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The fraud is well covered in the article Sogen Kato. If you have concerns, please raise them at the relevant talk page. The wall of text you placed here is in danger of breaching WP:NOTFORUM. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:23, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I meant like how there is seemingly a lack of japanese coverage about it like i found no japanese news article when i searched his japanese kanji name, it could be that the kanji is wrong because japanese is notorious for having multiple different kanjis for same-sounding words, and it could be a fake name out of respect because it's something that the japanese media has done before and perhaps the english-language news has mistook it as his real name and we need japanese reliable sources to make the article more trsutworthy or i don't know what word to use, also this is not a forum but a help to make the article better ~2025-43053-85 (talk) 18:28, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A detailed answer would require deep knowledge of Japanese media, language and culture that I do not have. And also expertise in searching Japanese sources. The English language sources in Sogen Kato seem solid, and that is all that matters. The general principle to keep in mind is that not all reliable sources are readily available in a quick Google search. Vast amounts of reliable sources require expertise, access and much deeper digging to find. Cullen328 (talk) 18:32, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, then maybe we'll wait until someone on the Teahouse will search through it ~2025-43053-85 (talk) 18:49, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to say that you could check the ja-WP article, but for whatever reason, there doesn't seem to be one. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:06, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Broken link on home page

https://wikipedia25.org/en/?utm_campaign=wp25cn&utm_source=wp25cnout&utm_medium=out ~2026-29718-4 (talk) 18:30, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@~2026-29718-4 Please report this at Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors but note that the URL you quoted does not work properly. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:34, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#https://wikipedia25.org/_banner. It seems the inclusion of this link was mistaken and has been reverted by the WMF. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:41, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

citation source

Please help me by telling me the names of citation sources for living people like if I am editing an Indian actor's awards, then should i not use imdb or youtube. I got a disallowance to cite source youtube or imdb. I am a new editor ~2026-14011-4 (talk) 18:32, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RSP has many examples of sources that do and do not meet our reliable sources criteria. Per WP:PHALKE, please stop trying to add references to DP International Film Festival; it's not notable. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:21, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Help with creating a wikipedia page for a company

Duplicates a Help Desk post. 331dot (talk) 20:31, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I would like to create a wiki page for a football club. Please assist. Maryfelsports (talk) 20:20, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Maryfelsports I have already commented at the Help Desk. Please don't ask in multiple venues as this just wastes volunteer time. Mike Turnbull (talk) 20:29, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

What's wrong with the top left Wikipedia logo?

Going to the top left of any page, where it says "Wikipedia The Free Encyclopedia", there is a blank square where the logo should be. VidanaliK (talk to me) 21:18, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Same with me too. toby ^(t)(c)(rw) 21:19, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it works now; it's the new 25th anniversary logo. VidanaliK (talk to me) 21:22, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Glad they fixed it. toby ^(t)(c)(rw) 21:23, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Try purging the page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:23, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Moving an article from my sandbox to the mainspace

I have created a new article (Systematic phonics) in my sandbox and want to move it to the main space. When I open the MOVE page there is no place to put the title. What am I doing wrong?John NH (talk) 21:41, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Jnhmunro It was moved by another editor to Draft:Systematic phonics. You should be able to move it on from there. Mike Turnbull (talk) 22:27, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There are concerns

There are concerns among some people in the talk page of "List of pedophile advocacy organizations" that there is "misinformation" and "disinformation" and some people are wanting to "correct" the information in the article, that it needs to be resolved by top administrators and needs to be talked about it, i'm not gonna write here what exactly everything i wrote because originally what i wroted got flagged as "potentially unconstructive", because my grammar and my style of writing sucked, so my message didn't got sended because of it, and i'm not going to write a long text about it because it would take me a lot of energy, time and effort, so i'm gonna leave it up to the administrators, including top administrators and other people in the Teahouse about it, like there were many cases of people editing to "correct" the information in the article (whatever or not they actually corrected the information, is of course heavily debatable and heavily controversial), honestly the whole thing is more complicated than it seems based on the research about this topic i done myself, also considering the heavily controversial and heavy subject matter, this discussion would/will be and feel heated up, heavily controversial and heavily debatable, so i guess be prepared or something?, i don't know what to say. ~2025-43053-85 (talk) 22:38, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Updating maps

How would one update or change the colors on a map image, for example this one? DominikTuazon (talk) 23:00, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

[1] "F Killa". www.wikidata.org. Retrieved 2026-01-10.

[2] Team, SceneNoise (Jun 22, 2016). "5 Egyptian Rappers Killing It in The Game".

[3] Rabea, Sarah (June 25, 2018). "5 Underrated Egyptian Rappers Who Deserve More Recognition".

[4] TEAM, SCOOP (16 August 2016). "7 Egyptian Underground Rappers You Really, Really Need to Know".

[5] tthews11, alexus (January 30, 2019). "How he became "F Killa"".{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)

[6] Publishing, Bloomsbury (December 2018). Hip Hop Around the World An Encyclopedia [2 Volumes] (Anthony J. Fonseca, Melissa Ursula Dawn Goldsmith ed.). Bloomsbury Publishing. pp. Page 1828. ISBN 9798216096184.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link)

[7] Youssef, Adham (23 Jun 2013). "Best of Egyptian Hip Hop artists rap on social ills at concert".

[8] Youssef, Adham (July 6, 2013). "Best Of Egyptian Hip Hop Artists Rap on Social Ills at Concert".

[9] R. Weis, Ellen (Dec 12, 2015). Egyptian Hip-Hop: Expressions from the Underground Cairo Papers in Social Science Vol. 34, No. 1 (Vol. 34, No. 1 ed.). American University in Cairo Press. pp. 3 of 9. ISBN 9781617978517.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link)

[10] فاروق, مصطفى (5 February 2014). "عرب ليج" يفجر الجامعة الأمريكية بحماس الراب".

[11] سمير, ناهد (26 February 2015). "26 مارس.. "عرب ليج" في "مهرجان الكوكب"".

[12] LeVine, Mark (September 13, 2022). We'll Play Till We Die Journeys Across a Decade of Revolutionary Music in the Muslim World [English] (1st ed.). University of California Press. p. 57. ISBN 9780520975859.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link)

[13] فاروق, مصطفى (4 December 2014). ""إف كيلا" مفاجأة حفل مسار إجباري وزاب بالأوبرا".

[14] فاروق, مصطفى (11 August 2014). "بالفيديو.. "لما أرحل" أجدد تراكات إف كيلا".

[15] فاروق, مصطفى (10 March 2015). "إف كيلا: هغني "بتونس بيك" على طريقتي بالجريك كامبس".

[16] Del Giovane, C.; Ferencz, J.; López González, J. (2023). "The Nature, Evolution and Potential Implications of Data Localisation Measures". OECD Trade Policy Papers (278).

[17] Del Giovane, C.; Ferencz, J.; López González, J. (2023). "The Nature, Evolution and Potential Implications of Data Localisation Measures". OECD Trade Policy Papers (278).

[18] "Moscow Says 100K IT Specialists Have Left Russia This Year". The Moscow Times. 2022-12-20.

[19] Sabanadze, N.; Vasselier, A.; Wiegand, G. (2024). China-Russia alignment: A threat to Europe's security (Report). Mercator Institute for China Studies.

[20] ttps://doi.org/10.1002/sea2.70024

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[1]